What A Human-like Female Population Dominated Society Would Really Be Like...

[Bamax]

What are the differences between male and female personalities?

It's in the averages and averages do not lie:

From a simple google search I got:



Males on average are more assertive and have higher self-esteem. Females were on average higher than males in extraversion, anxiety, trust, and, especially, tender-mindedness (e.g., nurturance).


What are the biggest differences in personality between males and females?
… women consistently report higher neuroticism, agreeableness, warmth and openness to feelings, and men often report higher assertiveness and openness to ideas.

So in a society where male birth was much more rare than female birth there are some things I can already say are a given.

1. Males will be protected like gold, since without them your society/civilization cannot continue... at least not under your control.

2. A LOT more group activities because women tend to already travel in packs as opposed to being like lone wolves focused on something like guys can be and often are.

3. Higher anxiety or being overly anxious will have an effect when the powers that be not only succumb to that themselves but also when they are beholden to people under them who can and do as well, forcing them to take action or else.


So based on all that, I am not sure a human-like society dominated by females with low male birth count would develop like the Loroi.

Granted, Loroi are strong as males for their weight, so I guess the real question is... would women STILL act the same if they were strong as men?

In the animal world strength or at least the appearance of it decides dominance, and the bigger an animal is, the more it will throw it's weight around and expect other animals to show deference or risk getting crushed, eaten, or simply shoved out the way.

So based on that, we could expect they WOULD throw their weight around and challenge male authority and argue even stronger for the argument that men are only necessary for reproduction.

But take away the strength upgrade and retain the low male birth rate and what have you got?

[Curlysan]

A lot of "what would be if. . " depends on the how: Is this something that would have occurred long ago in humanity? Or something that develops in our future? It would all hinge on the social mores that were developed to promote a stable society. Would it be caste-based? would it be selective breeding? (This male produces smarter offspring, or healthier workers/fighters) Would both of those mechanisms & more be involved? Interesting.

I think if this were a new situation developing in humanity currently, that would be one hell of an upheaval. I'm a firm believer in 'the faster a system is changed, the messier things get' .

[Bamax]

A lot of "what would be if. . " depends on the how: Is this something that would have occurred long ago in humanity? Or something that develops in our future? It would all hinge on the social mores that were developed to promote a stable society. Would it be caste-based? would it be selective breeding? (This male produces smarter offspring, or healthier workers/fighters) Would both of those mechanisms & more be involved? Interesting.

I think if this were a new situation developing in humanity currently, that would be one hell of an upheaval. I'm a firm believer in 'the faster a system is changed, the messier things get' .

Scenario: Male birth rate goes down drastically in the first century at the dawnn of Christianity.

Regardless of how history develops from that point, I think a female dominated civilization would more easily tolerate caste based systems than a male one.

Why this presumption? Necessity is the mother of invention.

With men more or less gone women will have to pick up the slack, and a caste system, however unequal or unfair it may be, is a way of achieving that provided you can handle or prevent revolts from succeeding.

I do not expect the ladies to be in long lines to want to replace the sewage worker or oil rig guys lol.

And we all know feelings generally hold more weight with women than mere ideas or logic, which is exactly why they want to complain at times without being given a solution as they simply want to vent their feelings.

Men and women provide and complement or complete each other in what they lack in a beautiful way.

Throw the balance off and things get... strange.


EDIT: Showing a woman you care about her feelings matters more than your logic or ideas do in general.... although not always. This is why these are averages.

[Bamax]

Also because pregnancy literally takes women off work with virtually no male replacement, I expect a caste system or one where you must earn the right to mate to be a thing.

Unlike the Loroi, this would be absolutely necessary for a human society largely devoid of males.

[SaintofM]

Also because pregnancy literally takes women off work with virtually no male replacement, I expect a caste system or one where you must earn the right to mate to be a thing.

Unlike the Loroi, this would be absolutely necessary for a human society largely devoid of males.

Pregnancy and birth also has its own dangers. You can't move as much, you have odd pains as the baby kicks you, giving birth is heart attack level pains, and because there is alot of blood involved and so infection was a leading killer of women and newborn children to the point the leading cause of death of women prior to WW1 was childbirth (after the 1914 it was war)

[bunnyboy]

Less single leaders, more group decisions, even if they might have single spokesperson.
Wars are less expansionist, but politics could be more cliched and civil wars and purges being more common.

No Alexander the Great or Charlemagne. The female leaders of history would be different how we know them, as they do not need appear as "maleness" to stay in power, but they might appear more social or more cruel.

[Bamax]

Less single leaders, more group decisions, even if they might have single spokesperson.
Wars are less expansionist, but politics could be more cliched and civil wars and purges being more common.

No Alexander the Great or Charlemagne. The female leaders of history would be different how we know them, as they do not need appear as "maleness" to stay in power, but they might appear more social or more cruel.

Actually I think single leaders would still emerge... albeit for reasons we as males may not have chosen.

If a plan fails somebody has to be held accountable, and it is easier to put the blame on an individual than a shadowy group of people who stay hidden but control all.

Thus a woman dominant society would have leaders who operate much as the spokeswomen for the groups they represent.

And if men are still like men with their strength, I can totally see several becoming rulers of countries, pushed abd encouraged by powerful women.

The most competent male rulers around would be looked up to.

Even in a woman dominant world men would find a way to rule part of it if not all of it.

[bunnyboy]

I did not say "shadow group" or no single leaders. I would say that strong leaders would be more closed with advisors or ass-kissers. And about someone held accountable, I kind of feel they would always find someone. But I also feel like I am falling into stereotypes here.

[Jagged]

I seriously doubt a female dominated society would be significantly different

[SaintofM]

I seriously doubt a female dominated society would be significantly different

An end of the Pink Tax, and make it a Blue Tax on Men instead