[–] ▶ №17170564[Quote]
I would probably have a girlfriend
▶ №17170573[Quote]>>17170605
that means i would have a higher chance of being a real woman!!!!!
▶ №17170605[Quote]
It would be less /calm/ because foids hate each other more than us men by default. Also competition wouldn't be that bad because one man can impregnate a lot of women
>>17170573YWNBAW
▶ №17170623[Quote]
there would have to be more needoh factories because that is what annoying women care about rn
▶ №17170624[Quote]
FNWO female new world order
▶ №17170660[Quote]
lots of wompas would be simps and thatd be kino
▶ №17170676[Quote]
i would have a girlfriend right now
>still trying
▶ №17170678[Quote]
Mmrreoe wompaas so more car crash so thats bar vad a bad
▶ №17170679[Quote]
we would be less technologically advanced then we are now
▶ №17170716[Quote]
kikes would control everything more then they do now
▶ №17170919[Quote]>>17171093
>>17170769This is really interesting and a good point. Women are more usually agreeable than men which would inevitable provoke that women still obey men
<What about wars? Would men still go to war? Would women be a major part of the army and men be like specialized shock troops because we're stronger in average?
▶ №17171093[Quote]>>17171304
>>17170919i think we would see women in wars, i also think polyamory would become commonplace worldwide
▶ №17171189[Quote]
Femcels would probably be real and female Elliot Rogers may become common. Women would serve in the military and probably do a lot more dangerous jobs, I could see professions like Electricians becoming female-dominated
▶ №17171207[Quote]>>17171273
being a dyke would probably be socially acceptable while being gay wouldn't be
▶ №17171273[Quote]
>>17171207I was thinkin about this and yeah i agree being a fag would be poorly seen but being a dyke would pretty much be considered SNCA
▶ №17171304[Quote]>>17171519>>17171718
>>17171093I think we all agree on this, but at what proportion in wars? I personally think that men would be part of, as i said, elite troops like knights, spec operators, etc since we're way stronger and more bvilt for fighting, while women aren't
▶ №17171519[Quote]>>17171612
>>17171304In medieval/ancient warfare women would probably be the majority of spearmen, archers, and other basic foot soldiers. Men would mainly be officers and general here, but I could honestly see archers becoming mix gendered since it was generally a safer position and relies more on strength that most people think. As armor gets better I think men would mainly be heavily armored knights. As firearms are developed I think men would probably be mostly cavalry since that was both a higher position and one where I think we'd fit in well. 18th-19th century is probably where men participate in war the least, since it was a time where physical strength mattered the least and elite units were rarest. Once we get closer to the modern day men would definitely become special operators and other sorts of elite troops. I wonder if positions which were often held by women because they were generally considered safer(medics and snipers) would be male positions in this world.
▶ №17171612[Quote]>>17171650
>>17171519I personally think that during the modern era, men would dominate the special operator fields simply because the requirements to join are incredibly hard and, as a fun fact, no woman was ever passed the training required to become a Navy Seal or a Delta Force operator just from how tough they are.
<I agree doe that men would be seen less in battle during the 19th century, although women are more prone to panic than men during stress. Women enter panic mode and men get PTSD. This is snope'd from female police officers that tend up to run away or go nuts
▶ №17171650[Quote]>>17171745
>>17171612If both sides are made up of women then both would panic and it would cancel eachother out
▶ №17171718[Quote]
>>17171304yes, i think men would still be the majority of troops, and all elite troops in medieval times, as society progresses to the modern era, women will start filling roles in the military, albeit i still think men will be elite troops, i think ordinary soldiers would become mixed
▶ №17171745[Quote]
>>17171650And so, world peace was achieved because foids are too much of a pussy to fight back
▶ №17171792[Quote]>>17171829
the army full of women would be weaker than the army full of men during medieval times, now that i think about it, armys would still be mostly male.
▶ №17171807[Quote]
I think as we get into the modern day gender roles would even out more, with mortality rates lower the directly survival of the species would be a lower risk so men would take on riskier roles
▶ №17171827[Quote]>>17171860
>>17170769we definitely wouldn't be matriarchal, infact I think we'd be even more patriarchal because men would be more important to the survival of the species
▶ №17171829[Quote]>>17172293
>>17171792Why doe? Demographically there wouldn't be as many men as in our "vanilla" world to fill in infantry roles
▶ №17171860[Quote]
>>17171827TSMT. No FNWO for you, goonerfag
Competition for men would be hard as nails probably. There would be a lot of pick me girls and attention seeking whores
▶ №17172293[Quote]
>>17171829its simple, alot more men would fill fighting roles, farming, prouction and tertiary jobs would be filled by women. men working passive jobs (e.g chef, shopkeeper, production line worker) would be frowned upon
▶ №17172315[Quote]>>17172476
>>17172106Oh yeah in addition to this, technological progress/innovation would slow down because of the IQ difference
>>17170769 and because like a said that a lot of men would have to go into labor fields rather than abstract jobs like engineering or science. What I mean is that if you barely have any men, it's more important that they become construction workers, electricians, plumbers, etc than theoretical physicists or mathematicians. There would be a lot less engineers and scientists.
Crime rate would also be significantly lower since gangs and criminals are usually always men. Men would also likely feel less of a need to become criminals since the job market for men would likely be a lot better than it is now.
