How different would historical gender dynamics and modern dating be if the size/strength difference between males and females were reversed, but everything else had remained the same?

HungerISanEmotion · 2023-04-20T17:01:26+00:00

Just look at hyena packs.

Females lead the pack, but they also fight, hunt...

Males often migrate between the packs, they do some light work, offer their sperm, move on.

KirthWGersen · 2023-04-20T16:58:43+00:00

Average men would be even more slaves to women than they are now.

MrsKetchup · 2023-04-20T18:40:22+00:00

Bonobos are our closest DNA relatives and have female led societies, we have a glimpse of what it could potentially look like:

A whopping 99% of our human DNA is the same as that of our closest primate cousins – chimps and bonobos. But while chimps tend to be male-led, bonobos take their lead from females. Females make the travel plans, explains Takeshi Furuichi at Kyoto University, who studies bonobos in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Females eat first, because they organize dinner.

Conflict is much less common in bonobo societies versus their scrappy chimp cousins. Female bonobo bosses, although smaller than males, regularly intervene as peacekeepers. While females often lose one-on-one scuffles with males, “When more than two females collaborate [to fight] males, 100% of the time, females win,” he says.

But given the choice, it seems bonobos would rather make love, not war. Intimate contact is common, and bonobo females use frequent sex to reduce tensions with both males and females. With females at the helm, bonobo society is a lot more chilled out.

Sex probably wouldn't have been a vilified act throughout history, no need for a sexual revolution, it would just be a normal function with no negative connotations. A lot of strife and tension between genders stems from sexual dimorphism. If history had played out without one gender being subjugated by the other, society would be vastly different today

kochIndustriesRussia · 2023-04-20T17:56:26+00:00

Women would've turned us into cattle by now.

Yellowheese45 · 2023-04-20T16:52:56+00:00

LingonberryGood3915 · 2023-04-20T22:21:59+00:00

thats an impossible question because that's theoretically impossible. men and women have coevolved and all behaviors have evolved to fit the existing sexual dimorphism.

your asking something like: how would planets move without gravity, but without gravity there is no matter and no planets to move. without existing sexual dimorphism, there would be no humans.

Illustrious_Wish_383 · 2023-04-20T23:10:36+00:00

Never understood why a species that without weapons routinely loses badly to 60 lb dog breeds yet can invent satellite guided bombs and stealth drone aircraft cares so much about physical strength

epicgamergamingtime · 2023-04-21T03:13:30+00:00

At some point men would just have evolved to be bigger again.

If you drop a tribe of big women and small men in our home the savannah the men will still form all male hunting parties because they are still faster and less prone to injury due to a physique that doesnt have to take giving birth into account.

With famines coming and going big women die out due to non optimal energy usage with both being big and giving birth requiring big amounts of energy.

Women will also notice that taller men perform a bit better at hunting so this will be rewarded with more reproduction opportunities.

Also should another tribe invade then most of the men and aggressive strong women will be killed off. Letting the victorious likely stronger men create off spring with women that physically comply.

Over time these pressures create societies with smaller women and bigger men. Thats what I think would happen at least.

gofigure62 · 2023-04-20T18:00:34+00:00

Strength doesn't have anything to do with how males behave and the human social hierarchy. Most species have sexual dimorphism and the males aren't excessively dominant over the females. In most species, even social animals the sexes stay primarily divided and the males express aggression towards other males, not females.

I believe that most of our historical social behaviors have been shaped by psychopaths and people with personality disorders literally culling out passive and peaceful people.

In most societies equalitarian and peaceful people have been persecuted and eradicated. Violence and murder has been a highly effective tool into eliminating those that refuse to cooperate or participate within the hierarchy. Violence and murder is also a highly effective tool to manipulate and control weak and fearful individuals from revolting and stepping out of line.

Human behavior doesn't have much bearing in biology and is deeply rooted in cultural and social beliefs. Which is why there is so much hysteria surrounding people who don't subscribe to expected gendered behaviors.

If gendered behaviors was merely a result of males being stronger than females, then women would inherently behave in an exact manner without having to be coached, threatened, controlled, etc into doing so. Which isn't the case.

TheSongsInYourHead · 2023-04-20T17:05:32+00:00

This is going to be mostly speculation, but I assume society would be structured around men as an underclass. Honestly we need more women than men for the purposes of reproduction, so men would be around for mainly work and protection. But if men are physically weaker then they are also less valuable for work and protection.

So if you're not good for reproduction and you're no good for defense, then what good are you? You're just another mouth to feed.

I imagine in modern times as physical strength starts to matter less you'd see movements for men's rights, similar to the movements we've seen historically. But, I doubt it would be as effective. Men are more or less useless in this hypothetical, so I don't know why women would ever budge on their rights. Men would also likely still be the ones sent to war because there's no reason to risk women's lives if you have men. Even if the women are better fighters, they'd still be responsible for birthing children.

So with the scenario, one of the major traits that made men valuable and given it to women, while women still have the traits that make them value, so men are worthless.

pikecat · 2023-04-20T23:41:21+00:00

Women would have continued to stay closer to the tribal home, because of child rearing. Having one baby per year tends to do that. Any tribe that has fewer children is wiped out and/or out populated by those that have more kids.

