High Female to Male Ratio and Effects?

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Does anyone know much about some of the effects of a high female to male ratio?

I did a bit of study, out of curiosity, but cannot find much data. A war in South America involving the Triple Alliance left places with a high female population, the most incredible case being 20 to 1 in female favour.

I was wondering what effects this might have on a society, on economics and other such things. For simplicity, let us assume that things won't be re-stabilized any time soon (such as, we'll assume it's impossible to bring men in from other places to make up for the difference). Here are my thoughts thus far:


Women would suddenly be trained in a lot of trades where they were uncommon, for one thing. This could end up having implications on females being in such work places, even after gender balance is restored (for one thing, you'll get a lot of young men being taught by women).

If polygamy is considered an option, it will gain a lot of popularity due to the low number of males. If it isn't, it might be legalized if the government thinks the situation isn't likely to fix itself any time soon.

Tensions are likely to be high in the female population. Not just due to sexual competition. They'd have to deal with managing homes and children, as well as learning new trades and probably doing more work than should reasonably be handled. I can imagine daycare-like centres being established, just so they can get more time in the fields.
-
Back to the tension, the lack of male partners will add salt to the wounds--especially in societies where being marries and having children is important. If polygamy wasn't legalized, that'd make things worse--but even with it legalized or originally legal, you'll get some nasty conflict.

If there is threat of war, raids, or the like--you're suddenly going to get women involved in warrior cultures or militia (more probably both). Either way, they'll end up arming themselves to fight off wolves or the like on the farms, even in a first world country of the modern day (well, more depending on how rough the farming areas are), and will have to join police forces if the culture necessitates them.
This could have some major effects in how much power women have in the society, even if gender balance is restored.


There is some interesting speculation possible as to how human cultures are likely to adapt, if the situation remains. Would men end up being considered highly important, perhaps more than originally? Or, maybe they'd be shifted out of the main structure of power altogether? Or, they could easily be seen as less important, though are likely to be sheltered to preserve them.



Do my ideas sound logical, or are there problems? Have any of you put some thought or study into these kinds of possibilities?
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
You seem to be coming at this from a very particular view of women and societal roles and such. What society are you starting with?
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Was thinking more along the lines of Brazil in the twentieth century. But... most of my thinking was being pretty vague.
 

lalyil

The Lukewarm
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
173
Reaction score
5
Location
UK
I do wonder if you mean this would be an international state though, or just a national one? Cos most women would handle a conflict differently rather than going to war (unless they were playing a male role as a leader in a patriarchal society... as is the world today)
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Was thinking more along the lines of Brazil in the twentieth century. But... most of my thinking was being pretty vague.

I don't think it was.

Women would suddenly be trained in a lot of trades where they were uncommon, for one thing. This could end up having implications on females being in such work places, even after gender balance is restored (for one thing, you'll get a lot of young men being taught by women).

If polygamy is considered an option, it will gain a lot of popularity due to the low number of males. If it isn't, it might be legalized if the government thinks the situation isn't likely to fix itself any time soon.

Tensions are likely to be high in the female population. Not just due to sexual competition. They'd have to deal with managing homes and children, as well as learning new trades and probably doing more work than should reasonably be handled. I can imagine daycare-like centres being established, just so they can get more time in the fields.
-
Back to the tension, the lack of male partners will add salt to the wounds--especially in societies where being marries and having children is important. If polygamy wasn't legalized, that'd make things worse--but even with it legalized or originally legal, you'll get some nasty conflict.

If there is threat of war, raids, or the like--you're suddenly going to get women involved in warrior cultures or militia (more probably both). Either way, they'll end up arming themselves to fight off wolves or the like on the farms, even in a first world country of the modern day (well, more depending on how rough the farming areas are), and will have to join police forces if the culture necessitates them.
This could have some major effects in how much power women have in the society, even if gender balance is restored.

Everything I bolded originates in a specific societal viewpoint/bent/assumption - that women wouldn't have been doing all manner of jobs, that women wouldn't be teaching boys, that there will be a lot of field work, that women wouldn't have been in military-type roles, etc.
 

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,151
Location
In God I dwell, especially in Eugene OR
Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

You might take a look at post WWI & WWII Germany. Men were scare. I understand one thing people did to ease the burden of unmarried women in a society where marriage was valued was to call ALL adult women "Frau" instead of "Fraulein." But there are probably lots of other things as well.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal
 

Diomedes

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
182
Reaction score
12
Location
Dublin
The end of the first world war left an impact similar to this where teaching and other occupations became very female orientated.


