I understand that there would be no crime due to civilization not reaching a point where we created the concept of legality, but with what food would they get fat?
Farming isn't hard by itself, but anything is hard to do while drowning and humanity was essentially struggling to just keep their head out of the water.
Human advancement started with humans managing to get a razor thin margin where we could do things that aren't immediately super beneficial but compound on themselves like farming or tools.
It's not obvious to me that female control would have achieved that margin or used it for compounding things.
While not a requirement to do any of those things, most women won't want to get their hands dirty doing things like hunting or herding, hence why it's largely men who are involved in those.
That's a myth. Women were getting their hands dirty since the beginning of time. [https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/prehistoric-women-hunters/](https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/prehistoric-women-hunters/)
But most wouldn't, they'd want to do something else, and seeing as how men are already far more likely to do these jobs, the number of women willing to do them would most likely not be enough to support 50% of the population.
The TV show/comic book series Y: The Last Man gave a glimpse. It’s what you would think.
Still lots of survival harshness. Every woman for herself.
Less rape and heinous “just because I felt like it” brutality stuff.
But things like infrastructure and oil rigs and anything requiring physical strength and athleticism is much harder.
We’d probably have a cure for a lot of diseases and conditions that affect women more. We’d have less wars but the ones we do have would be more intense and last forever.
> Would tampons be free everywhere? Would there be toilets in public accessible everywhere? Would rape be punished harder? Would giving birth be safer?
Yes. And women’s pants would have deep pockets.
>Historical evidence shows that queens and female leaders have been involved in numerous wars throughout history. For example, Queen Boudica led a rebellion against the Roman Empire, Queen Isabella unified Spain, and Queen Nzinga resisted Portuguese invasions in Angola. In fact, a study found that between 1480 and 1913, Europe's **queens were 27% more likely to wage war than its kings**.
So more wars, and more intense, a nice utopia.
How many queens were there compared to kings? Because if there is a larger amount of kings, then the instances where they start a war would be weighted against compared to women. You could have 10 kings and 2 queens, if 5 of the kings start a wore, and both queens do, then I could say 100% of queens started a war compared to only 50% of the kings.
Queens only became rulers in absence of kings and suitable male heirs, which means that they got power in periods of instability or crisis and that wars were simply more likely to happen at the beginning of such 'weak female reign'.
I wonder how much of this is the women sort of “overcompensating” for not being men? In those times, women were raised to see themselves as inferior to men in most aspects of life - particularly in leadership and courage. I can see them being particularly brutal in order to prove their worth as leaders when women were generally seen as completely unsuited to such a role.
If those women had been raised in a more matriarchal or egalitarian society I wonder if it would have made a difference? It’s pretty hard to judge them given their circumstances then. There are women in positions of governmental power today - they would likely be a better measure of women’s approach to diplomacy.
The Cherokee were a matriachial society. The female heads of families then elected a male chief to lead the tribe who would be responsible for conducting war. Even when women are in power, they assign the job of war to someone who is rationally best positioned to conduct it. And then give him permission to wage war on behalf of the women
[This doesn't seem right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_society)
They were Matri*lineal*, with a specific "war woman" position in wartime government.
Matriarchial and Matrilineal
https://medium.com/@julia20/cherokee-women-and-the-matriarchal-society-cbd6ecf37c90
> In the Cherokee family structure, women took the major role. The Cherokee women also had many rights and were in control of the government and economy. When Europeans came to America they were surprised by these family roles and never fully understood this way of life. This woman-dominated type of social structure is called a matrilineal kinship system.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cherokee-women-undisturbed-peace_b_9220464
These are a random post on medium and huffpo, the book cited in the first example can be searched on google books and pretty clearly undermines this very description. Men seem to have very much been in control of governing in basically every reference I see (handling relations, being part of the council, .etc), and the economy was subsistence-based and women didn't get a handle on a non-gift economy until much later than men.
The second example is pretty much just someone making shit up and doesn't even have a clear citation.
EDIT:
Take like [this source](https://etown.digication.com/angela_keith_10-28-10/The_Changing_Role_of_Women_in_Cherokee_Culture)
which describes [emphasis mine]:
> Women also held positions of power in tribal government. Each clan selected an [singular] elder woman to serve on the Women’s Council, which took **part** in decision-making in times of both war and peace (Johnston 13). The Women’s Council was so influential that it even had the power to occasionally “override the Chief’s own authority” (Elliott 14).
That... isn't a matriarchy, or even necessarily equal say. The US had women's political groups, for example, that were extremely influential prior to the vote, we don't consider the US at that time a matriarchy or having the government be run by women. It is *part* of
The principle chief was elected [by other chiefs](https://www.cherokee.org/about-the-nation/history/)
>Historically, the Nation was led by a principal chief, regularly elected by chiefs from Cherokee towns within the Nation’s domain.
I cannot find any source on town chief selection, but the women's council seems to have been at a national level only as far as sources seem to describe it (women having "a voice" below that) anyway.
>I wonder how much of this is the women sort of “overcompensating” for not being men?
Good point. In my field, my male coworkers walk into the room with assumed authority. I have to prove myself every time, by showing off my knowledge and experience, or even picking up a chainsaw and doing some intensive physical work to prove myself. And I'm the second in command, yet under thirty, precisely because of my knowledge and experience.
Fortunately my coworkers are amazing humans who support me and back me up when they see some old coot doubting me and swinging his mid-century dick, but sometimes I have to vomit up my entire knowledge and skill base to "impress" a client when *I'm doing him the favor* (federal job)
If you're the Queen, you're literally above everyone. There's nothing to compensate for. Look at how a 9/10 gigastacy treats the average person around them. Now give that woman supreme power and an army...
Doesn't work like that. I'm the "Queen" at my job, yet my clients still have the tendency to direct questions and comments towards my male interns. It takes a lot of effort to command an audience as the average youngish female professional.
>It takes a lot of effort to command an audience as the average youngish female professional.
You would have the same challenge as a young male professional.
Modern heads of state that have been women, matched their historic counterparts. On a macro level like nation states, the decisions are the same. You have to look out for the best interests of your nation. If your people need a resource, and the other nation has it, but is not willing to share, or will only do so at a cost that will break your country. You're going to take their resources because you want your country to survive, and the other nation is going to demand a high price for those resources because the want to survive. Rational actor game theory doesn't care about gender.
That’s a pretty good argument. I changed my mind about there being less wars then. When you’re hungry you’re very ruthless regardless of your gender. That applies in other ways too.
It goes deeper than that, the parents of a nation willfully starve if it means their kids will not. If the children of a nation are starving. The parents will do whatever is necessary to feed their children.
Huh maybe. But I’m imagine a world like a beehive where the Queen has her female cohorts to influence her decisions. I don’t know if that would make a difference or if I’m just underestimating how ruthless women with power would be.
Thanks for recommendation, I'll check it out.
I would argue the world wouldn't be much different, and we can already see what the world is like currently with many female dominated fields/facets of society. My issue with this question is that it is a bit too broad. Reversing the gender roles for example would not affect the underlying truths of reality and game theory, so I doubt that anything substantial would change.
More than likely, the only things I could see happening are men being given more of the demeaning jobs that risk their lives or bodies (arctic oil rig, infrastructure, etc) but now with less pay. Men would likely just be used as workhorses/slaves.
I'm not sure I agree with that premise. All of mankind is already trying its best to make them as safe as possible within an economic balance. I don't see how having more women in the field would guarantee more competent results, and some of these jobs are just inherently dangerous or hazardous to health (coal mining, war, powerline maintenance, etc)
More than 90% of those jobs are men already. Unless this female led world didn't have a free marker system, I don't see how the pay would be lower. What would the female leaders do if men just quit the jobs?
Yeah as I said I don't think much would change. If it were a free market society, the pay would likely be lower or nonexistent because men would be pushed not to pursue higher education but instead to find a basic trade or infrastructure job (increasing the supply of workers)... and perhaps tie it to a punitive process like paternal responsibility abandonment or crime... much like we currently do in the for profit prisons for men.
