If we lived in a female dominated world, what would society be like?

Power and its pursuit drives behavior of the dominant sex; female dominated society would simply be male dominated society with breasts.

I agree that the pursuit and exercise of power would be as important in a matriarchal society as a patriarchal one, however I think the nature of power will be different. I remember a similar thread some time ago where someone said that governments in a female-dominated world are likely to be less violent but more oppressive. In other words less killing etc but far more psychological control, ie propaganda, brainwashing, etc (within the contraints of technology, as this has only really been possible with the advent of the mass media).

Also, despite several posts talk of female soldiers/warriors, I personally believe that any female-dominated society would still have a male-dominated military. It's just commonsense being on the whole physically stronger men will dominate in the military (especially in the past where physical strength was even more important in the military).

This also makes the use of propaganda more important (ie if you give an oppressed group weapons, it best to make sure they've been conditioned to accept the status quo).
 
If Amazonism was world wide, what sort of rules would we have. Imagine if the Amazons had won at Troy and hadn't of been killed, what would are official colours be?

If men were physically weaker and/or had to carry the child, or made up perhaps <10% of the population, then you'd seen a genuinely female-dominant society.

Not otherwise.
 
If men were physically weaker and/or had to carry the child, or made up perhaps <10% of the population, then you'd seen a genuinely female-dominant society.

You have it backwards - men are not dominant because they are physically stronger, they are physically stronger because they are and pursue dominance. To put it simply, men did not evolve greater strength to coerce women, men evolved greater strength to coerce other men.

Similarly, taking care of the kids is no show-stopper; there are plenty of dominant female birds, and spotted hyenas are a mammalian example.
 
I agree that the pursuit and exercise of power would be as important in a matriarchal society as a patriarchal one, however I think the nature of power will be different. I remember a similar thread some time ago where someone said that governments in a female-dominated world are likely to be less violent but more oppressive. In other words less killing etc but far more psychological control, ie propaganda, brainwashing, etc (within the contraints of technology, as this has only really been possible with the advent of the mass media).

No, they're likely to be just as violent and just as oppressive. In the end, there's no substitute for a fist in the face.

Also, despite several posts talk of female soldiers/warriors, I personally believe that any female-dominated society would still have a male-dominated military. It's just commonsense being on the whole physically stronger men will dominate in the military (especially in the past where physical strength was even more important in the military).

This also makes the use of propaganda more important (ie if you give an oppressed group weapons, it best to make sure they've been conditioned to accept the status quo).

As I pointed out in my post above, strength follows power, not the other way around; a female dominant society would have physically stronger women, if the break point was sufficiently in the past. And even if it weren't, well, peasants were equal in strength and greatly outnumbered their lords... why didn't they take over? Because the elite have the time to learn how to fight effectively and in groups, and because peasants who ambush a single one of their 'betters' are going to unleash vicious reprisals from the dominant group.

The argument then shifts to "but they'd have a disadvantage compared to other, male dominated groups in their vicinity". This is true, but it's not in terms of weakness: organization, discipline, and competent leadership rank ahead of raw physical strength of the soldiers and I assume their military leadership would plan accordingly.

No, their problem is as follows: without enough generations to make biology back up culture, there is a bias for women to marry 'up' to secure more resources for their children. While women lower in the hierarchy can satisfy this within their culture by marrying the son of a women higher up in the ranks, the women at the top will often end up diluting their culture by marrying into high-ranking men of surrounding cultures (with significant culture clash for both sides). Majority rules, over time: given generations, you would see the more numerous male- or female- dominant societies end up taking over the place by sheer dint of numbers.

(Some might ask "But wouldn't groups that had been female-dominant for a long time also want to marry up?" No, because it would be more reliable for them to secure it directly by force/influence/commercial success and marry for superior genes, in other words, the male strategy of OTL. A world that was female-dominated from stone-age times would be a world with fancy men's clothing and women in bland pantsuits attempting to get the number of the hottest guy at the bar.)
 
I accept that this should not be in the ASB forum but to put it in the post 1900 one we are looking at some very radical revolution having happened post 1900

I am guesssing that for such a society to emerge we must be talking about some reaction to bloodier World Wars in OTL,.

I guess if there were NOT the soldiers to return to take the jobs away from the women (cos they were all dead, if say Spanish Flu had occurred and been confined to the fronts rather than hitting the home populations, or if conflicts bubble on and troops need to remain deployed) then the workplace WOULD have continued to be female-dominated post-war

That would in turn lead to a female-dominated union movement, and presumably at least an equal position for women in the Labour Party

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
You have it backwards - men are not dominant because they are physically stronger, they are physically stronger because they are and pursue dominance. To put it simply, men did not evolve greater strength to coerce women, men evolved greater strength to coerce other men.

