Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Substantial postings about constructed languages and constructed worlds in general. Good place to mention your own or evaluate someone else's. Put quick questions in C&C Quickies instead.
Post Reply
Sharad9
Niš
Niš
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:02 am

Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Sharad9 »

I have an idea for a setting with a magic theocracy that i would like feedback on. This nation operates as a matriarchy with women in most of the top leadership positions. After listening to opinions from others , I discovered that most find it unrealistic for a matriarchy to remain in power for long without men seizing control (bigger, stronger, etc). So I tried to make a setting in which women are seen as more essential and to justify the social heirachy. The culture is not meant to be completely misandric or dystopic, but it does have its flaws and it's stereotypes of the sexes.

Suppose you had an inverse of the Bible creation story, where woman was create by god first. Man came from woman''s womb to serve and protect her, and play the complementary role. religious reverence would be given to the sex that gives birth, seen as a symbol of divine authority to bring new life into the world. Women would have the innate ability to control their reproductive functions. They can determine the sex of their child in the womb and choose to make it a boy or girl. They can also carry to term, pause, and abort at will. Magic would also be present in the world, but only accessible by women. It takes the form of rituals and would be powerful, but slow, exhausting, often require multiple ingredients, and time consuming.

Most of humanity is united against supernatural forces, such as demons, monsters, and other things that exist outside of reality. Magic has become essential to the survival of the human race, and forms the bedrock of society. It is used with technology, healing, alchemy, among other things. Golem-like mech suits, crystals used as batteries to power machinery, barriers meant to keep these monsters outside of reality from crossing over or banishing them in worse case scenarios, growing crops, a magical form of internet, and enchancing materials are some of the ways magitech is used in everyday life. Attack magic is a more specialized field that only few can master, and are similar to battle nuns with powers.

Although magi tech can be used by anyone, women are the only ones capable of accessing magic directly. Religion has formed around their ability to access these powers, which are said to come from god, and the ability to create life (which is also viewed as a form of magic). This has led to women being seen as sacred and more "valuable". Females are discourged from soldiering and warfare, due to the religious taboo that to take life interferes with the ability to give life.

I tried to take some positive and negative masculine and feminine stereotyes from real life and incorporate them, but also change what society deemed important. Men are valued for their physical strength and prowess, and for their protective nature. However, they are hot headed and emotional creatures. Not stupid by any means, but prone to making poor decisions and acting rashly. Women, by contrast, are perceived to be more rational and clinical in their thinking.They are nurturing, better able to cooperate to achieve long term goals, and are the glue that holds society together.

I would like to know what people think about this premise. Does it work as a believable setting? What works and what doesnt? What ideas or conflicts can be fleshed out to make a matriarchy feel "realistic"? What would be the consequences of women being able to have complete control over reproductive capabilities and how would that impact childrearing?

User avatar
Soap
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: Scattered disc
Contact:

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Soap »

Sharad9 wrote: I would like to know what people think about this premise. Does it work as a believable setting? What works and what doesnt? What ideas or conflicts can be fleshed out to make a matriarchy feel "realistic"? What would be the consequences of women being able to have complete control over reproductive capabilities and how would that impact childrearing?
I think this sounds good. Im curious if the people of your culture are in contact with male-led societies. If so, are your men jealous? Do they consider themselves oppressed or do they actually like being led around by women and defend their way of life to the faces of the men of all the other tribes?

Im curious too what kinds of magic powers there are. The fact that women arent in the military leads me to believe youre not talking about standard fantasy-book "I'm gonna turn you into a toad" types of spells which could be used to easily wipe out any opposing army.


edit: Hi, i just noticed this was your first post. Welcome to the board. I hope you decide to stay. Im interested in reading more about your ideas and writings. Does this culture have a language worked out? If so is there anything particularly special about the language that relates to the culture? I know that in the real world, language and culture do not really influence each other that much, but it's difficult to resist the temptation, I think, especially when working in a fantasy setting.

edit2:
Women would have the innate ability to control their reproductive functions. They can determine the sex of their child in the womb and choose to make it a boy or girl. They can also carry to term, pause, and abort at will.
Whoa, I totally missed this the first time I read the post. That's very powerful. By "pause" do you mean that they can essentially suspend the growth of the baby in the womb without killing the baby?