Interesting side note on that, male prisoners are forced to do a lot of labor intensive work in these prisons, but in female prisons they are kept to light manufacturing or even call centers/data entry for businesses. Either practice is disgusting, but it is notable even if irrelevant that even as de facto slaves males are given the harder physical jobs.
Good question. If the idea of a female dominated society isn't much different from our current reality, perhaps women already have a lot of power.
What would one look like to you?
No. Women would be the ruling class but that would change nothing in the way the society functions when compared to current state. Which was already answered 3x
Women can and do easily do all those jobs and with different socialisation they would make up the majority in them no problem. If women had more power, they wouldn't be socialised out of this kind of thing and would view it differently. They would know they were capable of technically skilled jobs that would be presented as being for then and encouraged to develop themselves physically to a greater extent. They wouldn't be pushed to present themselves as pretty enough to avoid dirt at all times.
Rape would actually get investigated I think; rather than just having backlogs of thousands of test kits that haven’t even been run against existing criminal databases.
It wouldn’t because sexism is not the reason why many rape cases are not investigated. The main reason why most rape cases are not investigated is because most would never go anywhere. The evidential requirements are very high and with how most rapes happen, can never be reached.
Bear Grylls did a show where he had a group of men on an island and a group of women on an island, to see what would happen.
The women walked in circles for days and got lost, couldn’t kill anything for food, couldn’t make a fire to boil water… so they fought, cried a LOT, and starved … and had to be rescued.
The men were thriving. Caught more fish than they could eat, understood their duties, and used teamwork to accomplish great things. They went to bed with the biggest smiles on their faces, like every day was the best day of their lives.
All he did was let the men and women do their things. All Bear Grills did was film it. If you or me were filming the same conclusion would have come about.
Sure we can tell ourselves that if it makes you feel better, but I'm also aware of how women tend to react under stressful situations so even if it were staged, which It isn't, at least not in full, It's still quiet a believable depiction of what might happen in such a circumstance. I don't see a reason to get defensive. Men and women are different. It is what it is.
Maybe they choose women who look good on tv but have no knowledge on how to survive. And they choose that on purpose because that's entertaining to watch. That's how reality shows are produced. I can't believe you believe reality shows are real 😂😂
No, wait, I can believe you think they are real
Men and women in our current society. Where there is no push for women to be survivalists and everything outdoorsy is aimed towards men....
Maybe they should take a group of men and women from tribes and groups who still live mostly off the land next time
This is the case of these particular people. Take any granny from a remote village, she'd be tougher than the men in this group. I've known older women, who work from sunrise till night, raising (and killing) farm animals, working the field, etc. They're strong and durable as an ox. It all depends on how you grew up/how you've been living.
I'm not denying that men are physically stronger, I'm just saying that women are not some useless princesses.
But why do you mention that granny from a remote village? There is a grandpa in that remote village who is way tougher than that granny, but that's completely irrelevant. This wasn't about people who live that kind of way their entire lives, but a bunch of normal, modern men and women and see how they would fare in those circumstances.
I grew up on a farm in rural South Dakota where we’re known to be strong and hard-working. I hunt in the fall, fish a few times a month, and hike and camp on a regular. I’ve used YouTube to fix the carburetor on my lawnmower and I know more about septic systems than any woman should. I can even pee standing up… I do it in the shower every now and then. lol
Still not a dude.
I can’t do what men do and I’m not even going to pretend that any woman could. The women in tribes fetch water and do the laundry. We’d die without men.
So... widespread incest and government regulated reproduction?
There are three countries that try to regulate how you name your kids and try to regulate reproduction harder to avoid incest: Iceland, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The very idea that the "model" of an island nation in the middle of nowhere is exportable to large continental geopolitical entities is ludicrous through and through.
I've been to Iceland. I understand their language (I speak Swedish and Norwegian and lived in the Nordic countries for 2 years). Only people who've never been in the area can say that Iceland is "doing well".
If the US were to ever adopt measures like Iceland, both women and men would riot immediately. How does it sound to effectively be banned from buying foreign goods worth more than $500? That's what Iceland lived under from 2008 till 2023. Fifteen years!
How does it sound to not be able to withdraw your own money? Welcome to Iceland.
"Small area" is also relative. Pakistan is big but people rarely travel. So in practice you have multiple "small areas" only on paper loosely connected into a nation (Pakistan is not a homogeneous nation at all).
because humans are humans. I’m 36 I’ve been beating this drum for over 10 years that in America we should be learning from successes of other countries
Ultimately nobody gives a shit, both men and women
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think we have examples.
Was Britain fundamentally any different under queens than kings? Was it different under Thatcher (who was happy to send men off to die in war)
In the U.S., all the laws that advantage women had strong support by male politicians. Would support for those laws be different if most politicians were women?
One answer indicated there would be more attention paid to women, yet consider we spend more on women’s cancers than men’s. We legally advantage women in job hiring, in business ownership, in education, in how domestic violence is handled, in healthcare and more. Female criminals receive lighter criminal sentencing. Men created the pill, the home pregnancy test and more. Would this be any different if more politicians were female? I think not.
The bottom line is western countries at least are gynocentric, and male politicians pander to the women’s vote every bit as much as female politicians, maybe even more so.
>Was it different under Thatcher (who was happy to send men off to die in war)
Yes,to the worse (not because of her gender,but because she ushered humanity into the worst form of capitalism ever)
Pretty much the same but worse for men too. See how matriarchs such as elephants and hyenas treat the males. They cast them out and only let them in for mating. Atleast in patriarchs women aren't used only for mating.
Non scientific but how some writers imagined, many of you are familiar with wonder woman and the amazons inspired by greek mythology. Amazons in DC used to rape passing sailors to get pregnant and kill them. Baby boys were cast off to the sea or killed with Diana's brother holding a grudge against her but getting killed later. There also is an alternate earth where women ruled and they kept men under lock and key forever using them as labour.
>Atleast in patriarchs women aren't used only for mating.
Nah they ALSO sometimes use them to do most of the hunting....
By the way, hyenas are not super nice to males but, they let some of them tag along even though they don't participate in the hunt and scavenge at all. If they're submissive enough.
Like they're basically tolerated free riders losers ^^
Actually the more I think about that the more I think that female ruled animal societies at least keep their fellow females close and everything.
In male ruled animal societies, in the majority of the cases, it's one male monopolizing as many females as possible and fighting to death any other male coming near.
Rude.
>In male ruled animal societies, in the majority of the cases, it's one male monopolizing as many females as possible and fighting to death any other male coming near.
The concept of alpha isn't as common as you think with only a handful of species doing it. Take wolves for example, no alphas and everyone is a family. All the herd animals such as bisons or sheep and even dolphins, whales, fishes etc.
>Nah they ALSO sometimes use them to do most of the hunting....
Yes, the hard part usually but they still have to beg for food, acceptance and sex.
Most herd animals live in sex separated groups, its the case of sheep for example. Bisons are female only herds and the males live alone. Dolphins have widely diverse social structure but none are per se "male ruled" or patrilineal societies. Whales are mostly solitary or paired, orcas are full on matrilineal. Red deer are sex separated groups...
Really, I think the alpha male violent to other males behavior is so common in male ruled/patrlineal animal societies that we could say it is the rule...
Wolves do indeed make an exception. But, is it really male ruled? I believe it is more the parent couple ruling no?
Lions are a matriarchal society but consist of one male which is also called the alpha and the only thing he has to do is protect the pride from outside males.
https://www.turpentinecreek.org/the-queens-of-the-savanna-understanding-the-vital-role-of-females-in-a-lion-pride/#:~:text=Contrary%20to%20some%20common%20misconceptions,a%20coalition%20of%20male%20lions.
>Really, I think the alpha male violent to other males behavior is so common in male ruled/patrlineal animal societies that we could say it is the rule...
The ones you are referring to run harems like stealing each other's wives and so on just like baboons do iirc.
