Thread 64422668

What sort of sex ratio at birth would be required before it made sense for women to be the bulk of a nations military?
100-1 female-male? 1000-1?
The obvious problem of one man being able to sire many children at once is well known, but there has to be a limit to it. Impregnating 1,000 women in a year would be difficult, 10,000 potentially impossible.
What is that number?
Assuming no other physical changes from reality, how would weaponry have evolved differently under such circumstances? Would weapons simply be smaller to match smaller and weaker soldiers, or would there be dramatically different equipment usage such as loading aids for crossbows to make up for lower upper body strength?

>27.4 women per day
>potentially impossible
I'd be willing to test that hypothesis

>>64422668 (OP)
I remember some artist once drew a bunch of fetish pics with worldbuilding about a world with like a 100:1 ratio of women to men where society was essentially composed of amazonian warriors competing for the favour of philosopher kings. No clue who they guy was and it is barely related to your post, but it reminded me of it.

>>64422935
sauce plox pls

>>64422668 (OP)
99% of the armies in human history were made of less than 10% of the population, so start there and escalate radically.

>>64422668 (OP)
>Answer: likely never

I think you'd more find what is the maximum harem size per man before agriculture(or subsistence foraging) is strained and the culture all quietly knows the real reason for this new nifty tradition of sacrificing every other infant daughter to the gods. There are just other societal constraints that don't play nicely with a significant sex imbalance, most of the building blocks of agriculture and/or pastoralism would be bottlenecked by not having the guys to do labor effectively and things would likely just stagnate or not develop at all in the absence. If you look broadly at central Africa or some Indian cultures in the American antiquity, women do a lot of menial labor with a sex imbalance of more women than men, but men are the warriors/slavers who are causing that sex skew through battlefield death of themselves and sexual slavery of their captives.

>>64424110
What agricultural labor are women simply not able to do? Sure they'd be a lot less efficient at most of it, but they can plow fields and slaughter pigs just more slowly.
I wonder if they are more or less calorically efficient relative to their output, or in other words do they have more or less net output per head than men.

>>64422668 (OP)
Putting women into your front ranks is a sign the policy doing so is on the verge of death because its male demographic is boned. Even the USSR couldn't last a lifetime after it was forced to dip into its female population for boots.

>>64424131
Did you read any of the words in the post you quoted or just look at the pretty picture?

The manga ooku has an alt history concept of a disease that wipes out the bulk of men in historical japan, and it's interesting mainly for how seriously it takes the concept.

Basically every standing army is ranked almost entirely on how many men they have left alive, some have women pretending to be men trying to make their numbers appear larger, and it's generally considered that it would be a huge tragedy if war were to happen and risk killing any real amount of the men they have left. The idea of women actually replacing men as soldiers is largely dismissed out of hand.

>>64424125
1. All of it
2. Yes
...Do you not know the difference in capability between yourself and a woman? Are you that propagandized and that unfamiliar with the opposite sex? Did you not infer why sports stop being coed by middle school?

From the thesis of how would a society develop if through some quirk of fate there was a major female heavy sex imbalance the answer just is it likely wouldn't. Society wouldn't. We have cultural touchstones to look at and a society with more women doesn't mean women warriors, it means some self hamstringing societal model that has high male death rates. These don't exist on most of the planet because the environment would end them, where they do animal husbandry as far as like goats for meat only is the developmental zenith.

Even in cataclysm style events like smallpox and Old world diseases accelerating population collapse and hastening the end of the mississippian mound builder culture and other inland American trading empires, the societies that came about like the Apache or Cherokee confederation roamed around women and slaves in tow. Structurally dealing with getting rid of excess men to keep a sex imbalance because their tribal model suffers with internal competition.

