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

[Angelblaze]

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).

Strange, because in a story I'm working on in which humans are discovered by aliens and they actually begin to get along and fight alongside each other (over-simplified, I know, but I don't want anyone stealing my ideas ) one of the main characters comes from a race that are EXTREMELY respectful of their women, to the point where their men actually believe that the entirety of their bodies, right down to their souls, is property the of their mothers and should be returned by the end of their lives.

And, creepily enough and I don't know how I thought this up...
The greatest honor a man can have is to have his body burned, put into a fetus shaped container and placed back inside of his mothers body (if she's dead, otherwise his ashes are given back to his mother).

This thread is fulled with info I can use and drawn inspiration from....pretty damn nice...

 

[Scarim Coral]

Well for one thing, if women were more stronger than men then they would of been in the frontline army (and more) all the way back to ancient time.

 

[Objectable]

I like to think it would turn into Red Dwarf.
You know, season II finale? With Wilma Shakespeare and Georgia Washington?

 

[Voulan]

This reminds me of a documentary I watched the other day on angler fish. All angler fish are actually female, and apparently it took a long time for scientists to figure out how they reproduced. It was later found that these fish have a squirmy looking organism that attaches to them underneath - this is the male angler fish. It's only purpose in life is to provide sperm for reproduction when the female wants it, otherwise the female fish is the one that protects and provides nourishment for the male thing. It sounds horribly bleak and depressing, so not entirely what this hypothetical history would have turned out like I'm sure. It's certainly an interesting example, though.

Perhaps all the roles would stay the same, but instead the values would reverse. So being physically stronger is instead a testament to being more violent instead of the more valued caring mother.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Gender norms are all socially constructed and have no root in biology. Men plowing the fields and women taking care of the kids? That wasn't true before the Industrial Revolution. Whoever was available did the work, it didn't matter who was "stronger". And men took care of the kids too. In fact, parenting books at the time were written for men because they were seen as more capable of loving than women. Its amazing what you can learn in one semester of Race, Class, and Gender

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Presumably, not all that different all told. If we're going to suppose significant physiological differences, one should assume the various psychological and sociological foibles would be present as well. Thus men would likely simply take over the historical female roles (child rearing, agriculture, home management, etc) while women would take the roles historically reserved for men (leadership at all levels, warfare, hunting, etc). The same basic problems questions would still beset humanity (the whole "why are we here" sort of things) and the same basic problems (food, water, resources of all stripes) and thus we can assume that warfare would still be a thing only women would do the fighting and dying.

On that last note, since a female of the species is worth comparatively more than a male when it comes to reproduction (in that a single male is sufficient to fertilize countless females) one might conjecture that either warfare would tend to be more limited in scope or complete annihilation of a civilization would become more common. Losing a few thousand fertile females on the battlefield could easily destroy an ancient city state after all while the same number of men could be lost with little immediate consequence.

Ultimately, however, I don't expect the world would be terribly different.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Humans, meanwhile, developed in the opposite direction and it was this sexual jealousy that ultimately led to the development of a patriarchy. This sexual jealousy may be due to scarcer food in humans' natural habitat as well as more natural predators, hence the bread winners and fighters are more important and have a greater investment in the lineage of their children.

It is worth noting that patriarchal societies were not universally adopted. While I cannot think of any particular example of a female dominated culture, it is easy to point to a broad spectrum. The Romans thought relatively little of their women but some of the Germanic tribes gave them a remarkable degree of latitude and power within the tribe. Human history isn't the series of patriarchal societies we often think of it as - even in Western civilization this was hardly universally true.

 

[Yuuki]

Something like this even needs discussion?
I mean if women were physically larger/stronger/faster/etc to begin with, do people think really think women would be the ones fighting for the right to drive cars, vote in elections, be recognized in sports, or join the military?
Responses along the lines of "nothing would change" are...well, concerning

I'm going to go out on a limb and say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Gender norms are all socially constructed and have no root in biology.

If "gender norms" encompassed everything about the human race, then yeah maybe you would be vaguely correct.

But in reality men don't get pregnant, they are a heck of a lot physically stronger/durable, and all armies in the history of world (y'know, conquering lands and changing the course of entire nations) have always seen a rather alarming shortage of women.
Come to think of it, even today when you look at the world of sports (physical or motorsports) by far the biggest audience-grabbers and money-makers are dominated by male competition.

You seriously think if women were the bigger/stronger/faster sex with a mind more affiliated towards 3D spatial awareness, reflexes, etc...nothing would be different? Hahahaha.

It is worth noting that patriarchal societies were not universally adopted. While I cannot think of any particular example of a female dominated culture, it is easy to point to a broad spectrum. The Romans thought relatively little of their women but some of the Germanic tribes gave them a remarkable degree of latitude and power within the tribe. Human history isn't the series of patriarchal societies we often think of it as - even in Western civilization this was hardly universally true.

...but you can't think of any particular example of female dominated culture. Which is very strange because they make up half the population and have always existed since the beginning of mankind, yet all civilizations (or at least 99% of them) seem to have a similar pattern. It wasn't a monkey-see-monkey-do effect either, the biggest civilizations rose independently of each other and arrived at somewhat similar conclusions of men & women's roles. Coincidence?