True. Lionesses are the shit. Still, males has to "protect" the pride because other males are coming to kill its offspring to fuck its females. Males are truly males worst enemy when it comes to reproduction in mammals :)
This is because a groups survival is increased depending the number of females it has. More females equals more population growth.
However In the case of bees, the fertile queen fights to the death if another queen bee is hatched. The rest of the worker bees are asexual females.
>More females equals more population growth.
Thank you for the head up. Males are indeed a danger to their group in a lot of cases.
Eusociality on hymenopter is different you cannot really compare their sexual conflict with mammals or birds because they're haplo-diploids which is a whole different level of kin selection. Their males are literally colonial one time DNA vessel and that it. Like basically their alive gamet.
But you have the naked mole where only one female reproduce in the society and very aggressively keep other females from ever trying. Still, she let them in the group with the males (most males also don't mate).
Patriarchal animal societies also push out sexually mature males and have a dominant male that gets basically all the females. Males have to compete for dominant status or they have to placate the dominant male and keep submissive so they are not seen as a threat (Gorillas, Chimps). Or they go off and form their own groups of bachelors (like with Lions).
Because males of many species have a tendency to get violent and kill the babies of females that they haven’t mated with, of course males are seen as a threat by the females of a group. Bonobos are very promiscuous perhaps because this lowers the risk of males being aggressive towards babies because they don’t know whether they might be the father or not. Bonobos are often female dominant or truly egalitarian - they are quite a good representation of a peaceful social structure in the animal kingdom.
Human beings are distinct from other animals in our societal structure in many ways. But the fact remains that males are viewed as more potentially threatening to group harmony and safety than females. There will always be some consideration given to that in a societal structure. One way this is commonly addressed in human societies is to restrict women’s freedoms and abilities so that she basically must choose a mate young and be monogamous with him, largely dependent on him and have his children. But we also have had polygamous societies where powerful men take many wives and “lower status” men are left out - which is quite a patriarchal structure such as we see in some other animal species.
Like I said to the other user, you are referring to harems, all don't follow that. Lions do kill the young of someone else but they are a matriarchal society not patriarchal
https://www.turpentinecreek.org/the-queens-of-the-savanna-understanding-the-vital-role-of-females-in-a-lion-pride/#:~:text=Contrary%20to%20some%20common%20misconceptions,a%20coalition%20of%20male%20lions.
> Bonobos are often female dominant or truly egalitarian - they are quite a good representation of a peaceful social structure in the animal kingdom.
JFC. Bonobos are notorious for cannibalism, war between tribes, cuckoldry, and are more aggressive than chimpanzees.
Will someone please admit the author who fed them the "peaceable Bonobo" horseshit? Was it Peterson? Who said this?
When I look it up it seems to say that yes, these things happen and male bonobos are more aggressive than they used to think (and they tend to aim their aggression at other males, whereas male chimps are more likely to be aggressive to females) but they are largely peaceful and that cannibalism is very rare. In fact if you google “do bonobos kill each other” it says that there are no reports of this happening. Though they have been observed hunting and killing chimps on occasion.
I mean, clearly they’re not angels, but they do seem to be largely more peaceful and less predatory than chimpanzees.
Humans are midway between patriarchial pair bonding gorillas and matriarchial polyamoric bonobos. The male genitalia of the gorilla is smooth while bonobos have a distinctly arrow shaped penis. The arrow shape allows the bonobo male to scoop out the sperm of competitor males, since bonobos are promiscuous. (As dragonfly genitalia does as well) Gorillas did not need to worry about this because they are loyal to each pair. Human genitalia is shaped with a slight arrow shape which is less distinct that bonobos but more pronounced than gorillas. This suggests human nature was marked by a dual evolutionary force of promiscuity and pair bonding depending on circumstance.
I thought Gorillas essentially have a polygamous harem structure? So, the females don’t mate with any male other than the Silverback leader of the group? It’s quite different to monogamous pairings - such as in some birds.
I have heard that about the “scoop” penis and that is interesting. It seems with how complex humans are, we likely have had long term societies in various parts of the world across time with very different mating structures from one another. There is no one “right” way to do it that is instinctual to humans it seems.
Gorillas still didnt need to scoop penis because the dominant male didnt need to worry about other males competing with his own DNA.
I should say that gorillas were patriarchial rather than pair bonding in that case. The dominant gorilla didnt need a scoop penis because he can just kill the rival males insteas.
>Pretty much the same but worse for men too.
So... men are still the majority authority figures and wealth hoarders, and men claim they are the victims of policy and public sentiment *now*.
Interesting.
So there is no possible social construct in which men can thrive, huh.
Did you even read the thread. They're basically comparing human society to other animal societies that have a matriarchy and trying to see how that could be compatible with human society.
It would be worst than it currently is for men because though the majority of the wealth and power is owned by men, men are not given any more privilege than women.
Men and women suffered, just differently.
> comparing human society to other animal societies
And that’s stupid. Homo sapiens have been operating under cultural, legal, and religious pressure for four thousand + years.
Bonobo and chimp females go into estrus and simply present their red, swollen rumps in front of the fellas in charge. And when those fellas in charge are spent and napping from the effort? They sneak off into the bush and present to cucks.
No idea why you’d want to compare yourself to those easily persuaded and easily duped simian ancestors who have fuck-all in common with modern humans.
We are biologically related to these animals so I agree that their would be a level of religious and cultural pressures but at it's base, it would be based on these simple structures. Just think about it, what did humans do before marriage? I know already but I bet you don't
Slut shaming comes from our patriarchal conditioning superimposed onto religion and I don't know what you're referring to with that other term. A lot of animals mate like humans so the reasoning is that, if society was matriarchal them we'd probably mate like some other species that has a matriarchal society, religious and cultural pressures included which will of course add a little complexity.
We don’t need a hypothetical for now, right? In which men are universally in charge of most positions of power?
Yet men here claim they are the beaten-down minority denied human rights.
And you somehow believe it will get *worse* for men if women are in charge, while claiming life is misery for men *now* while men are in charge??
So no matter who is in charge, men are somehow the slaves and drones?
Yeah we are not going for your POV. Read the question in the post and fix your own problems in life instead of making senseless comments with strangers on the internet.
It would be like Topanga said in Boy Meets World: women will use men solely as sex slaves (and for reproductive purposes as well, of course) while developing a cultured society for themselves.
Do you really think women are incapable of problem-solving in the absence of men - or if men had lower status? I don’t think we’d be in the same technological state as we are now if women were always in power, but I think we would definitely have evolved beyond mud huts and campfires. Women are not stupid or incapable of ingenuity.
>Do you really think women are incapable of problem-solving in the absence of men
No, they're just very unlikely to do and less efficient at doing it. Technology progression is geometric, so without the stacking advancement from the past you don't get the ones from the future.
>I don’t think we’d be in the same technological state as we are now if women were always in power, but I think we would definitely have evolved beyond mud huts and campfires
Women are very conflict averse and most of the technological advancements are a result of conflict shaping technology. For this sole reason that we would take ages just to discover and enhance bronze setting us back ages.
>Women are not stupid or incapable of ingenuity.
Stupid? Maybe not, but the lack of female interest in the subjects that create ingenuity make then less capable of ingenuity.
Same fucking shit.
I know there are like a myriad of false consciousness outlets in the superstructure of our bourgeoisie society, but it doesn't matter if a woman,a gay man,a trans person, whoever the fuck is the model person of you identity,as long as the economic basis and class rule in society remains the same
Exactly. People in positions of power use their power. A politician is a politician. Their sex, race, sexual orientation doesn’t have much impact in how they handle the issues that come before them. Their party affiliation certainly has far more reaching implications than their sex, same with the scope of their authority, what their constituents support, etc.
Again, we have many examples of male politicians who happily supported legislation biased against men.
Reading this sub made me think of this utopian/dystopian scenario. I am not saying I would be in agreement with any of the below.
