I read a synopsis of the fantasy "A Brother's Price" where humanity birth rates of male to female favors females 9:10 times making males a rarity. In the book, men take on the passive feminine role women have in real society as bartering chips in marriages who have to maintain their purity before marriage. Meanwhile the excess of women make up the warrior classes, the active roles in society and rule society in a matriarchal system.
Is this accurate to how real society would form if men made up a notably smaller population IYO?
>>1130187
Unlikely. Men are still the stronger more aggressive sex biologically speaking, and biologically speaking again, a single man can impregnate many women. Now, sheer wait of numbers could mean men have more limited rights then they do now, but there is no need to prize male virginity as such.
It's more likely you'd see harems and polygamy rather then men being prized for their virginity or whatever.
>not using the physically superior men as juggernauts to steamroll enemy females
even in fiction chicks are retarded
I doubt it. If you look at history, there were lots of cases were a relatively small minority group conquered a much larger majority population. While that isn't gendered, it still goes against the idea that all you need is a majority to dominate. Many Central Asian groups that came to dominate China fall into this category, such as Xianbei, Xiongnu, Mongols and Jurchen/Manchu.
The reality is that while some women can be quite strong, the strongest men tend to be stronger than the strongest women. In a society where women far outnumbered men, they would probably have a larger role in society but I still think strongmen would dominate as they would be the better warriors in many cases imo.
>>1130195
If men did make up only 10%, do you think societies would have women make up the armies? Would men be allowed to have combat roles in this situation?
Like you said there is a biological physical superiority among men so any army that allowed their men to fight would probably have them as elites in the vanguard.
>>1130195
Harems with the male as the dominate partner right? Actually I agree with you if that's the case. Men would be a more prized commodity and so the ones who were born would likely be expected to have 2-5 wives since there aren't as many men for monogamous relations.
>>1130195
>>1130213
the whole situation is just absurd. if there were only 10% men of the whole population and it was like that like a norm and not due to some sudden disaster, evolution would have affected sexes biological differences that much that you could barely recognize them as same species as us or even each other.
>>1130187
But it only takes one man to fertilize several women. The premise is flawed. In such a world everything would be the same except there may be more and larger harems of wives.
Not sure it would end up like that.
There would be such competition for men that women would be even more appearance obsessed and competition between them would be insane. Even the lowest most beta man would be swimming in pussy.
Men would still probably dominate society as a sort of upper elite. The Elite has always been the minority, yet rules, why should it be different when its gender based rather than class based?
>>1130258
So do you think society would still be a patriarchy in this situation? How would war work, just at a severely smaller scale between men only or would they let the female majority participate?
>>1130187
I picture polygamy happening, but women probably would be used in warfare, etc.
>>1130187
>birth rates of male to female favors females 9:10 times
>maintain their purity before marriage
Unless men marry a dozen women at once, you can't have both.
Beyond that, I don't think you'd have female warriors. It's not something we see in nature; we make war because of inherent male drive and agression. Rather, if men are few, something more like a lion society of roving males gathering a harem would have evolved.
Unless, of course, the women were also heavily masculinised, like what has happened in spotted hyenas. Then and only then you would have female warriors.
>>1130237
Yeah, something like that. Life would be like some of the doujins I like to fap to. Of course actually living that scenario out in real life would not be as great as it is in fap fiction.
>>1130278
There would be female warriors or soldiers. Who cares if they're weaker, its a numbers game. The neighboring nation who decided to stop restricting its military to 10% of the population suddenly have a massive army which dominates men only forces 9 to 1, or shift it for gender differences, 7 to 1. Women are adult humans, they can kill people quite easily, they're no where near as weak as the internet likes to make out.
>>1130291
I agree with that, but it might be different from society to society and over the course of time, I think.
>>1130289
No doubt
>have 5 wives
>5x the nagging
>5x the jealousy
Honestly, Muhammad was pretty lucky with his harem. All his women were pretty top tier and weren't out trying to murder each other. Though if Muhammad's three sons had survived into adulthood it probably would have torn the Muslim community apart in civil war.
