How would history and society be different if women were the physically larger and stronger sex?

[Brawndo]

A friend and I were discussing why women were treated as the lesser sex across most cultures throughout history, and she is convinced that it is predominantly because women bear children, and not because women are (on average) physically weaker and smaller than men. That got me thinking: how would society have developed differently if women still bore children yet were bigger and physically stronger than men?

 

[Zontar]

There could be a whole book written on how things would be different. Short of it in my opinion is things would more or less be the same, however with most gender norms being reversed and an idea of men taking the place of women in times of pregnancy, only for the status quo to return to normal once the birth has occurred.

 

[skywolfblue]

There could be a whole book written on how things would be different. Short of it in my opinion is things would more or less be the same, however with most gender norms being reversed and an idea of men taking the place of women in times of pregnancy, only for the status quo to return to normal once the birth has occurred.

I agree.

It would be a little weird during and shortly after pregnancy, men not having breasts means a female still would have to watch over the kid for a while. But after that, the females could go back to hunting, and leave the males to look after the kids.

I don't think that would change history too much, females are capable as the same acts of horror and acts of good that men are. Though for interest, if females were physically larger and stronger, would they be as likely to use poison as they are now? Imagine a never-ending war of endless assassinations by poisoning.

 

[Esotera]

It would be very weird, because it doesn't make sense.

In terms of reproduction women are more valuable than men (one man can fertilize a thousand women and still be productive, doesn't work the other way around), so it makes no sense to make the more valuable of the two the protector, who takes the risks, puts their life on the line, etc.

It could lead to a situation where pregnant women would have to protect the weaker males.
So yeah.

As always, nature has a couple of exceptions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Species_with_larger_females_than_males]. This seems to be mostly in species where females are either too big to suffer predation or produce so many offspring it doesn't matter...it would still be a bit weird in humans though as you said.

OT: middle-class white men would actually be a persecuted minority and I expect we'd see similar sexual discrimination in terms of jobs/pay, just in reverse & slightly different (i.e. less catcalling).

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

Evidently someone needs to watch the Futurama episode about the giant Amazonian planet. From that we know that big, strong women could easily rule, but they will always be hindered by their lack of ability to 'dunk' in basketball.

On a slightly more serious note, isn't this situation true for many species in nature already, such as spiders? Where women spiders are much bigger and often kill the male spiders or where there is one female snake and the male snakes fight over her - there is plenty of species I'm sure that have bigger women and cause there to be subservient men, so I do not see why this could not be true for humans as well and big, powerful women could easily have swapped the 'gender roles' or stereotypes.

 

[iseko]

Does this also mean that women would have trouble getting laid and men would just have to sayk. And get free drinks and stuff?

 

[KalCyan]

Very little would change. As there is no significant difference in the way males and females think, women in charge would likely have us in same position we are now with a few exceptions. Men would likely still be soldiers, as already stated women give birth and while pregnant are not exactly the nimblest of people. It would be interesting to see the result of those in charge also being the ones that raise children, either that or there would be an upper and lower class of females.

Oh and woman would be acting the same as men because the bigger stronger individual has an easier time oppressing a weak one. One by one those willing to abuse such power will alter the social systems they exist in so that they are in charge.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Very little would change. As there is no significant difference in the way males and females think, women in charge would likely have us in same position we are now with a few exceptions. Men would likely still be soldiers, as already stated women give birth and while pregnant are not exactly the nimblest of people. It would be interesting to see the result of those in charge also being the ones that raise children, either that or there would be an upper and lower class of females.

Oh and woman would be acting the same as men because the bigger stronger individual has an easier time oppressing a weak one. One by one those willing to abuse such power will alter the social systems they exist in so that they are in charge.

Careful, friend. You're dangerously close to the utterly ridiculous notion that power, and not gender, is the seat of power.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

There are actually many species in which the male is much smaller than the female, especially amongst insects, fish, arachnids, etc. In these cases, males tend to be solitary, roaming around to find a mate, and often die afterwards. The females, on the other hand, tend to be territorial.

However, given the long gestation cycle of a human infant, I doubt a 'fire and forget' approach to males would be valid or effective. In this case, I think it likely male behaviour would likely be similar o that of bull elephants; whilst larger than the female, they are a good example of solitary males in complex mammals. Bulls leave the matriarchal herd once they reach adulthood, and only come into contact with females when they are seeking a mate. Similar behaviour can also be seen in dolphins, although they tend to form gangs of males, as opposed to leading a solitary existence.

In short, I believe that if females were the larger, stronger sex, human behaviour would be radically different. I think it likely that females would form matriarchal societies, who would collectively form most civilisation (or at least, in a form we recognise). Males, on the other hand, would probably leave upon reaching adulthood, and adopt a hunter-gatherer or bandit lifestyle, only interacting with female societies when the need arises. Of course, this assumes that male behaviour would be the same, and not adopt a more submissive role in line with their smaller stature.

 

[Lieju]

What, like spotted hyenas?

