How Would Society Be Different If Women Were As Strong As Men?

[Rudy]

Physically as strong, that is. I'm not speaking of mental strength. If you think that women aren't mentally as capable as men, on average, well... I'm sure there are others around here who would love to agree with you in another thread.

For the vast majority of human history, in the vast majority of human societies, men have held the reigns of power. I stipulate that this is chiefly because they were, and are, on average, physically stronger and physically more capable. As physical power was for a very long time the chief means of exerting influence, this has had the expected effect. It is only now, as physical strength becomes less and less meaningful that this advantage is fading away.

So, I was speculating, what if this was not the case? What if humanity was so evolved that women were, roughly, of the same physical strength and capability as men? How would society be different? How would history be different?

I have no answers to these questions yet; I only wished to invite others to join in my speculation.

[Vagrant]

Well, there would certainly be a lot more matriarchal societies. In all probability, universal suffrage would probably have come a lot sooner. A lot of the ways women are socialized today would probably be different too.

[curiousgeorge01]

I certainly think there would be a lot more effeminate men as men no longer have a purpose to bulk up, act macho, or fight to impress.

[smabers]

For the vast majority of human history, in the vast majority of human societies, men have held the reigns of power. I stipulate that this is chiefly because they were, and are, on average, physically stronger and physically more capable. As physical power was for a very long time the chief means of exerting influence, this has had the expected effect. It is only now, as physical strength becomes less and less meaningful that this advantage is fading away.


That's where you're wrong. There are a lot more differences between men and women than just physical strength. I suspect society would be much the same. Men would organize into power structures and women wouldn't.

In history, groups of men have enslaved and oppressed other groups of men just like you think men do to women now.

[Latro]

That's where you're wrong. There are a lot more differences between men and women than just physical strength. I suspect society would be much the same. Men would organize into power structures and women wouldn't.

In history, groups of men have enslaved and oppressed other groups of men just like you think men do to women now.
How much of this is due to the sociocultural impacts of men having more physical strength over many millennia, and how much is due to inherent biological factors? Serious questions.

[daydreamer]

i wonder how it would impact women as mothers. if women were as strong as men, in certain societies at certain points in time, how many of those women would have become mothers vs. living a more masculine lifestyle? i'm thinking of the "tomboy" types throughout history, like jeanne d'arc for instance, who chose male roles and had no children. i think there would have been more of those. lol i wonder how many all women, or women-and-children-only households there might have been... history might have had some real battles of the sexes like there are battles among races, nations, creeds. interesting to consider.

[Night Runner]

What an interesting concept... Definitely a lot of food for thought and for books/movies set in that alternate universe. :smart: The overall impact on the world would be so big that it's difficult to say, with any degree of precision, what that world would look like in 2009, after thousands of years of evolution and development.

I like to think that the relationship between the two sexes would resemble the one among Klingons: their men and women are equal in almost everything (a woman can't be the head of a Klingon house but that's about it) and serve side by side in the military...

As for the impact on this forum, I'm pretty certain that threads like this one (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) would never appear. ;)

[Ted]

So, I was speculating, what if this was not the case? What if humanity was so evolved that women were, roughly, of the same physical strength and capability as men? How would society be different? How would history be different?


On a technicality bases, that whole section is a bit confusing. In this current universe, women will not "evolve" to become physically stronger due to natural selection. Men don't like macho women therefore they have less probability to reproduce. Also, technology has rendered, and will continue to render, physical strength less and less useful. Finally, if we evolved, I don't think it would affect history, but only the present and future. (<-- that I think you meant what if women had equal physical strength as men from the start of humanity, not evolved into it.)





Ted added to this post, 13 minutes and 52 seconds later...

If women were as strong as men, there would be less rape as we know it today. However, in order to accomplish the same goal (rape), those men would have to tie up the women to rape them. There might be less rape crime, but the brutality of each case would be more severe.

[Tough Love]

Men don't like macho women therefore they have less probability to reproduce. Also, technology has rendered, and will continue to render, physical strength less and less useful.

Well if all women were macho, men would have no choice and therefore different forms of macho would be found more attractive than others. Maybe there would be increased homosexuality, within both sexes?
Men wouldnt have feelings of being protective over women and women wouldnt need men to feel secure.
Male and female psychology would be very different, i cant even imagine how male and female psychology would have built over the years.

[Elfrun]

Don't see that they'd much difference. There are physically strong and weak men, there are physically strong and weak women, it's fair to assume that has always been the case. Society is controlled by power and might not by physical strength, not in most cases, even some tribal societies had blood lines that held positions of power as opposed to using pure strength.

Look at those who have held positions of influence and authority, not always those who forced their way to the top with brute strength, therefore it's fair to assume that physical strength is not the reason men are usually in those positions.

I think childbirth and the fact that is a woman's lot in life plays a bigger role in this, not strength.

[Tough Love]

Look at those who have held positions of influence and authority, not always those who forced their way to the top with brute strength, therefore it's fair to assume that physical strength is not the reason men are usually in those positions.


What is the reason, in your opinion?

[Elfrun]

What is the reason, in your opinion?

The reason someone ends up in a position of authority isn't about any one thing, there are lots of things that come in to play; Charisma, money, birthright, deception, ruthlessness, influence, who they know, intellect and let's not forget good old luck. Excepting cave man times I don't rate strength that highly, not when it comes to position of power.

[Latro]

The reason someone ends up in a position of authority isn't about any one thing, there are lots of things that come in to play; Charisma, money, birthright, deception, ruthlessness, influence, who they know, intellect and let's not forget good old luck. Excepting cave man times I don't rate strength that highly, not when it comes to position of power.
But then the hierarchies that would've been established when civilization was first forming might be completely different if Rudy's condition were true. As leaders of smaller groups organized into larger groups, you could've seen large numbers of them of both genders, which in turn would affect the balance of power. Why would there be leaders of both genders? Because the "first" leaders would probably have been those that are the best at beating the crap out of anyone that antagonizes them.

While magically doing what you're describing in, say, 1800 CE might not have had that much effect on modern society, I'd have to argue that (neglecting a butterfly effect type argument) doing it in 20000 BCE would have a profound effect.

[Tough Love]

The reason someone ends up in a position of authority isn't about any one thing, there are lots of things that come in to play; Charisma, money, birthright, deception, ruthlessness, influence, who they know, intellect and let's not forget good old luck. Excepting cave man times I don't rate strength that highly, not when it comes to position of power.

Your post seems to suggest that there is another advantage, besides strength, which has led to men being in these positions of power ( i recognize that nowadays men do not hold all positions of power, but they still hold most). I wonder what that advantage is?

[Elfrun]

While magically doing what you're describing in, say, 1800 CE might not have had that much effect on modern society, I'd have to argue that (neglecting a butterfly effect type argument) doing it in 20000 BCE would have a profound effect.

But some men are weak and some women are strong and that has always been, what has also been though is men are supposed to be hunter and women gathers. I think that has more to do with women bearing and raising children. I don't really have a great argument cause I've never thought about it but I don't think strength is the reason most societies are patriarchal.

Your post seems to suggest that there is another advantage, besides strength, which has led to men being in these positions of power ( i recognize that nowadays men do not hold all positions of power, but they still hold most). I wonder what that advantage is?

v :)

I think childbirth and the fact that is a woman's lot in life plays a bigger role in this, not strength.

[Latro]

But some men are weak and some women are strong and that has always been, what has also been though is men are supposed to be hunter and women gathers. I think that has more to do with women bearing and raising children. I don't really have a great argument cause I've never thought about it but I don't think strength is the reason most societies are patriarchal.
There is that, but then how much of even that role would have been constructed in a situation like this? Some, certainly, since women would definitely need to be bearing children, but would it have happened to the same extent?

I'm not so much disagreeing as kind of poking at this to see what responses I get...

[Elfrun]

There is that, but then how much of even that role would have been constructed in a situation like this? Some, certainly, since women would definitely need to be bearing children, but would it have happened to the same extent?

I'm not so much disagreeing as kind of poking at this to see what responses I get...

I think a women's maternal instincts are just that, instincts, playing the role of mother before other roles she has is not always a given but it is pretty normal. That role interferes with positions of power. Even in today's society it's a juggling act for a woman to be both a professional in her career and a mother, at least in the eyes of others.

[JTG]

As for the impact on this forum, I'm pretty certain that threads like this one (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) would never appear. ;)

I lol'd. It's funny because it's true.

As for the OP's question, i think we would have a lot more matriarchal societies. After all, take away man's strength and the main difference between the sexes becomes the fact that women can have children while men can't.

Workplaces would also more likely be more "maternity friendly" (allowing time off, on-site daycare, etc)

I think armed forces would still be mostly comprised of men, and i think men would still at least partially be protective of women. I believe those are true just because females (even in animal species) are more important biologically.

You know, the whole 1 man + 9 women = 9 babies in a year, while 9 men + 1 woman = 1 baby and probably 8 dead men in a year. It's just a biological fact that women are more important to the survival of the species.

[Autoptic]

As for the OP's question, i think we would have a lot more matriarchal societies. After all, take away man's strength and the main difference between the sexes becomes the fact that women can have children while men can't.

Workplaces would also more likely be more "maternity friendly" (allowing time off, on-site daycare, etc)

I'd expect much greater misandry on average than average of any historical and contemporary misogyny, given the absolute imbalance of ability.

I think armed forces would still be mostly comprised of men, and i think men would still at least partially be protective of women.