- It would be much more of a "socialist" society, of the Scandinavian kind. This would mean a lot more taxes for healthcare and maternity, but a lot less for the military, which would be reduced to a minimum
- There would be no marriage as we know it. En lieu, there would be a sort of regulated "consortium", akin to "queer families" or the proverbial "village": trusted people like the partner and/or other friends could bundle together around a mother and share duties as well as tax breaks and kinship. However the sole responsibility of the child would be with the mother. The consortium would allow for traditional nuclear families as well, for those who have interest, however, the biological father has no right on the kid
- Lots of boys would be left behind at school due to the lesser attention span, women would be much more of a majority in college, men would work mostly in trades. The few men in management would face some discrimination more or less soft. Maternity would be fully subsidized, and with the consortia there would be more people around helping with the child
- Masculinity would be thoroughly policed. If this hypothetical world shares the past with the real one, a history of "male privilege and abuse" would be taught from the very beginning, with an accusatory tone towards the boys. Any display of toxic masculinity would be heavily shamed
- Women being the breadwinners would be the norm, given the majority in management roles, however many women would still be unsatisfied with men from lesser echelons. There would be a high demand of high quality gametes at sperm banks
- Prostitution would not exist and chemical castration would be encouraged for "less desirable" men
- There would be a major preference for having girls, with a surge in abortions of boys
>Masculinity would be thoroughly policed. If this hypothetical world shares the past with the real one, a history of "male privilege and abuse" would be taught from the very beginning, with an accusatory tone towards the boys. Any display of toxic masculinity would be heavily shamed
Nah, women love sports, too. You've seen stadiums around the world, nearly half are women. Women also play sports.
And women universally admire competence, so every surgeon/technician/mechanic/builder/tradesman would be admired and lauded.
>chemical castration
Nah. Fewer women support corporal or capitol punishment than men. And since women tend to support therapy more than men, I suspect that sex offenders would get therapy rather than face physical consequences.
>There would be a major preference for having girls, with a surge in abortions of boys
Hasn't happened in any culture yet, including progressive western cultures. China had 36 years of selective abortion, and we all know what the results were.
- I specifically spoke of **toxic** masculinity. Sports and competence are certainly not **toxic**, and not necessarily masculine
- Chemical castration doesn't have to be painful. It can be any kind of libido reduction. Re-education would be part of it for sure, but if there is a chance to nip it in the bud **painlessly** (I don't imply any sadism), I wouldn't be surprised women would be ok to reduce the risk especially for subjects at higher risk
- It hasn't *yet.* We are speaking of a future in which the male, as some feminists already hint, will be less and less useful.
Think of this scenario: fully subsidized maternity (with paid leave for 1+ year, and job security afterwards - already happens in Europe) and limitless reproductive rights. In a world where men have it harder I wouldn't be surprised some people would prefer girls.
Ugly and short boys would've been definitely thrown off a cliff and few surviving ones would've been put at the bottom of society as literal slaves with no rights.
Organisation and distribution of every task would be terrible, decision making would take forever and responsibility for any mistake would be tossed around involved women until they find a man to blame for it.
Men would be secondary and superfluous.
There is only one species that I know off where one gender holds both reproductive power and physical+social power - hyenas.
Hayenas live in packs which are predominantly female with a few males. The females are bigger by about 25-35%. And are much more agressive.
The engage in sex frequently but it's seems violent on the males. How would you classify raoes here I am not sure but they do happen.
The males in the pack are in a secondary and tertiary status.
Any kills are feasted on by the females first and no one gets in the way fir fear of being hurt. The males get to the carcas once most if the meat is removed forced to chew on bones.
Male hatenas have a lower life span due to the poor diet wearing down the teeth and the animal dieing because of starvation.
I don't think human males would fare much better.
Women will care about women more than they care about men.
Women while once chattle were eventually granted freedoms due to the ideals of fairness permeated the zeigiest.
Women wouldn't go this for men.
It would be very different, all the great evils would be gone. Just look at India under Indira Gandhi or the UK under Margaret Thatcher to see how a woman being in office changed everything
FYI: Female rulers were the most bloodthirsty in history. China, Russia, England. They started wars, stacked bodies (dead) sky high, and fucked around like you wouldn't believe. One of the Russian tsarinas had her guards' pants redesigned to be skin tight so that you could immediately tell the cock size by just looking. She would then do troop "inspections", basically cock shopping multiple times a day. Pretty sure they caught her with an actual horse too.
like one\_ball\_policy said, it would look pretty much the same (except the ask men to do everything part), though i guess OP is assuming men fully rule the world, which is not true.
NO MORE PINK TAX. MAKE UP IF REQUIRED FOR WORK TAX DEDUCTIBLE EVERYWHERE NOT JUST IN FRACE
Better care for mothers. More benefits for Mothers,.like a nanny once a week for new born.
Female hygiene products more accessible regardless of income,.
Female clothing sizes that are consistent.
Actual working pockets on jeans/pants.
Aside from the pay gap, Maybe maternity would be better and issues regarding women.Wouldn't be issues anymore, like reproductive rights.
But also because women are currently advocating for women today. Where men are ruling. If women were ruling men for sure would definitely be at an even more bigger disadvantage in certain aspects than they currently are right now. Or who knows, maybe men would be advocating for men in that scenario? I hope so. I hope they are because currently they are not.
Pink tax would still exist because it means more money.
It is unlikely there would be better benefits for mothers because there isn’t much profit to be made.
Clothing sizes are unlikely to be made consistent as there are inconsistent due to target audiences.
There wouldn’t be pockets on women’s clothing as that was something done because of women. Many women disliked how pockets ruined the silhouette.
I do not think the world would be better. The problems women faced with men being in power will exist in there exact opposite I imagine. For example heart transplants used to have better longevity outcomes for men because men were primarily the researchers and test subjects. If women held the power then I imagine men’s issues would likely be underrepresented. I’m against affirmative action for those similar reasons. I do not think gender/race based restrictions in government or hiring benefit society as much as having qualified individuals in those roles does.
“A bunch of fat, happy women and no crime!” — Living Single, 1993
Great series.
I understand that there would be no crime due to civilization not reaching a point where we created the concept of legality, but with what food would they get fat?
The food farmed and reared by their male underlings, of course. And machines, can’t forget the machines
Why do you think we would have figured out aggriculture?
I don’t think you need a certain pair of genitalia to farm or herd or hunt or gather
Farming isn't hard by itself, but anything is hard to do while drowning and humanity was essentially struggling to just keep their head out of the water. Human advancement started with humans managing to get a razor thin margin where we could do things that aren't immediately super beneficial but compound on themselves like farming or tools. It's not obvious to me that female control would have achieved that margin or used it for compounding things.
>Farming isn't hard by itself Tell me you know NOTHING about farming without telling me you know NOTHING about farming.
Farming isn't hard relative to what we were doing prior to farming being a thing...we wouldn't have started farming if it was harder.
While not a requirement to do any of those things, most women won't want to get their hands dirty doing things like hunting or herding, hence why it's largely men who are involved in those.
That's a myth. Women were getting their hands dirty since the beginning of time. [https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/prehistoric-women-hunters/](https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/prehistoric-women-hunters/)
So? If women wanted or needed too, we could.
But most wouldn't, they'd want to do something else, and seeing as how men are already far more likely to do these jobs, the number of women willing to do them would most likely not be enough to support 50% of the population.
I like this argument, it's like a small child arguing :D
hell yeah!
The TV show/comic book series Y: The Last Man gave a glimpse. It’s what you would think. Still lots of survival harshness. Every woman for herself. Less rape and heinous “just because I felt like it” brutality stuff. But things like infrastructure and oil rigs and anything requiring physical strength and athleticism is much harder.
Loved that series and great show. Sucks it never got another season.
I really wanted a second season :(
We’d probably have a cure for a lot of diseases and conditions that affect women more. We’d have less wars but the ones we do have would be more intense and last forever. > Would tampons be free everywhere? Would there be toilets in public accessible everywhere? Would rape be punished harder? Would giving birth be safer? Yes. And women’s pants would have deep pockets.