How can you be so certain about the rationale behind human evolution?

Irrespective of how and why the archetype male form has developed a marked physical/physiological superiority over women with regard to the traditional hunter/warrior tasks, the upshot is this could just as much be used to subjugate women as to dominate other males.

(oh, I see. Had the females adopted these dominant roles they'd have become stronger/as strong as men? Still seems kinda moot, especially when one considers the development of other land-based hunting mammals: why is it the males are bigger, stronger and more dominant? Can't just be down to chance.)

Similarly, taking care of the kids is no show-stopper; there are plenty of dominant female birds, and spotted hyenas are a mammalian example.

So, pregnancy - and virtually continual pregnancy in early days throughout reproductive age - isn't a handicap for humans? Both physically incapacitating and requiring dependency?
 
I agree that the pursuit and exercise of power would be as important in a matriarchal society as a patriarchal one, however I think the nature of power will be different. I remember a similar thread some time ago where someone said that governments in a female-dominated world are likely to be less violent but more oppressive. In other words less killing etc but far more psychological control, ie propaganda, brainwashing, etc (within the contraints of technology, as this has only really been possible with the advent of the mass media).

I'm inclined to agree with you. The dynamics of power work differently in a all-women social group than in a all-men group. Just look at the school yard: social control, the threat of ostracism etc. are much more dominant in girls' groups than those of boys, and violence or threat thereof much less. Our society works by social power conforming to the dominant, all-male dynamism. In a female-dominated society, men would have to get used to the all-women model.

Trebuchet said:
No, they're likely to be just as violent and just as oppressive. In the end, there's no substitute for a fist in the face.

Ah, but are all the ruling elites just as violent and oppressive in all known men-dominates cultures? Of course not, because there are different sorts of models for rule on the violence-social control scale. The female model would be the same, although it would skew this template and emphasise the soft power approach. There would, of course, be some societies very geared for violent rule, but less so than OTL.



Also, despite several posts talk of female soldiers/warriors, I personally believe that any female-dominated society would still have a male-dominated military. It's just commonsense being on the whole physically stronger men will dominate in the military (especially in the past where physical strength was even more important in the military).

This also makes the use of propaganda more important (ie if you give an oppressed group weapons, it best to make sure they've been conditioned to accept the status quo).

Again agree, but I'd submit that there would be a two-tier military: the brute force and numbers formed of men and specialiced tasks by women. There would be, say, a small standing army of cavalry and the core cadres of the infantry, composed mainly of women. Men would, by custom, rarely rise above the NCO class (which group, though, they would dominate). The bulk of the army, men, would be drafted by an ad hoc system and disbanded soon after hostilities. Women would be privy to the skills, weapons and organisation of the nobility/officer class and in a position to put down insurrections of misguided men.

Social control and propaganda would be crucial and widely used. Trust and veneration towards the female leaders would have to be a thing ingrained in the minds of men all the way from early childhood. The men would not think they are being oppressed - as soon as someone does that, the women are going to be in trouble.

IMO it would not be all too improbable, that in a female-dominated world male infanticide would be a common practise. Keep the numbers of men low to control the social structure and avoid the rise of male power.


https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/member.php?u=1030
 
If Amazonism was world wide, what sort of rules would we have. Imagine if the Amazons had won at Troy and hadn't of been killed, what would are official colours be?

It would be much the same, with the exception that wars would be far more brutal and would actually be finished ala the Third Punic War every time, though as a broad pattern much less frequent. Women are not especially different from men, and they'd probably create some societies quite brutal towards men, others less so.
 
Archeologists have found proof of female, mounted warriors. I think society would probably be more egalitarian, with a slight female bias.

Not really, even allowing for a difference in the exercise of power in hierarchy, a female-dominated species will face similar pressures to the male-dominated one of OTL. It would create a culturally similar sphere, right down to horrific wars akin to the Punic Wars, but the nature of the hierarchy itself will not change due to the nature of the same questions being addressed.
 
How can you be so certain about the rationale behind human evolution?

Irrespective of how and why the archetype male form has developed a marked physical/physiological superiority over women with regard to the traditional hunter/warrior tasks, the upshot is this could just as much be used to subjugate women as to dominate other males.

(oh, I see. Had the females adopted these dominant roles they'd have become stronger/as strong as men? Still seems kinda moot, especially when one considers the development of other land-based hunting mammals: why is it the males are bigger, stronger and more dominant? Can't just be down to chance.)

