Females Become the Dominant Gender

How could this have happened? Would human nature have to be different?
What would be the effects of this, especially regarding the development of civilizations and societies?
All comments welcome but I would love for a sociologist's or an anthropologist's take on this.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Some would say that in the Western world, it is slowly happening now, as "male type" jobs vanish and females do better at school and university then males.
 
Oh God. Now I'm remembering the stories I've read. Go to my happy place. Go to my happy place. Go to my happy place. Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.Go to my happy place.
 
I am not sure if this would be possible for a non-ASB scenario unless the POD was early in the course of human evolution. The fact is that males are naturally bigger, stronger, faster, more intelligent, more creative, and more rational than females... on average. This is not to say that women do not have their fair share of accomplishment, but overall human males are better in most areas than human females.

In some species the gender gap is greater. At one extreme, in some species of angler fish the male metamorphoses into a wart-like growth on the female and does nothing but generate sperm. In angler fish, the female is superior and the male is virtually worthless. Some species have very little sexual dimorphism or almost none, and others have much greater sexual dimorphism. Human females are NOT worthless, but they are not quite as capable as males.

Unfortunately, human women are smaller and more frail than men, which disadvantages them in contests of strength or athletics, and generally more hormonal and emotional, which limits the capacity to think as logically as most men. There are of course tasks in which human females are far superior to human males. Most notably, tasks which require emotionality or nurturing ability. Women are naturally better than men at caring for children and animals, drama, fashion, and cleaning. Men are better than women at being warriors, statesmen, scientists, artists, and laborers.

Were the earliest societies male-dominated or female-dominated? The case can be made that prehistoric cultures were patriarchal, or matriarchal, or egalitarian. The problem is that when one attaches such labels to prehistoric cultures, one tends to project the current situation. In fact, prehistoric societies were neither patriarchal, matriarchal, or egalitarian, though they had aspects of the three.

Domestic life was matriarchal and female-dominated, as the home was almost entirely the domain of women. However, the women stayed behind at the camp or village, caring for the children or their families back home, keeping the huts, cave, or campsite clean, preparing food, and conducting the daily affairs of hearth, home, and village. The men would leave to go hunting, so subsistence activity was entirely patriarchal and male dominated. Hunter-gatherer societies have rites of passage between boyhood and manhood because male youths leave the "domain of women" and joins the men of the band/clan/tribe to hunt. Prehistoric life only SEEMS so egalitarian because there were natural gender roles to follow, allowing men and women to live separately. Feminist archaelogists may have interpreted fertility godesses such as the Venus of Willendorf and other figurines or wall paintings of pregnant women as Mother Goddess figures, while non-feminist archaeologists have had alternative explanations. Prehistoric humanity did not have notions of sexism or feminism and gender equality the way we think of these concepts. Rather prehistoric concepts were probably more along separate-but-equal lines, in which each gender had roles, and motherhood was a sacred role for females.

With the agricultural revolutions, society became sedentary. Men and women began spending more time together, many of the adolescent male rites of passage vanished or diminished, and society became more structured. It did not take long for males to establish dominance. The fertility goddesses of early agricultural societies of the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age were very different in nature compared to their Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic counterparts. Contrary to feminist archaeologists and feminist anthropologists, female deities did not always represent matriarchal societies. Rather, such often deities mythologized the conquest of nature by man. There was dual symbolism in these motiffs, the discovery of the power to "create life" (at first limited to childbirth among hunter-gatherers, later represented by plant cultivation and animal husbandry) by mankind, and a token of the power of man over woman.

Matriarchal and egalitarian civilizations are the exception rather than the rule. Most societies are male-dominated, some more than others. One ancient culture that was intensively male dominated was the proto-Indo-European culture of Anatolia, which colonized Europe and Central Asia in neolithic/chalcolithic times.

It was only natural that men became the dominant sex. Perhaps in about ten million years, a new sapient species will evolve to replace long-extinct humans, hopefully one with very little sexual dimorphism, and thus free of the inevitable problems stemming from conflict over gender roles such as sexism, misogyny (on one hand), misandry/feminism (on one hand), and homophobia.
 