Spotted hyenas also have the kind of genitals that make rape pretty much impossible, because reproductive sex requires co-operation. Spotted hyena females have genitalia that resembles male; the clitoris resembles a penis, but masculine qualities are looked down upon, for example an erect 'penis' is a sign of submission.

Based on that species, if you just the size and strength and agression changed, the male and female relationships would be mirrored; women would have been in power throughout history and men would have been treated like property, giving birth and other female qualities would have been valued and we'd be having threads on how it would be nice if there were more male characters who weren't in there just as a love-interest or eye-candy.

EDIT:

It would be very weird, because it doesn't make sense.

In terms of reproduction women are more valuable than men (one man can fertilize a thousand women and still be productive, doesn't work the other way around), so it makes no sense to make the more valuable of the two the protector, who takes the risks, puts their life on the line, etc.

It could lead to a situation where pregnant women would have to protect the weaker males.
So yeah.

Spotted hyenas have difficult births, and the males don't participate in taking care of the cubs. And yet they manage.

There are many mammal species where the male doesn't help at all. The females just take care of themselves, and even if the males 'protect' them, it's usually more from other males of the same species.
If the humans had bigger females, and still lived in small groups, why would the males have to protect them? And not the female relatives of the pregnant woman? Maybe older children who aren't yet of breeding age?
It's not like humans all give birth to same time, and it's also possible not all females would, only dominant females might breed.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

I really think that a large part of the power imbalance of the sexes throughout history is due to females birthing babies rather than differences in physical strength. Given the high rate of death before reaching reproductive age throughout most of human history I imagine that it would take a lot of time and effort to birth the number of babies required to safely pass on your genes. That is time not spent accumulating wealth and power.

 

[Stu35]

How would history and society be different if women were the physically larger and stronger sex?

It wouldn't?

You'd pretty much just switch the words "woman" and "man" around in the history books. Instead of Emily Pankhurst we'd be reading about Edward Pankhurst, instead of Adolf Hitler we'd be reading about Adolphe Hitler...


What I'm trying to say is: Power abuses are the result of being in power, not because of some sort of 'evil' gene that only men have.

 

[Lieju]

I really think that a large part of the power imbalance of the sexes throughout history is due to females birthing babies rather than differences in physical strength. Given the high rate of death before reaching reproductive age throughout most of human history I imagine that it would take a lot of time and effort to birth the number of babies required to safely pass on your genes. That is time not spent accumulating wealth and power.

Maybe.
But in spotted hyenas, the females have higher androgen levels (possibly responsible for the females growing larger) and their cubs will too, making them grow quickly, and be agressive and dominant.

Also even if that was not the case, I think the attitudes towards feminine qualities would matter more. If giving birth was considered a sign of status, you could have cultures where the queen having children was considered something that helped her solidify her position and helped her accumulate wealth and power.

It's not like childcare removes women from power. The whole clan could take care of the children, or the male, the ruling class might not participate in physical activity, or take care of their offspring personally at all.

Or you could have a situation where the mothers create social bonds through communal childcare, and use those social connections in politics because the women they would meet would be influential. They might take care of each other's children and then get favors in return later.

EDIT:

How would history and society be different if women were the physically larger and stronger sex?

It wouldn't?

You'd pretty much just switch the words "woman" and "man" around in the history books. Instead of Emily Pankhurst we'd be reading about Edward Pankhurst, instead of Adolf Hitler we'd be reading about Adolphe Hitler...


What I'm trying to say is: Power abuses are the result of being in power, not because of some sort of 'evil' gene that only men have.

I don't think anyone has been claiming men have some kind of 'evil' gene.
This discussion is more about whether it is the difference in physical size, or agression, or the fact that women give birth that has made men dominant throughout history.

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

If women still gave birth I would imagine that we would have a situation in which women stay at home and have babies/protect the babies and men go out during the day and hunt/gather and then return in the evening with the catch. Which sounds pretty damn familiar actually. Women might be seen more like protectors than caretakers and men might be seen a little more like worker bees than "the breadwinner" but I don´t imagine things would be all that dissimilar.

 

[Mr. Charles]

It would be like the episode of Star Trek the Next Generation - the woman would have all the high powered jobs and the men would be forced to wear terrible clothes

 

[LetalisK]

However, given the long gestation cycle of a human infant, I doubt a 'fire and forget' approach to males would be valid or effective.

I dunno, it seems tons of douchebags utilize the fire and forget approach nowadays. XD

"Oh, you're pregnant? Peace out, I'm moving to Florida!"

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

However, given the long gestation cycle of a human infant, I doubt a 'fire and forget' approach to males would be valid or effective.

I dunno, it seems tons of douchebags utilize the fire and forget approach nowadays. XD

"Oh, you're pregnant? Peace out, I'm moving to Florida!"

+1 for social commentary, but I was actually referring to males in some species dying after mating, which would not be too viable for a slow developing, complex organism. Not so much 'forget the responsibilities' as 'forget the male'.