If you're interested in the polygamy side and men still having a very strict dominance on society, you should have a look at the interesting scholarship on classical Sparta. There is evidence that women came to outnumber the men substantially there and for a largely feudal society where women couldn't inherit land, etc. they had great trouble figuring out what to do with so few men and so many women. Polygamy did occur but also much societal upheavel in the law system and the hierarchy of the family. Look up marriage laws for starters.
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Lalyil: I was thinking of it as a national crisis, but it would be interesting as an international one. In the former case, especially if the cause of the drop in male population is war, it does seem likely that further attacks could be a serious issue. In the latter case... I doubt anyone would be in a state to go to war any time soon.


cornflake: Let's see... the best country for even distribution of work across trades between men and women across occupations... probably Israel, China, or maybe Russia. Anyone know the current trends with Korea, Finland, and Germany?

Even using them as a basis, there will be several areas of occupation that are much less than a 50-50 divide between the genders. Of course, I could be mistaken. Would you know a better example I am missing?


Siri Kirpal: Sat Siri Akal.

Thank you for pointing out that example. Would be curious to know how work distribution between genders is for Germany, to see if I can notice any trends that may have been caused by the sudden imbalance.

Glorious point you make about changing that greeting. Little touches like that can sometimes be more interesting than any number of alien monsters in a story.


Diomedes: Which in turn made way for feminism and greater gender equality. I'll have to look more for better studies of what effect the lack of men had on society... it often seems what you want from the internet is kept inside a box, in the bottom of the sea.

In truth, I was interested in how a matriarchal society may rise from such circumstances. However... I am quite interested in this detail you mention with the Spartans, and would like to thank you for bringing it up. The Spartans are of interest to me, and it's frustrating that none of my research pointed me to this unusual part of their history.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
What ratio? Generally at age twenty-one woman out number men by a little (something like 53 % to 47%). If women made up 60%, then it would still be a minor factor. With women at 70% or higher,, there would be significant differences that would increase with the female percent. Also whether this was a permanent thing or just one generation would make a huge difference. If it were only for one generation, there would be few changes in society, or anything. If the the difference were permanent, then everything would change.

Woman have always run everything, but let men think that they were in charge. With 75 % womenn the female part would overtly take everything over. Business would be both more cut-throat and more cooperative, depending on which side you were on. Overt war would disappear, unless one country decided to eliminate another; there would be no incremental changes in politics. Polygyny certainly would the order of the times. la in all it would be a wonderful time.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
You are still looking at this from a particular bent, which is fine but that's why I asked where your starting point was.

You appear to be starting with known Earth societies. We have no way of knowing that.

If you simply ask about female/male ratios, you could be designing a society of humans who colonized Mars 1000 years prior, people on an alternate Earth, people in an entirely different type of societal setting than we're used to at all, etc., etc.

Same as suggesting a matriarchal society might rise from such a circumstance - that presupposes the previous circumstance would have necessarily not been matriarchal, apparently because it wasn't demographically tilted toward females. These are assumptions you're working from.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,874
Reaction score
5,189
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
There was also England after the First World War. Part of the culture in England in the Roaring 'Twenties, including advances in women's rights and women in the workforce, was because so many of her men had died in the Great War.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
There was also England after the First World War. Part of the culture in England in the Roaring 'Twenties, including advances in women's rights and women in the workforce, was because so many of her men had died in the Great War.

In the Homesteading areas of the western U.S., women had a number of rights, including voting rights, decades before their counterparts in other areas of the country, because they basically had the men over a barrel. Though the populations were small and removed from the coastal centers, it had a big impact on women's rights overall.
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,612
Reaction score
7,289
Location
Wash., D.C. area
The American South after the Civil War was also fairly reduced in men.
 

lalyil

The Lukewarm
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
173
Reaction score
5
Location
UK
Mr. Mask, well, I think what could really help you, especially if you're going outside the "family" institution and looking at things from a more national or international pov, I recommend you read some of Carol Gilligan's work, especially her writings on ethics. She's a feminist psychologist and wrote some groundbreaking theories when it comes to female behavior and way of thinking. Having read some of her work (and being a female myself) was why I personally said I think women would turn to sort conflicts in ways other than war - but ofc, that's only if the female leader is playing a female role and isn't a part of the existing patriarchal world (since then she has to fit in).
 

Chekurtab

Smart donkey. Please don't call me-
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
547
Reaction score
64
Location
Memphis, TN
Does anyone know much about some of the effects of a high female to male ratio?

I did a bit of study, out of curiosity, but cannot find much data. A war in South America involving the Triple Alliance left places with a high female population, the most incredible case being 20 to 1 in female favour.