Indeed, the matriarchy might assign them as designated meatshields for the designated wombs, but I'd think it'd be more due to men being seen as merely inferior and expendable. It's possible some flavor of female egotism would counter this as it can with some misogynists. Why would men be more protective if biology hadn't bothered to make them the protectors?

You know, the whole 1 man + 9 women = 9 babies in a year, while 9 men + 1 woman = 1 baby and probably 8 dead men in a year. It's just a biological fact that women are more important to the survival of the species.

You're assuming all the women will mate and get pregnant. Will women be drafted into government based reproductive efforts?

[Cygnus]

It would be more difficult to instanty visually distinguish between the sexes. More gender neutral greetings as people are trying to figure out if this is a woman or a man they are addressing. With less physical differentiaion between the sexes, it is possible the concept of heteorsexual domintate relationships would not be as prevailing and sexual relations with either gender is viewed as more generally acceptable.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Insight]

Hard to say . . . though I'd like to believe that chivalry and the whole culture of the "weaker/fairer sex" would never have come to pass . . . and the sexual culture might be totally different. Dominance and submission would not be respectively identified with men and women. We'd see a lot more women buying men drinks, trying to get in their pants haaaaa

Just thinking about the difference in physicality is striking. Years ago, I told one of my female friends about two other guy friends, both 6'4" . . . even though I'm 6'1", I feel like a shrimp standing next to them. She said, "Now imagine feeling that standing next to any guy. That's what it feels like to be a woman."

[JTG]

I'd expect much greater misandry on average than average of any historical and contemporary misogyny, given the absolute imbalance of ability.



Indeed, the matriarchy might assign them as designated meatshields for the designated wombs, but I'd think it'd be more due to men being seen as merely inferior and expendable. It's possible some flavor of female egotism would counter this as it can with some misogynists. Why would men be more protective if biology hadn't bothered to make them the protectors?



You're assuming all the women will mate and get pregnant. Will women be drafted into government based reproductive efforts?

I don't understand what imbalance of ability you're referring to. The ability to bear children?

I don't believe in such a scenario that men would comprise the majority of armed forces because of some obligation or mandate. If that were the case, it seems that male dominated societies would have more women in their militaries. I think it is possible that in a more gender equal/matriarchal society that women would comprise a larger portion of armed forces than we see in current militaries. Female egotism could be a factor then, as it is certainly a factor in the predominantly male military seen now.

I think men would still defend women just because of the importance of their biological roles, and my reproductive math scenario was more for illustrative purposes than to be taken as something that would actually happen. It's the "end of the world" scenario, where rate of reproduction is limited to the amount of potential mothers, not potential fathers. As you said, males are more expendable.

[Stratego]

Physically as strong, that is... For the vast majority of human history, in the vast majority of human societies, men have held the reigns of power. I stipulate that this is chiefly because they were, and are, on average, physically stronger and physically more capable. As physical power was for a very long time the chief means of exerting influence, this has had the expected effect. It is only now, as physical strength becomes less and less meaningful that this advantage is fading away.

So, I was speculating, what if this was not the case? What if humanity was so evolved that women were, roughly, of the same physical strength and capability as men? How would society be different? How would history be different?

I have no answers to these questions yet; I only wished to invite others to join in my speculation.


Okay I'm going in blind here, deliberately, because I want to answer the question without predjudice from other responses. So, please excuse me if I repeat anything that has already been said.

Now, to Rudy's question:

You forgetting pregnancy as a factor. As the childbearing half of the species, pregnancy can make a woman physically vulnerable during that time. In our earliest civilization pregnancy was certainly a liability. There is also the time and care it takes to nurture the baby until it matures enough to take care of her/him self. Infants and toddlers are very vunerable and need protection at least until adolescene. Even if a woman was as strong as a man, being the childbearers limits how and when a woman could use that strength. (although protecting the children would be a lot easier to do by yourself).

But is we put that aside, on think on merely the question of equal strength, now we're talking a far more...interesting world. More Queendoms instead of Kingdoms, less need for marriage, family units, and inheritance laws. Women would not need male protection since they could provide their own; women would own property in their own right (since they could work it and defend it themselves) and make their own money. There would have been far more female on female violence and murder, far more female killers in general. More female scientists, explorers and military leaders.

But strangely, I don't think there would be any major differences. There would still be a violent history of war and conquest, exploitation of other peoples and cultures, etc, just far more female names mixed in with all the male names.





Stratego added to this post, 2 minutes and 4 seconds later...

I certainly think there would be a lot more effeminate men as men no longer have a purpose to bulk up, act macho, or fight to impress.

No, I doubt that...men and women would just fight each other for fun and sport. The number of potential sparring partners would just increase.

[daydreamer]

Excepting cave man times I don't rate strength that highly, not when it comes to position of power.

i used to kinda think this way, until i started working in the corporate world. not all the men in power there are large, many, are simply smart. but there is a large proportion of men in power who are large, and have a commanding presence, broad gestures, perhaps a booming voice. this is linked with strength. certainly a small man or woman who tries to command in a similar way will not have the same results. in the woman's case, her voice will not be booming, and many times is judged as shrill. her gestures are many times seen as neurotic or frantic. in total, i think small people have to be more clever about their non-verbal communications than a large person in the corporate world. and i think there is a good reason to suspect a link between physical strength and size. i think it is instinctive to react to a show of strength even where strength is not required. (just as people react to beauty, even though beauty itself is not directly required.)

[Baccara]

You forgetting pregnancy as a factor. As the childbearing half of the species, pregnancy can make a woman physically vulnerable during that time. In our earliest civilization pregnancy was certainly a liability. There is also the time and care it takes to nurture the baby until it matures enough to take care of her/him self. Infants and toddlers are very vunerable and need protection at least until adolescene. Even if a woman was as strong as a man, being the childbearers limits how and when a woman could use that strength. (although protecting the children would be a lot easier to do by yourself).


I'm glad someone else thought of this. Remember, also, that for the vast majority of history, a) girls were usually married/mated off as soon as they were old enough to have children; b) with no birth control, they'd be having one baby after another until they either died from complications or wore out; and c) two-thirds of said babies wouldn't survive to puberty anyway. So one could argue that traditionally women have been as physically strong as men, in different ways: enduring pregnancy (and menstruation), surviving multiple childbirths, and successfully raising children to adulthood, would make a woman a real veteran by the time she was thirty, much in the way it would a man who'd survived military battles or fought his way to power through politics, etc. The difference is that childrearing has fewer immediate results than, say, bringing home meat for the table, or erecting a barn, or conquering/killing a foe and winning his spoils. And historically this may be the reason it's been "dismissed" or overlooked as weakness.

[Rudy]

Well, there would certainly be a lot more matriarchal societies. In all probability, universal suffrage would probably have come a lot sooner. A lot of the ways women are socialized today would probably be different too.
Would universal suffrage ever have been an issue? That is, would women have been considered second class citizens for a large portion of human history, as they were in the world we actually live in?

I certainly think there would be a lot more effeminate men as men no longer have a purpose to bulk up, act macho, or fight to impress.
What would effeminate even mean in this context?

That's where you're wrong. There are a lot more differences between men and women than just physical strength. I suspect society would be much the same. Men would organize into power structures and women wouldn't.
I don't agree, but if I grant this as true for the sake of argument, do you think that the superior physical strength of men really had nothing to do with it?

In history, groups of men have enslaved and oppressed other groups of men just like you think men do to women now.
I think you're misreading my intentions; I'm not asking this to make some kind of political statement about how men are horrible oppressors.

How much of this is due to the sociocultural impacts of men having more physical strength over many millennia, and how much is due to inherent biological factors? Serious questions.
Interesting point. If women had been as strong as men, would they also have developed a greater tendency towards aggression? I expect that men would remain the primary aggressors myself, strength aside, primarily because of the pregnancy issue raised by several others. Men are more expendable, essentially.

i wonder how it would impact women as mothers. if women were as strong as men, in certain societies at certain points in time, how many of those women would have become mothers vs. living a more masculine lifestyle? i'm thinking of the "tomboy" types throughout history, like jeanne d'arc for instance, who chose male roles and had no children. i think there would have been more of those. lol i wonder how many all women, or women-and-children-only households there might have been... history might have had some real battles of the sexes like there are battles among races, nations, creeds. interesting to consider.
Hmm... societies that devolved into true battles of the sexes would have died out very quickly though, I imagine, since they wouldn't be reproducing sufficiently. Thus, I don't think that would be a prominent occurrence.

I like to think that the relationship between the two sexes would resemble the one among Klingons: their men and women are equal in almost everything (a woman can't be the head of a Klingon house but that's about it) and serve side by side in the military...
Hmm... I think women's roles in military history would have been greater, but still overshadowed by the men. Again, primarily because of the pregnancy issue.

On a technicality bases, that whole section is a bit confusing. In this current universe, women will not "evolve" to become physically stronger due to natural selection. Men don't like macho women therefore they have less probability to reproduce. Also, technology has rendered, and will continue to render, physical strength less and less useful. Finally, if we evolved, I don't think it would affect history, but only the present and future. (<-- that I think you meant what if women had equal physical strength as men from the start of humanity, not evolved into it.)
One, the issue of men not liking "macho" women would obviously not be the case in this hypothetical world. The described evolution is taken as given, and thus the preferences would have to chance to match it.

Your point about technology I stated myself in my original post.

Finally, yes, to be clear, I am saying what if, at the dawn of civilization, men and women were so evolved as to be equals in physical strength.

