No 50/50 Gender Split (Rar!)

[Zor]

For whatever reason, Humans develop away from the normal Mammalian 50/50 gender Split, moving to a Female to Male Ratio of three to one. The Physical Diferances between the Genders are identical besides the Split in the Population. How would civilization develop with the Bulk of the Population being Female instead having a roughly equal split?

Zor

[Dominus Atheos]

with 3 girls for every guy, girls will have a much harder time finding a boyfriend. This means that guys won't be as easily dismissed as too geeky, or too unattractive. Furthermore, it might evolve that girls share the same boyfriend. In other words, guys might have multiple girlfriends. So to sum up:

This guy:



Could have all three of these:

READ RULES ABOUT INLINING PICTURES

Best world EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lusankya]

Fewer people to fix the refrigerator when it breaks down.


More seriously, we'd probably be different psychologically if this were the case, as we would likely have developed to have women sharing one partner. There would also be more scope for populations increases. When resources (including space as a resource) are plentiful, then the limiting factor on population growth is the number of females in the population, so any instances of population growth would occur 50% faster.

Also, women would be less likely to ever be confined to the home. When each man has three wives, only one is really needed to stay behind to care for the children, and having 3/4 of your population not working would be unlikely to be viable. Women would possibly also enter into more administrative roles so that a good-sized army could still be fielded. I doubt that more women would affect army sizes, as all the deaths of a few extra men would mean is that there would be a larger harem size for a generation.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[defanatic]

Agree with above poster. Also:

Why the hell does Australia have a law against polygamy? What the hell? Is there any sort of justification?

[drachefly]

It's not just Australia. The US does it too; and, I expect, a large portion of the EU.

I can think of no secular reason to do so, though if polygamy were permitted, the only way to keep paperwork at all simple would be to give it no legal status (at least in most respects).

[Darth Wong]

The modern legal definition of marriage incorporates too many features that are impractical with polygamy, such as spousal benefits from employers, custody and inheritance provisions, etc. Unless you assigned one spouse as the "primary" and created a hierarchy of spouses under her that have almost no rights relative to her, but that's pretty harsh.

[Bertie Wooster]

Oprah would become a billionaire, pop-music would be a lot different with musicians like Tori Amos, Alannis Morissette, and Fiona Apple becoming a lot more popular, and lesbianism would probably become main-stream, if not common.

[Bertie Wooster]

ghetto edit: Oprah would become a trillionaire

[Darth Wong]

Girls can't just choose to become lesbians, although I could see them resorting to lesbian activity if there's no choice much as men resort to gay sex in prison.

Polygamy is a more likely outcome, but we would have to alter our definitions of marriage to fit. The rights accorded to marriage would also have to change.

[Zero]

Girls can't just choose to become lesbians, although I could see them resorting to lesbian activity if there's no choice much as men resort to gay sex in prison.

Polygamy is a more likely outcome, but we would have to alter our definitions of marriage to fit. The rights accorded to marriage would also have to change.

Aren't women known to be more fluid with their sexuality then men? This is something I recall, although I may not recall it correctly. Polygamy seems much more likely to me, as well, it's just something I seem to remember reading somewhere.

[Gil Hamilton]

The modern legal definition of marriage incorporates too many features that are impractical with polygamy, such as spousal benefits from employers, custody and inheritance provisions, etc. Unless you assigned one spouse as the "primary" and created a hierarchy of spouses under her that have almost no rights relative to her, but that's pretty harsh.

I'm actually pretty sure that's how Mormon polygamy works/worked.

[Shortie]

Another reason for the ban on polygamy is that historically it's tended (especially from the outside) to be associated with various unpleasantness (paedophilia, forced marriage, general abuse, etc). Oh, and that if some men have several wives, others have none. This causes resentment.

Secondly, the reason for the 1:1 sex ratio is pretty straightforward. If there are more males than females in a population then an average female will have more offspring than an average male. Therefore a gene for having only daughters will spread rapidly. The population will then oscillate to equilibrium.

[ArmorPierce]

Therefore a gene for having only daughters will spread rapidly. The population will then oscillate to equilibrium.

Que?

[Cyborg Stan]

Think of it this way :

Suppose you have a population that, for some reason tends towards a 3:! male-to-female ratio. (Perhaps some drastic climate change occured, and gender was determined using one of those.)

If you wanted the greatest number of grandchildren, what would you want your child to be? Of course, since females would be in high demand, it should be female. With the ratios reversed, you would want a male. This works even if the males made harems, as any luckless males with no mates would be balanced out with a jackpot male with many ones. (Overall frequency would balance out.)

[LadyTevar]

There would have been a larger trend towards Matriarchal societies, perhaps going as far as to make men the 'weaker, protected' gender that women became in the Medieval Ages and today in the MiddleEast and Oriental Cultures.

Although, with many Oriental cultures having an imphasis on male children being 'good luck' and the resulting problems it has caused in China, making male children more rare would only cause greater indignities.

[weemadando]

SNOO-SNOO!

[wolveraptor]

There would have been a larger trend towards Matriarchal societies, perhaps going as far as to make men the 'weaker, protected' gender that women became in the Medieval Ages and today in the MiddleEast and Oriental Cultures.

Unlikely. The biological differences betwen males and females are the same as they are in the real world, ensuring that on the average, males will be stronger, more aggressive and shorter-lived. Unless the difference between sexes was so extreme that men constantly needed to be kept as sex-slaves, the current situation would still be similar. On the other hand, if males weren't like males of today, and became like lion males, a much larger female-male ration could be kept without causing men to become the "weak gender."

