Will a country ruled and dominated by women work?












0














I'm writing a fantasy comic, and in my comics, I plan to introduce a country/nation/race, where women dominate everything. Men from this race/nation are submissive to the women. Women have all the Authority. Women go to war. Women decide from the top. Men stay home and take care of the babies. It's like a roles reversed country based on the old ways. Would a country like that work? And how would it work?



EDIT: I may have phrased my question wrongly. I'm talking about a fantasy human race where women have 100% domination over the men. There's semi-common technology(1970s Max) . Baby formulas are available. Men help procreate. They do the meager jobs. Men of this nation are genetically placid. It's an exaggerated concept. Which is why I ask if a society that men contribute little to anything significant could work.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Hi, welcome to the WB community! This en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people may be of interest to you.
    – B.fox
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    What makes you think it couldn't?
    – AngelPray
    4 hours ago










  • Matriarchy may actually be the oldest form of government, There is some evidence the first agricultural societies were matriarchies.
    – John
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    @NassKing Contribute nothing? Are you sure? They must contribute something. For instance, are they used for procreation? These things will become important for those who attempt an answer.
    – B.fox
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    "A society [where] men [or women] do not contribute anything significant" cannot work, unless somehow it has become like this after it has progressed to a post-scarcity economy. There is no way, not now, not at any point in the past, where half the population can support the country without any contribution from the other half. Note to the querent: even in Anglo-Saxon countries in early modern times, when women had very little rights, they contributed a lot to the economy. Women worked in the fields; three quarters of servants were women; women worked retail; most spinners were women
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago
















0














I'm writing a fantasy comic, and in my comics, I plan to introduce a country/nation/race, where women dominate everything. Men from this race/nation are submissive to the women. Women have all the Authority. Women go to war. Women decide from the top. Men stay home and take care of the babies. It's like a roles reversed country based on the old ways. Would a country like that work? And how would it work?



EDIT: I may have phrased my question wrongly. I'm talking about a fantasy human race where women have 100% domination over the men. There's semi-common technology(1970s Max) . Baby formulas are available. Men help procreate. They do the meager jobs. Men of this nation are genetically placid. It's an exaggerated concept. Which is why I ask if a society that men contribute little to anything significant could work.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Hi, welcome to the WB community! This en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people may be of interest to you.
    – B.fox
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    What makes you think it couldn't?
    – AngelPray
    4 hours ago










  • Matriarchy may actually be the oldest form of government, There is some evidence the first agricultural societies were matriarchies.
    – John
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    @NassKing Contribute nothing? Are you sure? They must contribute something. For instance, are they used for procreation? These things will become important for those who attempt an answer.
    – B.fox
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    "A society [where] men [or women] do not contribute anything significant" cannot work, unless somehow it has become like this after it has progressed to a post-scarcity economy. There is no way, not now, not at any point in the past, where half the population can support the country without any contribution from the other half. Note to the querent: even in Anglo-Saxon countries in early modern times, when women had very little rights, they contributed a lot to the economy. Women worked in the fields; three quarters of servants were women; women worked retail; most spinners were women
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago














0












0








0







I'm writing a fantasy comic, and in my comics, I plan to introduce a country/nation/race, where women dominate everything. Men from this race/nation are submissive to the women. Women have all the Authority. Women go to war. Women decide from the top. Men stay home and take care of the babies. It's like a roles reversed country based on the old ways. Would a country like that work? And how would it work?



EDIT: I may have phrased my question wrongly. I'm talking about a fantasy human race where women have 100% domination over the men. There's semi-common technology(1970s Max) . Baby formulas are available. Men help procreate. They do the meager jobs. Men of this nation are genetically placid. It's an exaggerated concept. Which is why I ask if a society that men contribute little to anything significant could work.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I'm writing a fantasy comic, and in my comics, I plan to introduce a country/nation/race, where women dominate everything. Men from this race/nation are submissive to the women. Women have all the Authority. Women go to war. Women decide from the top. Men stay home and take care of the babies. It's like a roles reversed country based on the old ways. Would a country like that work? And how would it work?