Men would have hunted dangerous prey to eat and fought in wars, where the weakest would die in greater numbers, eventually resulting in larger males. The posited situation would revert back to the way it is. In this case, maybe all guys are over 6' now.

Far-End2208 · 2023-04-21T07:00:45+00:00

they would eat us like praying mantis

HobbitShaker88 · 2023-04-20T19:55:30+00:00

Its not possible for everything else to be the same. Men have dominated throughout history because they on average are naturally physically stronger.

cromulent_weasel · 2023-04-21T02:14:55+00:00

If women were stronger than men, then they would also be doing a lot of the things that people relied on mens strength to do. So 'but everything else had remained the same' is just not how it would be.

Mitoza · 2023-04-20T17:25:45+00:00

Things would be similar because the primary gender role differences come down to the mechanics of reproduction. Women would still pay the high individual cost of getting pregnant and giving birth, and they would still need to be taken care of during that vulnerable time no matter how strong they were.

januaryphilosopher · 2023-04-20T17:13:50+00:00

There's this French movie I once watched called Je Ne Suis Pas Un Homme Facile (I Am Not An Easy Man, if you ant to find it on Netflix). It sums up my feelings on the topic pretty well. TLDR: same patriarchy, but women are the men.

Mental_Iron319 · 2023-04-20T17:59:20+00:00

We wouldn't be here

CommunicationNo9896 · 2023-04-20T19:13:28+00:00

Men had leverage by being strong because for most of history jobs were labor intensive, and usable energy was scarce.

Oil, which ironically women environmentalists love to hate, literally freed humanity of most labor jobs that were killing us for so long. It moves machinery, gives electricity, plastics and materials that are easy to carry and melt, lubrication substances for machines instead from animals, etc. Science was already there, but a new energy source engineering use science to make better stuff.

However, this energy revolution also made male strength less useful directly, so this results in pushing for equality. Same as the pill made women push for sex positive attitudes... something impossible before the pill. Imagine a society full of orphans or bastards, it would not live for long, so sexuality had to be repressed before the pill.

So women in this OP's scenario would probably keep a few men in cages and have sex with them for reproduction or fun. Most men would live in the wild and civilization probably would not exist because men being interested in families and love is what motivated them to create a surplus that resulted in the civilized world.

AutoModerator · 2023-04-20T16:39:26+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

VehementlyDrawn · 2023-04-20T17:33:02+00:00

It would just reverse the dynamic that we have today

Safinated · 2023-04-20T18:04:58+00:00

It’s not just the means, it’s the motivation — would women also be hornier and more violent/aggressive, not just bigger and stronger?

And if not, that would be really weird; I have no clue, really. The only social animals with a reversed physical dynamic that I can think of are hyenas and naked mole rats, but I believe the females are also more aggressive and horny

InjectAdrenochrome · 2023-04-20T20:35:26+00:00

Ah, I prefer the thought experiment if men and women were physically equal in strength how would gender dynamics change. At that point only our reproductive differences would matter and how would that change society.

Obviously if the roles were reversed women would be in charge. Boring thought experiment.

SorryEm · 2023-04-20T23:22:38+00:00

Living as an underclass, belittled and bullied, not having social power or physical power and not having any real agency, humans are now essentially a more intelligent version of Hyenas.

Unlike Hyenas, male humans will have the drive and will to just simply leave and create their own society with a stricter patriarchy in regards to women, to the point where they are not even allowed to carry weapons, will likely be required to consume some concoction which weakens them and will forbid them from even showing an ounce of aggression.

This version of humans likely will not last very long and will face extinction or just evolve so that it's the men who are stronger.

Cupcakelover1985 · 2023-04-21T07:55:17+00:00

In this scenario do reproductive burdens switch as well or does it stay the same?

If reproductive burdens stayed the same I think things would be pretty similar for men dating wise. Women would still be picky about who they date and reproduce with because they’re still the ones carrying the baby. Socially I think things would be better though for women as the world would probably be matriarchal and look similar to matriarchal societies in nature where the female animals are bigger and stronger. Women would run most things and men would just be there for leisure and sperm if they’re chosen.

If reproductive burden switched I think things socially and legally would still be better for women again because of the matriarchal aspect. I dating would be better for men though because now they get to pick who’s genes carry on. Women who wanted families wouldn’t be able to be so picky as they’d need men to make the final decision on that matter.

Notsonewguy7 · 2023-04-21T12:12:55+00:00

The disposability of sperm would probably maintain the dating greater we should probably eventually lead to differences in gender at least from a cultural context if not from a biological one. But initial societies will probably be more egalitarian and there's some evidence depending on who you talk to that suggests that men and women had much more similar roles in a pre-agricultural Society even the pre-tribal societies.

pagan6990 · 2023-04-21T13:38:57+00:00

I think it's highly likely the human race would have died out. On average males have a much higher sex drive than women. If they were not physically stronger than the females than sex would have occurred much less often and therefore would have had much fewer offspring.

Comments