If women were as strong as men, there would be less rape as we know it today. However, in order to accomplish the same goal (rape), those men would have to tie up the women to rape them. There might be less rape crime, but the brutality of each case would be more severe.
I'm not sure whether the woman is tied up or not has much to do with the brutality measurement of a rape incident... In any case, it's certainly clear that the risk involved for any man in attempting to rape the average woman would be greatly increased under this scenario. It would rarely be a chance they would be willing to take, I expect.

Men wouldnt have feelings of being protective over women and women wouldnt need men to feel secure.
This isn't necessarily the case. One a man has impregnated a women, his life is more expendable than hers in terms of passing on his genes. Thus, feelings of protectiveness would still have been adaptive, regardless of strength.

Look at those who have held positions of influence and authority, not always those who forced their way to the top with brute strength, therefore it's fair to assume that physical strength is not the reason men are usually in those positions.
I think you might have misunderstood my question.

I'm talking about this equality of strength existing since primitive times. 20,000 years ago, you bet your ass that physical strength and skill was a, if not the, major factor in determining who got to lead. :) So, if women had been as strong from those times, it may have effected the power structure in ancient civilizations. This, in turn, may have created a chain reaction in history, up to the present day where, you are correct, physical strength plays a much smaller role.

I think childbirth and the fact that is a woman's lot in life plays a bigger role in this, not strength.
Yes, this is a very good point. However, consider the implication again of equal strength. It seems much less likely that they would have been treated as property, if they had the ability to fight back on an equal footing. Thus, while women would have still borne the weight of reproduction, they would have had more input on with who, and when, they reproduced. This, certainly, would have had an effect on social structure as well.

[Rudy]

But then the hierarchies that would've been established when civilization was first forming might be completely different if Rudy's condition were true. As leaders of smaller groups organized into larger groups, you could've seen large numbers of them of both genders, which in turn would affect the balance of power. Why would there be leaders of both genders? Because the "first" leaders would probably have been those that are the best at beating the crap out of anyone that antagonizes them.

While magically doing what you're describing in, say, 1800 CE might not have had that much effect on modern society, I'd have to argue that (neglecting a butterfly effect type argument) doing it in 20000 BCE would have a profound effect.
Yes; this is exactly what I'm trying to get at.

I think a women's maternal instincts are just that, instincts, playing the role of mother before other roles she has is not always a given but it is pretty normal. That role interferes with positions of power. Even in today's society it's a juggling act for a woman to be both a professional in her career and a mother, at least in the eyes of others.
Hmm... yes, there's probably a lot of truth to this. Maternal instincts would still exist, regardless of strength, because they are an adaptive trait. This could leave the balance of power in the hands of men, but I suspect it would still not have been quite so imbalanced.

I think armed forces would still be mostly comprised of men, and i think men would still at least partially be protective of women. I believe those are true just because females (even in animal species) are more important biologically.
Agreed on both points.

I'd expect much greater misandry on average than average of any historical and contemporary misogyny, given the absolute imbalance of ability.
Are you referring to the female ability to reproduce, your implication being that without the strength differential, men would have no real advantages over women, whereas the opposite would not be true?

Why would men be more protective if biology hadn't bothered to make them the protectors?
Because, again, they are more expendable in terms of passing on genes.

It would be more difficult to instanty visually distinguish between the sexes. More gender neutral greetings as people are trying to figure out if this is a woman or a man they are addressing. With less physical differentiaion between the sexes, it is possible the concept of heteorsexual domintate relationships would not be as prevailing and sexual relations with either gender is viewed as more generally acceptable.
I think prohibitions against homosexuality developed primarily as a means of encouraging reproduction. Such prohibitions would be an adaptive trait for a society, in the sense that those with such prohibitions would tend to reproduce faster than those that did not. Thus, I suspect they would exist regardless of strength differential.

Hard to say . . . though I'd like to believe that chivalry and the whole culture of the "weaker/fairer sex" would never have come to pass . . . and the sexual culture might be totally different. Dominance and submission would not be respectively identified with men and women. We'd see a lot more women buying men drinks, trying to get in their pants haaaaa
Very true on dominance and submission. Sexual roles would certainly be different. Most women, for example, prefer men that are stronger than them. This would not be the case in this hypothetical world.

You forgetting pregnancy as a factor.
I hadn't really forgotten it; it's one of the first things that occurs to you when you think about this question. I didn't want to bias people too much in my OP on the issue, though. You've addressed it very well. :)

But strangely, I don't think there would be any major differences. There would still be a violent history of war and conquest, exploitation of other peoples and cultures, etc, just far more female names mixed in with all the male names.
Interesting... I had expected some women to propose the idea that more women in power would lead to a less aggressive world, due to lower aggression tendencies in women on average. I don't know if that's true myself, but it's interesting that you think there would be no real change.

I suppose it may be true that only the most aggressive women would rise to the top, and thus the average lower aggression of women would not be a factor.

a) girls were usually married/mated off as soon as they were old enough to have children;
Don't you think that part of the reason they had no say in this was because of an inability to fight back on equal footing?

So one could argue that traditionally women have been as physically strong as men, in different ways: enduring pregnancy (and menstruation), surviving multiple childbirths, and successfully raising children to adulthood, would make a woman a real veteran by the time she was thirty, much in the way it would a man who'd survived military battles or fought his way to power through politics, etc.
You raise an interesting point, but I'm not trying to argue the superiority of men; there's really no need for you to defend the strength of womankind everywhere. I'm asking a very specific question about the relative ability in physical strength and skill, of the kind that benefits one in a combat situation, and what effect that differential, or lack thereof, has had on the progress of history.

[SultanOfSuede]

This whole thread is infused with a power dynamic. Would women be as a powerful as...

The world would be less interesting and I'm not sure the universe would exist as we know it. The masculine and feminine elements were purposefully baked into creation. Tampering with one quality quickly throws things out of balance. Even among homosexuals -- and I live in an area with a high population of them -- there's usually a lot of parodying of female behavior, from fake lisps to ridiculous prancing/walking styles. Meaning, that even homosexuals still try to establish a female/male dichotomy because it's intrinsic to true intimacy.

I err on the side of viewing the genders as complementary. But pretending for a moment:

1) Sheer physical strength is not a guarantee of anything. Read any biology textbook and you'll find plenty of strong animals which have suffered extinction. Homo sapiens made it by having certain variables which enhanced brain power and tool use. Extrapolating from evolutionary history, there's no reason to think that men have power purely in virtue of physical strength.

2) Testosterone does lead to higher IQs. Sorry. I suggest that the actual INTJ women here are smarter in part because of higher testosterone. Of the high IQ women I've known, most acted more like men and were far more comfortable conversing with men. And they usually had sex drives like men.

3) Assumed in the topic and responses is a feminist idea that men have always had power. It overlooks whether this is in fact the only interpretation of history. Such as: Men, especially in the West, have spent themselves in various endeavors to improve the quality of life for women and children. Most men have traditionally defined themselves as providers; a wife's sable or mink fur was a sign that her husband was an adequate provider.

Most wealthy men I've known are matter a fact about their wives never having to work unless they want to and it's always a source of pride. This alternative view suggests that men perform a brute function in service to women and the more they work, the greater success they have because the woman is well provided for. Certainly, modern jurisprudence has embraced this view of men as well.

I suggest The Manipulated Man as a good read for a counter view to the orthodox.

[Squirelznflight]

Humanity evolves as a species, not as a gender. The only fundamental muscular difference we are looking at here is testocerone. Hypothetically, if women's organs produced a hormone that accomplished the same thing in the context of strength, I do think we would be seeing much less of this "weaker sex" blabber and pretty much unquestioned equality.

The whole female-as-caretaker, men-as-hunters idea made logical sense in primitive times. Females ARE the reproductive capacity of a species. You don't go killing your reproductive capacity by making it hunt down mammoths, and definitely not while pregnant, as would be assured since humans as we speak of them in this context(in tribes) would most certainly have had a man available to do the job. Men were expendable. Therefore they got the dangerous jobs. This would not have been any different historically due to the aforementioned biological argument even if they had not had the boost to muscular growth from higher testocerone.

In social status, yes, we would see a change. Moving to more recent times, after all things agricultural were worked out at a base level and people settled down in societies to farm, women would have enjoyed better if not equal rights. Wife X would not be considered subservient to her husband if only because she could smack him around right back if he tried to overpower her. We would see begin to see women who chose not to have families around this time who would perhaps work as artisans or merchants.

In the 21st century, we'd have already seen multiple female world leaders, and many others in various fields who changed the world. Humanity would probably be further along because of so many more minds allowed to express and develop their ideas. Customs and chivalry would be vastly different. (That holding-the-door-open thing would, for one, be required of every decent citizen with arms and not just men.) Myths about some kind of mental inequality would not have extrapolated into this rampant sociocultural conditioning we have going on today.

I can't see any negative effects of this. True, greater strength would make violent crimes easier for women, but if a person's truly got a twisted mind they'll find a way to cause pain no matter the method, so I'm not seeing too many extra serial killers. Modern weapons and martial arts, when one combatant possesses them, pretty much render differences in strength irrelevant. (A decent knife/handgun weighs, what, a couple ounces/pounds at most?)

So, in short, I'm seeing today's world minus a lot of prejudice. Correct me if I'm wrong, excuse the scatterbrained reply,and please tell me if I've got an up-to-now-unknown mental disability from seeing any major flaws in my own arguments/explanations.

This whole thread is infused with a power dynamic. Would women be as a powerful as...