>>1130291
You are assuming societies would evolve in the first place. They would not. We would just have gender-imbalanced hunter-gatherers in perpetuity because there would literally be no competition between males for females.
Male competition has driven all of the advancements in human history.
femdom is my fetish so i approve of this thread
>>1130213
Women warriors have happened in our own history, contrary to what you might hear on /pol/ However contrary to what you might hear on tumblr it is a lot rarer then hollywood likes to portray outside of things like defending one's home.
In this scenario though? I expect to see women soldiers and such being very common place, there would simply be no real way of avoiding it.
>>1130321
I thought OP was suggesting it changed during the iron age or something.
If it was before than it would just be some very happy cavemen.
how would they stop the men committing suicide
>>1130434
So you agree with the idea that in a world where there is little competition among men for women that we wouldn't advance technology?
Seems a bit too black and white to really be the case. We have other needs to meet beyond fucking, having food being a major one that would encourage a shift to agriculture.
>>1130422
Why can't people be like that? It always has to be one extreme or another.
>>1130445
by fucking them
>>1130449
There would be less war, men mostly cause wars, and war is something that boosts technology.
>>1130187
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
>>1130471
So, you're telling me that if a woman was in control of a non-modern country/kingdom/empire, she wouldn't start wars with other people? Holy shit, you need to stop huffing the paint cans and think for a moment.
>>1130187
thats technicaly called a 'tournament species'
theres examples of that all across the species, primates particularly
hint- the females dont fight in the 'tournaments'
>>1130482
not that anon but I think yes, in a world ruled by woman there would be no wars as we know them. There would still be feuds and border violence between countries but no mobilization of armies. Also I imagine a matriarchy would be an extremely repressive police state.
>>1130482
wars are usualy goal oriented operations with their own internal logic and implyed organisation, they involve forms of strategy aimed at eventualy ending the conflict and achieving peace
i seriously doubt that women would even bother to start mere wars... no... thats way too easy, way to logical, we wouldnt be that lucky
>>1130187
Quit wasting our bandwidth. Paranormal DOES NOT MEAN Fantasy Fiction Children
Try >>>/lit/ or /b/.
>>1130510
imagine the culture of emotional blackmail and authoritarian control that such a society would involve
imagine the 'intelligence' or 'secret services' or the selforganised forms of informing, repression and censorship that would just be a normal thing
like every time you walked down the street that fucking old lady that elbows herself at her window all freaking day long would definitely see you, and youd know she sees you and youre supposed to ignore it or say hello even, and share a few words, and ask her about her fucking family, and wouldnt you like to meet her niece she just came to town from service shes a realy nice girl, unless youre hiding something, but you cant hide anything from baba, baba is everywhere, baba knows more than you think
>>1130567
not to mention the compulsory state insemination camps aka semen farms
>>1130598
>state
i doubt it would be that simple
im pretty sure a intrinsic structure of matriarch 'councels' would just couple everione into breeding pairs/groups when they are old enough to show sexual caracteristics
this is probably how everithing would get delegated
this only makes perfect sense because They Know Best
but the interesting question is who would look over all the sowing needles and wool spindles and coathanger wires and such... you know the things that babyes are made to go away with
>>1130598
and the lesbic religion
numbers won't make up for testosterone and muscle density.
>>1131083
>no groups of males greater than 5 in number can convene at any time
>no male may weigh above x lbs
>no male may own a weapon
And whatever other decrees would be imposed I'm sure
>>1130187
In order for that to work, humans would have to had evolved from an eusocial animal, and that would have been downright horrifying.
>>1130237
Technically an harem has the male as the dominate partner by definition. Not such a thing as an harem of men.
>>1130187
No, it's stupid. If anything, a society where the male is so prized would not be matriarchal. On the contrary.
The virginity thing is even more silly.
>>1130187
this is the fantasy of the beta
If 9 women were born for every man and male virginity was prized, humanity would go extinct in 3 decades.
Unless pregnancy only lasts 1 month instead of 9. But that just leads to massive overpopulation and resulting population crashes.