EDIT: I may have phrased my question wrongly. I'm talking about a fantasy human race where women have 100% domination over the men. There's semi-common technology(1970s Max) . Baby formulas are available. Men help procreate. They do the meager jobs. Men of this nation are genetically placid. It's an exaggerated concept. Which is why I ask if a society that men contribute little to anything significant could work.







alternate-worlds fantasy-races races simulated-worlds






share|improve this question









New contributor




Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









Brythan

20.2k74283




20.2k74283






New contributor




Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









Nass King

224




224




New contributor




Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Nass King is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Hi, welcome to the WB community! This en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people may be of interest to you.
    – B.fox
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    What makes you think it couldn't?
    – AngelPray
    4 hours ago










  • Matriarchy may actually be the oldest form of government, There is some evidence the first agricultural societies were matriarchies.
    – John
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    @NassKing Contribute nothing? Are you sure? They must contribute something. For instance, are they used for procreation? These things will become important for those who attempt an answer.
    – B.fox
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    "A society [where] men [or women] do not contribute anything significant" cannot work, unless somehow it has become like this after it has progressed to a post-scarcity economy. There is no way, not now, not at any point in the past, where half the population can support the country without any contribution from the other half. Note to the querent: even in Anglo-Saxon countries in early modern times, when women had very little rights, they contributed a lot to the economy. Women worked in the fields; three quarters of servants were women; women worked retail; most spinners were women
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago


















  • Hi, welcome to the WB community! This en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people may be of interest to you.
    – B.fox
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    What makes you think it couldn't?
    – AngelPray
    4 hours ago










  • Matriarchy may actually be the oldest form of government, There is some evidence the first agricultural societies were matriarchies.
    – John
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    @NassKing Contribute nothing? Are you sure? They must contribute something. For instance, are they used for procreation? These things will become important for those who attempt an answer.
    – B.fox
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    "A society [where] men [or women] do not contribute anything significant" cannot work, unless somehow it has become like this after it has progressed to a post-scarcity economy. There is no way, not now, not at any point in the past, where half the population can support the country without any contribution from the other half. Note to the querent: even in Anglo-Saxon countries in early modern times, when women had very little rights, they contributed a lot to the economy. Women worked in the fields; three quarters of servants were women; women worked retail; most spinners were women
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago
















Hi, welcome to the WB community! This en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people may be of interest to you.
– B.fox
4 hours ago




Hi, welcome to the WB community! This en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people may be of interest to you.
– B.fox
4 hours ago




1




1




What makes you think it couldn't?
– AngelPray
4 hours ago




What makes you think it couldn't?
– AngelPray
4 hours ago












Matriarchy may actually be the oldest form of government, There is some evidence the first agricultural societies were matriarchies.
– John
4 hours ago




Matriarchy may actually be the oldest form of government, There is some evidence the first agricultural societies were matriarchies.
– John
4 hours ago




3




3




@NassKing Contribute nothing? Are you sure? They must contribute something. For instance, are they used for procreation? These things will become important for those who attempt an answer.
– B.fox
4 hours ago




@NassKing Contribute nothing? Are you sure? They must contribute something. For instance, are they used for procreation? These things will become important for those who attempt an answer.
– B.fox
4 hours ago




3




3




"A society [where] men [or women] do not contribute anything significant" cannot work, unless somehow it has become like this after it has progressed to a post-scarcity economy. There is no way, not now, not at any point in the past, where half the population can support the country without any contribution from the other half. Note to the querent: even in Anglo-Saxon countries in early modern times, when women had very little rights, they contributed a lot to the economy. Women worked in the fields; three quarters of servants were women; women worked retail; most spinners were women
– AlexP
3 hours ago




"A society [where] men [or women] do not contribute anything significant" cannot work, unless somehow it has become like this after it has progressed to a post-scarcity economy. There is no way, not now, not at any point in the past, where half the population can support the country without any contribution from the other half. Note to the querent: even in Anglo-Saxon countries in early modern times, when women had very little rights, they contributed a lot to the economy. Women worked in the fields; three quarters of servants were women; women worked retail; most spinners were women
– AlexP
3 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














Some controversial and highly disputed theories by Marija Gimbutas suggest that very ancient human societies in Neolithic Europe were indeed matriarchal until they were overrun and conquered by the "Kurgans" from the great Steppes of eastern Europe/Ukraine. Presumably the female dominated matriarchal societies did not think in terms of defence, so were easily overrun and conquered by the male dominated, warrior, "Kurgan" society.