So these people are human, but differ from us in some very important ways. If these women have trouble with disobedient men, they could just warn that soon there won't be any more boys! I imagine individual women would still make their own choices however.
Last edited by Soap on Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image

User avatar
mèþru
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by mèþru »

Welcome to the ZBB! Have some pickles and tea! (It's a board tradition for welcoming new members)
ImageImage

Any society develops from previous societies. A good way to test the plausibility is to try to trace its evolution from the original hunter-gatherer societies of prehistory. zompist has a good example of a plausible matriarchy with the Beic peoples in Almea: http://www.zompist.com/Le-spirituality.html http://www.almeopedia.com/Beic_sex_roles

I don't think that a war against supernatural elements would unite humanity, and religious superstitions against women in war could not universally apply to all of humanity. If men control the military, men are in a good position to rebel to demand better treatment. The best way to make women in charge is to make them control the means of production and that men need women for resources. Women in real life needed their male relatives to provide money, protection, a roof, etc., until modern times.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť

Ars Lande
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:34 am
Location: Paris

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Ars Lande »

Sounds good to me.
Much would rest on the balance between physical strength (men) and magic (women), but I think you're aware of that already.
I have an idea for a setting with a magic theocracy that i would like feedback on. This nation operates as a matriarchy with women in most of the top leadership positions. After listening to opinions from others , I discovered that most find it unrealistic for a matriarchy to remain in power for long without men seizing control (bigger, stronger, etc).
I think the physical advantage for men is exaggerated by our own culture. The difference isn't that great; and a trained female would have the advantage on an untrained male. The key factor is pregnancy and childcare, I believe.

User avatar
mèþru
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by mèþru »

Repetition for emphasis:
Ars Lande wrote:I think the physical advantage for men is exaggerated by our own culture. The difference isn't that great; and a trained female would have the advantage on an untrained male. The key factor is pregnancy and childcare, I believe.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť

Sharad9
Niš
Niš
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:02 am

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Sharad9 »

Soap wrote:
Sharad9 wrote: I would like to know what people think about this premise. Does it work as a believable setting? What works and what doesnt? What ideas or conflicts can be fleshed out to make a matriarchy feel "realistic"? What would be the consequences of women being able to have complete control over reproductive capabilities and how would that impact childrearing?
I think this sounds good. Im curious if the people of your culture are in contact with male-led societies. If so, are your men jealous? Do they consider themselves oppressed or do they actually like being led around by women and defend their way of life to the faces of the men of all the other tribes?

Im curious too what kinds of magic powers there are. The fact that women arent in the military leads me to believe youre not talking about standard fantasy-book "I'm gonna turn you into a toad" types of spells which could be used to easily wipe out any opposing army.


edit: Hi, i just noticed this was your first post. Welcome to the board. I hope you decide to stay. Im interested in reading more about your ideas and writings. Does this culture have a language worked out? If so is there anything particularly special about the language that relates to the culture? I know that in the real world, language and culture do not really influence each other that much, but it's difficult to resist the temptation, I think, especially when working in a fantasy setting.

edit2:
Women would have the innate ability to control their reproductive functions. They can determine the sex of their child in the womb and choose to make it a boy or girl. They can also carry to term, pause, and abort at will.
Whoa, I totally missed this the first time I read the post. That's very powerful. By "pause" do you mean that they can essentially suspend the growth of the baby in the womb without killing the baby?

So these people are human, but differ from us in some very important ways. If these women have trouble with disobedient men, they could just warn that soon there won't be any more boys! I imagine individual women would still make their own choices however.
So yes women would have the ability to suspend in the growth. Pregnancy is more of an active process due to the biological control, and it can be sped up or slowed down as needed. I read up on native ameRican history and took some ideas from Iroqouis culture. I was thinking that society would be broken up into matrilineal and semi-independent clans, with clan mothers making final decisions. Thesee clans would be headed by a governing body of the most powerful clan mothers in the country.

