I haven’t read the original research and only skimmed this, but given the times we live in I think it is important to remember bias goes both ways; I would expect some fairly obvious critiques are overlooked.
No reason to think that women couldn’t use a sling (Clan of the Cave Bear anyone?) for protection or to get the occasional rabbit, but that doesn’t likely mean gender neutral hunting parties ranging widely for reasons that probably are ignored. Still, it is interesting
And it begs the question, if women were doing everything what were the men doing? Figures it would be something like this
I can’t make out the man or his genitals. It just looks like a wall.
EDIT: Oh, it’s in the second picture. He’s more than clutching.
That’s a display!
He [an anthropology professor] pointed out that any explanation of the statue is based on guesses at this stage but suggested that the person depicted might be deceased.
Seems plausible for an 11,000 year old statue. I could have told them that.
I mean worth bearing in mind that humans are endurance hunters, we’ll never catch anything by just running after it, but by running after it long enough we can catch and kill just about anything. Consider this alongside: they don’t necessarily need to run super far or fast. Olympic medalists show a record difference of only about 20 minutes over 42 km (marathon) between men and women. I think that would be fairly negligible in the context of hunting, say, deer.
The author concedes that men are better at power burst sports and women at enduro and I think that touches well on this point: “But it does not mean women were not hunting, because this period is also when people invented the bow and arrow, hunting nets and fishing hooks. These more sophisticated tools enabled humans to catch a wider variety of animals; they were also easier on hunters’ bodies. Women may have favored hunting tactics that took advantage of these new technologies.”
it goes without saying that - barring some amazonian tribes ala that of the Greeks - the men would probably be better in any more combat oriented scenario, but I think the hunting net idea in particular is tempting, and the idea that the women could stay safer away from it even with child or what have you were they given a bow would be similarly potentially viable. And I doubt these tribes would be taking on dangerous animals intentionally when deer and other small game could be hunted a lot more easily and plentifully. And no reason a woman can’t kill a tired deer or what have you just as well as a man.
My suspicion is more along the following lines: the younger population - male and female - went out hunting, and as they get older, they do more gathering as it’s presumably (?) less physically intensive. While in times of need perhaps they’d include the pregnant, as the article mentions happening in one modern h-g society, but I think it’s silly to assume that was the norm under good conditions. There’s plenty of evidence from nomadic central Eurasian societies (i.e. Scythians, Sarmatians, and Hittites) of she-warriors - although it is important to bear in mind, these peoples were horse nomads and thus favored a significantly different type of battle to, say, the Greeks or the Celt/Germanic peoples of Europe. More horse archery, less… well, less of however the ancient Greeks did battle, which isn’t really a closed argument, and almost certainly less like the Celtic (Gallic) methods described by Caesar. Point is, however, if a woman was capable of a task, it seems like they were more than happy to assign it, which - to me - makes sense. They also buried their female warrior dead alongside their male, etc. I’m sure there was a sense of gender roles, but it might have been confined to certain spheres. Who knows.
What about spear chucking?
Sure, and also things that kept them closer to home. Gathering bunnies from traps or gathering fish from nets, for example
Nobody does, really. I’m sure women did more hunting and fighting than none, but I’m also confident that the further back we go societally and technologically the more pronounced the differences will be
Maybe women spent more time hunting and were more clever with tools, even if at the end of the day the men still brought home more bacon
Female chimps use spears to hunt | Royal Society.
The book Born to Run had a section where some guy actually went on a what, a paleo-hunt, running down a deer or something. Deer can’t sweat, and so overheat. So as long you can track it, it’ll lay down and wait for you like a panting turkey dinner.
Took hours and hours tho. I don’t see why both male and female hominids couldn’t have done it. 
don’t really need no particular distance chucking ability when the animal is more or less slowly grinding to a stop anyhow… Suppose it helps if you could hit its leg or something, speed up the process, but realistically these people have plenty of time on their hands to take it slow most of the time. And anyhow, if you’re using mixed crews that quickly negates this issue. If we’re talking wartime that’s a different issue, as I’ve addressed.
basically that, yeah 
it’s not even so much of a run as a trot or a jog.