>>64424231
>...Do you not know the difference in capability between yourself and a woman?
I grew up on a farm. My mother and grandmother farmed. The men did a lot of stuff, but the cattle for example were handled almost exclusively by the women.
>All of it
Is completely wrong. Women can absolutely perform many aspects of agriculture. Most things a farmer does won't require the absolute maximum exertion of strength a man can muster, they will simply be easier to perform with more strength.
The entire post you're replying to presupposes women are physically inferior to men.
In short, what the fuck are you talking about?
The rest of your post is talking about imposing imbalanced sex ratios on existing societies, which yeah would obviously cause problems. I don't see how that's related.

>>64424282
>Women handle the cattle
You didn't have much cattle then. Rovers are men even in the age of 4x4s because the job is physically demanding, sucks and cattle can kill you through accidents
>A girl can drive a tractor as well as a man... In 1993!
Society would never have gotten to the point of an electric starter motor, or a tractor, or even widespread agriculture as never happened anywhere historically with a matriarchal structure or serious tribal sex imbalance.

When we're talking something like rural Spain where into the 1960's people still used flint toothed threshing boards drawn by mules (or men) to separate grain women weren't riding them, or doing the carpentry to make them, or sitting there with a rock hammer. What they did do as their part was the tedious but low impact thing of putting flints into the hundreds of holes on the board. Premodern agriculture and animal rearing is wildly different and far more physically demanding than what you are picturing. Hell the drawn plow is a fucking modern invention in the history of agriculture.

>>64422935
Hero of groznyi

>>64424125
>they can plow fields and slaughter pigs just more slowly
No. These tasks are assbusting physical labor, something you have no experience with, and they have a third less bone and muscle mass than a man does.

>>64424363
>No
Yes
Your post is like saying a woman could never move a thousand 50 lb rocks a mile away because that's a lot of hard fucking work.
Of course a woman could do that, it would just take even an exceptional woman a lot longer than your average man because they're smaller and weaker.

>>64424377
You yourself asked about the difference in calories for the same productive output of physical labor and now don't like the answer. Imagine manually tilling acres of land with a fire hardened stick, you if s man with the strength of yourself at like 12 or not as a >woman not as that mystical female CrossFit MMA girl but your IRL quirky chungus self tossed back into the copper age.

And I realize you don't seem to realize keeping dairy cows on a private farm is different than beef cattle and ranching or making said dairy cattle.

>>64422668 (OP)
Giving women the right to vote was a HUGE fucking mistake!
They can vote politicians in to enact their hare-brained ideas, start wars, cause mandatory draft, and be EXEMPT from facing the problem they created.
NO ONE should be allowed to vote unless they could have been drafted.
NO. ONE.

>>64424445
>You yourself asked about the difference in calories for the same productive output of physical labor and now don't like the answer.
Your answer was that it was physically impossible for a woman to farm. That is not a serious answer.

>>64422935
Lopsided sex ratios are so based. Every man gets a harem of nubile wives and all the sexual power rests in men’s hands. Plus, this might be the end to private violence, because what the fuck are we ever gonna fight over? I’d rather go home and fuck my eight wives than fight you. It’s the ultimate “fuck you” to Charles Darwin and to nature.

>>64424231
>heavy sex imbalance

Let’s assume it’s possible for this to exist. Assume I become god emperor and decree that 3/4 boys be aborted so there are always 4 girls for every one boy. We keep fertility rates under control so the population remains stable in size and sex-ratio. How do you think things would change, aside from the obvious “every man gets a harem and men become valuable commodities”?

>>64424583
Sexual dimorphism in humans just flat out exists. I know for what always is plumbing /k/ for a writing project you want a justifiable premise for girl warriors but society itself doesn't exist at an extreme sex imbalance. Male minority societies exist/existed but were and are developmentally hamstrung by primarily a lack of labor (then a ceiling to what labor can be performed) by shunting everything but warfare onto women/slaves.

Outside of a harem anime with dragon quest bikini armor it just isn't a workable premise. The idea isn't grounded and never is from this perspective, so can't exist in a grounded setting without "not enough guys" as the elephant in the room.