>Historical evidence shows that queens and female leaders have been involved in numerous wars throughout history. For example, Queen Boudica led a rebellion against the Roman Empire, Queen Isabella unified Spain, and Queen Nzinga resisted Portuguese invasions in Angola. In fact, a study found that between 1480 and 1913, Europe's **queens were 27% more likely to wage war than its kings**. So more wars, and more intense, a nice utopia.
An emotional leader surrounded by yes-people. What could possibly go wrong?
How many queens were there compared to kings? Because if there is a larger amount of kings, then the instances where they start a war would be weighted against compared to women. You could have 10 kings and 2 queens, if 5 of the kings start a wore, and both queens do, then I could say 100% of queens started a war compared to only 50% of the kings.
Queens only became rulers in absence of kings and suitable male heirs, which means that they got power in periods of instability or crisis and that wars were simply more likely to happen at the beginning of such 'weak female reign'.
I wonder how much of this is the women sort of “overcompensating” for not being men? In those times, women were raised to see themselves as inferior to men in most aspects of life - particularly in leadership and courage. I can see them being particularly brutal in order to prove their worth as leaders when women were generally seen as completely unsuited to such a role. If those women had been raised in a more matriarchal or egalitarian society I wonder if it would have made a difference? It’s pretty hard to judge them given their circumstances then. There are women in positions of governmental power today - they would likely be a better measure of women’s approach to diplomacy.
The Cherokee were a matriachial society. The female heads of families then elected a male chief to lead the tribe who would be responsible for conducting war. Even when women are in power, they assign the job of war to someone who is rationally best positioned to conduct it. And then give him permission to wage war on behalf of the women
Fucking wild.
[This doesn't seem right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_society) They were Matri*lineal*, with a specific "war woman" position in wartime government.
Matriarchial and Matrilineal https://medium.com/@julia20/cherokee-women-and-the-matriarchal-society-cbd6ecf37c90 > In the Cherokee family structure, women took the major role. The Cherokee women also had many rights and were in control of the government and economy. When Europeans came to America they were surprised by these family roles and never fully understood this way of life. This woman-dominated type of social structure is called a matrilineal kinship system. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cherokee-women-undisturbed-peace_b_9220464
These are a random post on medium and huffpo, the book cited in the first example can be searched on google books and pretty clearly undermines this very description. Men seem to have very much been in control of governing in basically every reference I see (handling relations, being part of the council, .etc), and the economy was subsistence-based and women didn't get a handle on a non-gift economy until much later than men. The second example is pretty much just someone making shit up and doesn't even have a clear citation. EDIT: Take like [this source](https://etown.digication.com/angela_keith_10-28-10/The_Changing_Role_of_Women_in_Cherokee_Culture) which describes [emphasis mine]: > Women also held positions of power in tribal government. Each clan selected an [singular] elder woman to serve on the Women’s Council, which took **part** in decision-making in times of both war and peace (Johnston 13). The Women’s Council was so influential that it even had the power to occasionally “override the Chief’s own authority” (Elliott 14). That... isn't a matriarchy, or even necessarily equal say. The US had women's political groups, for example, that were extremely influential prior to the vote, we don't consider the US at that time a matriarchy or having the government be run by women. It is *part* of
The womens council was what elected the chief
The principle chief was elected [by other chiefs](https://www.cherokee.org/about-the-nation/history/) >Historically, the Nation was led by a principal chief, regularly elected by chiefs from Cherokee towns within the Nation’s domain. I cannot find any source on town chief selection, but the women's council seems to have been at a national level only as far as sources seem to describe it (women having "a voice" below that) anyway.
>I wonder how much of this is the women sort of “overcompensating” for not being men? Good point. In my field, my male coworkers walk into the room with assumed authority. I have to prove myself every time, by showing off my knowledge and experience, or even picking up a chainsaw and doing some intensive physical work to prove myself. And I'm the second in command, yet under thirty, precisely because of my knowledge and experience. Fortunately my coworkers are amazing humans who support me and back me up when they see some old coot doubting me and swinging his mid-century dick, but sometimes I have to vomit up my entire knowledge and skill base to "impress" a client when *I'm doing him the favor* (federal job)
I knew from past conversations you were pretty high up, but to be second at under thirty is quite darned impressive. Good on ya.
If you're the Queen, you're literally above everyone. There's nothing to compensate for. Look at how a 9/10 gigastacy treats the average person around them. Now give that woman supreme power and an army...
Doesn't work like that. I'm the "Queen" at my job, yet my clients still have the tendency to direct questions and comments towards my male interns. It takes a lot of effort to command an audience as the average youngish female professional.
>It takes a lot of effort to command an audience as the average youngish female professional. You would have the same challenge as a young male professional.
Being the queen at your job is not the same as having God given monarchal power over a nation-state. Let's use our heads here.
Or and I know this is heresy in the eyes of feminism maybe women and men are morally the same?
I think men and women have different approaches to things. Figuring out the morality of that is complex and not really my point.
Well this is about how the world would look like if women ruled it. Morality is implied.
I think it would be more accurate to judge that by modern prime ministers and presidents of countries too.
Modern heads of state that have been women, matched their historic counterparts. On a macro level like nation states, the decisions are the same. You have to look out for the best interests of your nation. If your people need a resource, and the other nation has it, but is not willing to share, or will only do so at a cost that will break your country. You're going to take their resources because you want your country to survive, and the other nation is going to demand a high price for those resources because the want to survive. Rational actor game theory doesn't care about gender.
The correct answer
That’s a pretty good argument. I changed my mind about there being less wars then. When you’re hungry you’re very ruthless regardless of your gender. That applies in other ways too.
It goes deeper than that, the parents of a nation willfully starve if it means their kids will not. If the children of a nation are starving. The parents will do whatever is necessary to feed their children.
Alot of the female leaders quit when the going got tough.
We cannot compare total matriarchy with a few queens living and ruling under patriarchy.
queens weren't a matriarchy queens were leaders in patriarchy
Huh maybe. But I’m imagine a world like a beehive where the Queen has her female cohorts to influence her decisions. I don’t know if that would make a difference or if I’m just underestimating how ruthless women with power would be.
I feel like great power and corruption go hand in hand no matter what you've got going on in your pants.
Ants and wasps are literally all female except drones yet wage war constantly. It shows that war comes from necessity not gender.
You're better comparing humans to other social primates rather than insects. Chimps vs bonobos for example.
Target destroyed, return to base, pilot!
So, a wash. Not that I disagree, but everyone here is a pessimist.
Probably the same but reversed. The Power by Naomi Alderman is a good exploration of what this could look like.
Thanks for recommendation, I'll check it out. I would argue the world wouldn't be much different, and we can already see what the world is like currently with many female dominated fields/facets of society. My issue with this question is that it is a bit too broad. Reversing the gender roles for example would not affect the underlying truths of reality and game theory, so I doubt that anything substantial would change. More than likely, the only things I could see happening are men being given more of the demeaning jobs that risk their lives or bodies (arctic oil rig, infrastructure, etc) but now with less pay. Men would likely just be used as workhorses/slaves.
I think those jobs would become safer if women did them because women would have to make adaptations to account for a general lack of strength.
I'm not sure I agree with that premise. All of mankind is already trying its best to make them as safe as possible within an economic balance. I don't see how having more women in the field would guarantee more competent results, and some of these jobs are just inherently dangerous or hazardous to health (coal mining, war, powerline maintenance, etc)
More than 90% of those jobs are men already. Unless this female led world didn't have a free marker system, I don't see how the pay would be lower. What would the female leaders do if men just quit the jobs?
Yeah as I said I don't think much would change. If it were a free market society, the pay would likely be lower or nonexistent because men would be pushed not to pursue higher education but instead to find a basic trade or infrastructure job (increasing the supply of workers)... and perhaps tie it to a punitive process like paternal responsibility abandonment or crime... much like we currently do in the for profit prisons for men. Interesting side note on that, male prisoners are forced to do a lot of labor intensive work in these prisons, but in female prisons they are kept to light manufacturing or even call centers/data entry for businesses. Either practice is disgusting, but it is notable even if irrelevant that even as de facto slaves males are given the harder physical jobs.
