My explanation is below in my response to Michael Goldfarb. Of course 
my heading was a bit unfair. I don't think the theory itself is 
inherently sexist, but I do think that's the way the NYT spun it. --PG

At 2:59 PM -0800 12/10/06, Claudia Hemphill wrote:
>Hi, Phil -
>
>I finally read the string of messages if only to find out why "BLAME 
>WOMEN" was repeating
>over and over in my
>email queue -- hardly an encouraging thing to see, I hope you'll agree.
>
>Anyway, I posted a comment back to SftP and just wanted to say to 
>you -- I do think I for one
>may have
>misunderstood your choice of headline ???   And I'm open to clarificaiton.
>
>I must say, though, I would have deleted it unread, with 
>imprecations, if it were from our list-
>mate from New
>Zealand, the anti-spelling anti-'wimmen' misogynist.  Fortunately, I 
>now have him on
>permanent spam filtering,
>so I can't even remember his name.
>
>You're not him, I hope :-)   I thought it was a good article and 
>look forward to reading the full
>item in CA.  I just
>wanted to make sure you understand I am not denouncing your article 
>re-titling, just not
>following your
>rationale.  If you do think the article, or their research, is 
>"sexist", I'd be interested in learning
>why.
>
>Claudia
>
>Claudia Hemphill Pine
>PhD Candidate, Env Science
>University of Idaho
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Saturday, December 9, 2006 6:27 pm
>Subject: Re: Anthropologists blame women for Neanderthal demise
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>>  Problem: Why did the Neanderthals die out? Hypothesis: Neanderthal
>>  women joined the hunt instead of staying home with the kids. Hence
>>  my
>>  tendentious heading.
>>
>>  >Phil,
>>  >
>>  >Why the tendentious heading for your post? The hypothesis  clearly
>>  >does not 'blame women," if female Neanderthals are even rightly
>>  >referred to as that. What is at issue is the lack of a sexual
>>  >division of labor. Such a division, in a preliterate society,
>>  allows
>>  >twice the knowledge to be preserved and handed down. Of course, a
>>  >non-sexual division into two groups would accomplish the same, but
>>  >if groups sometimes split apart, the sexual division would
>>  probably
>>  >better preserve the full range of knowledge.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Best,
>>  >
>>  >Michael
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >On Dec 9, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Phil Gasper wrote:
>>  >
>>  >><http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05nean.html?ref=science>http://
>www.nytimes.com/
>2006/12/05/science/05nean.html?ref=science
>>  >>
>>  >>Neanderthal Women Joined Men in the Hunt
>>  >>
>>  >>By NICHOLAS WADE
>>  >>
>>  >>A new explanation for the demise of the Neanderthals, the stockily
>>  >>built human species that occupied Europe until the arrival of modern
>>  >>humans 45,000 years ago, has been proposed by two anthropologists at
>>  >>the University of Arizona.
>>  >>
>>  >>Unlike modern humans, who had developed a versatile division of
>>  labor>>between men and women, the entire Neanderthal population
>>  seems to have
>>  >>been engaged in a single main occupation, the hunting of large game,
>>  >>the scientists, Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, say in an article
>>  >>posted online yesterday in Current Anthropology.
>>  >>
>>  >>Because modern humans exploited the environment more efficiently, by
>>  >>having men hunt large game and women gather small game and plant
>>  >>foods, their populations would have outgrown those of the
>>  >>Neanderthals.
>>  >>
>>  >>The Neanderthals endured for about 100,000 years, despite a
>>  punishing>>way of life. They preyed on the large animals that
>>  flourished in
>>  >>Europe in the ice age like bison, deer, gazelles and wild horses.
>>  But>>there is no evidence that they knew of bows and arrows.
>>  Instead, they
>>  >>used stone-tipped spears.
>>  >>
>>  >>Hunting large game at close range is perilous, and Neanderthal
>>  >>skeletons bear copious fractures. Dr. Kuhn and Dr. Stiner argue that
>>  >>Neanderthal women and children took part in the dangerous hunts,
>  > >>probably as beaters and blockers of exit routes.
>>  >>
>>  >>Their argument, necessarily indirect, begins with the human
>>  >>hunter-gatherer societies, almost all of which have a division of
>>  >>labor between the sexes.
>>  >>
>>  >>At sites occupied by modern humans from 45,000 to 10,000 years
>>  ago, a
>>  >>period known as the Upper Paleolithic, there is good evidence of
>>  >>different occupations, from small animal and bird remains, as
>>  well as
>>  >>the bone awls and needles used to make clothes. It seems
>>  reasonable to
>>  >>assume that these activities were divided between men and women,
>>  as is
>>  >>the case with modern foraging peoples.
>>  >>
>>  >>But Neanderthal sites include no bone needles, no small animal
>>  remains>>and no grinding stones for preparing plant foods. So what did
>>  >>Neanderthal women do all day?
>>  >>
>>  >>Their skeletons are so robustly built that it seems improbable that
>>  >>they just sat at home looking after the children, the
>>  anthropologists>>write. More likely, they did the same as the men,
>>  with the whole
>>  >>population engaged in bringing down large game.
>>  >>
>>  >>The meat of large animals yields a rich payoff, but even the best
>>  >>hunters have unlucky days. The modern humans of the Upper
>>  Paleolithic,>>with their division of labor and diversified food
>>  sources, would have
>>  >>been better able to secure a continuous food supply. Nor were they
>>  >>putting their reproductive core - women and children - at great
>>  risk.>>
>>  >>David Pilbeam, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard, said the Arizona
>>  >>researchers' article was "very stimulating and thoughtful" and
>>  seemed>>to be the first to propose a mechanism for why Neanderthal
>>  populations>>declined.
>>  >>
>>  >>Dr. Stiner said the division of labor between the sexes was
>>  likely to
>>  >>have arisen in a tropical environment. Indeed, it may have provided
>>  >>the demographic impetus for modern humans to expand out of
>>  Africa, she
>>  >>said.
>>  >>
>>  >>A rival hypothesis proposed by Richard Klein of Stanford University
>>  >>holds that some cognitive advance like the perfection of language
>>  >>underlay the burst of innovative behavior shown by Upper Paleolithic
>>  >>people and their predecessors in Africa.
>>  >>
>>  >>Why did the Neanderthals fail to adapt when modern humans arrived on
>>  >>their doorstep? Under Dr. Klein's hypothesis, the reason is simply
>>  >>that they were cognitively less advanced.
>>  >>
>>  >>Dr. Stiner said that in her view there was not time for them to
>>  change>>their culture. "Although there may have been differences in
>>  >>neurological wiring," she said, "I think another very important
>>  key is
>>  >>the legacy of cultural institutions about social roles." Is there a
>>  >>genetic basis to the division of labor that emerged in the modern
>>  >>human lineage? "It's equally compelling to argue that most or all of
>>  >>this has a cultural basis," Dr. Stiner said. "That's where it's very
>>  >>difficult for people like us and Richard Klein to resolve the
>>  basis of
>>  >>our disagreement."
>>