Man The Hunter is a symposium published in 1968 by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore. It’s notorious for its sexist evolutionary views that essentially claims that men were the hunters and women were nearly supporting roles. This theory became popular and was promoted through editorial cartoons, tv shows, and other media, for the public to digest and accept as truth. However, this narrative of men being the hunters is simply false. Despite this, the lens of which Man The Hunter was created from, is commonly shared, and is used just to discredit women.
There’s evidence proving that women had the physical capacity to hunt alongside men and did. If you look at the biological differences between the two sex’s, you can see there are advantages with both that could help with hunting. Men typically have larger hearts, lungs, and more muscle mass, whereas females have better endurance.

Endurance is essential to persistent hunting which is hypothesized to be how humans hunted prey in the past. There is also evidence of equal roles between sexes by the skeletons of our ancestors.
Meaning that since there are similar damages to between the skeletons, then they were doing the same activities. Despite the clear evidence of Man The Hunter being incorrect, it was still the catapult of a set of beliefs that men drove evaluation by their hunting.
Venus of Willendorf is a prime example of how people can use bias lenses to generate theories on prehistoric ancestors and their values. It’s a common belief that Venus of Willendorf (whose modern name from the 20th century derives from the goddess of love and beauty), was created by men for aphrodisiacal purposes. Another popular explanation of the purpose of Venus of Willendorf, is that she was a fertility figure, whether it was a good-luck totem in hopes of women becoming fertile, or fertility being monumented because it was so valued at the time. This reasoning was supported by the exaggerated reproductive physical features of the woman, “The most conspicuous elements of her anatomy are those that deal with the process of reproduction and child rearing. The artist took particular care to emphasize her breasts, which some scholars suggest indicates that she is able to nurse a child.”, (Dr. Zygmont, para. 17). These reasons are as well as the next but why it’s the most commonly known explanation is something we have to evaluate.
A different explanation suggests a woman created the piece as a self portrait. You can see from the contrasting images that the sculpture looks very similar to how a six month pregnant woman would look down at herself (since mirrors weren’t invented yet). n contrast to what Dr. Zygmont stated,

“If the face was purposefully obscured, the Paleolithic sculptor may have created, not a portrait of a particular person, but rather a representation of the reproductive and child rearing aspects of a woman.”, (para. 19). A woman looking down at herself would not be able to see her own face or hands while she was sculpting.
There are multiple reasons why a woman would want to create a self portrait while pregnant. You can imagine that like any child who draws in the sand with their finger, art comes naturally to us and we simply have an urge to recreate what we see. This woman could have also created this sculpture in an educational lens to demonstrate to other young women what changes their bodies would go through. This is such a large aspect of womanhood, and to leave it out of the narrative because of one’s own sexist biases is fallacious.
What these anti-feminist theories all have in common, is that they stem from a harsh set of beliefs of gender binary roles. They hardly consider women being valued for anything more than their bodies or their contribution to domestic chores. These sexist assumptions are not just harmless ideas, they have an effect on society. Look at the time at which Man the Hunter was published; it was right after a large rise in working wives during the 1950s. It’s hard to believe that “man the hunter”, “man the provider”, “man the breadwinner”, wasn’t a biased opinion based off of this event.

One can imagine the movement would have taken off quicker if not for this claim that women’s domestic role comes natural to them because “that’s the way it’s always been”.
When presented with a feminist idea like Venus of Willendorf being a self portrait, it’s branded as “extreme liberalism” and “unlikely”, discrediting women and their ability. It’s important to ask what prehistoric art could have meant to our ancestors so we have a better understanding of where we came from, but it’s just as important to look at our ideas of what it meant to reflect on our generation’s biases.
Citations
- Oocbock, C., & Lacy, S. (2023, November 1). The theory that men evolved to hunt
and women evolved to gather is wrong. Scientific American. Retrieved
February 21, 2024, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/
- Zygmont, B., Dr. (n.d.). Nude woman (Venus of Willendorf). Khan Academy.
Retrieved February 21, 2024, from https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/
prehistoric-art/paleolithic/paleolithic-objects/a/venus-of-willendorf

























































































































