Persistence hunting itself is ethnographically male. An extreme "but what if like, 50 to 1" lack of men is an insurmountable bottleneck for general survival outside of edenlike conditions of zero effort food security. And if not universal it's not lasting long.

>>64424719
>Sexual dimorphism in humans just flat out exists.
I don't think there is a single post in this thread that even implies women aren't massively weaker than men. What are you arguing against? Why do you keep making posts acting like something that hasn't been said has?
>An extreme "but what if like, 50 to 1" lack of men is an insurmountable bottleneck for general survival outside of edenlike conditions of zero effort food security.
What do you base this statement on? Do you think humans are riding the line of too weak to exist and only continue to because we're just barely over that line? How do you explain differences in physical strength between races, then?

>>64424716
>Society has 25% the military capacity and very charitably 40% of the production output
>Can't unfuck this because reasons
External groups not fucked over? Loss.
External groups similarly fucked over? Everyone is apparently Mormon and nothing changes but harems

Where do you see "and then women who could be RNGing more men at X% the chance of before take to the sword and the plowshare" in this hypothetical? Game theory favors more total men even at a fixed demographic percentage. If agriculture and industry remains scalable/functional to support the population growth is the only result. If it isn't then we're plains Indians clubbing each other to death over hunting ranges and war brides.

>>64424751
Oh I should’ve stated before, but I’m not the guy you’re discussing agriculture with. I’m just a random anon asking a question, lol.

>25% the military capacity.
There will be military consequences, but instead of shrinking the male population by four, think of it as increasing the total population by 2.5x, with all the new people being women (vs the normal 1:1 sex ratio current population)

>>64422668 (OP)
Everyone posting ITT is an 80 IQ pseud permavirgin
Except me, of course

>>64424785
I'm OP and how did you dox me to know that?

>>64424732
>I just stated that I know women who milked cows all by themselves in the 20th century to debook the inherent issue of not having viable labor to even enter the agricultural stage of civilization, who ever said anything about women being about to do the same thing as men.
(You) did. It's a presupposition you are very unwilling to let go of too. There isn't a grounded comicbook plot reason for women to be the primary military force at any population ratio, at least not in a historic setting. Now if you wrote some dystopian fiction about quietly reaching a 50-50 sex ratio through warfare after X caused a surplus of females and all the ethical/social issues as a result you might be on to something (though it'd likely be an inversion narrative of this exact thing being done to surplus male population)

>Are you saying humanity is so fragile that...
Women performing the manual labor of prehistoric agriculture where it was necessary would be very hard pressed to end up with a calorie surplus. Places/recorded cultures as close as possible to an extreme male-female imbalance enjoyed the food security to even be foragers in the first place. If you're living somewhere where you need to bury shark to ferment into edible food for the winter it's not happening, and didn't happen.

>>64424790
>inherent issue of not having viable labor to even enter the agricultural stage of civilization
This is worth precisely as much as "Grama could fill the cow's trough and force her back into the field afterwards" is to prove the opposite. It's your conjecture.
>Women performing the manual labor of prehistoric agriculture where it was necessary would be very hard pressed to end up with a calorie surplus.
Pic related

>>64424809
>Men have 35% more upper body strength and 15% overall strength when normalized for bodyweight over a woman, 60+% on average on a per person basis
>Men and women have roughly the same caloric requirements per intensity of exercise to maintain a pound of bodyweight
>As result Intense labor for a woman is less work than intense labor for a man, but the exertion level itself consumes ~20kcal/lb regardless
Evolutionary kicker
>Women have lower basal metabolic rate/caloric needs sedentary then men per lb of bodyweight

have you never dug a fence line or like cleared brush in a coed group while volunteering or anything similar to have the frame of reference of reality?

There is a population ratio of more women than men that is sustainable, even moderately common historically as part of population expansion (though we're talking like 9:10 men to women), but that eats into resource surpluses until things like geography made areas not habitable without different societal structures.