The world would be less interesting and I'm not sure the universe would exist as we know it. The masculine and feminine elements were purposefully baked into creation. Tampering with one quality quickly throws things out of balance. Even among homosexuals -- and I live in an area with a high population of them -- there's usually a lot of parodying of female behavior, from fake lisps to ridiculous prancing/walking styles. Meaning, that even homosexuals still try to establish a female/male dichotomy because it's intrinsic to true intimacy.

I err on the side of viewing the genders as complementary. But pretending for a moment:

1) Sheer physical strength is not a guarantee of anything. Read any biology textbook and you'll find plenty of strong animals which have suffered extinction. Homo sapiens made it by having certain variables which enhanced brain power and tool use. Extrapolating from evolutionary history, there's no reason to think that men have power purely in virtue of physical strength.

2) Testosterone does lead to higher IQs. Sorry. I suggest that the actual INTJ women here are smarter in part because of higher testosterone. Of the high IQ women I've known, most acted more like men and were far more comfortable conversing with men. And they usually had sex drives like men.

3) Assumed in the topic and responses is a feminist idea that men have always had power. It overlooks whether this is in fact the only interpretation of history. Such as: Men, especially in the West, have spent themselves in various endeavors to improve the quality of life for women and children. Most men have traditionally defined themselves as providers; a wife's sable or mink fur was a sign that her husband was an adequate provider.

Most wealthy men I've known are matter a fact about their wives never having to work unless they want to and it's always a source of pride. This alternative view suggests that men perform a brute function in service to women and the more they work, the greater success they have because the woman is well provided for. Certainly, modern jurisprudence has embraced this view of men as well.

I suggest The Manipulated Man as a good read for a counter view to the orthodox.

To quote another member, what do masculine and feminine even mean in this context? Is "feminine" defined as ghastly and unnatural prancing, or as empathy, therefore implying that men are not/should not be capable of either?

I agree with you on #1; species do not survive due to physical strength. (See the mammoth example above.) They survive because they WORK, or are fit for, their environments. (See Darwinism.)

However, what on Earth links testocerone to brainpower? I've seen some overblown muscleheads in my time with the IQ of a flea. Does taking steroids also magically increase IQ? The supposed link between testocerone, intelligence, and INTJ you mention is just an intelligent person deciding it's pointless to conform to "feminity". Therefore she is comfortable around people of both genders.

I don't recall any widespread male suffering that led to women's rights in America (or at least not self-induced). It was a long uphill battle that did not achive its goal until cerca 1920. For most of that same nation's history, a battered wife could not get a divorce and did not have custody of her own children. Men saw themselves not as benevolent providers, but as leaders. Leaders can be good or bad, and of course this was the case.

I fully support a man working his tail off so someone he loves doesn't have to. However, why should a man be obligated to be a provider if the sexes are mentally equal in this day and age? Surely no human enjoys being a burden to his/her spouse/mate, or carrying the burden of a nonproductive mate. Why is the provider-dependant situation necessary? I do not see that as a beneficial balance between the sexes.

[Autoptic]

Are you referring to the female ability to reproduce, your implication being that without the strength differential, men would have no real advantages over women, whereas the opposite would not be true?

I see your question and raise you your very next statement.

Because, again, they are more expendable in terms of passing on genes.

That notion wouldn't do it?

As to the second statement itself—if his biology isn't making him the protector, he's supposed to 1)realize he's expendable to his species and 2)give up his "less worthy" life for the designated wombs that he might not even have any personal material deposited in? Who cares if the species is dying if you're going to die anyway? Your paying an the cost of infinity for the profit of oblivion.

[Rudy]

Who cares if the species is dying if you're going to die anyway? Your paying an the cost of infinity for the profit of oblivion.

I'm not talking about what the rationally derived optimal behavior would be for men, but rather the adaptive inclinations that would have evolved.

[SultanOfSuede]

However, what on Earth links testocerone to brainpower?

Among the higher quartiles for IQ, it becomes heavily dominated by men. On average, men have either 5, 7 or 8 IQ points depending on which study you want to look at.

BEFORE I GET FLAMED: There's more to life than IQ. As a measure of ability to solve problems is not indicative that one is necessarily a well-balanced, spiritual, ethical or any other kind of person. On an evolutionary basis, men were confronted with the need to solve all sorts of problems related to survival, so it makes sense that problem solving ability would develop at a higher rate.

Working in a technical profession, women invariably wash out after the first couple of years on the job, opting instead for positions where hard technical challenges are replaced with soft skills, like having meetings, making sales calls, organizing and managing projects, etc. The soft skills are obviously very important, but they are job roles which pay less on average.

The same disproportion is found in music, where men still compose at a very disproportionate level to women. Engineering and science are the same and all of these fields are testosterone-based (see the threads on index to ring finger ratios). Even with affirmative action incentives, women still shun math and science in general.

The muscle heads you refer to are not necessarily high in testosterone and I should add that I was using the hormone as a shorthand for masculine dominance in problem solving. I tend to think testosterone is an indicator, but not a cause for the traits I'm describing. I would imagine that women who really enjoy sex on a regular basis are probably higher on average in testosterone.

I don't recall any widespread male suffering that led to women's rights in America (or at least not self-induced). It was a long uphill battle that did not achive its goal until cerca 1920.

Which was the point of my post: What you define as "suffering" has to do with viewing men as holders of power, money and influence with women left out in the cold. What I was suggesting is that there is another way of seeing these as heavier duties, responsibilities and the overall social pressure to be seen as a provider. Power, money and influence if read from an evolutionary scale are ordered towards biological ends: the comfort and maintenance of women and children. Women don't work in dangerous fields typically; they don't go into coal mines or climb high up power lines to repair them. I believe that if society is going to embrace equality, it has to be willing to draft women for front line combat in the next war; but even some leftists feel a little uncomfortable with this.

This point re: masculine "power" BTW is not disputed among even feminists; writers like Greer (at least in her early works) stressed that feminism would alleviate the incredible pressures that have been placed on men by allowing women to contribute to the household income. First wave feminism was not solely concerned with defining ideas of power using a hard Marxist dialectic. It was meant to be received as a liberation for men as well.

More broadly, as leadership is given more and more to women, there are no signs that they've become happier. In fact, formal studies show that over the past 40 years, women are actually more miserable than ever before and the trajectory will likely continue. Some have tried to explain this by positing "the second shift." Women who come home from work and then do more work while the men do nothing. But again, studies across Western Europe and America show that men and women do about the same work in a day.

[IrishGuy]

If women were as strong as men, there would be less rape as we know it today. However, in order to accomplish the same goal (rape), those men would have to tie up the women to rape them. There might be less rape crime, but the brutality of each case would be more severe.

I don't think rape in a society with men and women of equal strength (in equal proportion) would be any less than it is today. I think men and women would be equally likely to be perpetrators instead of what we have now, where men are much more likely to be the perpetrators.

I think there would be less controversy in the legal system regarding the prosecution of men and women for crimes.

Probably, would be more emphasis on paid maternity leave, since women would probably represent roughly half the working population.

Househubbys and housewifes would be equally rare/common.

Just as much war since war is usually related to an abuse of power regardless of gender. Maybe even more war or more brutal wars throughout history since men and women would both be as capable of fighting (more cattle for the slaughter). I think wars like WWI were resolved in part because they were starting to run out of men. Add equal sized women into that equation and you get more fighting....

Thinner, possibly sicker babies and longer nursing periods since women would have less body fat and more muscle.

[Stratego]

After reading in this thread an assertion that intelligence and testosterone were related, I was determined to find any evidence for or against such a claim (despite my first reaction, which was decidedly skeptical, since I have never thought that a high IQ arose from the scrotum.) I have a sampling of studies excerpted here, since total reproduction of their findings is a violation of copyright.

Yet each abstract is accompanied by a citation of the source, so that anyone who wants to read further can. The results are mixed, though decidedly more in favor of suggesting there is no positive correlation between high levels of testosterone and intelligence. Only one study (the second) suggests a link, but this study focused exclusively on prepubescent males and does not represent a standard for adults of both sexes, obviously. I have highlighted the significant bits for easy scanning, but again, read on your own to determine whether or not the idea that testosterone and intelligence are positively related.


1) Intelligence and salivary testosterone levels in prepubertal children
Neuropsychologia; Jun2007, Vol. 45 Issue 7, p1378-1385

Abstract: Background: Hormones are one of the regulatory systems influencing brain-cognition interactions and subsequent emotions and behavior in humans and animals. Sex hormones have been found to influence brain structures prenatally, so as to prepare targeted neuronal circuits for activation during and after puberty. Testosterone is believed to affect cognition and thinking in humans as well as between-sex differences in cognitive abilities. Aim: The aim of this paper was to investigate associations between testosterone and different levels of intelligence in young prepubertal children of both sexes. Methods: Two hundred and eighty four prepubertal children of both sexes between 6 and 9 years of age provided saliva samples. Of these, 107 were intellectually gifted (IQ above 130), 100 children of average intelligence—randomly chosen from general population (IQ between 70 and 130), and 77 children mentally challenged (IQ less than 70).
Results: Our results have revealed the differences in salivary testosterone levels in boys grouped according to IQ, intellectually gifted and mentally challenged boys having lower salivary testosterone levels than their peers characterized by average intelligence proposing the common biological characteristic of minority IQ groups on both ends of the Gauss curve. In girls, no differences in salivary testosterone levels were found among IQ groups. Conclusions: Our findings are the first that present the relationship between testosterone and the broad range of general IQ in childhood. The boys of average intelligence had significantly higher testosterone levels than both mentally challenged and intellectually gifted boys, with the latter two groups showing no significant difference between each other. The functional implications of the brain-cognition interactions remain to be fully explored with regard to the internal milieu influencing neural substrate.