Another legendary matriarchal society was the "Amazons", who also lived in the Steppes north of the Black Sea according to some legends. Oddly enough, there have been Scythian grave sites from that region with female remains surrounded by weapons and armour in the same manner as high ranking male warriors.



enter image description here



Real Amazons in ancient Scythia



So while there is not conclusive archaeological proof of female dominated societies, there are intriguing hints that it was possible in the distant past, so there is nothing intrinsically stopping the idea, at least for a while.






share|improve this answer





















  • Given the examples of e.g. the Huns and the Mongols, I'd be inclined to say the Kurgans' victories had less to do with gender and more to do with the inherent differences between steppe nomadic societies and sedentary agricultural societies. One doesn't think of Kievan Rus' as matriarchal, for instance, but it was conquered just as thoroughly.
    – Cadence
    3 hours ago










  • @Cadence: The Huns and Mongols came many (six? seven?) millennia later. Assumming, arguendo, that the conquest posited by Marija Gimbutas actually happened, which most archeologists don't believe, it was not comparable with the Mongol conquest. We are speaking of the deepest deep antiquity here, just before the dawn of the bronze age. Human population density was very much lower, the economy and technological base were way more primitive; horses had been just recently domesticated, and were used to pull carriages. Nobody had cavalry, or armor.
    – AlexP
    1 hour ago





















2














No human society would be structured like this. Two of your points reveal why.




Women go to war.




Men are far more physically suited to combat than women. A nation that uses female warriors will be conquered by one that uses male warriors. Weapons tech doesn't help much here--men still have faster reaction times than women, can carry heavier loads, and have more endurance, which are all relevant to combat.




Men stay home and take care of the babies.




Men don't have breasts. They can't take care of babies without a woman present. So this just ends up being inefficient. Tech doesn't really help this issue, either, because social structures come first, and they tend to have quite a bit of inertia. The invention of baby formula isn't going to shunt every man into a childcare position when women have been doing it for centuries.



This doesn't rule out a societal structure where women have authority and men do not. Heck, even in a male-dominated society, most men still don't have any authority, so it wouldn't be a big change for them. Men already do a whole host of important but low-status jobs in real life, so relegating them to exclusively that is hardly out of the question. But the resulting society will not be a sex-reversed patriarchy. It just doesn't work with human physiology.





Now, if you want to go nonhuman, all bets are off. You can look to nature to find all sorts of sexual arrangements and hierarchies. There's even a species of cave-dwelling book lice where the females have penises and the males have vaginas, with a corresponding reversal in sex roles. Go nuts.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • So females are only inferior when they are human?
    – bruglesco
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    @bruglesco No, sexual dimorphism in animals (and even just within mammals) runs the gamut for which sex is larger or stronger. Humans happen to be one where the males are stronger, but we are hardly unique in that regard.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 hours ago










  • Words like inferior presuppose that what's important is warmaking capability. Human men are inferior to women at a number of tasks, particularly bearing children (impossible) and feeding infants (possible with technological help but still inferior). Patriarchal systems value warmaking over child care, but that's rather short sighted. I'm actually more willing to believe that women will go to war (Amazons) than that they will leave child rearing to men in a matriarchal society. In most matriarchal societies, men hunted and warred while women stayed home.
    – Brythan
    1 hour ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Nass King is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135725%2fwill-a-country-ruled-and-dominated-by-women-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














Some controversial and highly disputed theories by Marija Gimbutas suggest that very ancient human societies in Neolithic Europe were indeed matriarchal until they were overrun and conquered by the "Kurgans" from the great Steppes of eastern Europe/Ukraine. Presumably the female dominated matriarchal societies did not think in terms of defence, so were easily overrun and conquered by the male dominated, warrior, "Kurgan" society.



