In such a scenario men might have a LOT more to do with childcare than they do now, which might help with that burden considerably.
Humans already have their males contribute a lot more to raising offspring than many (most?) other mammal species so that evolutionary path is possible, even if not common. But then, we are very much not common mammals.
Sure, with a patriarchal system already in place, and women, all of a sudden, becoming 30% more massive, stronger, and [possibly] more aggressive, there’s going to be conflict. Although 1 on 1 male-spurred abuse toward women will now favor female dominance (assuming no use of weapons), patriarchal norms will linger until, and unless women revolt (e.g. civil war between the sexes, coup d’état, or friendly takeover). IRL, social change is rarely so binary or violent; it typically involves a complex interplay of factors, negotiations, and adaptations over time. Gender roles and power dynamics are influenced by a multitude of factors beyond physical abilities, such as cultural beliefs, economic structures, and historical contexts. But, this is one possible pathway.
If, on the other hand, women became 30% bigger, stronger, and more aggressive before the patriarchal society evolved, then I believe a matriarchal society would have instead developed. It would be realized that women are the better hunters and protectors of the pack. Of course, women would remain the child-bearers, but that would be accounted for. Women’s role may be that of child-bearer, hunter, and protector, while men’s roles may be that of child rearer, domestic chore doer, and temporary hunter (while women are in late stages of pregnancy).
This is highly speculative, for sure. One must consider the interplay of biological, social, cultural, and historical factors in shaping human societies, and it’s important to recognize that societal change is complex and multifaceted, often involving adaptations and negotiations among various groups over time.
Personally, I’d like to live in a society where the size differential between sexes is about the same as that of the Black Widow spider (~2/1)…but only if I could be born female.
What if after women gave birth men did all the child-raising after that? Would that even it out at all? Sort of like kiwi birds where the females produces and absolutely enormous egg and the males do all the child care after that.
Also, successfully reproducing isn’t just about what women’s bodies go through - it’s also about getting enough food, building shelter, and other things. Would probably never be equal, but it could be evened out considerably.
Do I have to agree or disagree? I’m exploring the question, not trying to assert one position or another it right or wrong.
This thread to me seems to be a veiled argument of “testosterone bad” and the size differential being used to blunt its impact.
I think for human society to have evolved or even survived, it needed sufficient testosterone in either male or female members. I can imagine a human society where females are in charge, or more in charge, but I think that’s unlikely without them having more testosterone as well. Reading about the oft mentioned bonobos, that seems to be the case there. More aggressive female behavior, less passivity and choosing the males allowed to copulate.
As far as why human males developed patriarchy, the human males figured out they were in competition with males from other tribes. The harem model is really not all that great for males, as most are defeated after a relatively short time in charge, and many are outright killed in adolescence. Whereas the females have a much more stable society. Men of a tribe agreeing that competition for females was only going to occur under certain limited conditions would outcompete men from neighboring tribes that didn’t have such an agreement. Because the men from the cooperative tribe were strengthened by working together.
A post was merged into an existing topic: SyncoSmalls trocking thread
The notion that there was universally a gender split in hunter vs gatherer roles is rapidly being shown to be bunk. Only a minority of HG societies work that way, and that seems to hold true for the Paleolithic, too.
Have the men nurse the babies. That still wouldn’t be equal to pregnancy and childbirth but it would take some of the physical sacrifice from women and place it with men.
Men do have breast tissue. With the proper hormones that tissue can lactate. Just a wild notion.
Bird eggs are not like mammal eggs. The mother has to pack them with all the nutrients the embryo needs to develop into a viable baby. They are metabolically similar in cost to a newborn mammal.
Extremely interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Men’s sports are popular because men watch men’s sports. I see no reason why men would stop watching themselves when they are weaker. It’s not like South Korean Football fans root for other national teams featuring larger and stronger players because of that difference.
I’m not sure this is the case. Using your example, I seem to see a lot more South Korean women following the men’s team in the FIFA World Cup than following the women’s team in the FIFA Women’s World Cup.
Sure, there are other things tied up into FIFA like National Pride. Korean women can watch Korean women now. They don’t choose too, there is no market, and you’re saying that is because women are weaker? Does it play out like this for any other aspect of culture?
Rather I would argue it’s the testosterone in men that makes watching competition for us almost compulsive.
I’m always dubious about arguments that gender-norm differences in a historically and persistently sexist society should necessarily be ascribed to physiological differences. There’s all kinds of social acculturation baked into the phenomenon of men’s watching sports and other competitive events. I’m not at all convinced that it just boils down to hormonal compulsion.
Am I missing something? The main difference between men and women isn’t physical size – some women are bigger than some men, and societies don’t function based on whether you can overpower someone physically, on a day to day basis – or even on the threat of so doing. This is normally seen as transgressive behavior.
The main difference is in the amount of aggressiveness. The reason men dominate is because vying for domination is built in. They do this to each other, they do this to women. All cultures try to repress or at least control this factor, some a lot more successfully, because without controlling this propensity, you can’t have a culture at all.
I’m not saying, please, that women can’t be aggressive or mean, because duh, they sure can. Or that women don’t want their own way, like everyone. But just imagine for a moment, a society of all women. Now, a society of all men (that’s easy because that’s pretty much what war is).
I mean, a male monastery is also a society of all men, though? Warfare is not the only way that a community can be exclusively male (and even warfare doesn’t consist of entire societies that are all-male).
This is true. Although it seems to me that warfare is a lot more popular than monasticism.
True. Unfortunately, warfare generally seems to come with a lot more peer pressure and coercion than monasticism.
If the king decides to become a monk, that usually doesn’t mean that all the able-bodied men in his kingdom suddenly get called up to serve as monks also.
There’s that. But think of the Crusades. Two birds one stone.