2) Puberty timing and fluid intelligence: A study of correlations between testosterone and intelligence in 8- to 12-year-old Chinese boys.
Psychoneuroendocrinology; Aug2009, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p983-988

Summary: Sex hormone such as testosterone was recently recognized as an important contributor of spatial cognition and intelligence during development, but the relationship between puberty timing and intelligence especially in children is largely unknown. Here in this study, we investigated the potential relationship between the level of sex hormones in saliva and fluid intelligence in 8- to 12-year-old Chinese boys. Fluid intelligence was measured by the Cattell''s Culture Fair Intelligence Test. 1600 children aged 8–12 years were included in the Cattell''s Culture Fair Intelligence Test and saliva samples were collected thereafter from 166 boys with normal intelligence distribution, composed of 49, 54 and 63 boys in 8-, 10- and 12-year-old group respectively. The level of salivary testosterone and estradiol was measured with enzyme-immunoassay technique. Data of BMI and age were collected. The relationship between the level of salivary sex hormones and fluid intelligence was analysed by correlation test. There was no significant correlation between salivary testosterone level and fluid intelligence in 8-year-old boys, whereas there was a significant positive correlation in 10-year-old boys and a significant negative correlation in 12-year-old boys between those two variables. To verify the correlation, we performed stepwise multivariate linear regression and discriminant analysis, with both the age and BMI of the boys and their parents, and salivary estradiol level considered. The results showed that the level of testosterone and intelligence was correlated, and the correlation was much stronger when the level of salivary testosterone was higher than 14pg/ml. In summary, the study suggests that the relationship of testosterone and intelligence varies from late childhood to early adolescence, and the puberty timing is closely related with fluid intelligence.


3) Endogenous testosterone levels, mental rotation performance, and constituent abilities in middle-to-older aged men.
Hormones & Behavior; Mar2008, Vol. 53 Issue 3, p431-441


Abstract: Evidence from both human and animal studies suggests that gonadal steroids, such as testosterone, exert activational effects on adult spatial behavior. Endogenous testosterone levels decline gradually but variably as men age; it remains to be shown whether these decreases are associated with age-related declines in visuo-spatial performance or constituent abilities indicative of generalized age-related cognitive decline. Ninety-six healthy, community dwelling men aged between 38 and 69 years completed the Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotation Test (MRT) together with a battery of tests including processing speed, executive function, perceptual discrimination, working memory, and reaction time measures. Significant main effects of tertiles of calculated free testosterone levels (cEFT) were found on composite measures of processing speed, executive function, and perceptual discrimination ability in a subset of men aged over 50 years in age and crystallized intelligence controlled analyses; higher cEFT levels were associated with poorer performance. Hierarchical multiple regression and path analyses on the whole data set showed that cEFT levels negatively moderated processing speed performance, which in turn predicted both working memory and MRT performance with aging. Together these data suggest that age-related declines in endogenous testosterone levels in healthy middle-to-older aged men are not associated with generalized age-related cognitive decline.


4) Second-to-fourth digit length, testosterone and spatial ability.
Intelligence; May2005, Vol. 33 Issue 3, p215-230


Abstract: Based on stimulating findings suggesting that prenatal levels of steroids may influence cognitive functions, a study with N=40 healthy volunteers of both sexes was conducted. Prenatal levels of testosterone (T) were estimated by use of the second-to-fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) which is supposed to be controlled by the same genes involved in maturation of gonadal tissue and therefore may reflect the level of prenatal T. Moreover, activational effects of T were investigated by measuring T levels in saliva directly. Subjects completed several subtests of intelligence batteries for verbal, numerical and spatial abilities. Levels of T were not related to any of the cognitive functions. The 2D:4D was lower in males as compared to females. Males outperform females on spatial ability. Moreover, females with low 2D:4D performed better on cognitive tests measuring spatial as well as numerical ability as compared to females with high 2D:4D. Results are discussed with respect to the assumed role of prenatal and present levels of T in brain development and cognitive functioning.

[Squirelznflight]

BEFORE I GET FLAMED: There's more to life than IQ. As a measure of ability to solve problems is not indicative that one is necessarily a well-balanced, spiritual, ethical or any other kind of person. On an evolutionary basis, men were confronted with the need to solve all sorts of problems related to survival, so it makes sense that problem solving ability would develop at a higher rate.

Working in a technical profession, women invariably wash out after the first couple of years on the job, opting instead for positions where hard technical challenges are replaced with soft skills, like having meetings, making sales calls, organizing and managing projects, etc. The soft skills are obviously very important, but they are job roles which pay less on average.


I repeat: humanity evolves as a species, not as a gender. I doubt that any crucial aspect of problem-solving is located on the Y chromosome, or there wouldn't even be two sides to a debate on the subject. Any autosomal trait would thus be expressed in both males and females. I realize prenatal development is affected by hormones, , but that is not the deciding factor. For example, female toddlers who are given blocks to play with rather than dolls invariably develop better spacial relations. Societal/cultural factors and conditioning is much more significant than the simple fact of being male or female.

[Storm]

I see a lot of arguments based on the fact that females give birth, and from that go on to say that therefore men would still be in charge.

However, there are species where the male is either weaker or just as strong the female. (Baboons, hyenas). What you see in these species is matriarchal societies in which the females form family groups and then pick out males to mate with them. The males are forced to compete for the females - different species compete in different ways. This is because, unlike in a species where the females are weaker, males cannot simply "collect" females to "protect" (i.e. guarantee their genes get passed on). The only way males can get their genes passed on is to win the favor of the matriarch. Sure, maybe he doesn't know for sure that the offspring are his. But if he tries to attack the offspring or refuse to be with a female who is not exclusive, she'll just push him away, and now he has a 0% chance of passing on his genes.

So, I think what you would see in human societies would be matriarchal societies in which males would have to compete to gain mating rights to the females in a particular clan. Males would be raised not with an eye toward "winning" a female, but toward being "accepted" by a female. A family of women would probably pick out a few males to be husbands and providers. Monogamy wouldn't be the norm, because females would want to expend males who grew past their mating prime (much as was seen in patriarchal societies with multiple wives). Males, however, might leave once their children reached a healthy age.

Later on, the males might stay and we'd have more permanent families - since permanence allows more complicated civilization to arise and the successful rearing of offspring would takes longer in more complicated civilizations.

[Kisai]

If physical strength was a factor in gender relations, wouldn't the invention of firearms have made it moot? It seems to me that aggression, the willingness to fight, is a greater factor than using one's gender related strength to push the other around.

[Squirelznflight]

If physical strength was a factor in gender relations, wouldn't the invention of firearms have made it moot? It seems to me that aggression, the willingness to fight, is a greater factor than using one's gender related strength to push the other around.

I did touch on this. However, most public places tend to...discourage... the carrying of weapons. Even a concealed weapon one is licensed for can't go everywhere. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the laws governing them.) This would be the same even in an equal-strength society. People would carry modern weapons at about the same frequency.

[daydreamer]

If physical strength was a factor in gender relations, wouldn't the invention of firearms have made it moot? It seems to me that aggression, the willingness to fight, is a greater factor than using one's gender related strength to push the other around.

interesting consideration. i think a certain level of aggression, or aggressiveness, or assertiveness, is needed to demonstrate latent strength. willingness to fight as you call it. but you have to be able to back that up with strength or no one will take you seriously (like a chihuahua.)

guns, the great equalizer. haven't turned out to be that. the history of the use of guns and their control has prohibited it from ever being a reality that women would be packing everyday, whether they want to (willingness to fight) or not. there are a lot of myths about the power of firearms, including, that they can protect you from a corrupt government. not that there can't be an argument that that has ever happened - the american revolution of course says that it has. but it is not the norm, and is not happening all the time.

[firebee]

guns, the great equalizer. haven't turned out to be that. the history of the use of guns and their control has prohibited it from ever being a reality that women would be packing everyday, whether they want to (willingness to fight) or not.

Agreed, which I think is rather a shame; you look at my grandmother and, excluding firearms, you can be fairly certain that there is no compelling reason for anything larger than a chihuahua to avoid messing with her. I joke that the small town in which she lives is populated exclusively by three sets of people: elderly widows, home invasion robbers, and alarm system salesmen. This may even be true; certainly it is the impression one gets from talking to the elderly widows since they are helpless and they know it.

In order to properly test the equalization factor of firearms on a society-wide scale, it would have to be practical for most women to carry them and women would have to not be socialized against effective self-defense. The former is not the case and not likely to ever be the case; the latter is not the case, and I have some vague and probably misplaced hope that it might improve.

I don't think that stereotypical social roles necessarily have anything to do with a large gulf in ability between the genders; hence, all other things except strength being held equal, it's still possible that women's social role would include expectations of passivity. Probably this would originate in the limitation of pregnancy and persist even after control over reproduction was widespread, much as it has today.

Willingness to fight is a huge factor in the use of physical power; if someone is unwilling to fight, they are quite likely to be defeated by someone who is considerably weaker, never mind the case of equal strength.

[daydreamer]

there is a finality to the use of guns that there isn't most of the time with physical strength. when i took the class to get my gun certificate (to legally buy a gun in california), we were strongly advised to never aim a gun at someone without the intent to kill. having considered that, it makes absolute sense. if someone pointed a gun in my direction, i would definitely conclude their intention to be lethal. so guns are not quite practical as an equalizer to men's physical strength, where one can have a range of control.