Anyhow, I think it would generally make more sense and follow better along the old/young division than sex, a good hunt or two per week probably more than enough to feed a small tribe and in the remaining available time everyone’d probably work on some specializations but mostly just try and learn handiworks and whatnot.
Again, impossible to tell, but why send old men when a younger woman won’t be suffering from all that almost certain joint pain?
I guess the one big counter I could think is what we’d today consider teenage pregnancy… While these groups probably a lot less of the diseases that ravaged more dense & urbanized societies, I think it’s probably the case that they still ‘married’ young (or got exchanged with different tribes to keep the gene pool fresh, don’t think it’s any accident most religions provide against this. They seem to have literally fucked around and found out…) and this probably followed fairly quickly with pregnancies. But who knows? Maybe they intentionally waited to preserve their physical usefulness longer, or maybe they did settle down and do mostly lower-key work for a period. 
Don’t think the possibility can be hand-waved so easily, is essentially my point.
Are you suggesting that despite the invention of sharp sticks humans have chosen to chase deer to death instead?
That relies on the assumption that all else is equal, which is the question
Men are disposable, especially old men. Women can make babies, old men can die with honor
Which wouldn’t be teenage if lifespans are 20 to 30 years. But hey, let the ladies run far chasing game and if they come back pregnant hope it was consensual!
Which possibility?
Well how far back are we talking? Old men in paleo time were what, 20? 
I’d have to dig out my book Sapiens, but I don’t think life expectancy was anything to celebrate pre civilization.
Throwing spears? I know the mammoth hunters braced them on the ground and tried to get big mammals to fall on them. Hannibal Letchter killed a grizzly like that in that other movie he did. What one man can do another man can do.
Yes, seems archery has a small (but consistent) male advantage which could arguably be cultural, but throwing spears less so (women have a girl-javelin). Boars, bears, deer, etc. could all be hunted with a spear.
In ‘primitive’ cultures that still exist men do all the hunting.
I’m sure we can find exceptions, seems the paper actually did an inventory and found some. But if hunting includes gathering fish with nets or snaring lizards around the village, that is arguably gathering
I mean animals are fast and they’re not exactly standing around waiting to be hit. Literally jogging after shit was a hugely reliable method and was our MO when we had sharp sticks, and probably up until we got good at archery, which is upper Paleo - Neolithic mostly. We used the sharp sticks to stab or maybe threw em to slow things mostly as they were already getting slower precisely because we were running after em. JD already commented on this, but humans are endurance machines. Jack of all trades, master of none. Even the best javelin throwers of the ancient era worked well because they threw into crowds of mostly tightly packed soldiers; honing it as a precision sport would’ve had worthwhile, bit would be also been resource intensive, and the old model worked just fine
Absolutely fair point but consider what 25 years of life on foot probably does to a person… and moreso, life expectancy is an average. That’s because a good 40-50% die below 16. If they survived past 15-16, that goes up to 50 or so, at which point they were seemingly usually left behind as they couldn’t had keep up with migratory patterns.
Old people in general were disposable during the paleolithic. Forget about weathering your baby girls to go for a boy under one child policy, you weather your dad back then because aforementioned reasons.
Back to earlier point here. It’s 30 average. 50 something for those who make it through puberty basically.
That of actual relative feminine equality in Paleo tribes. There are certain strength based tasks the men would’ve been more fit for, but the women are for many day to day functions more than fit enough to participate. And when most of Paleo hunting consists of running shit down, they’d manage just fine.
The paper provided a direct counterargument to that but whatever
I could see this being factually verifiable, given pectoral muscle prevalence on men, but I suppose women of the paleolithic were probably mad fit and could probably manage it too. Skill like any other, I suppose.
Back on topic of spears, ways of making it easier to throw (spear-throwers) seem to have more of an association with military application than hunting. More about distance and power than accuracy, because fundamentally it’s a weapon best suited for crowd targets, not individual. That said, it did have utility in hunting, although there are some interesting arguments to that end too: http://www.economist.com/node/11014530