What if; Women had to be the competitive ones?

Recommended Videos

Paragon Fury

The Loud Shadow
Jan 23, 2009
5,161
0
0
So, let's throw a little gas on the new year fire and go for an interesting question right off the bat. That question;

What if women instead of men were the ones who, throughout human history, had been the ones to have the pressure to compete and and prove themselves instead men? What would have become of humanity, even today?

Background for Topic
In real life human males, even in cultures or societies that discourage it, are known to be far more aggressive, competitive and goal/purpose orientated that human females - that is human males spend significantly more time and effort in the pursuit of proving themselves better than other males, seeking prestige of some kind, etc.

One of the more common theories behind why this is (and one some of you are probably familiar with) is that because throughout human history (from the time we could reasonably be defined as a "human species") the availability of breeding males has ALWAYS been significantly higher than the availability of breeding females, and the females capable of breeding are not mathematically able to handle all of the available males.

("Breeding" male/female in this case means a male/female that is healthy, of age and capable of having children - before any societal restrictions are imposed, which would further narrow the pool of candidates).

Because of this limit, males, in order to fulfill the basic biological urge to reproduce, have to compete with every other male at basically times to secure a suitable mate.


So what if we reversed that? What if females instead had to be the ones competing; for a basic reference, let's say that there are simply not enough males to go around (IE: Population skewed say that humanity becomes 65% female, 35% male etc.) or that a plurality of males cannot breed for some reason - thus making the remaining males or the ones that can breed something women have to compete over.

How does humanity change? Does it change?

Is everything the same, just more pink?

EDIT: TO clarify, I'm talking about if had been this way since "humans" could reasonably be defined as a species, not if it just started today.
 

Paragon Fury

The Loud Shadow
Jan 23, 2009
5,161
0
0
WinterWyvern said:
...You're telling me that women AREN'T competitive? They're so competitive they'd make your skin crawl, pal. It's just that they are competitive with other women, so men don't really notice it much.
But try being a woman in a workplace with other women.
Oh, I'm not saying that.

But women are not openly competitive in the same way men are; they can't be, because its bad for the species.

The best way I think I can put it is; men are competitive to eliminate other men from the competition. Women are competitive to simply improve their ranking; outright eliminating their competition (other women) while it may be personally beneficial is bad for the overall species and therefore not nearly as common or important.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Well, there's just too much wrong with the scenario you're proposing. As WinterWyvern pointed out, women do compete for sexual partners. It's actually strange that you would assume they don't. And unless I'm mistaken, we're currently at around 50/50 when it comes to men and women. While men are biologically viable for 'breeding' longer then females, most men past the age of menopause aren't exactly on the standard market. Where are you getting your numbers that available, fertile females are somehow rarer then men currently?
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
At first I thought you had a point but as I continued reading I just winced more and more.

Yes, in general men are expected to be more competitive, aggressive and assertive. They are discouraged from getting help (especially in regards to mental health) and are expected to be able to provide for themselves and others. Granted, these expectations generally come from other men, but I'll give you that point.

But this whole idea about competition in relationships is nonsensical. Relationships should not be competitions, and if they are then they are inherently toxic. If two people get along well enough that they want to bang each other, excellent. If they don't, too bad. That's it, that's literally all there is to it. The idea of it being a competition just baffles me.
 

FillerDmon

New member
Jun 6, 2014
329
0
0
I know exactly what would happen if women had to be competitive: Exactly the same world we have today, because women ARE just as competitive as men are, going to just as far lengths, if not farther, to achieve their ends.

The entire species has to compete to have a chance of meeting the standards of other breeding partners, if you really want to try to analyze it that way. As Dizchu notes, that sounds sick.

It's funny how you note that they can't be as competitive because it would be bad for the species; we get news of stupid examples of activities members of the species undertake all the time that should have been fazed out millennia ago.

The question would be more interesting if it wasn't, as BloatedGuppy notes, built off of a fundamentally incorrect premise.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
WinterWyvern said:
...You're telling me that women AREN'T competitive? They're so competitive they'd make your skin crawl, pal. It's just that they are competitive with other women, so men don't really notice it much.
But try being a woman in a workplace with other women.
Oh, I'm not saying that.