I was wondering what effects this might have on a society, on economics and other such things. For simplicity, let us assume that things won't be re-stabilized any time soon (such as, we'll assume it's impossible to bring men in from other places to make up for the difference).



Do my ideas sound logical, or are there problems? Have any of you put some thought or study into these kinds of possibilities?

It would be really difficult to get married with 20:1 ratio. The society won't look like anything we've known. You're a writer, use your imagination. All your speculations are as good as a speculation can be.
 

Mr. Mask

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
King Neptune:Well, in the extreme example of a certain place after the war involving the Triple Alliance in South America, it was 20 to 1. Generally, if we note the effects of what a gender imbalance is likely to cause, then it's mostly a matter of taking those effects to an extremity.

It's true that these things won't have much of a societal effect, if they will be cured in a couple of generations. You still get some immediate reactionary effects, like Siri Kirpal pointed out about Fraulein to Frau, or as Diomedes pointed out about the sudden increase in female teachers after WW1.

They can result in social change, such as the continued standard of women being able to have such jobs, when it otherwise might not have been acceptable. And, of course, the rise of social movements like feminism.


I am quite sceptical about your views on how society would change, with a constant high-female population.


cornflake: I apologize for being unclear. I will be clearer in future. I am indeed thinking of this in terms of our history's cultures.


Excellent example with the homesteads. Same toward Kelley and Chris for their examples.


Lalyil: Just Mask is fine.

I will have to look into Carol Gilligan's writings, it seems. Under the right circumstances, I can see how war would be unlikely under a government with the correct female sensibilities. At the same time, I feel there would be some concern for things taking a darker route. I wouldn't call that darker path male or female... just that the wrong elements can make a society quite gang-like in nature. There are a number of quite savage female gangs I know of, who would give any common man good reason to cower.

And of course, as you say, if they are imitating a violent form of leadership which was present before such events, they are likely to behave much the same as male government.



Of course, there is still the question of what is likely to occur with which gender ends up governing in the majority. In a standard scenario, the leaders and politicians in charge at the time of the disaster are likely to be male, and to survive due to cowering in their luxurious homes away from any battles. This could be enough to keep a patriarchy patriarchal, despite a majority of women, if the government maintains a male dominance.

In a scenario where the female majority is stagnant, it is questionable as to how men would be treated (specially if we exemplified the ratio). With greater importance in leadership? As a lower class minority? As being religiously significant? Perhaps they might even be seen as bad luck, as past causers of war and chaos, who god (or gods, or whatever the society believes in) punished so that they'd be few and dis-empowered?
 

jkenton

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
150
Reaction score
19
The world my WiP is set on has a birthrate that's been intentionally skewed to create a consistently higher female-to-male ratio in response to what was damn near a global extinction event. Basically, that combined with very reliable birth control, allows the various communities to increase their birthrates as rapidly as possible when, and only when, resources permit.

The original civilization was quite cosmopolitan to begin with, with a wide variety of accepted social mores. After a thousand years, the result I've extrapolated is not polygamy or some harem/pampered precious male scenario, but rather a society where plural relationships are a necessity that became an institution to both facilitate re-population while avoiding inbreeding. It's also not uncommon for members of small communities to "winter up" together during the long, long winter which also encourages the exchange of genetic material. I mean, after 8 months, you've played all the card games, watched all the vids, sang all the songs...

There's no stigma to bastardy, but there is on those who don't know their "pedigree." Not in the fashion that the person has done something wrong, but rather a "I just don't know if it's safe for us to make a kid," sort of way.

As for gender roles, those are pretty much non-existent in my WiP's world to begin with. The original civilization was highly advanced, it was very nearly a post-scarcity economy. Things like gauss weapons and powered armor are fine gender-equalizers. And after the catastrophe, survival and pragmatism became the predominant cultural values.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
Go with your idea and see where it takes you. It may end up in a different place from what you expected.
 

ClareGreen

Onwards, ever onwards
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
791
Reaction score
121
Location
England
Mr. Mask, I'm afraid the only one who can answer most of your questions about the society you're trying to create is you. All I can tell you is that women have never been as limited as you seem to think; there have almost always been women in the fields, women in the factories and women on the battlefield. The idea of a woman being nothing more than a wife and mother has been a truly bizarre conceit for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of history.

If you want more recent examples, rather than the immediate post-war periods you may want to look at the wartimes themselves. It's my own suspicion that a huge part of the feminist movement came about because women realised they really could do these things, and then had to give up that independence and meaning when the men came back home.
 

ULTRAGOTHA

Merovingian Superhero
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
313
Watch "Foyle's War". In addition to getting to view a really, really good TV show, you'll see a lot of how the British adapted to the majority of men being in the army during WWII. Women drivers, women factory workers, Land girls, etc.
 

