What if Women were the Dominant Gender?

[carmen510]

What would happen if instead of men, women were considered the 'superior' gender? This would basically mean women switched with men in their role in history, such as leader, military women, etc.

(Okay, and besides women's health put first and porn. )

 

[silver 2039]

Refer to the Cherokee or Powhatan. Or several Native American socities, women there carried out negotiations, owned land and property, and in the case of the Cherokee when a man married he would go and live with his wife's family rather than the other way around.

 

[Perfection]

Then women would be ugly and men pretty.

Imagine a world without huge boobs.

 

[C~G]

Imagine hell. Then double it. We're getting close at that point.

 

[Thorbal]

I´d like that! My wife and master would have to work all day while I would hang around at home or in the cafe and read all day. And caring for the children isn´t all that bad. When in doubt: just place them in front of the TV or PC and you´re set. Hooray for lots of spare time! Cooking and shopping is everything I am supposed to do? Sign me up!

 

[frekk]

Historically, the only thing that's coming to my imagination is men taking over by virtue of greater physical strength and a higher propensity for violence.

If you change the biology a bit and make women stronger and more aggressive, then it's all just the same thing except the men have vaginas and the women have penises.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Who says that Women are not currently the dominant Gender ?

 

[mr_lewington]

Saudi Arabia

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Saudi Arabia

Yes but the world says that Saudy Arabia views are not dominant in our society...

 

[Loki130]

Then men would have all day to methodically manipulate those around them, therefore making them the dominant gender in the same way women are today

 

[Arwon]

It would depend, are we saying the roles and traits traditionally ascribed to women remain traditionally ascribed to women? That'd mean things would be quite different, because traits like strength and aggression would be devalued compared to "feminine" qualities which are presently devalued. It's hard to imagine such a society really.

Or are we saying that society is still run the same as ours, but women act like men do now (ie, are we still patriarchal but with women)?

 

[Smellincoffee]

You'd have to have some kind of cultural ideology justifying females being dominant -- like a religion centered around a dominant female goddess.

 

[Mirc]

Historically, the only thing that's coming to my imagination is men taking over by virtue of greater physical strength and a higher propensity for violence.

If you change the biology a bit and make women stronger and more aggressive, then it's all just the same thing except the men have vaginas and the women have penises.

Those were exactly my first thoughts.

 

[Arwon]

Men basically became the dominant gender around the time the dominant means of production became land and agriculture. Men were stronger and more violent before that (ie, in the first 90% of human history), which is related to the pre-agricultural division of labour. However their status within that pre-agricultural gender-divided production system was not dominant, repressive and unequal like it became later.

 

[Miles Teg]

Historically, the only thing that's coming to my imagination is men taking over by virtue of greater physical strength and a higher propensity for violence.

If you change the biology a bit and make women stronger and more aggressive, then it's all just the same thing except the men have vaginas and the women have penises.

The main problem with that is childbirth. Women get pregnant and give birth to children, men don't. This causes the current situation of men over women in two ways.

A: Women are vulnerable during pregnancy, and have to devote a large portion of time to childcare after they give birth. It's far more efficient to simply make the men forage for food, and once humans got intelligent, the food providing men started taking over. This is pretty universal in mammals, and the main exception, the hyena, has a far easier pregnancy cycle than human women.

B: Women invest more time into child rearing. Even if the child is shunted off onto the male at birth, there's still a nine month pregnancy to get through. A man's ability to reproduce is limited only by his own fertility and his access to fertile women, and of course his ability to care for these children. There's no genetic advantage to a woman having a personal harem, while there certainly is for men.

That's not to say there no genetic advantage in having access to a stable food supply, mates with good genes, and opportunities for their offspring, but it doesn't increase the number of offspring they can have, which is a distinct difference from men.

In short, asking what would happen if women took men's role in primitive societies is a moot question, because it's not going to happen. Thankfully, we've gotten past the stage where such strict specialization is needed.

 

[Arwon]

At the same time though, the men are, basically, expendable, which is why they were warriors and sent to do all the dangerous things and generally made to protect the women. Why wouldn't the gender which quite literally produced the next generation and ensured the group's survival have a chance at a dominant status?

 

[frekk]

The main problem with that is childbirth. Women get pregnant and give birth to children, men don't.

Yes, that, and menstruation. Plus breasts, since they inhibit many activities.

This is pretty universal in mammals, and the main exception, the hyena, has a far easier pregnancy cycle than human women.

Elephants, too. It's not that the females are dominant over the males in a hierarchical sense, but they are socially dominant, since all the adult males are non-gregarious. In human terms I suppose this would translate to overall dominance, since social interaction and co-operation is the source, or at least the transmission method, of most of our technology and power.

There's no genetic advantage to a woman having a personal harem, while there certainly is for men.

Wouldn't say that. Females of most primate species exhibit promiscuity, which is probably a selective tactic. Male primate have adapted biologically, with features like killer sperm and blocker sperm. In humans, 83% of sperm consist of one of these two types with actual reproductive sperm making up the other 17%.

Admittedly, there is more advantage for a male to have multiple mates, but it isn't quite true that there's no advantage for the female.

What this has to do with social dominance, I'm not sure. I cannot see any reason why the dominant gender couldn't be less promiscuous. I imagine there are probably animals where this is the case.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I suspect male domination is closely related to physical strength. So if women were dominant, the situation would be the same but with different parts. Except it can't, because of the unequal investments in reproduction.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What would happen if instead of men, women were considered the 'superior' gender? This would basically mean women switched with men in their role in history, such as leader, military women, etc.

(Okay, and besides women's health put first and porn. )

That would require altering human biology significantly, to the point of changing the course of human evolution.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Or just swapping the names of the genders, that too would work.