RS, Author, Novelist, Prosaist#EngenderedWriting 92 — How would it change society if women were and had always been physically stronger than men? CW: Patriarchy dissected.
It's a fun idea, and I know authors who are making it work. Still, my opinion, if strength is the only factor I am not sure it would have resulted in a society substantially different than our own. I'll analyze it for you authors so you can rewrite history.
It takes more than strength to make two people evenly matched. (I've been researching prizefighting.) Arm reach is the difference between your punch being blocked and being able to hit with few injuries. Speed and stamina matter. Weight and inertia matter. Think wrestling. All are more important than quantitative strength. This is why there are weight classes in most combative sports.
Unfortunately, women have a smaller stature on average. Weapons are an equalizer here, especially if women can wield heavier weapons than their male opponents. In a fantasy context, magic could be an equalizer. The male tendency toward aggression in aggregate could tip the scales if overwhelming force is applied.
The Indo-Europeans might have invented the concept of controlling women's sexuality to ensure a man could guarantee the paternity of a child and thus make passing property only down the male line arguably reasonable. This usurps matriarchy. This is the true definition of patriarchy. Theories are that Indo-Europeans attacked pre-existing matrilineal societies. There is archeological evidence of prior societies that seem to have been lead by women. Their demise might be the genocides hinted at in the Bible. Who would win (or would have won) if women were significantly stronger?
Women do have their advantages. Arguably speed due to less inertia, especially with added strength. Not natively aggressive in general, they might be better able to pick the winnable fights while angry men might be thinking emotionally. Flexibility. A greater biological investment in offspring might make women less likely to look at fighting as a game, the way men to this day are prone to do (not all of them, of course). For men, fighting can be fun. The danger is a gamble, but we understand the psychology of gambling, too.
For women a fight that includes protecting genetic family from child killers is never a game. Remember that paternity is imperative to a patriarch, more than life itself. A woman, especially one who's stronger than a man her size, might fixate on the death of an attacker and become ruthless. Protecting one's child changes the concept of mercy and surrender. Are either even reasonable?
We aren't those precursor matrilineal people anymore, so it's hard to characterize what could have happened were women stronger. I didn't address women's language skills or diplomacy as these aren't strength dependent, and did not prevent the obliteration of matrilineal societies by the Indo-Europeans. What I've listed are things I'd consider if I were to rewrite history with only one change: Women being stronger.
[Author retains copyright (c)2025 R.S.]
#BoostingIsSharing and #CommentingIsCool
#gender #fiction #writer #author
#writing #writingcommunity #writersOfMastodon #writers
#RSdiscussion
#fighting #prizefighting #indo-european #strength #women #matrilineal #matriarchy #patriarchy
HarryHolt1791
