You can give women more strength than men, but if everything else remains the same, women still will be conditioned by society to hold back that strength. Perhaps male on female physical and sexual assault rates would drop, and conversely female on male assault would uptick some, but mostly, it would remain unchanged if only women’s physical strength increases.
Maybe the incel movement would be a bigger social force than now…
I think your original statement was cavalier, and so is this one defending it. You seem to be saying “women can beat men up, so men had better learn to be on their best behavior.”
If we reverse the genders, hyperbole or not, you wouldn’t find that offensive?
Moderating:
So far, this thread has stayed within the quite narrow bounds of how it was framed. However, let’s be careful to avoid discussion straying into Men’s Rights Advocacy, which is a Tired Topic that we no longer allow. Thanks.
That’s not at all what I am saying, and nowhere near my point.
Your earlier post said:
It sure sounded like you were saying that men would have to learn to alter their behavior to avoid being victims of domestic violence.
I know we’re talking about a hypothetical here, but I hope that this line of reasoning would be just as unacceptable as it is in the real world.
Some women find themselves in relationships with partners who subject them to physical abuse. While testosterone is associated with aggressive behavior, strength, and size, it’s important to recognize that it’s not the sole determinant of spousal abuse. Additionally, aggression, strength, and size are influenced by multiple factors beyond just testosterone levels.
In a hypothetical scenario where women are 30% larger and stronger, testosterone could potentially play a role, but it’s not the exclusive explanation. Genetic differences between the sexes, environmental influences, and other factors could also contribute.
Even if the increased size and strength in women were due to testosterone, it doesn’t necessarily imply a corresponding increase in aggression. Hormonal pathways are complex, and other factors, such as estrogen, which may inhibit aggression, need to be considered. For instance, if female estrogen levels remain constant and estrogen serves as an aggression inhibitor, we might not expect a rise in aggressive tendencies, even with elevated testosterone levels.
In such a scenario, while women might not exhibit higher aggression levels overall, men might be less inclined to engage in physical abuse due to the realization that they would be overpowered by physically stronger partners. It’s crucial to note, however, that even individuals typically peaceful in nature may resort to violence when provoked. IOW, don’t provoke a gentle giant.
That was well written and welcome.
It is speculation. What if men gave birth?
Moderating:
Let’s not bring an unrelated hijack into a narrowly-focused debate. Thanks.
Because the OP postulates that women are simply 30% stronger than men but we’re all still human beings. Humans like to play, therefore there will be sports. Humans are tool using animals. There will be technology.
But would they play like modern sports culture, which involves 99% of people filing into stadiums or plopping on sofas and barstools to watch an elite 1%? Or would it be people of all levels running around and playing with each other? Or something else entirely?
A lot of technological progress has been driven by groups of people trying to kill each other. Maybe we wouldn’t be doing that.
My point is you have no idea what this world would look like. I don’t either.
Every human culture that I’m aware of has had some form of sport but I don’t know exactly what form it would take in this case. You are grossly underestimating sport culture here in the United States when you limit it to the elite 1%. Like many Americans, I participated in organized sporting events starting at a very young age. I was six when I joined a soccer team, then t-ball, baseball, football, boxing, and wrestling as the years rolled by. Involvement in sports culture is far more common than the 1% (or fewer) of the elites who make up professional players.
Yes, every human culture where men are larger and stronger than women. Again, this would not be a human culture as we understand it.
I’ll admit I let my hypocritical cynicism about modern sports culture influence my post.
Nope. There are a handful of women in the WNBA who can dunk, but as a group they lack the explosiveness in jumping that men have. They’re shorter, of course, on average. Additionally, their average vertical leap is 10-12 inches less than men’s. There are tons of superbly talented women basketball players, but there are no female Doctor Js.
[quote=“Tibby, post:40, topic:1001028”]Not cavalier, just hyperbole to highlight a point. The point being it should be understood by the husband that a bigger, stronger wife would not have to submit to aggressive, or unreasonable demands made by the husband—because she’d have the physical power to dominate, if she had to.[/quote]I doubt that; it’s organization not personal strength that matters. If it’s a bigger, stronger woman against a dozen or a hundred smaller men (and their female enforcers) she loses. “The patriarchy” isn’t a single man, it’s an entire system of men. It’s not a coincidence that after literally thousands of years of stagnation at best, women’s rights started advancing once women started organizing.
If the goal is to get men to treat women better or create a matriarchy the thing to tweak is human alliance building, not muscle mass. Human societies have been patriarchal because men formed large social networks to keep it that way, not because of physical strength. If both genders formed large social networks they’d have ended up basically equal; if women formed large social alliances and men didn’t then neo-humanity would be female dominated like spotted hyenas. It’s numbers and organization that matter, not muscle.
There’s no goal here. It’s just a hypothetical where evolution took a different path.
Hyenas seem to manage it okay. The females are only slightly larger and heavier than the males, but even that seems to call into question your assumption that mammalian females have to compensate for their reproductive investment by smallness and weakness.
In fact, it appears that quite a few mammalian species have larger females than males, including about half the known species of bats, rabbits and hares.
I expect it does matter for the species as a whole. Bigger, stronger females would need more food, and if they can’t find enough to feed the extra overhead that version of the species will go extinct.
Making the males smaller while making the females bigger would most likely work fine on the other hand, it solves the food issue and there’s plenty of species like that.
Hyena females are stronger and more aggressive than the males. They also have high levels of testosterone and a clitoris that the ancient Greeks thought was a penis, because it’s that large.
So that’s one path for female mammals to be larger and stronger than men.
In many birds, the female is larger despite being the egg-layer.
Meet the spotted hyena, a mammal species where females are larger, stronger, and more dominant than males. You’re right about trade-offs - they have issues with giving birth, especially the first time. Overall, though their society and species functions quite well. Not quite sure how this all came about but the existence of this hyena species proves that such a species is viable.
In many bird species the female is likewise larger and stronger than the male, but that’s more apparent in birds of prey.
A larger female tends to produce larger offspring and/or carry that offspring for a longer time period. In the case of birds it’s not about being pregnant, but it about producing larger eggs which tend to be a reproductive advantage. In insects larger females produce more eggs. There are reproductive strategies favoring larger females, so many that if you take the entire animal kingdom into account the usual mammalian pattern of larger males is an outlier (and not even universal among mammals).
Keep in mind that even through human males are on average larger and stronger than human females female apes - chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans - are stronger than human males even though way, way back we have a common ancestor. Clearly, human hunting success and survival were NOT dependent on brute strength, however handy that might be. Men less strong but perhaps more agile, or with better aiming skills for projectiles, or better planning/strategy, or more stamina/endurance might have been more successful hunters. A woman with kids to feed is going to pick a scrawny guy who manages to bring home food on a regular basis over a brawny hunk with dismal hunting success, and there’s your mechanism for the men. Meanwhile, maybe the women concentrate on digging through hard ground to get large tubers or something where brute strength is an asset. There will still be competition between men, but there they only have to best other men, not women, and maybe this conflict will manifest in other than brute strength - maybe it will, like birds, involve dancing or building something women like as bower birds do to impress their mates. There you go, a rough outline of how women wind up stronger than men.
True - but not for all mammal species. Such as the spotted hyena. In other species of mammal there is less physical difference between the sexes.
I think it would be different, but not unrecognizable.
True - and it holds true to some extent in birds as well. But even in mammals it’s not set in stone which half is going to be stronger/more agressive.