Another legendary matriarchal society was the "Amazons", who also lived in the Steppes north of the Black Sea according to some legends. Oddly enough, there have been Scythian grave sites from that region with female remains surrounded by weapons and armour in the same manner as high ranking male warriors.



enter image description here



Real Amazons in ancient Scythia



So while there is not conclusive archaeological proof of female dominated societies, there are intriguing hints that it was possible in the distant past, so there is nothing intrinsically stopping the idea, at least for a while.






share|improve this answer





















  • Given the examples of e.g. the Huns and the Mongols, I'd be inclined to say the Kurgans' victories had less to do with gender and more to do with the inherent differences between steppe nomadic societies and sedentary agricultural societies. One doesn't think of Kievan Rus' as matriarchal, for instance, but it was conquered just as thoroughly.
    – Cadence
    3 hours ago










  • @Cadence: The Huns and Mongols came many (six? seven?) millennia later. Assumming, arguendo, that the conquest posited by Marija Gimbutas actually happened, which most archeologists don't believe, it was not comparable with the Mongol conquest. We are speaking of the deepest deep antiquity here, just before the dawn of the bronze age. Human population density was very much lower, the economy and technological base were way more primitive; horses had been just recently domesticated, and were used to pull carriages. Nobody had cavalry, or armor.
    – AlexP
    1 hour ago


















2














Some controversial and highly disputed theories by Marija Gimbutas suggest that very ancient human societies in Neolithic Europe were indeed matriarchal until they were overrun and conquered by the "Kurgans" from the great Steppes of eastern Europe/Ukraine. Presumably the female dominated matriarchal societies did not think in terms of defence, so were easily overrun and conquered by the male dominated, warrior, "Kurgan" society.



Another legendary matriarchal society was the "Amazons", who also lived in the Steppes north of the Black Sea according to some legends. Oddly enough, there have been Scythian grave sites from that region with female remains surrounded by weapons and armour in the same manner as high ranking male warriors.



enter image description here



Real Amazons in ancient Scythia



So while there is not conclusive archaeological proof of female dominated societies, there are intriguing hints that it was possible in the distant past, so there is nothing intrinsically stopping the idea, at least for a while.






share|improve this answer





















  • Given the examples of e.g. the Huns and the Mongols, I'd be inclined to say the Kurgans' victories had less to do with gender and more to do with the inherent differences between steppe nomadic societies and sedentary agricultural societies. One doesn't think of Kievan Rus' as matriarchal, for instance, but it was conquered just as thoroughly.
    – Cadence
    3 hours ago










  • @Cadence: The Huns and Mongols came many (six? seven?) millennia later. Assumming, arguendo, that the conquest posited by Marija Gimbutas actually happened, which most archeologists don't believe, it was not comparable with the Mongol conquest. We are speaking of the deepest deep antiquity here, just before the dawn of the bronze age. Human population density was very much lower, the economy and technological base were way more primitive; horses had been just recently domesticated, and were used to pull carriages. Nobody had cavalry, or armor.
    – AlexP
    1 hour ago
















2












2








2






Some controversial and highly disputed theories by Marija Gimbutas suggest that very ancient human societies in Neolithic Europe were indeed matriarchal until they were overrun and conquered by the "Kurgans" from the great Steppes of eastern Europe/Ukraine. Presumably the female dominated matriarchal societies did not think in terms of defence, so were easily overrun and conquered by the male dominated, warrior, "Kurgan" society.



Another legendary matriarchal society was the "Amazons", who also lived in the Steppes north of the Black Sea according to some legends. Oddly enough, there have been Scythian grave sites from that region with female remains surrounded by weapons and armour in the same manner as high ranking male warriors.



enter image description here



Real Amazons in ancient Scythia



So while there is not conclusive archaeological proof of female dominated societies, there are intriguing hints that it was possible in the distant past, so there is nothing intrinsically stopping the idea, at least for a while.






share|improve this answer












Some controversial and highly disputed theories by Marija Gimbutas suggest that very ancient human societies in Neolithic Europe were indeed matriarchal until they were overrun and conquered by the "Kurgans" from the great Steppes of eastern Europe/Ukraine. Presumably the female dominated matriarchal societies did not think in terms of defence, so were easily overrun and conquered by the male dominated, warrior, "Kurgan" society.