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,151
Location
In God I dwell, especially in Eugene OR
Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Sat Siri Akaal to you too!

One other item: My grandmother told me that her husband's grandmother started smoking a corncob pipe after her husband went off to the Civil War (where he died). Apparently, a lot of women did that.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal
 

Chasing the Horizon

Blowing in the Wind
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
4,288
Reaction score
561
Location
Pennsylvania
God's War by Kameron Hurley puts forth the scenario of a matriarchy in the case of male scarcity caused by a never-ending war. It's a damn good read too.

I've also worked through the scenario myself, building a matriarchy from an oppressive patriarchy which was absolutely decimated by a war with vastly more advanced invaders. I twisted up unique mythology, circumstances, and some meddling by outside sorceresses to have the culture switch very suddenly into an oppressive matriarchy. But instead of creating some feminist utopia of peace and prosperity, they created a society that runs on the horrible abuse of men. Of course, my goal was to explore how bad a matriarchy could be. It's really just a bizarre little piece of world-building I did to entertain myself. I haven't actually written about it.

I don't have any real-world basis for that particular culture, though. It was just a 'what if'.
 

wendymarlowe

writer, mother, geek
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
254
Reaction score
25
Location
Rocket City, USA
Website
www.etsy.com
I think your big X factor here is birth control. If the gender ratios are skewed because of some major apocalyptic event which also renders birth control hard to get, your gender inequities are going to come down in a hurry. Giving birth is dangerous and has been the leading cause of death among women for centuries - still is in many places.

IMHO, a polygamous society would be much more likely to develop if the women didn't have any power before, either. Take a bunch of 21st century American women and put them down in a 4-1 ratio in a closed environment with men and I think you'd be much more likely to see a situation like a reversed modern-day China, where societal norms continue like they always have been but there's higher competition for the men. Modern first-world women have the education and the expectation to be treated as individuals, not collectibles.

The strength of your police would probably also be a major factor - in places where the government/police cannot or will not enforce order, women have a much higher chance of being raped and assaulted. Combine that with a lack of birth control and you have women who have no real control over their lives, no matter what the law says. Women tend to benefit from a stronger militaristic system (via the local police) because it prevents day-to-day conflicts from always being resolved by whoever is physically the strongest.
 

Satsya

slow and steady
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
409
Reaction score
43
Location
Somewhere over there.
God's War by Kameron Hurley puts forth the scenario of a matriarchy in the case of male scarcity caused by a never-ending war. It's a damn good read too.

I've also worked through the scenario myself, building a matriarchy from an oppressive patriarchy which was absolutely decimated by a war with vastly more advanced invaders. I twisted up unique mythology, circumstances, and some meddling by outside sorceresses to have the culture switch very suddenly into an oppressive matriarchy. But instead of creating some feminist utopia of peace and prosperity, they created a society that runs on the horrible abuse of men. Of course, my goal was to explore how bad a matriarchy could be. It's really just a bizarre little piece of world-building I did to entertain myself. I haven't actually written about it.

I don't have any real-world basis for that particular culture, though. It was just a 'what if'.

...This brings up an issue, one which may also apply to the OP. Taken in a vacuum, your scenario is a fine example of creativity.

Unfortunately, there's been an ongoing theme in fiction associating female-run societies with dystopias -- specifically, dystopias where the men are treated like slaves. In a way, it's similar to that Save the Pearls book which takes place in a dystopia run by blacks. Perhaps an interesting concept in theory, but the end result can easily be seen as "Look! See how bad the world would be if blacks/women/gays were in charge?". You're using a group currently struggling to not be seen as inferior, and giving your readers a story that says if said group gains power the world will become worse.

I've got a nagging feeling there's a specific term for this problem, but I can't think of it... wish I had a better way to explain it.

Anyway, something to consider.
 

shaldna

The cake is a lie. But still cake.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
7,485
Reaction score
897
Location
Belfast
Just to note, there are already more women than men in the world. In fact humans have a rather high comparible percentage of males than other species.

The fact of the matter is that in terms of nature and evolution, having a lot of males just doesn't make sense. There is no need for them. One female can carry one baby, or one litter, but one male can fertilize many, so reduces the need for lots of males, which is why you'll always get a much higher percentage of females than males in any given population or any species.

Looking at the effects of the war in teh UK is a good example of what happens when men are no longer able to do the traditionally male orientated jobs - women just got on with it and started doing the jobs because someone had to. That's the society you will end up with - there will be fewer births, women will do the majority of the work but things will, essentially, carry on more or less as before in terms of economics etc.