Will a country ruled and dominated by women work?
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
New contributor
|
show 4 more comments
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
New contributor
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
New contributor
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
alternate-worlds fantasy-races races simulated-worlds
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
Brythan
20.2k74283
20.2k74283
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
Nass King
224
224
New contributor
New contributor
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
|
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
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.
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
New contributor
answered 3 hours ago
eyeballfrog
1374
1374
New contributor
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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