[smabers]

Obviously we're not talking modern society. You can't carry a gun around without somebody calling the cops on you.

Guns could have been the great equalizer for women, but they weren't, because women never bothered to use them to bring about a society where women have as much power as men.

Women don't have much to gain from being in positions of power. Women don't work dangerous jobs, don't make up 90% of prisoners, don't make up 90% of homeless, they live longer on average, they pass their genes on much easier than men. What exactly do women have to gain by competing with men? For most women it would be simply stupid to even bother.

[daydreamer]

Sexual roles would certainly be different. Most women, for example, prefer men that are stronger than them. This would not be the case in this hypothetical world.


this got a little chuckle. lol i dont prefer a man who is stronger than me. but i do not know a single man who isnt stronger than me. most 15 yo boys in this country, if not all of them, are stronger than me. lol

[Rudy]

this got a little chuckle. lol i dont prefer a man who is stronger than me. but i do not know a single man who isnt stronger than me. most 15 yo boys in this country, if not all of them, are stronger than me. lol

Hmm... so let's say a man came along who was weaker than you. That wouldn't make him less sexually attractive to you in any measure? I'm somewhat skeptical, though I suppose it's possible. Individuals may always be exceptions to the general biological trend.

[daydreamer]

Hmm... so let's say a man came along who was weaker than you. That wouldn't make him less sexually attractive to you in any measure? I'm somewhat skeptical, though I suppose it's possible. Individuals may always be exceptions to the general biological trend.

true what you say about individuals.

my husband weighed less than me when i met him... 115 and i was 120 and gained a quick freshmen 5. he was most likely still stronger than me but he didn't particularly look like it no. he was 18 i was 19... he did not finish growing muscularly until he was 22. he never did bulk up much but he is stronger than he was when i met him.

i actually resisted becoming friends at first with who was to end up being my best friend even now - because he was too tall, too strong. at the time i was physically intimidated by that. and this guy is pretty scrawny, even today, he looks something like a meerkat when he stands lol. anyway, he is much stronger than my husband and when we were poor starving students he had to help us move each time because we couldnt move our furniture without him lol.

there was another small guy i used to hang out with at the time that i wasn't attracted to. but i think it had more to do with his personality, and the fact that he smoked. lol

so, no, being weaker, or appearing weaker, smaller, does not make someone less sexually attractive to me. personality and intelligence are much more important - off the charts.

[Storm]

Willingness to fight is a huge factor in the use of physical power; if someone is unwilling to fight, they are quite likely to be defeated by someone who is considerably weaker, never mind the case of equal strength.

If physical strength was a factor in gender relations, wouldn't the invention of firearms have made it moot? It seems to me that aggression, the willingness to fight, is a greater factor than using one's gender related strength to push the other around.


Bringing guns into the picture defeats the point of the exercise. There are too many cultural and arguably biological reasons why women today haven't embraced guns as an "equalizer." Especially given the fact that we already live in a very complex society with established rules, there is no reason why suddenly womankind would just pick up guns and change all that. To really answer the question, you have to remove all social norms.

Both of you assume that if women were as strong as men, they would still not be willing to fight or have as much aggression. Isn't the reason women don't enter into fights with men because they are generally weaker and know they will likely lose? (Especially since we're bringing this way back to cavemen days, no special training allowed). However, if humankind - from the very moment a creature latter categorized as homo sapien first walked the Earth - had women as equal in strength to men, perhaps these women wouldn't take too kindly to some other person who happens to have a penis trying to dominate her.

Also, I see some assumptions of monogamy or of nuclear families. Again, I argue the reason that monogamy is normal in humans because it offers a stable environment for a weak woman and strong man (woman can stay home and raise the children and have protection, while the man is guaranteed that any offspring are his). In a world in which women don't need that protection, there is no reason for her to tie herself to a single man. The clans of females makes sense because then the non-pregnant women can protect those who are pregnant. Any male who attempts to dominate women will be met with a swift and violent reaction from the rest of the clan.

Eventually, monogamy might arise, but I'm not sure.

[daydreamer]

Both of you assume that if women were as strong as men, they would still not be willing to fight or have as much aggression. Isn't the reason women don't enter into fights with men because they are generally weaker and know they will likely lose?

good points Storm. but what i excerpted is a bit tricky. when i was living in a ghetto and under immense pressure, i allowed myself to fight and release aggression specifically because i knew i most likely couldn't win, as in, dominate my opponent. i was hoping however to create opportunities to get away, or to prevent any further threat (making myself not worth the hassle.) once i bought a gun i realized the seriousness of actually carrying it... the finality of using it... making me potentially "more" equal than an opponent, and i decided it would be unwise to wield such a power in the heat of the moment. even though i felt threatened, often fatally, on a day to day basis, it wasnt worth it to risk killing someone, even an opponent.

[Rudy]

Both of you assume that if women were as strong as men, they would still not be willing to fight or have as much aggression. Isn't the reason women don't enter into fights with men because they are generally weaker and know they will likely lose?

No, I think that there's also the fact that men are more aggressive than women, period. Now, a lot of this difference in aggression is due to testosterone. So, if we assume the equivalent muscle mass in women comes with a correspondingly equal level in testosterone, then it might be true that they would be as willing to fight.

[Storm]

^Or we could achieve equal strength by men being less strong, and, thus, needing less testosterone.

[Alsaru]

Everybody would be homosexual then? Since all of us would have the same level of testosterone, I think? Anyway, it is a nonsense thread this one.





Alsaru added to this post, 2 minutes and 6 seconds later...

Come on , the human specie would have been terminated from the very first generation ever.

[Soulless]

rape incidents would decline.

[Rudy]

Everybody would be homosexual then? Since all of us would have the same level of testosterone, I think?
First, we wouldn't necessarily have the same level of testosterone, as there could be a different mechanism for equalizing muscle mass. I'm not speculating as to what. However, even if we had the same of similar levels of testosterone, the sexes would still be different. It is possible that there would be more bisexuals, due to a smaller differential in appearance, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, it is a nonsense thread this one.
Well, thanks for deigning to post in it anyway. I find the hypothetical interesting.

Come on , the human specie would have been terminated from the very first generation ever.
Obviously this is not the case, because I stipulated that humanity had evolved to this state. If humanity evolved to a state, then it cannot be the case that that state causes them to die out. Now, if you wish, it may be possible to argue that it would be impossible for humanity to evolve in this way, but that would require some rigorous argumentation.

[Alsaru]

Now, if you wish, it may be possible to argue that it would be impossible for humanity to evolve in this way, but that would require some rigorous argumentation.

I don't believe it needs rigorous argumentation for that as it is simple like the air we are breathing. The rising of the human specie as we know it today has been propelled by the most powerful engine - the sexual attraction, and the elementary physics tells us that two magnets of opposite poles are attracted while two magnets of the same poles are pushed back.





Alsaru added to this post, 4 minutes and 5 seconds later...

Hypothetical speaking if there would be some kind of an injection to pump that strange substance into women to become as strong as men, me I wouldn't be attracted by this kind of Frankenstein's daughter. What about you ?

[Rudy]

I don't believe it needs rigorous argumentation for that as it is simple like the air we are breathing. The rising of the human specie as we know it today has been propelled by the most powerful engine - the sexual attraction, and the elementary physics tells us that two magnets of opposite poles are attracted while two magnets of the same poles are pushed back.

Hypothetical speaking if there would be some kind of an injection to pump that strange substance into women to become as strong as men, me I wouldn't be attracted by this kind of Frankenstein's daughter. What about you ?

Hmm... I think you don't really understand what I'm asking. I'm most decidedly not saying "What if women suddenly, and inexplicably, became as muscular as men!" What I am saying is "What if humanity, rather than evolving to have women weaker than men, evolved to have both sexes of equal strength?" Since this would have always been the case, of course men would find muscular women attractive, because they would have evolved to do so. You're missing the point that our social attitudes, sexual attractions and psychological characteristics would all have adjusted along with the change in muscle.

Your point about "elementary physics" is an utter non sequitor which may make for a nice bullet point, but is absolutely fatuous. People are not elementary particles, and the characteristics that a given species finds attractive in a mate is not so simplistic as the "opposite" of whatever characteristics they happen to have. "Opposite" can't even be properly defined in this context.

[Tough Love]

I found this to be quite an interesting read:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

I repeat: humanity evolves as a species, not as a gender.

I see a lot of posts ignoring this fact or not appreciating it. Whatever men are and whatever women are is the result of both. Every man derives from a long line of women. They selected the men as partners, those that survived, giving him the attributes they desired. Thus it is not his fault if he is more aggressive.

Once you get over the gender war idea you can see why things are as they are. Two sexes identical except for gonads are not optimal and they will lose out and die out. A woman's large hips are a hindrance to her running ability as are her breasts. Yet they provide advantages to childbirth. She does not need to sprint after game if she can have a man do it for her. Likewise a man's broad shoulders provide leverage giving strength. Yet they take energy to produce and maintain. Thus a female, having a male to do the spear throwing, does not spend energy in producing this feature.

The same principle applies to the brain too, it is just another organ. Males superior visual spatial abilities derives from the need to hunt and fight other males. Females could have the same but since she does not fight, it is a waste of energy. Thus the neurons are diverted giving her superior abilities in the tasks she faces. It is important that she recognises signs of stress in an infant for example.

Thus the dimorphic couple, each optimised to their roles, is superior to the identical couple. You have to see them as a pair of humans competing with other other pairs rather than men and women. That such dimorphism exists tells us a lot about our evolutionary history.