But women are not openly competitive in the same way men are; they can't be, because its bad for the species.

The best way I think I can put it is; men are competitive to eliminate other men from the competition. Women are competitive to simply improve their ranking; outright eliminating their competition (other women) while it may be personally beneficial is bad for the overall species and therefore not nearly as common or important.
How do you figure that? Sure men are more openly aggressive, but murder and beatdowns are still extremely uncommon practices for finding a mate, and are also not conducive to mating (people in jail don't get a lot of action with the opposite sex). Both men and women compete to outrank their peers, they just most often do it in different ways. However there is crossover--competitive can work to shame and psychologically torture men they see as inferior, and women can be openly hostile toward one another to make their group of peers more favorable.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
What do you mean 'What if'? Women are as competitive as men. It may differ in the manner it's conducted, but they must certainly do so. And this doesn't even cover competing WITH men.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
1981 said:
What if white people had to like fried chicken?
Oh shit, are white people not allowed to like fried chicken?!
Well fuck me, I guess I'm not white. I'll have to break it to my friends and family gently.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
That's easy. Just imagine today's females as male and vice versa.
All the current gender discussions would be reversed, etc.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
I'm sorry.. this idea is ridiculous. Anyone claiming that women are not openly competitive is just showing they do not know much about women. Females are just as competitive in everything they do. Females strive to be the best just as much as men do. Females are extremely competitive and compete for just about everything, and not just among other females, but females also compete with men as well. Hell when I think about my middle school, high school and college days, I was pretty damn mean. Of course I would never date anyone that one of my friends dated because I am extremely loyal to my friends, however, someone who was not my friend was shitty to me.. well I stole their boyfriends even when I had no interest in their boyfriends. I would not want to keep their boyfriends because i felt they had" contaminated them". ( Yes I know this was completely ridiculous and terrible but yes, I was not the only female who took boyfriends just to spite a girl who pissed you off). The worst part was how easy it is to do. I never had a situation where I was unable to take their boyfriend...so I would get them to break up with them, parade around with them a bit in front of the chic who pissed me off then dump them. Yes, I know that makes me a terrible person. Yes, I have since grown out of such pettiness and cruelty but that doesn't change the damage done to those involved, however, I may have done them a favor if their so called boyfriend was that easy to steal from them in the first place, they would be better off knowing than not knowing. Females are just as competitive as males, just go about showing it in different ways. Hell, girls will date a guy just to piss his friend off as well so they are competing with both male and females even among heterosexual relationships.

Also, I disagree that females have not been competitive from the beginning.Even though men compete to impregnate women, women have also competed for the most desirable males from the beginning as well.
 

Asclepion

New member
Aug 16, 2011
1,425
0
0
It sounds like OP's question is 'what if males were the limiting factor in reproduction?' I don't think OP is saying that 'women must do nothing to attract mates', or that 'women are incapable of being driven by a purpose.' At least I hope not.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,836
0
0
Some of the most competitive people I've met in the job market and in video games are of the opposite sex to me. It varies from person to person but its got to do more with individual drive than the dangling bits.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Asclepion said:
It sounds like OP's question is 'what if males were the limiting factor in reproduction?' I don't think OP is saying that 'women must do nothing to attract mates', or that 'women are incapable of being driven by a purpose.' At least I hope not.
At this point, we haven't established what it means to be a "limiting factor" in reproduction, or that women are one. Does that mean women are having less sex because they're more scrupulous about their partners, or does that mean women are having more sex because they're more successful at getting partners?

It's all baseless assumptions at this point, no proven facts have yet been presented.
 

Asclepion

New member
Aug 16, 2011
1,425
0
0
Lilani said:
At this point, we haven't established what it means to be a "limiting factor" in reproduction, or that women are one. Does that mean women are having less sex because they're more scrupulous about their partners, or does that mean women are having more sex because they're more successful at getting partners?

It's all baseless assumptions at this point, no proven facts have yet been presented.
Males can fertilize any female they come across, while females can only give birth once every few months. A male can potentially have thousands of children in the time it takes for a female to have one.
 

freaper

snuggere mongool
Apr 3, 2010
1,198
0
0
Women are competitive, too. And no, not "in a different way", they're competitive, period.