This study explores the research question: What socio-ecological factors are conducive to women’s hunting? Using life history theory and behavioral ecology as a base, the authors pose four hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are fewer conflicts with childcare. The second hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are fewer cultural restrictions regarding the use of hunting technology. The third hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are low-risk game within range of camp, dogs are used in hunting, or hunting is in groups. Lastly, the fourth hypothesis suggests that women will hunt when they play essential roles on informational tasks. There is enough evidence to support the third and fourth hypotheses. The study also shows that there is considerable evidence that women hunt cross-culturally.

This study explores the research question: What socio-ecological factors are conducive to women’s hunting? Using life history theory and behavioral ecology as a base, the authors pose four hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are fewer conflicts with childcare. The second hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are fewer cultural restrictions regarding the use of hunting technology. The third hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are low-risk game within range of camp, dogs are used in hunting, or hunting is in groups. Lastly, the fourth hypothesis suggests that women will hunt when they play essential roles on informational tasks. There is enough evidence to support the third and fourth hypotheses. The study also shows that there is considerable evidence that women hunt cross-culturally.

This study explores the research question: What socio-ecological factors are conducive to women’s hunting? Using life history theory and behavioral ecology as a base, the authors pose four hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are fewer conflicts with childcare. The second hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are fewer cultural restrictions regarding the use of hunting technology. The third hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are low-risk game within range of camp, dogs are used in hunting, or hunting is in groups. Lastly, the fourth hypothesis suggests that women will hunt when they play essential roles on informational tasks. There is enough evidence to support the third and fourth hypotheses. The study also shows that there is considerable evidence that women hunt cross-culturally.

The authors critique Anderson et al. (2023) article, "The Myth of Man the Hunter: Women’s contribution to the hunt across ethnographic contexts." The latter article is an ethnographic study showing that women hunt in 79% of foraging societies in their sample. The aim was to demystify the idea that only men have had a role in hunting and to question the stereotypes of labor. Venkataraman et al. (2024) critiqued Anderson et al.'s statements, as empirical evidence shows the existence of gendered divisions among hunter-gatherers. To test its veracity, they reproduced the original study, finding sample selection bias and coding errors. Lastly, they agree with Anderson et al.'s intention to dispel the false notion that forager women are unable to hunt, but they emphasize the existence of gendered divisions of labor in the ethnographic record.

After noticing that recent archaeological research has found evidence that women in pre-history were probably hunters, the authors use the ethnographic record from 63 foraging populations to explore the role of women in hunting. They explore what proportion of societies expect women to contribute to hunting, if women hunt, what proportion was opportunistic or intentional, whether women hunters were skilled, and whether women hunted with children.

After noticing that recent archaeological research has found evidence that women in pre-history were probably hunters, the authors use the ethnographic record from 63 foraging populations to explore the role of women in hunting. They explore what proportion of societies expect women to contribute to hunting, if women hunt, what proportion was opportunistic or intentional, whether women hunters were skilled, and whether women hunted with children.

The authors critique Anderson et al. (2023) article, "The Myth of Man the Hunter: Women’s contribution to the hunt across ethnographic contexts." The latter article is an ethnographic study showing that women hunt in 79% of foraging societies in their sample. The aim was to demystify the idea that only men have had a role in hunting and to question the stereotypes of labor. Venkataraman et al. (2024) critiqued Anderson et al.'s statements, as empirical evidence shows the existence of gendered divisions among hunter-gatherers. To test its veracity, they reproduced the original study, finding sample selection bias and coding errors. Lastly, they agree with Anderson et al.'s intention to dispel the false notion that forager women are unable to hunt, but they emphasize the existence of gendered divisions of labor in the ethnographic record.

This book discusses the role of women cross-culturally. The authors use a cross-cultural sample to examine the differences between men and women in contribution to subsistence as well as the social juxtaposition of the sexes in foraging, horticultural, agricultural, pastoral, and industrial societies.

A materialist approach is used to study the status of women in hunter-gatherer groups. Techno-ecological factors are tested as predictors of women's status.

After noticing that recent archaeological research has found evidence that women in pre-history were probably hunters, the authors use the ethnographic record from 63 foraging populations to explore the role of women in hunting. They explore what proportion of societies expect women to contribute to hunting, if women hunt, what proportion was opportunistic or intentional, whether women hunters were skilled, and whether women hunted with children.