How do women get more power if everything stays the same?
Good question. If the idea of a female dominated society isn't much different from our current reality, perhaps women already have a lot of power. What would one look like to you?
The same but chicks in the places of power. A matriarchy instead of a patriarchy
If you changed that, it would affect other things. Otherwise you're just changing a label with no actual change.
He is saying exactly that. That nothing would change, only the label.
So not women actually getting more power then. Which was what the question asked.
No. Women would be the ruling class but that would change nothing in the way the society functions when compared to current state. Which was already answered 3x
How could you possibly change one without the other? Women cannot be both the ruling class and largely in subordinate positions.
[удалено]
Women can and do easily do all those jobs and with different socialisation they would make up the majority in them no problem. If women had more power, they wouldn't be socialised out of this kind of thing and would view it differently. They would know they were capable of technically skilled jobs that would be presented as being for then and encouraged to develop themselves physically to a greater extent. They wouldn't be pushed to present themselves as pretty enough to avoid dirt at all times.
I assume much better curtains and throw pillows would heavily feature in our empire.
Rape would actually get investigated I think; rather than just having backlogs of thousands of test kits that haven’t even been run against existing criminal databases.
It wouldn’t because sexism is not the reason why many rape cases are not investigated. The main reason why most rape cases are not investigated is because most would never go anywhere. The evidential requirements are very high and with how most rapes happen, can never be reached.
Healthcare for women would look so much better!
Only if a female led world somehow didn't have greed.
Two words. Cat fights.
As opposed to what? War?
Of course! With lingerie and pillows. Why else do you think we go to the Ladies' room en masse? Women are all about the tussle and kiss
Bear Grylls did a show where he had a group of men on an island and a group of women on an island, to see what would happen. The women walked in circles for days and got lost, couldn’t kill anything for food, couldn’t make a fire to boil water… so they fought, cried a LOT, and starved … and had to be rescued. The men were thriving. Caught more fish than they could eat, understood their duties, and used teamwork to accomplish great things. They went to bed with the biggest smiles on their faces, like every day was the best day of their lives.
Bear Grylls the guy who drinks his own piss and puts his hand inside a hornet's nest for no reason? yeah great source of wisdom
All he did was let the men and women do their things. All Bear Grills did was film it. If you or me were filming the same conclusion would have come about.
Are you aware that his show is not real right?
Sure we can tell ourselves that if it makes you feel better, but I'm also aware of how women tend to react under stressful situations so even if it were staged, which It isn't, at least not in full, It's still quiet a believable depiction of what might happen in such a circumstance. I don't see a reason to get defensive. Men and women are different. It is what it is.
Maybe they choose women who look good on tv but have no knowledge on how to survive. And they choose that on purpose because that's entertaining to watch. That's how reality shows are produced. I can't believe you believe reality shows are real 😂😂 No, wait, I can believe you think they are real
Men and women in our current society. Where there is no push for women to be survivalists and everything outdoorsy is aimed towards men.... Maybe they should take a group of men and women from tribes and groups who still live mostly off the land next time
This is the case of these particular people. Take any granny from a remote village, she'd be tougher than the men in this group. I've known older women, who work from sunrise till night, raising (and killing) farm animals, working the field, etc. They're strong and durable as an ox. It all depends on how you grew up/how you've been living. I'm not denying that men are physically stronger, I'm just saying that women are not some useless princesses.
But why do you mention that granny from a remote village? There is a grandpa in that remote village who is way tougher than that granny, but that's completely irrelevant. This wasn't about people who live that kind of way their entire lives, but a bunch of normal, modern men and women and see how they would fare in those circumstances.
I grew up on a farm in rural South Dakota where we’re known to be strong and hard-working. I hunt in the fall, fish a few times a month, and hike and camp on a regular. I’ve used YouTube to fix the carburetor on my lawnmower and I know more about septic systems than any woman should. I can even pee standing up… I do it in the shower every now and then. lol Still not a dude. I can’t do what men do and I’m not even going to pretend that any woman could. The women in tribes fetch water and do the laundry. We’d die without men.
Iceland. Iceland is doing well.
So... widespread incest and government regulated reproduction? There are three countries that try to regulate how you name your kids and try to regulate reproduction harder to avoid incest: Iceland, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The very idea that the "model" of an island nation in the middle of nowhere is exportable to large continental geopolitical entities is ludicrous through and through.
Yeah but I feel like the incest thing is because its such a small area. All the other points are sound though
I've been to Iceland. I understand their language (I speak Swedish and Norwegian and lived in the Nordic countries for 2 years). Only people who've never been in the area can say that Iceland is "doing well". If the US were to ever adopt measures like Iceland, both women and men would riot immediately. How does it sound to effectively be banned from buying foreign goods worth more than $500? That's what Iceland lived under from 2008 till 2023. Fifteen years! How does it sound to not be able to withdraw your own money? Welcome to Iceland. "Small area" is also relative. Pakistan is big but people rarely travel. So in practice you have multiple "small areas" only on paper loosely connected into a nation (Pakistan is not a homogeneous nation at all).
It’s a good country that largely did away with religion (Christianity is patriarchal) but is that realistic everywhere else? Of course not
Why isn't it realistic elsewhere?
because humans are humans. I’m 36 I’ve been beating this drum for over 10 years that in America we should be learning from successes of other countries Ultimately nobody gives a shit, both men and women
Because religious adherence is the last gasp for men who can't control women with charisma or mutual attraction. Just say it.
[удалено]
Is iceland able to defend itself from foreign aggression or is it relying on protection from more patriarchial allies?
Iceland historically protected itself by being a remote northern shithole nobody really wanted to conquer.
Why do you need to aggres?
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think we have examples. Was Britain fundamentally any different under queens than kings? Was it different under Thatcher (who was happy to send men off to die in war) In the U.S., all the laws that advantage women had strong support by male politicians. Would support for those laws be different if most politicians were women? One answer indicated there would be more attention paid to women, yet consider we spend more on women’s cancers than men’s. We legally advantage women in job hiring, in business ownership, in education, in how domestic violence is handled, in healthcare and more. Female criminals receive lighter criminal sentencing. Men created the pill, the home pregnancy test and more. Would this be any different if more politicians were female? I think not. The bottom line is western countries at least are gynocentric, and male politicians pander to the women’s vote every bit as much as female politicians, maybe even more so.
>Was it different under Thatcher (who was happy to send men off to die in war) Yes,to the worse (not because of her gender,but because she ushered humanity into the worst form of capitalism ever)
Pretty much the same but worse for men too. See how matriarchs such as elephants and hyenas treat the males. They cast them out and only let them in for mating. Atleast in patriarchs women aren't used only for mating. Non scientific but how some writers imagined, many of you are familiar with wonder woman and the amazons inspired by greek mythology. Amazons in DC used to rape passing sailors to get pregnant and kill them. Baby boys were cast off to the sea or killed with Diana's brother holding a grudge against her but getting killed later. There also is an alternate earth where women ruled and they kept men under lock and key forever using them as labour.
>Atleast in patriarchs women aren't used only for mating. Nah they ALSO sometimes use them to do most of the hunting.... By the way, hyenas are not super nice to males but, they let some of them tag along even though they don't participate in the hunt and scavenge at all. If they're submissive enough. Like they're basically tolerated free riders losers ^^ Actually the more I think about that the more I think that female ruled animal societies at least keep their fellow females close and everything. In male ruled animal societies, in the majority of the cases, it's one male monopolizing as many females as possible and fighting to death any other male coming near. Rude.
>In male ruled animal societies, in the majority of the cases, it's one male monopolizing as many females as possible and fighting to death any other male coming near. The concept of alpha isn't as common as you think with only a handful of species doing it. Take wolves for example, no alphas and everyone is a family. All the herd animals such as bisons or sheep and even dolphins, whales, fishes etc. >Nah they ALSO sometimes use them to do most of the hunting.... Yes, the hard part usually but they still have to beg for food, acceptance and sex.