Like I hinted at before, culture is pretty traditional and conservative. People are expected to adhere to certain roles. Women are the true power of the nation, but they don't rule directly. Their role in keeping society running and stable due to their magical powers is held to be too important. Men are expected to take risks and be the shield and defenders of the nation. Therefore, clan mothers elect males to "head" the clan and handle day to day things like administration, security, etc. It is more of a servant-leader role.

The idea is that men lack true agency while women weird their agency through men. Those males that exhibit desired qualities rise in the ranks and become powerful. However, that power comes from their female relatives, who weird true authority. Let me know what you think. Does that make sense?

sam
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:02 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by sam »

Sharad9 wrote:
So yes women would have the ability to suspend in the growth. Pregnancy is more of an active process due to the biological control, and it can be sped up or slowed down as needed.
After a certain point, fetuses are listening to the world outside and learning about their native language to be. If someone spends, say, ten months in this stage, would they learn language at an accelerated pace after birth?

Sharad9
Niš
Niš
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:02 am

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Sharad9 »

sam wrote:
Sharad9 wrote:
So yes women would have the ability to suspend in the growth. Pregnancy is more of an active process due to the biological control, and it can be sped up or slowed down as needed.
After a certain point, fetuses are listening to the world outside and learning about their native language to be. If someone spends, say, ten months in this stage, would they learn language at an accelerated pace after birth?
Sounds interesting. Anymore ideas you would like to see?

User avatar
garysk
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:14 pm
Location: Desert Hot Springs, CA

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by garysk »

It seems that the question of which sex is the more powerful can lead to fruitless debate. The contributions of a sex to the general well-being of a society have to be examined in the context of the length of time it takes members to exercise their power. If the females are the ones to get pregnant and carry an ever-increasing burden of extra tissue and then are the ones expected to teach and protect their offspring until adulthood (or even until weaned), then their contribution is slow and extended. If the males are the ones expected to fend off wild animals and interloping males, then their contribution is immediate and often momentary. The males are quick to act and are unburdened by carrying toddlers around on their hips. Females are less able to act as quickly, if they are engaged in gestation or rearing.

The biological roles imposed on the sexes are very, very strong and difficult to resist. I don't know if a truly matriarchal society is viable as a "natural" (uncultured) state. With training, the roles could be partly reversed. Once established, such an order might have some longevity.

One could make the assumption that a female-led culture has at some point in the past been very secure, and not relying on males for their warlike abilities. This seems to me to be a necessary step to placing the females in power: they must be secure and peaceful enough for the male characteristics to become obsolete.
(Avatar is an electric motor consisting of a bit of wire, a couple of paper clips,
two neodymium magnets, and a pair of AA batteries. A very cute demo of
minimal technology, and likewise completely useless for any practical purpose.)

User avatar
Chuma
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Hyperborea

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Chuma »

A few thoughts:
Sharad9 wrote:I discovered that most find it unrealistic for a matriarchy to remain in power for long
Whether and how a matriarchy could survive in a realistic human culture is a complicated question; preindustrial cultures have usually been clearly patriarchal, and never clearly matriarchal, and modern cultures would presumably tend towards gender equality. But since your conworld includes magic, that's irrelevant; if only women control magic, it seems perfectly likely that they would seize political power.
Sharad9 wrote:Men are valued for their physical strength and prowess, and for their protective nature.
Keep in mind, though, that men are not protective and competitive because they are strong - it's the other way around. Men evolved to take the protective role because they are expendable, and then they needed to evolve strength to survive that role (and competing with other men). So you might want to think about how to handle that. If magic is a recent invention, women / magicians may have taken over power from an earlier (male) ruling class. If magic has been around for a long time, it seems likely that people would have evolved very differently; men would not be much use in a fight, so they would likely evolve to be much smaller than women.