>>64424773
Does the harem anime god kill a guy to keep the ratio if women happen to die or is it just a thing at birth?
>Every faction sends the uggosaries out to fight ritual wars to decimation at the earliest possible opportunity
Or
>Every 4 girls is also losing the 1 guy trying to keep shit afloat to light yagami

>>64424900
It's pointless to imagine society forcing lopsided sex ratios, biological solutions (the sex ratio as birth is naturally 20:1 or similar, or a bioengineered virus changed sex ratios at birth to the same end) are much better for thought exercises as you don't have to wrangle the myriad of ways societal enforcement breaks down.

IIRC Ostwind's Seno Lepo Finland has a 4:7 male/female ratio, end result being a lot of young women conscripts.

>>64424711
You should read the destiny's crucible series of books. In that setting, its established that the male/female ratio is opposite from what we have here (so like 52 percent women vs 48 percent men). Pretty good and extensive world building, but it can get lost in the details at times.

Pretty good Napoleonic era battle scenes though, the author is a former Vietnam era delta guy, so lots of battle scenes and /k/ autism.

lot of literal retards ITT
>hurr I live in a first world country full of college sluts so I know the biological limits for women are low!
read some history, women were forced to do back breaking labour all around the world right up until the 1850s when it suddenly became viable in the west for the majority of the population to stop being farmers. the idea of a stay-at-home mom who doesn't actually do meaningful work is some shit marketing people made up in the 50s to sell people stuff in the post-war boom economy
women being less efficient =/= women being incapable of doing a thing at all. the work will get done, just slower.
>hurr women need more calories for the same work
who cares retard, this is just a population density question. the difference is not large enough to do more than make society slightly smaller. economies of scale will still kick in eventually

>>64425262
Only cogent person in the thread. Nice work.

>>64425262
>We did girlboss in the fields hekkin chud, who needs cloth weaved anyway!
>An obvious biologic reason for historical division of labor? Sounds like some 1950's myth to me
You seem rather seething mad anon

>>64422988
>>64422935
https://well-of-souls.com/outsider/

>>64427418
nayrt but stop being a retard and pick up a history book, women did shit tons of work because EVERYONE did shit tons of work because you had to or you died. You know those meme posts where people go "uhh actually medieval peasants had 200 holidays a year, capitalism bad!" The mistake those posts make is only counting labor for one's employer (feudal lord). They forget that you had to grow and process your own food in addition to what you owed your lord. There was simply no way to do this without all hands on deck. Tasks were often gendered in many societies but women still did tons of very heavy labor, far heavier than most firstie women do today.

Also remember that people died from nothing all the time. This is more recent, but in the late 19th - early 20th century a great grandmother of mine resorted to running the farm all by herself after her husband died young. "Typical" gender restrictions go out the window in the face of necessity.

>>64427503
>Everyone did constant work is like, the same as everyone being capable of the same work
>What is pregnancy (and it's additional caloric needs equal to heavy labor sedentary by the 3rd trimester)
that this causes such a knee jerk conniption is something you should think about critically. Why is a non egalitarian reality triggering to a /k/ommando in the current year

>>64427639
I'm responding to the absolutist stance of >>64424231

Of course women tend to be weaker and shorter on average, and pregnancy is expensive. That does not mean women were *totally incapable* of heavy physical labor. They would just be less efficient, as >>64424125 pointed out.

>>64427825
The qualitative difference between male and female played a role in the different development of cultures in Africa and Europe. African climates enabled horticulture as a main strat while Europe depended on grains, leading to muscle of men and animals playing a larger role in Europe.

>>64427825
Less efficient and hamstringing to the development of complex society are the same thing here. How do you see through some quirk of fate an 80-20 f/m population progressing beyond subsistence foraging in a temperate mild/no winter environment? There are no "women R the warriors" cultures but there are a noticable number of "let's make the women do it lol" cultures, they just rarely get past the stone age on their own.