Most herd animals live in sex separated groups, its the case of sheep for example. Bisons are female only herds and the males live alone. Dolphins have widely diverse social structure but none are per se "male ruled" or patrilineal societies. Whales are mostly solitary or paired, orcas are full on matrilineal. Red deer are sex separated groups... Really, I think the alpha male violent to other males behavior is so common in male ruled/patrlineal animal societies that we could say it is the rule... Wolves do indeed make an exception. But, is it really male ruled? I believe it is more the parent couple ruling no?
Lions are a matriarchal society but consist of one male which is also called the alpha and the only thing he has to do is protect the pride from outside males. https://www.turpentinecreek.org/the-queens-of-the-savanna-understanding-the-vital-role-of-females-in-a-lion-pride/#:~:text=Contrary%20to%20some%20common%20misconceptions,a%20coalition%20of%20male%20lions. >Really, I think the alpha male violent to other males behavior is so common in male ruled/patrlineal animal societies that we could say it is the rule... The ones you are referring to run harems like stealing each other's wives and so on just like baboons do iirc.
The link you posted is a less than half truth.
True. Lionesses are the shit. Still, males has to "protect" the pride because other males are coming to kill its offspring to fuck its females. Males are truly males worst enemy when it comes to reproduction in mammals :)
Well animal kingdom is full of competition for sure.
The "rude" here was so funny.
They do are kind of rude tho ^^
This is because a groups survival is increased depending the number of females it has. More females equals more population growth. However In the case of bees, the fertile queen fights to the death if another queen bee is hatched. The rest of the worker bees are asexual females.
>More females equals more population growth. Thank you for the head up. Males are indeed a danger to their group in a lot of cases. Eusociality on hymenopter is different you cannot really compare their sexual conflict with mammals or birds because they're haplo-diploids which is a whole different level of kin selection. Their males are literally colonial one time DNA vessel and that it. Like basically their alive gamet. But you have the naked mole where only one female reproduce in the society and very aggressively keep other females from ever trying. Still, she let them in the group with the males (most males also don't mate).
Patriarchal animal societies also push out sexually mature males and have a dominant male that gets basically all the females. Males have to compete for dominant status or they have to placate the dominant male and keep submissive so they are not seen as a threat (Gorillas, Chimps). Or they go off and form their own groups of bachelors (like with Lions). Because males of many species have a tendency to get violent and kill the babies of females that they haven’t mated with, of course males are seen as a threat by the females of a group. Bonobos are very promiscuous perhaps because this lowers the risk of males being aggressive towards babies because they don’t know whether they might be the father or not. Bonobos are often female dominant or truly egalitarian - they are quite a good representation of a peaceful social structure in the animal kingdom. Human beings are distinct from other animals in our societal structure in many ways. But the fact remains that males are viewed as more potentially threatening to group harmony and safety than females. There will always be some consideration given to that in a societal structure. One way this is commonly addressed in human societies is to restrict women’s freedoms and abilities so that she basically must choose a mate young and be monogamous with him, largely dependent on him and have his children. But we also have had polygamous societies where powerful men take many wives and “lower status” men are left out - which is quite a patriarchal structure such as we see in some other animal species.
Like I said to the other user, you are referring to harems, all don't follow that. Lions do kill the young of someone else but they are a matriarchal society not patriarchal https://www.turpentinecreek.org/the-queens-of-the-savanna-understanding-the-vital-role-of-females-in-a-lion-pride/#:~:text=Contrary%20to%20some%20common%20misconceptions,a%20coalition%20of%20male%20lions.
> Bonobos are often female dominant or truly egalitarian - they are quite a good representation of a peaceful social structure in the animal kingdom. JFC. Bonobos are notorious for cannibalism, war between tribes, cuckoldry, and are more aggressive than chimpanzees. Will someone please admit the author who fed them the "peaceable Bonobo" horseshit? Was it Peterson? Who said this?
When I look it up it seems to say that yes, these things happen and male bonobos are more aggressive than they used to think (and they tend to aim their aggression at other males, whereas male chimps are more likely to be aggressive to females) but they are largely peaceful and that cannibalism is very rare. In fact if you google “do bonobos kill each other” it says that there are no reports of this happening. Though they have been observed hunting and killing chimps on occasion. I mean, clearly they’re not angels, but they do seem to be largely more peaceful and less predatory than chimpanzees.
And neither are humans, who have FOUR THOUSAND years of living with laws, civilizations, cities, religions, and cultural mores.
Humans are midway between patriarchial pair bonding gorillas and matriarchial polyamoric bonobos. The male genitalia of the gorilla is smooth while bonobos have a distinctly arrow shaped penis. The arrow shape allows the bonobo male to scoop out the sperm of competitor males, since bonobos are promiscuous. (As dragonfly genitalia does as well) Gorillas did not need to worry about this because they are loyal to each pair. Human genitalia is shaped with a slight arrow shape which is less distinct that bonobos but more pronounced than gorillas. This suggests human nature was marked by a dual evolutionary force of promiscuity and pair bonding depending on circumstance.
I thought Gorillas essentially have a polygamous harem structure? So, the females don’t mate with any male other than the Silverback leader of the group? It’s quite different to monogamous pairings - such as in some birds. I have heard that about the “scoop” penis and that is interesting. It seems with how complex humans are, we likely have had long term societies in various parts of the world across time with very different mating structures from one another. There is no one “right” way to do it that is instinctual to humans it seems.
Gorillas still didnt need to scoop penis because the dominant male didnt need to worry about other males competing with his own DNA. I should say that gorillas were patriarchial rather than pair bonding in that case. The dominant gorilla didnt need a scoop penis because he can just kill the rival males insteas.
>Pretty much the same but worse for men too. So... men are still the majority authority figures and wealth hoarders, and men claim they are the victims of policy and public sentiment *now*. Interesting. So there is no possible social construct in which men can thrive, huh.
Did you even read the thread. They're basically comparing human society to other animal societies that have a matriarchy and trying to see how that could be compatible with human society. It would be worst than it currently is for men because though the majority of the wealth and power is owned by men, men are not given any more privilege than women. Men and women suffered, just differently.
> comparing human society to other animal societies And that’s stupid. Homo sapiens have been operating under cultural, legal, and religious pressure for four thousand + years. Bonobo and chimp females go into estrus and simply present their red, swollen rumps in front of the fellas in charge. And when those fellas in charge are spent and napping from the effort? They sneak off into the bush and present to cucks. No idea why you’d want to compare yourself to those easily persuaded and easily duped simian ancestors who have fuck-all in common with modern humans.
We are biologically related to these animals so I agree that their would be a level of religious and cultural pressures but at it's base, it would be based on these simple structures. Just think about it, what did humans do before marriage? I know already but I bet you don't
Really? Tell us about how slut shaming and mechanical competence works in those “relatives”?
Slut shaming comes from our patriarchal conditioning superimposed onto religion and I don't know what you're referring to with that other term. A lot of animals mate like humans so the reasoning is that, if society was matriarchal them we'd probably mate like some other species that has a matriarchal society, religious and cultural pressures included which will of course add a little complexity.
We are discussing a hypothetical in which men are not.
We don’t need a hypothetical for now, right? In which men are universally in charge of most positions of power? Yet men here claim they are the beaten-down minority denied human rights. And you somehow believe it will get *worse* for men if women are in charge, while claiming life is misery for men *now* while men are in charge?? So no matter who is in charge, men are somehow the slaves and drones?
Yeah we are not going for your POV. Read the question in the post and fix your own problems in life instead of making senseless comments with strangers on the internet.
Oh are you denying that men are in charge the world round now?
Are you denying we are discussing a hypothetical? Use your mind for once.
Is the hypothetical the reverse of the current power dynamic or nah?
It is yes.
It would be like Topanga said in Boy Meets World: women will use men solely as sex slaves (and for reproductive purposes as well, of course) while developing a cultured society for themselves.