I agree there were definitely societies which didn't STOMP on their women and at least treated them with respect...but overall there was still a generally unspoken rule of women to "know their place" in most matters :S

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

It would be a VERY different world. Lets just say that it wouldn't be women who had to fight for the right to vote, and they would most likely make-up the majority of engineers, soldiers, etc.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Gender norms are all socially constructed and have no root in biology.

If "gender norms" encompassed everything about the human race, then yeah maybe you would be vaguely correct.

But in reality men don't get pregnant, they are a heck of a lot physically stronger/durable, and all armies in the history of world (y'know, conquering lands and changing the course of entire nations) have always seen a rather alarming shortage of women.
Come to think of it, even today when you look at the world of sports (physical or motorsports) by far the biggest audience-grabbers and money-makers are dominated by male competition.

You seriously think if women were the bigger/stronger/faster sex with a mind more affiliated towards 3D spatial awareness, reflexes, etc...nothing would be different? Hahahaha.

>men are a heck of a lot stronger and durable

Oh my mistake. I forgot I was born with thick Rhino skin that makes me more resistant to damage unlike dainty tissue paper females. Once again, we watch male athletes because it's their role, not because they were born to do it. And you seem to be assuming that every culture throughout all of history has had the same gender roles. Spoiler: they don't. The only difference between men and women that would explain men's tendency toward combat roles is the link between testosterone and aggression, but recent studies suggest that's probably bunk too. I'm using my phone right now but I'm sure you can look up ancient armies with female combatants

It is worth noting that patriarchal societies were not universally adopted. While I cannot think of any particular example of a female dominated culture, it is easy to point to a broad spectrum. The Romans thought relatively little of their women but some of the Germanic tribes gave them a remarkable degree of latitude and power within the tribe. Human history isn't the series of patriarchal societies we often think of it as - even in civilization this was hardly universally true.

...but you can't think of any particular example of female dominated culture. Which is very strange because they make up half the population and have always existed since the beginning of mankind, yet all civilizations (or at least 99% of them) seem to have a a similar pattern.

While I agree there were definitely civilizations which didn't STAMP in their women and at least treated them with respect, there was still a generally unspoken rule of women to "know their place" :S

Vietnam had matriarchies with women as the head of families. In fact, American soldiers during the Vietnam War were frequently caught off guard by how involved women were in battles. They only started (marginally unsuccessfully) becoming patriarchal after being influenced by other cultures. And before we had civilizations, men and women in Hunter gatherer societies had virtually the same roles. Gender didn't exist until society existed and you can't prove otherwise unless you can prove every culture on the planet throughout history had the same gender roles

 

[Yuuki]

Oh my mistake. I forgot I was born with thick Rhino skin that makes me more resistant to damage unlike dainty tissue paper females.

Exaggerate much? You know what I was getting at.

Once again, we watch male athletes because it's their role, not because they were born to do it.

Not talking about male athletes. Talking about males in general, especially in older times where every one was expected to work from a young age and not sit around on couches playing videogames. Those were times when the strength and stamina of males really shone through, because the life was hard. Obviously women were hardened by those times too, but the biological advantage was clear.

And you seem to be assuming that every culture throughout all of history has had the same gender roles. Spoiler: they don't. The only difference between men and women that would explain men's tendency toward combat roles is the link between testosterone and aggression, but recent studies suggest that's probably bunk too.

Yup, all of history has been one huge coincidence (as shown by recent studies).

I'm using my phone right now but I'm sure you can look up ancient armies with female combatants

Oh I definitely looked up ancient armies with female combatants. Said armies either had <1% of their entire force as female combatants, OR such armies themselves made up maybe 1% of all armies ever. This is about proportions on a grand scale, not the "hey but look at Joan Of Arc!" statistical anomalies.

In fact, American soldiers during the Vietnam War were frequently caught off guard by how involved women were in battles.

"How involved" - yes, I too would be pretty damn surprised if I happened to kill a soldier and they turned out to be a woman (especially back in those times). Lets shed some light on that shall we:
Approx no. of women stationed under Vietnamese military: 11,000 (source: http://www.history.com/topics/women-in-the-vietnam-war)
Total no. of US soldiers deployed: 536,000
Total military casualties from both sides: 1.475 million (only military casualties! A lot of people survived).
That 11,000 is starting to look rather significant - and we're talking about a country that possibly has one of the highest proportions of women used in an actual war EVER.

Don't get me wrong, women absolutely played a part in wars...it's just that they're not as "directly" involved as males, more behind the scenes (e.g. communications, medical, etc).

And before we had civilizations, men and women in Hunter gatherer societies had virtually the same roles. Gender didn't exist until society existed and you can't prove otherwise unless you can prove every culture on the planet throughout history had the same gender roles

Umm....I think you need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
Especially the "Social and economic structure" part.

This is putting aside that all of mankind eventually progressed towards civilizations/society anyway, and almost every civilization/society started started differentiating genders more and more, it defined "progress". Unless you're implying that over the past 5000 years humans have been getting dumber lol. Maybe recent studies showed that