Although, with many Oriental cultures having an imphasis on male children being 'good luck' and the resulting problems it has caused in China, making male children more rare would only cause greater indignities.

Such societies would die out in the first place, having killed off too much of their population for being females. However, societies could still consider males blessings, if they retain the position of warrior, because they'd be rarer, and more valuable.

To maintain this population, and keep it from oscillating, males and females couldn't be the same as they are today. Males would have to be more fertile, in order to impregnate his entire harem (and end up with enough males, as apparently, the ration of X-sperm to Y-sperm is 3-1, approximately). Conversely, females may need to be extremely adapted towards childbirth, as each individual is less likely to have many children.

[Ender]

For whatever reason, Humans develop away from the normal Mammalian 50/50 gender Split, moving to a Female to Male Ratio of three to one. The Physical Diferances between the Genders are identical besides the Split in the Population. How would civilization develop with the Bulk of the Population being Female instead having a roughly equal split?

Zor

Look at Northern Australia. There women outnumber men 2-3 to 1 from what I understand.

[Illuminatus Primus]

For whatever reason, Humans develop away from the normal Mammalian 50/50 gender Split, moving to a Female to Male Ratio of three to one. The Physical Diferances between the Genders are identical besides the Split in the Population. How would civilization develop with the Bulk of the Population being Female instead having a roughly equal split?

Zor

Look at Northern Australia. There women outnumber men 2-3 to 1 from what I understand.

?

Are they hot? I might have to go practice some American imperialism on Anders' land.

[ArmorPierce]

One of the reasons for men taking many wives was because the men to women ratio was lop sided towards the woman side since a lot of men died in conflict like war.

[weemadando]

?

Are they hot? I might have to go practice some American imperialism on Anders' land.

Northern Australian women? That depends - how much do you like women that look like a female clone of Steve Irwin and Crocodile Dundee? Though, with more facial hair than either and far worse dental work.

[tharkûn]

For whatever reason, Humans develop away from the normal Mammalian 50/50 gender Split,

This has never been normal. It is thought that a "normal" birth distribution for humans would be 52/48 male/female; other species show deviations. Both humans and other mammals show drifts in sex ratios.

The Physical Diferances between the Genders are identical besides the Split in the Population. How would civilization develop with the Bulk of the Population being Female instead having a roughly equal split?

Possibly much like it did anyways. Early human warfare seems to have been extremely lethal on a proportional basis and skewed adult sex ratios may have been the norm; if even warfare didn't remove large numbers of males from the marriagable population; you still had economics, slavery, and celibacy/castration removing males.

Likewise history has observed cultures turning to female infanticide when times were tough and males were deemed more valuable; such practices could easily level out the sex ratio even if biology doesn't.

Even if much of early human history was gender balanced; most of it was polygamous de facto if not de jure. The lucky rich guys had multiple wives (i.e. Solomon's 700) or a few concubines, mistrisses, and prostitutes. This type of imbalance would increase supply of surplus women and lead to larger harems at the top and a larger class of harem owners.

Although, with many Oriental cultures having an imphasis on male children being 'good luck' and the resulting problems it has caused in China, making male children more rare would only cause greater indignities.

Many of those cultures valued males because they were superior warriors, particularly given that traditional war prowess was determined by how well you could lug heavy weapons while moving in formation. Likewise the labor output the families could expect to get from a male child exceeded that of a female (who was more likely to die during childbirth). This lead to a culture in which elderly parents became the responsibility of male offspring; with a male child being your only 401K as it were they indeed were "lucky". While this traditional lifestyle of males supporting elders continues; expect the "luck" idea to be reinforced.

To maintain this population, and keep it from oscillating, males and females couldn't be the same as they are today. Males would have to be more fertile, in order to impregnate his entire harem (and end up with enough males, as apparently, the ration of X-sperm to Y-sperm is 3-1, approximately). Conversely, females may need to be extremely adapted towards childbirth, as each individual is less likely to have many children.

Polygamous societies rarely have such problems. Once any given wife is pregnant, she no longer requires attention until she delivers and weans the child. Further even when not pregnant families can invert Catholic calendar contraception and allow for comparable fertility.

[wolveraptor]

Polygamous societies rarely have such problems. Once any given wife is pregnant, she no longer requires attention until she delivers and weans the child. Further even when not pregnant families can invert Catholic calendar contraception and allow for comparable fertility.

Possibly because most polygamous societies existed at times when men would keep their populations down by fighting in wars? Polygamous Mormons before Utah was a state probably created some imbalances in the number of men who were married, due to their polygamy. If one dude gets fifty chics, another fifty men won't.

[tharkûn]

Possibly because most polygamous societies existed at times when men would keep their populations down by fighting in wars?

Possibly, though truth be told the Islamic world has long been polygamous, even going so far as to have temporary marriages in some areas, but has had long spells without major conflict.

Polygamous Mormons before Utah was a state probably created some imbalances in the number of men who were married, due to their polygamy. If one dude gets fifty chics, another fifty men won't.

Actually no. The trick to sustainible polygamy is to have lots of young bachelors and lots of old men with harems. If you marry the generation below you, the number of brides is higher due to population growth. Further having a large age gap means that wives will outlive their husbands and can take seconds, further reducing the gap. This will of course not give every man a 50 woman harem; but it does allow the odd rich guy to keep such a harem without creating massive problems.

[Stormin]

Exitmundi has a page on this
http://www.exitmundi.nl/giggle.htm

I don't even want to think on the science behind it or whatnot.