The dominant sex

[backwardscompatibility]

WI society developed in such a way that women were university preceded as the dominant sex?

[scholar]

Originally Posted by backwardscompatibility

WI society developed in such a way that women were university preceded as the dominant sex?

A number of cultures do have this, but for this too occur you need to eliminate war and the need for manual labor, or at the very least radically alter how it is perceived and done and thus butterflying away anything recognizable.

[MNP]

One possible mindset is that men are good for fighting and working but bad for thinking and so women think and men do. Kind of like a tool or a draft animal.

I don't think it's very likely as might makes right is a pretty simple concept, but I'm just brainstorming a little here.

[Sucrose]

Hmmm. I'd say the biggest problem is that men are just bigger and stronger. And I'm not sure how to flip that around, because of simple biology. Men are going to evolve to fight and women aren't, because women are the ones who bear offspring.

Example: A group of one man and three women can survive and each pass on their genes, and it's more beneficial for the three women to cooperate and share the one male rather than fighting and risking getting killed, suffering a miscarriage, etc. On the flip side, a group of one female and three males cannot survive and each pass on their genes. Two of the males are going to lose out, and the biggest, strongest male will kill or drive out the other two. Hence, there's a biological impetus for males to be bigger and stronger, which would otherwise be a waste of energy.

[Monty Burns]

Originally Posted by scholar

A number of cultures do have this, but for this too occur you need to eliminate war and the need for manual labor, or at the very least radically alter how it is perceived and done and thus butterflying away anything recognizable.

AFAIK the (rather few) more matriarchaic cultures are in no way less warlike. Nevertheless, even in these the men fight.

I think the biological impetus as Sucrose has it must be eliminated. If both sexes are equally important for offspring, it could be enough. But that pretty much alters mammal biology as a whole.

Eliminating advantages in strength should be helpful as well, though.

[backwardscompatibility]

Originally Posted by MNP

One possible mindset is that men are good for fighting and working but bad for thinking and so women think and men do. Kind of like a tool or a draft animal.

I don't think it's very likely as might makes right is a pretty simple concept, but I'm just brainstorming a little here.

I was thinking the same thing. there was a race in startrek like that. the women owned the land and the man defended it.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

AFAIK the (rather few) more matriarchaic cultures are in no way less warlike. Nevertheless, even in these the men fight.

I think the biological impetus as Sucrose has it must be eliminated. If both sexes are equally important for offspring, it could be enough. But that pretty much alters mammal biology as a whole.

Eliminating advantages in strength should be helpful as well, though.

Normally, the more peaceful the society the more egalitarian it is. It is true that a number of matriarchal societies do form and have warlike characteristics, it is equally true that rather peaceful patriarchal societies are more friendly towards women and their respective rights than those that are not so.

[Remicas]

Originally Posted by scholar

Normally, the more peaceful the society the more egalitarian it is. It is true that a number of matriarchal societies do form and have warlike characteristics, it is equally true that rather peaceful patriarchal societies are more friendly towards women and their respective rights than those that are not so.

*Cough* Spartan women ?

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Remicas

*Cough* Spartan women ?

Normally, the more peaceful the society the more egalitarian it is. It is true that a number of matriarchal societies do form and have warlike characteristics, it is equally true that rather peaceful patriarchal societies are more friendly towards women and their respective rights than those that are not so.

[Municipal Engines]

I've always been in the opinion that humans have the animal mentality of an alpha male having precedent over any possible alpha female. This pack mentality carried on to tribes, and this usually carried on to kingdoms etcetera. However, as humanity is an intelligent, sentient species, then instinct was discarded over time.

Still, if we want this early on, then we can change the animal mentality of humans to be led by alpha females rather than alpha males.

[willbell]

Have chimpanzees be polyandrous.

[CandyDragon]

Originally Posted by willbell

Have chimpanzees be polyandrous.

How will that make women dominant in human society? We didn't evolve from chimpanzees, we both diverged from a common ancestor.

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by scholar

Normally, the more peaceful the society the more egalitarian it is. It is true that a number of matriarchal societies do form and have warlike characteristics, it is equally true that rather peaceful patriarchal societies are more friendly towards women and their respective rights than those that are not so.

Yeah, a society that values its members primarily for their warrior prowess is probably going to treat women as highly inferior. Especially if they also practice polygamy.

Sparta was different, but it was an advanced society that believed men inherited their toughness through the mother as well the father, and considered giving birth to be an act of bravery. Unfortunately I don't know much more about Sparta, does anyone know if Spartan culture encouraged fights between men, or was all the aggression pointed towards rival states? If it's the latter, that could explain the discrepancy.

[Fraxinensis]

The problem with the idea of "women think, men work" is that the difference between male and female intelligence is not as great as the difference between male and female physical strength. Despite the implicit claims of modern sitcoms and stand up comedy, men are not significantly less intelligent than women, and would thus figure out to use their greater (average) physical strength to overthrow an intellectual class of women.

I think it is possible that societies in general could have several technically matriarchal elements. If early civilizations had a priestess caste in common, and the priestess caste supplied the leadership, then perhaps early civilizations would have matrilinear queens, mostly male soldiers and laborers, and egalitarian intellectual classes.

[Last of the Stuarts]

Originally Posted by Fraxinensis

If early civilizations had a priestess caste in common, and the priestess caste supplied the leadership, then perhaps early civilizations would have matrilinear queens, mostly male soldiers and laborers, and egalitarian intellectual classes.

I would have to agree, to me the major religions have all been pro-male and to a certain extent anti-female. The best way to get women in charge is to have a female god(dess) and a female priesthood.

From this would come a far more equal role for females, as even if there where male kings they would be guided away from laws that marganilised females (i.e. females allowed to inherit property, equal shares in divorses etc.)

[Yorel]

Originally Posted by Last of the Stuarts

I would have to agree, to me the major religions have all been pro-male and to a certain extent anti-female. The best way to get women in charge is to have a female god(dess) and a female priesthood.

From this would come a far more equal role for females, as even if there where male kings they would be guided away from laws that marganilised females (i.e. females allowed to inherit property, equal shares in divorses etc.)

That does seem like a good solution. Though, wouldn't allowing female priesthood (= having priesthood not being male-exclusive) be enough? Does having a Goddess instead of a God really matters?