If women can also control the gender of the baby, it seems logical that they would have more women; partly for social reasons (if women are more powerful, people would prefer to have daughters), partly for evolutionary reasons (no need to waste resources on non-magic individuals, so males would become small and few, mostly used for making babies, as is the case with various animals).
Sharad9 wrote:Suppose you had an inverse of the Bible creation story, where woman was create by god first.
It's probably better to think of creation myths as reflecting the culture, rather than determining it. Creation myths don't just appear out of nowhere, after all - for a culture to come up with a matriarchal religion, they would need to be matriarchal already. Also, the ability to create life probably wouldn't make much difference for any power balance - after all, women have that in real life, too. If you mean that they can create life without involving men, then there's little reason why men would exist at all.
Sharad9 wrote:things that exist outside of reality
Strictly speaking, if they are outside of reality, they don't exist.

User avatar
Soap
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: Scattered disc
Contact:

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Soap »

No sight of the OP since early April, and I've found the same question posted to Reddit, but I hope he/she at least as seen our responses and finds them helpful.
Chuma wrote:A few thoughts:

Sharad9 wrote:Men are valued for their physical strength and prowess, and for their protective nature.
Keep in mind, though, that men are not protective and competitive because they are strong - it's the other way around. Men evolved to take the protective role because they are expendable, and then they needed to evolve strength to survive that role (and competing with other men). So you might want to think about how to handle that. If magic is a recent invention, women / magicians may have taken over power from an earlier (male) ruling class. If magic has been around for a long time, it seems likely that people would have evolved very differently; men would not be much use in a fight, so they would likely evolve to be much smaller than women.
I dont know. I think you could go either way here. I think that strong males would be positively selected for in various ways. For one thing, even if men are themselves powerless, they are still half the genetic makeup of every daughter born to every woman, so a woman planning to raise a family of strong daughters would need a strong man to help her get there.

This situation assumes that women are actually physically stronger than men and therefore have become the "stronger sex" in all ways, including muscular strength, and further assumes that this has led to strong women being considered more beautiful and therefore also being selected for. However, this is not absolutely necessary. Even if women are physically hardier than men, this may not be the main source of their power, and therefore selection for physical strength could be weak or even negative if it interferes with other traits such as physical beauty (of both sexes). Small body size has been positively selected for in humans on Earth many times, for various reasons, and could easily happen here, perhaps with the effect being stronger in males than in females.
Chuma wrote: If women can also control the gender of the baby, it seems logical that they would have more women; partly for social reasons (if women are more powerful, people would prefer to have daughters), partly for evolutionary reasons (no need to waste resources on non-magic individuals, so males would become small and few, mostly used for making babies, as is the case with various animals).
I think you could go either way here too. If men are only, say, 20% of the population, and are also physically small and have inferior social status to women, they certainly aren't going to be at the reins of power in society, and one might expect that most women would prefer to have daughters rather than sons, keeping the high sex ratio stable throughout the generations.

But if girls outnumber boys by a ratio of 4 to 1, then those women who have sons have something highly sought after by those women who have only daughters. I am reminded of a playful social experiment in a mostly-female college class once where I (a male) was grouped with 4 female students and told that we lived with each other on an island in a society isolated from the outside world where we had to survive on our own. I decided to let the four women do all the work fishing, finding food, etc while I kept to my own corner of the island and occasionally ventured out to prey on them, stealing what they were carrying whenever I ran out of whatever I had stolen from them before, and never feeling sorry about it. What were they going to do about it? Nothing. Without me, they couldn't even reproduce.

In a larger society with a similarly skewed sex ratio, men might have a more difficult time getting away with this mean little trick, but I think some could still pull it off. If a man decides to dedicate his life to preying on women, he could prevent the women from uniting against him by picking a favorite, whom he promises not to prey on, and trying to tempt other women to joining his side to free themselves from the otherwise relentless attacks. In a society where men are physically delicate and unable to defend themselves against women, this parasitic strategy would be difficult and dangerous for the man, but I suspect that the desire of women to reproduce is so strong that the man's handpicked "favorite" will come to his defense against the other women, even if there are many of them, rather than side with those women against her own husband.