Another legendary matriarchal society was the "Amazons", who also lived in the Steppes north of the Black Sea according to some legends. Oddly enough, there have been Scythian grave sites from that region with female remains surrounded by weapons and armour in the same manner as high ranking male warriors.



enter image description here



Real Amazons in ancient Scythia



So while there is not conclusive archaeological proof of female dominated societies, there are intriguing hints that it was possible in the distant past, so there is nothing intrinsically stopping the idea, at least for a while.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









Thucydides

81.2k678240




81.2k678240












  • Given the examples of e.g. the Huns and the Mongols, I'd be inclined to say the Kurgans' victories had less to do with gender and more to do with the inherent differences between steppe nomadic societies and sedentary agricultural societies. One doesn't think of Kievan Rus' as matriarchal, for instance, but it was conquered just as thoroughly.
    – Cadence
    3 hours ago










  • @Cadence: The Huns and Mongols came many (six? seven?) millennia later. Assumming, arguendo, that the conquest posited by Marija Gimbutas actually happened, which most archeologists don't believe, it was not comparable with the Mongol conquest. We are speaking of the deepest deep antiquity here, just before the dawn of the bronze age. Human population density was very much lower, the economy and technological base were way more primitive; horses had been just recently domesticated, and were used to pull carriages. Nobody had cavalry, or armor.
    – AlexP
    1 hour ago




















  • Given the examples of e.g. the Huns and the Mongols, I'd be inclined to say the Kurgans' victories had less to do with gender and more to do with the inherent differences between steppe nomadic societies and sedentary agricultural societies. One doesn't think of Kievan Rus' as matriarchal, for instance, but it was conquered just as thoroughly.
    – Cadence
    3 hours ago










  • @Cadence: The Huns and Mongols came many (six? seven?) millennia later. Assumming, arguendo, that the conquest posited by Marija Gimbutas actually happened, which most archeologists don't believe, it was not comparable with the Mongol conquest. We are speaking of the deepest deep antiquity here, just before the dawn of the bronze age. Human population density was very much lower, the economy and technological base were way more primitive; horses had been just recently domesticated, and were used to pull carriages. Nobody had cavalry, or armor.
    – AlexP
    1 hour ago


















Given the examples of e.g. the Huns and the Mongols, I'd be inclined to say the Kurgans' victories had less to do with gender and more to do with the inherent differences between steppe nomadic societies and sedentary agricultural societies. One doesn't think of Kievan Rus' as matriarchal, for instance, but it was conquered just as thoroughly.
– Cadence
3 hours ago




Given the examples of e.g. the Huns and the Mongols, I'd be inclined to say the Kurgans' victories had less to do with gender and more to do with the inherent differences between steppe nomadic societies and sedentary agricultural societies. One doesn't think of Kievan Rus' as matriarchal, for instance, but it was conquered just as thoroughly.
– Cadence
3 hours ago












@Cadence: The Huns and Mongols came many (six? seven?) millennia later. Assumming, arguendo, that the conquest posited by Marija Gimbutas actually happened, which most archeologists don't believe, it was not comparable with the Mongol conquest. We are speaking of the deepest deep antiquity here, just before the dawn of the bronze age. Human population density was very much lower, the economy and technological base were way more primitive; horses had been just recently domesticated, and were used to pull carriages. Nobody had cavalry, or armor.
– AlexP
1 hour ago






@Cadence: The Huns and Mongols came many (six? seven?) millennia later. Assumming, arguendo, that the conquest posited by Marija Gimbutas actually happened, which most archeologists don't believe, it was not comparable with the Mongol conquest. We are speaking of the deepest deep antiquity here, just before the dawn of the bronze age. Human population density was very much lower, the economy and technological base were way more primitive; horses had been just recently domesticated, and were used to pull carriages. Nobody had cavalry, or armor.
– AlexP
1 hour ago













2














No human society would be structured like this. Two of your points reveal why.




Women go to war.




Men are far more physically suited to combat than women. A nation that uses female warriors will be conquered by one that uses male warriors. Weapons tech doesn't help much here--men still have faster reaction times than women, can carry heavier loads, and have more endurance, which are all relevant to combat.




Men stay home and take care of the babies.




Men don't have breasts. They can't take care of babies without a woman present. So this just ends up being inefficient. Tech doesn't really help this issue, either, because social structures come first, and they tend to have quite a bit of inertia. The invention of baby formula isn't going to shunt every man into a childcare position when women have been doing it for centuries.



This doesn't rule out a societal structure where women have authority and men do not. Heck, even in a male-dominated society, most men still don't have any authority, so it wouldn't be a big change for them. Men already do a whole host of important but low-status jobs in real life, so relegating them to exclusively that is hardly out of the question. But the resulting society will not be a sex-reversed patriarchy. It just doesn't work with human physiology.