[Alsaru]

Hmm... I think you don't really understand what I'm asking. I'm most decidedly not saying "What if women suddenly, and inexplicably, became as muscular as men!" What I am saying is "What if humanity, rather than evolving to have women weaker than men, evolved to have both sexes of equal strength?" Since this would have always been the case, of course men would find muscular women attractive, because they would have evolved to do so. You're missing the point that our social attitudes, sexual attractions and psychological characteristics would all have adjusted along with the change in muscle.

Your point about "elementary physics" is an utter non sequitor which may make for a nice bullet point, but is absolutely fatuous. People are not elementary particles, and the characteristics that a given species finds attractive in a mate is not so simplistic as the "opposite" of whatever characteristics they happen to have. "Opposite" can't even be properly defined in this context.

Maybe I don't understand your question but finally you are looking for a nonsense answer. If you read thod's post you'll understand too.

[timetraveler]

Strong how? some women are as strong as men. If you mean physical strength thats one kind of strength, if you mean other kinds of strength thats something else.

[Storm]

The idea that it would be impossible for humans to have evolved to have a male and female with equal strength ignores the rest of the species. There are lots of animals where the male and female are of equal strength or near equal (hyenas, baboons, fish, lions, tigers, bears, alligators, penguins). To say that it's necessary for the birthing sex to be weaker is willfully ignorant because there are plenty of species where this flatly not true. These animals didn't "fail" in the first generation, they aren't all asexual.

[Rudy]

Maybe I don't understand your question but finally you are looking for a nonsense answer. If you read thod's post you'll understand too.
As Storm points out above, plenty of species evolved with equal strength, so it's not impossible. Obviously, this would mean our social structures would be different; that's the whole point. How would they be different?

Strong how? some women are as strong as men. If you mean physical strength thats one kind of strength, if you mean other kinds of strength thats something else.
Physically strong, like I said in the first post. The average woman is not as physically strong nor as physically capable in terms of fighting or conflict as the average man is. This is a matter of biology.

The question I'm asking is, what if this was not the case?

[Tyrant Soup]

Interesting question. If the physical strength of both genders were equal, then roles would not be divided along gender lines. They would be based based on ability.

This is where we're headed. Physical strength has lost it's relevance when humans compete with animals. It is quickly losing relevance when humans compete with other humans. Life will continue.

[demaugustus]

We'd be just as violent, just as cruel, just as creative, but perhaps with a little more mascara.

[thod]

The idea that it would be impossible for humans to have evolved to have a male and female with equal strength ignores the rest of the species. There are lots of animals where the male and female are of equal strength or near equal (hyenas, baboons, fish, lions, tigers, bears, alligators, penguins). To say that it's necessary for the birthing sex to be weaker is willfully ignorant because there are plenty of species where this flatly not true. These animals didn't "fail" in the first generation, they aren't all asexual.

The argument is not that such is not possible, clearly it is. The argument is that it is not optimal. For solitary animals, such as bears, each individual requires the same attributes as all others. For social animals, specialization is optimal, such as bees. The queen bee cannot do much other that eat and lay eggs, but she is really good at it. She can be so because she has lots of workers.

We know that there are some very odd dimorphisms out there. The peacocks tail is a survival disadvantage, yet due to female selection, he does so to breed more. The more common pattern is for the female to be larger. She must bear young whereas the male is simply a sperm carrier. I recall a study of species on this. The males were always larger when they must compete with other males for females. So the largest stag fights off smaller males and monopolises the females. It would seem to suggest that our history was one of males fighting each other to monopolise females.

The problem with looking at it terms of gender wars is that each of us has a single gender. Thus we seek optimal strategies for ourselves whilst negating those that may be used against us. However the idea is to pass on our genes. The mother bears a son, passing on her genes. Now her strategy changes, she is no longer focussed on repelling unsuitable males from herself. The way she now promotes her genes is by helping her son impregnate other females. Thus she is not on the 'female' side any more, she is on the 'male' side. If her son manages to impregnate 20 females, she is a genetic success.

[hutbug]

Thod has the best answers IMO. It's all about evolution. For humans, natural selection seems to have worked towards smaller, agreeable and crafty females, and larger, competitive, sexually obsessed males. Rudy, we probably DID start out with much less sexual dimorphism, but over the eons we evolved in the way that optimized the population.

Now, what if we were a species that somehow gave birth OUTSIDE the body, freeing women for full participation in the larger world? Then I think things would be very different. Maybe that's where we will be someday.

[Storm]

Missing the point again, obviously we did evolve to have a weaker female sex. However, the question isn't about what is opitimal or what did happen, the question is what if that didn't happen? What would be different. As thod points out, perhaps we would be solitary creatures. Or, as I point out, there are social creatures with stronger females because the females form packs to help each other raise offspring.

It's a bit like someone asked "What would things be like if people had wings?" and the response was "But we don't have wings, silly."

For humans, natural selection seems to have worked towards smaller, agreeable and crafty females, and larger, competitive, sexually obsessed males.

Also, while some of this has some foundation in biology, a lot of your above statement is based on cultural stereotypes and not actuality.

[hutbug]

Well I don't agree, Storm - and I don't think I missed the point, but it's been discussed pretty thoroughly. It is hard to ignore evolution and just fly into a fantasy question like this. Is the question based on everything else, like hormone levels, being as they are now? Because I think testasterone plays a huge part in how things came to be. And when I said 'crafty' I meant it in the biological sense, our brains are wired for survival and when you have less muscle mass you have to get inventive. Being agreeable is part of that strategy. Ever read "The Female Brain"?

[lincoln]

Love the Fabio picture, gave me a pretty good laugh.
Anyway, I have thought about this a bit. I can tell you that I'd like to feel more comfortable in my own skin. I don't like having my identity sexualized. I bet that I would of had an easier time growing up if I were seen as an equal not as a sex object. My nickname in highschool was porn star! No one said it to my face but, I heard.... Overall I think that women would have more confidence. They would be able to work in harmony with society instead of having to constantly break through barriers, which requires a lot of energy. Women are also very exclusive creatures, I don't feel as though we work together enough...but maybe that can be said for everyone. Ultimately, there would probably be more harmony in society. We can always find exceptions to any generalization. Like if I were to say there would be fewer wars, you could say well, look at nazi germany, the women camps etc...and you'd be right. Who knows really, ignorance is ignorance. I'd just like to see the sexual identities of both sexes change.





lincoln added to this post, 10 minutes and 22 seconds later...

I'm with storm. You can't rely on the things scientists say about stuff like what a person is in a social context. They'll prove any bloody buggery thing that will sell books. Think of that man who wrote whole books (yes, what an achievement, producing 300 pages of biased b.s.) that provided scientific proof of the inferiority of the black race. Really and truly, even if the books are more socially acceptable now (and won't be in the future btw) you just can't trust it.
Sure, we can take into account the birds that are all colorful dancing the boogie woogie, building shiny nests, singing Frank Sinatra songs in order to attract a mate, but how far can you take that? I agree there is some underlying theme but mostly I believe in progress and do you think we've reached equilibrium. Are we in the social roles we should be in? I hope not. How many lousy moms and wonderful fathers are there. How many lazy men and ambitious women... I don't get the point of connecting bees to humans, I really don't

[Kisai]

I did touch on this. However, most public places tend to...discourage... the carrying of weapons. Even a concealed weapon one is licensed for can't go everywhere. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the laws governing them.) This would be the same even in an equal-strength society. People would carry modern weapons at about the same frequency.

I don't know. If women, working together, could get alcohol banned, they could certainly make a case that all of them has the right to be armed. They could make a strong case with the majority of criminals being men, the inequality of strength between the sexes, and invoking the second amendment.

[MikeC]

Having trained with national track and field athletes, I have met physically powerful women (stronger than most of youse anyways), but perfectly feminine in looks and demeanour. Standard rule applies - boys will be boys, girls will be girls, and sexual tension is not out of the norm <shrugs>

[Squirelznflight]

I don't know. If women, working together, could get alcohol banned, they could certainly make a case that all of them has the right to be armed. They could make a strong case with the majority of criminals being men, the inequality of strength between the sexes, and invoking the second amendment.

And how long did that alcohol ban last? The scenario with everybody carrying weapons wouldn't be practical. Just think of airport security.

But solely in the realm of safety, that would work well. If guns became common enough, every rapist would have to assume that he would have a gun to deal with. We'd see the sex distribution of victims of violent crimes even out because the average woman would suddenly become a lot more formidable.

[firebee]

The scenario with everybody carrying weapons wouldn't be practical. Just think of airport security.

Airport security would work just fine. All they'd need would be a bin of loaner weapons for anyone found to be unarmed :p.

Anyway, the matter of guns is merely an approximation. If women were somehow comparable to men in physical strength, they would have equality of force intrinsically -- while naked, as it were. Hence, the question of practicality (carrying a gun around is an annoyance) and legality don't really apply.

[DanteFalling]

On a technicality bases, that whole section is a bit confusing. In this current universe, women will not "evolve" to become physically stronger due to natural selection. Men don't like macho women therefore they have less probability to reproduce. Also, technology has rendered, and will continue to render, physical strength less and less useful. Finally, if we evolved, I don't think it would affect history, but only the present and future. (<-- that I think you meant what if women had equal physical strength as men from the start of humanity, not evolved into it.)