So I think males-as-parasites is a possible consequence of a society in which the sex ratio is heavily skewed towards females and females are also far more powerful in all ways, including physical strength, than males. But perhaps there will be "nice-guy males" among the many parasitic ones, who are willing to cooperate with the women, and despite remaining powerless are able to marry and mate with many, perhaps even dozens, of women who agree to share the one rare positive specimen they could find, and that man would go on to have dozens of children, far more than is possible for the parasitic type who sticks to just one or two women and preys upon all other women.

A lot of interesting ideas can come out of this one basic premise.
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image

User avatar
Chuma
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Hyperborea

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Chuma »

Yes, it's quite interesting!
Soap wrote:For one thing, even if men are themselves powerless, they are still half the genetic makeup of every daughter born to every woman
That's certainly true; there's still some pressure for men to be strong, but it's less than for women. It also seems that "higher" animals have less gender dimorphism than some others, like those insects where the males are really tiny. I'm not sure where that difference comes from.

Also, men still have more reason to be competitive, and therefore larger.
Soap wrote:Even if women are physically hardier than men, this may not be the main source of their power
That's a good point. If they have a source of power which doesn't depend on size, it would make sense for them to be smaller (than otherwise, not smaller than men) - very much smaller, probably. The question would have to be what affects their magic skills. Presumably they need big brains? Some kind of special magic organ? Depending on just how useful their magic skills are, they could pretty quickly evolve into something not particularly human-like.
Soap wrote:But if girls outnumber boys by a ratio of 4 to 1, then those women who have sons have something highly sought after by those women who have only daughters.
Yes, at some point there would be an equilibrium. If the males are considerably smaller, mothers might also choose to have sons for practical reasons - less taxing on the body, less money for food.
Soap wrote:I decided to let the four women do all the work fishing, finding food, etc while I kept to my own corner of the island and occasionally ventured out to prey on them
Huh. I would have gone with more of a dictatorship/harem approach. Different tastes. :)
Soap wrote:So I think males-as-parasites is a possible consequence
I agree, sort of - I think it would be more mooching than stealing. Drones, basically. And for that, they have all the more reason to be small, so they need less food. (That is, in a pre-civilised, or at least pre-industrial, setting, where food is the main cost.)

Sharad9
Niš
Niš
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:02 am

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Sharad9 »

Soap wrote:No sight of the OP since early April, and I've found the same question posted to Reddit, but I hope he/she at least as seen our responses and finds them helpful.
Chuma wrote:A few thoughts:

Sharad9 wrote:Men are valued for their physical strength and prowess, and for their protective nature.
Keep in mind, though, that men are not protective and competitive because they are strong - it's the other way around. Men evolved to take the protective role because they are expendable, and then they needed to evolve strength to survive that role (and competing with other men). So you might want to think about how to handle that. If magic is a recent invention, women / magicians may have taken over power from an earlier (male) ruling class. If magic has been around for a long time, it seems likely that people would have evolved very differently; men would not be much use in a fight, so they would likely evolve to be much smaller than women.
I dont know. I think you could go either way here. I think that strong males would be positively selected for in various ways. For one thing, even if men are themselves powerless, they are still half the genetic makeup of every daughter born to every woman, so a woman planning to raise a family of strong daughters would need a strong man to help her get there.

This situation assumes that women are actually physically stronger than men and therefore have become the "stronger sex" in all ways, including muscular strength, and further assumes that this has led to strong women being considered more beautiful and therefore also being selected for. However, this is not absolutely necessary. Even if women are physically hardier than men, this may not be the main source of their power, and therefore selection for physical strength could be weak or even negative if it interferes with other traits such as physical beauty (of both sexes). Small body size has been positively selected for in humans on Earth many times, for various reasons, and could easily happen here, perhaps with the effect being stronger in males than in females.
Chuma wrote: If women can also control the gender of the baby, it seems logical that they would have more women; partly for social reasons (if women are more powerful, people would prefer to have daughters), partly for evolutionary reasons (no need to waste resources on non-magic individuals, so males would become small and few, mostly used for making babies, as is the case with various animals).
I think you could go either way here too. If men are only, say, 20% of the population, and are also physically small and have inferior social status to women, they certainly aren't going to be at the reins of power in society, and one might expect that most women would prefer to have daughters rather than sons, keeping the high sex ratio stable throughout the generations.