Now, if you want to go nonhuman, all bets are off. You can look to nature to find all sorts of sexual arrangements and hierarchies. There's even a species of cave-dwelling book lice where the females have penises and the males have vaginas, with a corresponding reversal in sex roles. Go nuts.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • So females are only inferior when they are human?
    – bruglesco
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    @bruglesco No, sexual dimorphism in animals (and even just within mammals) runs the gamut for which sex is larger or stronger. Humans happen to be one where the males are stronger, but we are hardly unique in that regard.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 hours ago










  • Words like inferior presuppose that what's important is warmaking capability. Human men are inferior to women at a number of tasks, particularly bearing children (impossible) and feeding infants (possible with technological help but still inferior). Patriarchal systems value warmaking over child care, but that's rather short sighted. I'm actually more willing to believe that women will go to war (Amazons) than that they will leave child rearing to men in a matriarchal society. In most matriarchal societies, men hunted and warred while women stayed home.
    – Brythan
    1 hour ago
















2














No human society would be structured like this. Two of your points reveal why.




Women go to war.




Men are far more physically suited to combat than women. A nation that uses female warriors will be conquered by one that uses male warriors. Weapons tech doesn't help much here--men still have faster reaction times than women, can carry heavier loads, and have more endurance, which are all relevant to combat.




Men stay home and take care of the babies.




Men don't have breasts. They can't take care of babies without a woman present. So this just ends up being inefficient. Tech doesn't really help this issue, either, because social structures come first, and they tend to have quite a bit of inertia. The invention of baby formula isn't going to shunt every man into a childcare position when women have been doing it for centuries.



This doesn't rule out a societal structure where women have authority and men do not. Heck, even in a male-dominated society, most men still don't have any authority, so it wouldn't be a big change for them. Men already do a whole host of important but low-status jobs in real life, so relegating them to exclusively that is hardly out of the question. But the resulting society will not be a sex-reversed patriarchy. It just doesn't work with human physiology.





Now, if you want to go nonhuman, all bets are off. You can look to nature to find all sorts of sexual arrangements and hierarchies. There's even a species of cave-dwelling book lice where the females have penises and the males have vaginas, with a corresponding reversal in sex roles. Go nuts.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • So females are only inferior when they are human?
    – bruglesco
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    @bruglesco No, sexual dimorphism in animals (and even just within mammals) runs the gamut for which sex is larger or stronger. Humans happen to be one where the males are stronger, but we are hardly unique in that regard.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 hours ago










  • Words like inferior presuppose that what's important is warmaking capability. Human men are inferior to women at a number of tasks, particularly bearing children (impossible) and feeding infants (possible with technological help but still inferior). Patriarchal systems value warmaking over child care, but that's rather short sighted. I'm actually more willing to believe that women will go to war (Amazons) than that they will leave child rearing to men in a matriarchal society. In most matriarchal societies, men hunted and warred while women stayed home.
    – Brythan
    1 hour ago














2












2








2






No human society would be structured like this. Two of your points reveal why.




Women go to war.




Men are far more physically suited to combat than women. A nation that uses female warriors will be conquered by one that uses male warriors. Weapons tech doesn't help much here--men still have faster reaction times than women, can carry heavier loads, and have more endurance, which are all relevant to combat.




Men stay home and take care of the babies.




Men don't have breasts. They can't take care of babies without a woman present. So this just ends up being inefficient. Tech doesn't really help this issue, either, because social structures come first, and they tend to have quite a bit of inertia. The invention of baby formula isn't going to shunt every man into a childcare position when women have been doing it for centuries.



This doesn't rule out a societal structure where women have authority and men do not. Heck, even in a male-dominated society, most men still don't have any authority, so it wouldn't be a big change for them. Men already do a whole host of important but low-status jobs in real life, so relegating them to exclusively that is hardly out of the question. But the resulting society will not be a sex-reversed patriarchy. It just doesn't work with human physiology.





Now, if you want to go nonhuman, all bets are off. You can look to nature to find all sorts of sexual arrangements and hierarchies. There's even a species of cave-dwelling book lice where the females have penises and the males have vaginas, with a corresponding reversal in sex roles. Go nuts.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









No human society would be structured like this. Two of your points reveal why.




Women go to war.