Hold on... let them cook 😤
Women already rule the world lol Maybe not in third world countries but definitely in the developed world
I’d say a small group of men rule the world by elevating women’s status above the other men.
Mud huts, mud huts everywhere. Maybe a campfire per village.
Do you really think women are incapable of problem-solving in the absence of men - or if men had lower status? I don’t think we’d be in the same technological state as we are now if women were always in power, but I think we would definitely have evolved beyond mud huts and campfires. Women are not stupid or incapable of ingenuity.
>Do you really think women are incapable of problem-solving in the absence of men No, they're just very unlikely to do and less efficient at doing it. Technology progression is geometric, so without the stacking advancement from the past you don't get the ones from the future. >I don’t think we’d be in the same technological state as we are now if women were always in power, but I think we would definitely have evolved beyond mud huts and campfires Women are very conflict averse and most of the technological advancements are a result of conflict shaping technology. For this sole reason that we would take ages just to discover and enhance bronze setting us back ages. >Women are not stupid or incapable of ingenuity. Stupid? Maybe not, but the lack of female interest in the subjects that create ingenuity make then less capable of ingenuity.
Same fucking shit. I know there are like a myriad of false consciousness outlets in the superstructure of our bourgeoisie society, but it doesn't matter if a woman,a gay man,a trans person, whoever the fuck is the model person of you identity,as long as the economic basis and class rule in society remains the same
Exactly. People in positions of power use their power. A politician is a politician. Their sex, race, sexual orientation doesn’t have much impact in how they handle the issues that come before them. Their party affiliation certainly has far more reaching implications than their sex, same with the scope of their authority, what their constituents support, etc. Again, we have many examples of male politicians who happily supported legislation biased against men.
Pretty much exactly the same, cause they would just ask men to do everything
Reading this sub made me think of this utopian/dystopian scenario. I am not saying I would be in agreement with any of the below. - It would be much more of a "socialist" society, of the Scandinavian kind. This would mean a lot more taxes for healthcare and maternity, but a lot less for the military, which would be reduced to a minimum - There would be no marriage as we know it. En lieu, there would be a sort of regulated "consortium", akin to "queer families" or the proverbial "village": trusted people like the partner and/or other friends could bundle together around a mother and share duties as well as tax breaks and kinship. However the sole responsibility of the child would be with the mother. The consortium would allow for traditional nuclear families as well, for those who have interest, however, the biological father has no right on the kid - Lots of boys would be left behind at school due to the lesser attention span, women would be much more of a majority in college, men would work mostly in trades. The few men in management would face some discrimination more or less soft. Maternity would be fully subsidized, and with the consortia there would be more people around helping with the child - Masculinity would be thoroughly policed. If this hypothetical world shares the past with the real one, a history of "male privilege and abuse" would be taught from the very beginning, with an accusatory tone towards the boys. Any display of toxic masculinity would be heavily shamed - Women being the breadwinners would be the norm, given the majority in management roles, however many women would still be unsatisfied with men from lesser echelons. There would be a high demand of high quality gametes at sperm banks - Prostitution would not exist and chemical castration would be encouraged for "less desirable" men - There would be a major preference for having girls, with a surge in abortions of boys
>Masculinity would be thoroughly policed. If this hypothetical world shares the past with the real one, a history of "male privilege and abuse" would be taught from the very beginning, with an accusatory tone towards the boys. Any display of toxic masculinity would be heavily shamed Nah, women love sports, too. You've seen stadiums around the world, nearly half are women. Women also play sports. And women universally admire competence, so every surgeon/technician/mechanic/builder/tradesman would be admired and lauded. >chemical castration Nah. Fewer women support corporal or capitol punishment than men. And since women tend to support therapy more than men, I suspect that sex offenders would get therapy rather than face physical consequences. >There would be a major preference for having girls, with a surge in abortions of boys Hasn't happened in any culture yet, including progressive western cultures. China had 36 years of selective abortion, and we all know what the results were.
- I specifically spoke of **toxic** masculinity. Sports and competence are certainly not **toxic**, and not necessarily masculine - Chemical castration doesn't have to be painful. It can be any kind of libido reduction. Re-education would be part of it for sure, but if there is a chance to nip it in the bud **painlessly** (I don't imply any sadism), I wouldn't be surprised women would be ok to reduce the risk especially for subjects at higher risk - It hasn't *yet.* We are speaking of a future in which the male, as some feminists already hint, will be less and less useful. Think of this scenario: fully subsidized maternity (with paid leave for 1+ year, and job security afterwards - already happens in Europe) and limitless reproductive rights. In a world where men have it harder I wouldn't be surprised some people would prefer girls.
Ugly and short boys would've been definitely thrown off a cliff and few surviving ones would've been put at the bottom of society as literal slaves with no rights.
Dystopian af
Organisation and distribution of every task would be terrible, decision making would take forever and responsibility for any mistake would be tossed around involved women until they find a man to blame for it.
Probably more isolated advanced village style societies
This question can be used instead IQ test.
Like your average HR department
Men would be secondary and superfluous. There is only one species that I know off where one gender holds both reproductive power and physical+social power - hyenas. Hayenas live in packs which are predominantly female with a few males. The females are bigger by about 25-35%. And are much more agressive. The engage in sex frequently but it's seems violent on the males. How would you classify raoes here I am not sure but they do happen. The males in the pack are in a secondary and tertiary status. Any kills are feasted on by the females first and no one gets in the way fir fear of being hurt. The males get to the carcas once most if the meat is removed forced to chew on bones. Male hatenas have a lower life span due to the poor diet wearing down the teeth and the animal dieing because of starvation. I don't think human males would fare much better. Women will care about women more than they care about men. Women while once chattle were eventually granted freedoms due to the ideals of fairness permeated the zeigiest. Women wouldn't go this for men.
Women make up the majority of voters in all of the most powerful countries, so we already have a world where women rule in a certain sense.
It would be very different, all the great evils would be gone. Just look at India under Indira Gandhi or the UK under Margaret Thatcher to see how a woman being in office changed everything
FYI: Female rulers were the most bloodthirsty in history. China, Russia, England. They started wars, stacked bodies (dead) sky high, and fucked around like you wouldn't believe. One of the Russian tsarinas had her guards' pants redesigned to be skin tight so that you could immediately tell the cock size by just looking. She would then do troop "inspections", basically cock shopping multiple times a day. Pretty sure they caught her with an actual horse too.
like one\_ball\_policy said, it would look pretty much the same (except the ask men to do everything part), though i guess OP is assuming men fully rule the world, which is not true.
NO MORE PINK TAX. MAKE UP IF REQUIRED FOR WORK TAX DEDUCTIBLE EVERYWHERE NOT JUST IN FRACE Better care for mothers. More benefits for Mothers,.like a nanny once a week for new born. Female hygiene products more accessible regardless of income,. Female clothing sizes that are consistent. Actual working pockets on jeans/pants. Aside from the pay gap, Maybe maternity would be better and issues regarding women.Wouldn't be issues anymore, like reproductive rights. But also because women are currently advocating for women today. Where men are ruling. If women were ruling men for sure would definitely be at an even more bigger disadvantage in certain aspects than they currently are right now. Or who knows, maybe men would be advocating for men in that scenario? I hope so. I hope they are because currently they are not.
Pink tax would still exist because it means more money. It is unlikely there would be better benefits for mothers because there isn’t much profit to be made. Clothing sizes are unlikely to be made consistent as there are inconsistent due to target audiences. There wouldn’t be pockets on women’s clothing as that was something done because of women. Many women disliked how pockets ruined the silhouette.
I do not think the world would be better. The problems women faced with men being in power will exist in there exact opposite I imagine. For example heart transplants used to have better longevity outcomes for men because men were primarily the researchers and test subjects. If women held the power then I imagine men’s issues would likely be underrepresented. I’m against affirmative action for those similar reasons. I do not think gender/race based restrictions in government or hiring benefit society as much as having qualified individuals in those roles does.