But if girls outnumber boys by a ratio of 4 to 1, then those women who have sons have something highly sought after by those women who have only daughters. I am reminded of a playful social experiment in a mostly-female college class once where I (a male) was grouped with 4 female students and told that we lived with each other on an island in a society isolated from the outside world where we had to survive on our own. I decided to let the four women do all the work fishing, finding food, etc while I kept to my own corner of the island and occasionally ventured out to prey on them, stealing what they were carrying whenever I ran out of whatever I had stolen from them before, and never feeling sorry about it. What were they going to do about it? Nothing. Without me, they couldn't even reproduce.

In a larger society with a similarly skewed sex ratio, men might have a more difficult time getting away with this mean little trick, but I think some could still pull it off. If a man decides to dedicate his life to preying on women, he could prevent the women from uniting against him by picking a favorite, whom he promises not to prey on, and trying to tempt other women to joining his side to free themselves from the otherwise relentless attacks. In a society where men are physically delicate and unable to defend themselves against women, this parasitic strategy would be difficult and dangerous for the man, but I suspect that the desire of women to reproduce is so strong that the man's handpicked "favorite" will come to his defense against the other women, even if there are many of them, rather than side with those women against her own husband.

So I think males-as-parasites is a possible consequence of a society in which the sex ratio is heavily skewed towards females and females are also far more powerful in all ways, including physical strength, than males. But perhaps there will be "nice-guy males" among the many parasitic ones, who are willing to cooperate with the women, and despite remaining powerless are able to marry and mate with many, perhaps even dozens, of women who agree to share the one rare positive specimen they could find, and that man would go on to have dozens of children, far more than is possible for the parasitic type who sticks to just one or two women and preys upon all other women.

A lot of interesting ideas can come out of this one basic premise.
I'm still here. And yeah I posted the question on different places to see what people thought. I think I should just drop the "choose the gender of your child" bit and just stick with everything else. Would you like to know more about the world?

Sharad9
Niš
Niš
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:02 am

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by Sharad9 »

imagined society to be highly organized, with birth control policies easily enforceable. Having children would be more of a priveldge, and dependent on loyalty to the clan mother and needs of the clan. A larger clan is more powerful, but harder to govern. Therefore, a matriarch will decide whether to grow, maintain, or reduce the size of the clan. Most matriarchs would try to maintain a controlled and steady growth, taking into account capacities of education, agriculture, and population rate. Obviously, human nature and preference will make this more complex.

User avatar
RedFox
Niš
Niš
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Post by RedFox »

Chuma wrote:That's certainly true; there's still some pressure for men to be strong, but it's less than for women. It also seems that "higher" animals have less gender dimorphism than some others, like those insects where the males are really tiny. I'm not sure where that difference comes from.
An old(ish) thread, I know, but as a biologist I felt I had to weigh in.

Sexual dimorphism in mammals is usually correlated with a polygynous mating structure, i.e. a male who has a harem of females, for the obvious reason that the male needs to be large to defend his harem from rivals. A good example is the gorilla, where silverback males are typically twice the size of adult females. By contrast, pair-bonded species such as foxes are very similar in size, because the males don't fight much over mates.

The tiny size of some male spiders, angler fish, etc is because the males have no role in defending the female or her young. Since all they contribute is sperm, it makes evolutionary sense to be small and thus require fewer resources. I used this model in the non-human species that appears in my historical fantasy series - the two sexes live separately (in single-sex groups) and only meet briefly during the mating season, so there's no pressure for the males to be large (just the opposite).
"I wish life was not so short, he thought. Languages take such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
[i]The Lost Road[/i], by J R R Tolkien

Post Reply