Men are far more physically suited to combat than women. A nation that uses female warriors will be conquered by one that uses male warriors. Weapons tech doesn't help much here--men still have faster reaction times than women, can carry heavier loads, and have more endurance, which are all relevant to combat.




Men stay home and take care of the babies.




Men don't have breasts. They can't take care of babies without a woman present. So this just ends up being inefficient. Tech doesn't really help this issue, either, because social structures come first, and they tend to have quite a bit of inertia. The invention of baby formula isn't going to shunt every man into a childcare position when women have been doing it for centuries.



This doesn't rule out a societal structure where women have authority and men do not. Heck, even in a male-dominated society, most men still don't have any authority, so it wouldn't be a big change for them. Men already do a whole host of important but low-status jobs in real life, so relegating them to exclusively that is hardly out of the question. But the resulting society will not be a sex-reversed patriarchy. It just doesn't work with human physiology.





Now, if you want to go nonhuman, all bets are off. You can look to nature to find all sorts of sexual arrangements and hierarchies. There's even a species of cave-dwelling book lice where the females have penises and the males have vaginas, with a corresponding reversal in sex roles. Go nuts.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago





















New contributor




eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 3 hours ago









eyeballfrog

1374




1374




New contributor




eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






eyeballfrog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • So females are only inferior when they are human?
    – bruglesco
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    @bruglesco No, sexual dimorphism in animals (and even just within mammals) runs the gamut for which sex is larger or stronger. Humans happen to be one where the males are stronger, but we are hardly unique in that regard.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 hours ago










  • Words like inferior presuppose that what's important is warmaking capability. Human men are inferior to women at a number of tasks, particularly bearing children (impossible) and feeding infants (possible with technological help but still inferior). Patriarchal systems value warmaking over child care, but that's rather short sighted. I'm actually more willing to believe that women will go to war (Amazons) than that they will leave child rearing to men in a matriarchal society. In most matriarchal societies, men hunted and warred while women stayed home.
    – Brythan
    1 hour ago


















  • So females are only inferior when they are human?
    – bruglesco
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    @bruglesco No, sexual dimorphism in animals (and even just within mammals) runs the gamut for which sex is larger or stronger. Humans happen to be one where the males are stronger, but we are hardly unique in that regard.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 hours ago










  • Words like inferior presuppose that what's important is warmaking capability. Human men are inferior to women at a number of tasks, particularly bearing children (impossible) and feeding infants (possible with technological help but still inferior). Patriarchal systems value warmaking over child care, but that's rather short sighted. I'm actually more willing to believe that women will go to war (Amazons) than that they will leave child rearing to men in a matriarchal society. In most matriarchal societies, men hunted and warred while women stayed home.
    – Brythan
    1 hour ago
















So females are only inferior when they are human?
– bruglesco
3 hours ago




So females are only inferior when they are human?
– bruglesco
3 hours ago




2




2




@bruglesco No, sexual dimorphism in animals (and even just within mammals) runs the gamut for which sex is larger or stronger. Humans happen to be one where the males are stronger, but we are hardly unique in that regard.
– eyeballfrog
3 hours ago




@bruglesco No, sexual dimorphism in animals (and even just within mammals) runs the gamut for which sex is larger or stronger. Humans happen to be one where the males are stronger, but we are hardly unique in that regard.
– eyeballfrog
3 hours ago












Words like inferior presuppose that what's important is warmaking capability. Human men are inferior to women at a number of tasks, particularly bearing children (impossible) and feeding infants (possible with technological help but still inferior). Patriarchal systems value warmaking over child care, but that's rather short sighted. I'm actually more willing to believe that women will go to war (Amazons) than that they will leave child rearing to men in a matriarchal society. In most matriarchal societies, men hunted and warred while women stayed home.
– Brythan
1 hour ago




Words like inferior presuppose that what's important is warmaking capability. Human men are inferior to women at a number of tasks, particularly bearing children (impossible) and feeding infants (possible with technological help but still inferior). Patriarchal systems value warmaking over child care, but that's rather short sighted. I'm actually more willing to believe that women will go to war (Amazons) than that they will leave child rearing to men in a matriarchal society. In most matriarchal societies, men hunted and warred while women stayed home.
– Brythan
1 hour ago










Nass King is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Nass King is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Nass King is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Nass King is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135725%2fwill-a-country-ruled-and-dominated-by-women-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'