Thanks for your great reply. It is obvious that both human nature and behavior must be changed to make females more dominant than males.
So what exactly needs to be different for this to occur? Would behaviors like war, hunting and etc. need to be eliminated? What behaviors would need be added, or would need to be of greater importance, to survival and race perpetuation? And finally, what would this society look like if it happened to humans?
 
I believe that on the whole intelligence and creativity are equal in the sexes. Women may in fact have an advantage over us here with being generally more rational. We have always dominated society as our large advantage in brawn had always been much more useful than Womens small advantage in brain. The reason males invented almost everything was due to women not being allowed near a test tube,machine or telescope for centuries but even then with thick social chains some managed to break out of their constraints and make life better for us all e.g Marie Curie.

Now im not saying that men are inferior and im not saying that with women as the head of our species from day one thered be less war,less pollution etc,I see that as bullshit and believe that all the problems our society has experienced is due to the inherint problems in mankind. Now I believe that now there is near equality in the western world and hopefully full equality around the world in a century or so womens small brain advantage will start to take over mens due to a much more pacifistic society brawn will begin to become less and less influencial. Thus I believe that even if it takes a few centuries women will eventually become the dominant species. I for one don't really mind that. It could lead to a better world but I doubt it would be any better than the world under the existing social system. As long as the dominant sex recognises the full equality of its other it does not matter to me who rules.
 

Redbeard

Banned
How could this have happened? Would human nature have to be different?
What would be the effects of this, especially regarding the development of civilizations and societies?
All comments welcome but I would love for a sociologist's or an anthropologist's take on this.

Then females would not be females…

I’m (not) sorry if this has someone choke in their salad, but apart from everyday experience from the OTL human world the animal world also has an interesting example.

Among Hyenas the females are very dominant, in fact so dominant that they not only have a very high concentration of male hormone but also have developed body parts that very much resemble male genitals. IOW if females are to be dominant they need to be males!

What this should mean for our modern human world is an interesting question, but it is obvious that it often is very difficult for women to act in dominant roles, and if they do, they often compensate by being “superfeminine” elsewhere.

Similarly males not fulfilling their natural role are not only pathetic, but IMHO also let down the continuation of civilization. It is often said that many young men get into trouble because they only meet females in their childhood. The problem isn’t the females however, but the absence of dominant males. I also wonder if a contributing cause to the current financial crisis is young males being allowed too much smartass attitude with other people’s money? A more dominant attitude from some of the older males (and females in such roles) would have stopped most of the projects now collapsing, as would a lot of petty criminal careers, if there had been a father/teacher/sargent living up to his traditional role.

I’m not saying that women should go back to being housewives, we simply can’t keep the world going with half the population only doing housework. But we must forget about bringing female values into leadership, that is simply crap, instead we must help and accept our sisters acting in male (professional) roles. And us males will have to accept our destiny and act male – at least professionally (which include NOT whining about dominant females or anything else - act instead!)

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Then females would not be females…

I’m (not) sorry if this has someone choke in their salad, but apart from everyday experience from the OTL human world the animal world also has an interesting example.

Among Hyenas the females are very dominant, in fact so dominant that they not only have a very high concentration of male hormone but also have developed body parts that very much resemble male genitals. IOW if females are to be dominant they need to be males!

What this should mean for our modern human world is an interesting question, but it is obvious that it often is very difficult for women to act in dominant roles, and if they do, they often compensate by being “superfeminine” elsewhere.

Similarly males not fulfilling their natural role are not only pathetic, but IMHO also let down the continuation of civilization. It is often said that many young men get into trouble because they only meet females in their childhood. The problem isn’t the females however, but the absence of dominant males. I also wonder if a contributing cause to the current financial crisis is young males being allowed too much smartass attitude with other people’s money? A more dominant attitude from some of the older males (and females in such roles) would have stopped most of the projects now collapsing, as would a lot of petty criminal careers, if there had been a father/teacher/sargent living up to his traditional role.