The evolutionary rape-as-a-means-to-pass-on-genes isn't nearly as accepted as one might like. Acquaintance rape WITH seclusion of the victim for months/years might work. Stranger rape, not so much. The problem is that one, possibly interrupted attempt at sexual rape is unlikely to result in offspring. Also, intentionally-induced abortions have been used by females for quite some time (perhaps for millennia). Being on the outside of society (stranger rapist) is also not a good way to find a female rape victim best suited to carry on your genes, as those will likely be with other males. Rape is more like the scavenger choice of a poor loser.





DanteFalling added to this post, 21 minutes and 55 seconds later...

rape incidents would decline.

I doubt it would be that significant.

Most rapes and murders of women happen to them when they choose to not be with someone sexually.

Stranger rape is rare. It's an opportunist/violent/mental issue about power.
Acquaintance rapes are vastly superior in number. Most women who are raped are raped by someone in a socially protected role: they're boyfriend/ex-boyfriend/guy who likes them/husband/ex husband/father, etc.

Rapes are not just about physical strength but always include socializations and power structures.

Look at what the director was trying to show with Irréversible's character of Alex (Monica Bellucci). Look at the size of the guy who rapes her. Look at their comparable weights. Look at the size of their arms. Look at her cocktail dress and shoes. Look at her shock. Look at the fact he uses a weapon. Look at his supposed sexual orientation. Rape's about much more.

It's most often one of four things:

1 VERY COMMON attempting to establish an all males SHOULD rule over ALL females mentality; "having anger at women and having the need to control or dominate them are repeatedly found motivational factors of male rapists" (Jock type/Gay type in which a anti-homosexual, anti-woman alpha male situation is trying to be established through have homosexual sex with a man or subjugating either gender)
2 male who leads a "normal" life but feels controlled by a woman (mother/wife) and will react to fight with her by going out and dominating a young girl
3psychotic romantic fetish of guy who rapes but also obsesses and thinks he's in a relationship with the woman, stalking her
4 LEAST COMMON AND MOST LIKELY TO KILL sociopath who is also likely to murder and torture (mentally unhinged, not reproductively motivated)


In other words, rapes would lessen if women were strong AND socialized to not need to be weak/passive/empathetic, etc

Many women are stronger, taller, and larger than many men, but it's still likely the male could rape the woman if he wanted to. Women are handicapped by their social brackets.





DanteFalling added to this post, 27 minutes and 20 seconds later...

The evolutionary rape-as-a-means-to-pass-on-genes isn't nearly as accepted as one might like. Acquaintance rape WITH seclusion of the victim for months/years might work. Stranger rape, not so much. The problem is that one, possibly interrupted attempt at sexual rape is unlikely to result in offspring. Also, intentionally-induced abortions have been used by females for quite some time (perhaps for millennia). Being on the outside of society (stranger rapist) is also not a good way to find a female rape victim best suited to carry on your genes, as those will likely be with other males. Rape is more like the scavenger choice of a poor loser.





DanteFalling added to this post, 21 minutes and 55 seconds later...



I doubt it would be that significant.

Most rapes and murders of women happen to them when they choose to not be with someone sexually.

Stranger rape is rare. It's an opportunist/violent/mental issue about power.
Acquaintance rapes are vastly superior in number. Most women who are raped are raped by someone in a socially protected role: they're boyfriend/ex-boyfriend/guy who likes them/husband/ex husband/father, etc.

Rapes are not just about physical strength but always include socializations and power structures.

Look at what the director was trying to show with Irréversible's character of Alex (Monica Bellucci). Look at the size of the guy who rapes her. Look at their comparable weights. Look at the size of their arms. Look at her cocktail dress and shoes. Look at her shock. Look at the fact he uses a weapon. Look at his supposed sexual orientation. Rape's about much more.

It's most often one of four things:

1 VERY COMMON attempting to establish an all males SHOULD rule over ALL females mentality; "having anger at women and having the need to control or dominate them are repeatedly found motivational factors of male rapists" (Jock type/Gay type in which a anti-homosexual, anti-woman alpha male situation is trying to be established through have homosexual sex with a man or subjugating either gender)
2 male who leads a "normal" life but feels controlled by a woman (mother/wife) and will react to fight with her by going out and dominating a young girl
3psychotic romantic fetish of guy who rapes but also obsesses and thinks he's in a relationship with the woman, stalking her
4 LEAST COMMON AND MOST LIKELY TO KILL sociopath who is also likely to murder and torture (mentally unhinged, not reproductively motivated)


In other words, rapes would lessen if women were strong AND socialized to not need to be weak/passive/empathetic, etc

Many women are stronger, taller, and larger than many men, but it's still likely the male could rape the woman if he wanted to. Women are handicapped by their social brackets.



Just go to any gym. 90% of women are trying to get what. . . SMALLER there. Even in our present genetic states females have much more muscle/power/fighting abilities than most realize. The gap between males and females is larger because of this. Therefore, most males could rape most females, even when controlling for their larger size.

[Tough Love]

The idea that it would be impossible for humans to have evolved to have a male and female with equal strength ignores the rest of the species. There are lots of animals where the male and female are of equal strength or near equal (hyenas, baboons, fish, lions, tigers, bears, alligators, penguins). To say that it's necessary for the birthing sex to be weaker is willfully ignorant because there are plenty of species where this flatly not true. These animals didn't "fail" in the first generation, they aren't all asexual.

And in many species, there is not much point for the male. In some species of spider and insects (praying mantis, black widow, scorpion), the female is bigger than the male. They also (and this i find quite interesting) have a habit of eating their male counterpart after mating, implying that once the mating process is over, he holds no purpose.

[Squirelznflight]

And in many species, there is not much point for the male. In some species of spider and insects (praying mantis, black widow, scorpion), the female is bigger than the male. They also (and this i find quite interesting) have a habit of eating their male counterpart after mating, implying that once the mating process is over, he holds no purpose.

So stronger human females would lead to an increase in cannibalism? Oh dear, maybe this strength imbalance thing is for the best... :p

The male who is cannibalized does seem to serve one purpose, though-- providing some nourishment for the female. He is also removed from the ecosystem and does not compete with her for food. The impact of this is questionable, but still worth mentioning, seeing as the poor guy gives his life and all.

[Kisai]

And how long did that alcohol ban last? The scenario with everybody carrying weapons wouldn't be practical. Just think of airport security.


14 years. That's quite a long time.

[Bluesea]

I think it would change the types of tasks that women would do, that require strength, logically they would do them if they were the strongest. If men and women were used to this from the beginning, it would not be confusing or odd that this was the case, it would be just how it is. So other elements of gender attraction and roles would not be affected.

If it changed tomorrow though, when people were used to the opposite, then this could present issues related to adjustment and disorientation and gender/ego issues that have been predicated on males having greater physical strength.

It would be interesting to see how many of some types of crimes that necessitate physical dis-empowerment would start to be done by women more than men. Whether this trend is more based on the ability to do it, more than something inherently different about women and men per se.

[Harmony]

There are so many factors surrounding this issue. I was physically stronger than my ex-husband. Pretty much anything requiring heavy lifting or moving I took care of because he couldn't. And, no it wasn't an issue of previous injuries... He was just lazy.

It's really hard to say what the outcome would be because you are always going to have certain groups of people. There are going to be men that are lazy, and women that are lazy. There are going to be men who are somewhat active, and women who are somewhat active. And then of course, you are going to have men who are very active, and women who are very active.

[NoOne]

If you viewed any female body building tapes, you might see some of the most beautiful women in the world. However, measuring a person by muscle mass, trying to determine a psychological change, would be strange.

I believe I heard on one of my documentaries, as far as great apes go, the humans male female size is most equalized, and is probably becoming more so.

So, perhaps it is not how it would have been, but how it is going to be that should be of interest.

[schwartzie]

If we take magic out of the equation, then we could look at the quality or events that lead to the lack of sexual size differnces (dimorphism).

In most species, including humans it has to do with polygamy and parental investment in offspring. The greater the polygamy, the less male investment in offspring, the smaller the females....
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, for there to be less differential, we'd have more greater monogamy and greater male investment in reproduction.

[Tough Love]

So, perhaps it is not how it would have been, but how it is going to be that should be of interest.

I think this is a very fascinating statement. I have actually been reading this thread more in a sense of; what if men and women were to one day be equal in strength, as i do see it as a possibility. Humans have become obsessed with the idea of equality and i feel that in the last 100 years we have seen so many change in social norms and huge medical advances have been made. If so much is possible in a fraction of humans existance, who is to say what the next 100 years will bring?

[daydreamer]

i think the concept of God would be less masculine, maybe not referred to as a male in all cultures/religions. in polytheistic religions, the most powerful god would not necessarily be male.

[Squirelznflight]

I remember from history that the main deities of peaceful societies tended to be Earthmother figures--kind, nurturing, etc. As a society became more warlike the principal gods would transition to harsher male gods.

I see the classification of God by most religions as male as ambiguous, much like the male gender of some Spanish words. For example, "ellos" means a group ("they"), while "ellas" specifically means a group of females ("they girls"). I of course know no Hebrew/Greek, so I can't be certain if it specifically states that God is male in the original language, but I think it is more androgynous.

[Tough Love]

For example, "ellos" means a group ("they"), while "ellas" specifically means a group of females ("they girls"). I of course know no Hebrew/Greek, so I can't be certain if it specifically states that God is male in the original language, but I think it is more androgynous.

Interesting, in the Bible God is named as 'Elohim'. So one might say the root of Ellos or Ellas is Elohim... Im starting to feel a bit blasphemous...

God ( as ive just said) is named as male but according to Judaism He is neither male nor female. He is a league of His own.

EDIT: OK ive realised that doesnt make sense but the second part still stands.