Even so, Fell, virtually every other species has an estrus cycle. We don't. Just because other species don't do it is no guarantee mankind wouldn't produce a matriarchical society...
 
Even so, Fell, virtually every other species has an estrus cycle. We don't. Just because other species don't do it is no guarantee mankind wouldn't produce a matriarchical society...

I'm just suggesting that human biology as is, unless through some means of establishing an overwhelming majority of numbers, a genuinely matriarchal society would be a non-starter because, ultimately, strength = power, which was then formalised through chieftans, collectives, etc., which led to some women have power over some men, but significantly only in positions when they backed by men.

Of course it could've developed differently, but it didn't, so it won't.
 
I'm inclined to agree with you. The dynamics of power work differently in a all-women social group than in a all-men group. Just look at the school yard: social control, the threat of ostracism etc. are much more dominant in girls' groups than those of boys, and violence or threat thereof much less. Our society works by social power conforming to the dominant, all-male dynamism. In a female-dominated society, men would have to get used to the all-women model.



Ah, but are all the ruling elites just as violent and oppressive in all known men-dominates cultures? Of course not, because there are different sorts of models for rule on the violence-social control scale. The female model would be the same, although it would skew this template and emphasise the soft power approach. There would, of course, be some societies very geared for violent rule, but less so than OTL.





Again agree, but I'd submit that there would be a two-tier military: the brute force and numbers formed of men and specialiced tasks by women. There would be, say, a small standing army of cavalry and the core cadres of the infantry, composed mainly of women. Men would, by custom, rarely rise above the NCO class (which group, though, they would dominate). The bulk of the army, men, would be drafted by an ad hoc system and disbanded soon after hostilities. Women would be privy to the skills, weapons and organisation of the nobility/officer class and in a position to put down insurrections of misguided men.

Social control and propaganda would be crucial and widely used. Trust and veneration towards the female leaders would have to be a thing ingrained in the minds of men all the way from early childhood. The men would not think they are being oppressed - as soon as someone does that, the women are going to be in trouble.

IMO it would not be all too improbable, that in a female-dominated world male infanticide would be a common practise. Keep the numbers of men low to control the social structure and avoid the rise of male power.

Have to say that I agree with most of the things in your post. Even in the patriarchal societies of OTL, the various elites (political, economic, academic, etc) don't rely on brute strength to rule, they rely on financial/cultural means to.

Your point about the fact that men in the military in a matriarchal world would only rise to a certain middle level and then all the elite ranks would be filled by women was what I was thinking too. Very similar to how European powers operated in Africa in OTL. I know that is a rather peculiar comparison, but I think there are quite a few parallels.

First of all, female-domination would always be based on men being conditioned to accept it, much like in OTL colonialism persisted until the subject populations started to not accept their position. Another parallel is the fact that it was even until towards the end of colonialism very easy for European powers to get non-whites to fight for them and against their own people in exchange for a priveleged position in society (relative to other non-whites). Similarly I think it would be very easy for a female-dominated society to get men to fight for them and against other men in exchange for a priveleged position in society (relative to other men).
 
Hmmmm...

It is hard to say what path the world would take under female rule. Both Catherine the Great and Cleopatra supported war while others would not. And let's not forget the Amazonians. To assume a more peaceful world simply because women rule is ridiculous. Humanity will always be what it must be to survive, regardless of what sex is in charge.

Still, there is a great amount of research that supports that due to the drop in males in Germany following both WWI and WWII led to the democratization of Germany under a largely female population.

Would a female dominant society lead to a better world? Who knows. That is the glory of theorizing.
 

King Thomas

Banned
In most countries you would only have the very top ranks totally filled by females, men could still get to the lower and maybe the middle ranks. You might have some men that decided to "sleep to the top", and other men who dressed up as women to advance. You might have one or two countries that were reverse Saudi Arabias, though, but not many.
 
I think the world would be more peaceful, safer, and more controlled. Women are more conservative (not in the political way) than men are in general. Also women are more empathic so things like technology would be safer but probably less advanced.
Men are more likely to ignore odds of 1 in a thousand of dying then women are. That is why women go to the doctor far more often then men for basic check ups. Of course women could still use men to test out dangerous things like early flight but I believe some of the more obvious problems would be fixed without killing about 100 pilots to figure things out. So industry would be better self controlled but the govt would have more power to slap down companies that weren't safe.
This would probably make technology less advanced in general but better with what they had. There would be less planned obsolesence but more slow improvements of established technologies.
 
Woman control world is impossible. It's just not going to happen, unless you change the way humans think physically.
 
Top