I’m not saying that women should go back to being housewives, we simply can’t keep the world going with half the population only doing housework. But we must forget about bringing female values into leadership, that is simply crap, instead we must help and accept our sisters acting in male (professional) roles. And us males will have to accept our destiny and act male – at least professionally (which include NOT whining about dominant females or anything else - act instead!)

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

You see authoritrianism as the solution to the economic crisis?

And why do you go along with the stereotype that men who promote feminism are pussies?
 
How do you know they're not the dominants? There are more of them and they live longer. Perhaps that is their exact plan of eternal secret domination.

I KNOW MY TEETH TELL ME!

sarcasm
 
What about some sort of Native American-style matriarchal clan structure where the women handle the administration of day-to-day affairs takes root in proto-urbanization and eventually leads to woman assuming the standard role in civil administrative and leadership roles? Culture develops such that woman become the de facto leaders and men demure to their civil authority.
 
How do you know they're not the dominants? There are more of them and they live longer. Perhaps that is their exact plan of eternal secret domination.

I KNOW MY TEETH TELL ME!


All hail to the teeth!
 
What about some sort of Native American-style matriarchal clan structure where the women handle the administration of day-to-day affairs takes root in proto-urbanization and eventually leads to woman assuming the standard role in civil administrative and leadership roles? Culture develops such that woman become the de facto leaders and men demure to their civil authority.
This is what I was thinking. Maybe societies could develop by saying that men need to work on their agression instincts and physical prowess so that women should be the ones to be political leaders (i.e. men are too stupid and war-like to lead so they are guided). This might grow out of cultures that say invested heavily in female-priests with a connection to a diety so that it became the norm to follow the words of a woman and that just morphed later on.

Once the situation becomes more wide-spread like today, you'll get people conforming just because that's how they were raised.

I also wonder if a contributing cause to the current financial crisis is young males being allowed too much smartass attitude with other people’s money? A more dominant attitude from some of the older males (and females in such roles) would have stopped most of the projects now collapsing
Also, what now? That makes no sense as most of the people who did the damage such as the heads of the banks or politicians and such are definitely not young males. AIG's last few CEOs were 54, 63, and 63 respectively.
 
Last edited:
How could this have happened? Would human nature have to be different?
What would be the effects of this, especially regarding the development of civilizations and societies?
All comments welcome but I would love for a sociologist's or an anthropologist's take on this.

Dominant in the sense of wielding overt power in most human societies?

There are two aspects to this- the biological and the psychological.

Human biology would have to be fundamentally different, I think. You have to take into account that without modern medicine childbearing is quite dangerous- it's hard to gain a power base in society when you're quite likely to die in your late teens or early twenties. It's notable that historically the women who did survive to menopause and beyond did gain soft power in most human societies as informal matriarchs.

The other half of the biological equation is the fact that the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman which makes it much easier for men to physically dominate society.

Secondly, you've got the psychological aspect. Warning, this is going to sound misogynistic. Many people overlook the fact that men are better at forming stable hierarchies than women are. While women may stereotypically be more empathetic men are a lot more efficient at forming effective teams- once a dominant male is recognised the other males tend to fall into their places in the hierarchy. Men are also much less likely to disassociate personal problems from team problems- I remember Abdul Hadi Pasha citing an incident he encountered at work where a female colleague was convinced that the men were favouring each other when the reality was that they weren't so much favouring each other as disassociating their personal likes and dislikes for colleagues from their professional relationships with them. The truth is that women seem a lot more single minded and determined than men when it comes to achieving goals and this is true to the extent that it hampers teamwork. This is part of the reason why girls generally do better than boys across the board at school- they tend to be a lot more focused and driven while the boys are lumbering around sorting out the social hierarchy and flinging poo at each other.
 
How could this have happened? Would human nature have to be different?
What would be the effects of this, especially regarding the development of civilizations and societies?
All comments welcome but I would love for a sociologist's or an anthropologist's take on this.

From what I know of the Etruscans, they were actually close to being female dominated. Females were equal to males socially, promiscuity (the foe of patriarchy) was common, and some families traced themselves through mothers rather than fathers. If we take this thread and scale down to Western-Civilization, maybe Etruscans conquer Rome, Europe is Matriarchal?
 
Top