Another thing too I just thought of though is that most children would sort of grow up with somewhat absent fathers. Each man on average would have 3 wives and like 2 kids with each to keep the birthrate stable, so 6 kids for each man (did I do this math right? not sure). But that would mean each child would receive much less attention from their fathers on average, would would cause problems of course.
▶ №17172455[Quote]>>17172643
>>17172106I personally think that you're wrong in the "sons considered more important than daughters" scenario because in dynasties, men are way more expendable than women. You only need one (1) son to be the heir and maybe one or two in case the one you chose dies or is a complete loser like what happened with the Vanderbilt. Daughters are way more valuable since you can do peace treaties via marriage and, while sons can impregnate a shit lot of women in like a month or something, one woman only can get impregnated once, by one dude, every 12 months (3 extra months for recovery)
▶ №17172476[Quote]>>17172913
>>17172315I didn't thought of the science or engineering issue but yeah you're correct. We would be in, what? The 19th century assuming everything went smoothly?
▶ №17172591[Quote]
Op here i archived this in megalodon 'cause it was really interesting reading the reppeys
▶ №17172623[Quote]>>17172795
What about media? I'm 100% sure that most media would catter to women since they're the vast majority but there would be male media, something like CoD or (pre primaris) Warhammer 40k or Gears of War. Im sure that meb would be more gatekeeping of their things since they're way more niche
▶ №17172643[Quote]
>>17172455I'm talking about value for the average pleb family. Like in the middle east and china female infanticide was sometimes common back in the day cause sons were more valuable for keeping the family line or whatever.
▶ №17172661[Quote]
Ideally less poop and niggers dying because wompas don't poop and
>Xhey're so heccin wholesome that they live longer than moids or however the cope is seethed with random rnca factoids
▶ №17172756[Quote]>>17172848>>17173025
But what about the political system in this world? i dont think democracy could survive in this scenario due to it being 3/4 female voters.
Perhaps a more elitist democracy like seen in the middle 19th century?
▶ №17172795[Quote]
>>17172623movies and tv def, but i doubt gaming would change that much as i think its just something women inherently arent interested in
▶ №17172848[Quote]>>17173025
>>17172756I don't know. Democracy would probably not work since women are way more emotional than men and thus would not vote with their brains but rather with their hearts. Maybe an autocratic, council-esque government formed by 75% men and 25% women? Men are, like the 'teen mentioned, in average more logistical and smarter than women, but theyd still see representation simply because of their numbers
<Idk because my sperging goes to armies and social structures and not political systems
▶ №17172913[Quote]>>17172978>>17173212
>>17172476I don't know really cause societies would probably be unrecognizable since they'd be structured very differently. A large amount of technological/scientific progress came from a handful of genius dudes like Isaac Newton. But I suspect in this hypothetical that highly intelligent men would be discouraged from taking "unnecessary" jobs like being a physist or philosopher especially since they're so rare, and instead they'd be pushing into with more obvious immediate benefits like engineering.
Like let's say you're born as some very smart guy in this society and you're obviously very good at math. Maybe your real passion in life is studying math itself as a mathematician, but the higher powers may tell you no, that's retarded, we are in desperate need of anyone who can design buildings that won't fall apart, so you're going to be a civil engineer.
▶ №17172978[Quote]>>17173058
>>17172913well yeah, but many of these 'scientist' from back in the day where a lot more practically minded than you think. Many of these guys refereed to themselves as philosophers not scientists back in the day, bc the concept didn't really exist.
Many of the greatest inventions where made out of an engineering need to fix a problem or to claim a patent where from wealth could be extracted for the inventor.
▶ №17173025[Quote]>>17173147>>17173171
>>17172756>>17172848Do you guys think wars would be less common? Men are generally more willing to go fight and die for abstract ideas like their community or nation or whatever, while I would imagine trying to draft a bunch of women to go invade someone could end up failing pretty hard. And like mentioned before, men would be likely take the more skilled and safe jobs since they're better at combat and more valuable, but that also might mean a political leader would hesitate to start a war and send a bunch of their own men to die.
▶ №17173058[Quote]>>17173191>>17173212
>>17172978Yeah that's true fair point, but I don't know where we would be in terms of technological progress. We might still be in medieval times, or honestly we might still be stuck in paleolithic or neolithic times.
▶ №17173075[Quote]
society would be extinct way before the bronze age
▶ №17173147[Quote]
>>17173025less common definitely. But it would still be around. Women in the army really arent that big of a problem. Many armies from medieval times or the bronze ages used what where essentially farmers and plebs that were poorly trained and equipped for a large part. Like another soyteen said elite untis like cavalry and knights would be men.
i do believe combat would turn around these shock elite untis doe as these higly trained men units would probably wipe the floor with any female unit
▶ №17173171[Quote]>>17173292
>>17173025I don't think war would be less common. Remember that women fight each other for stupid reasons like wearing the same dress or whatevs. Which also makes me think that uniform armies would be hard since women don't like to look similar to each other.
▶ №17173191[Quote]>>17173261
>>17173058In large part this will be determined by what the societal view is on how far polyamory should go. If a man has for example 3 wives each with three or two children, do they all live under the same roof or does each mother live seperately? If a shared arrangement is assumed that leaves much more time for 2 of the 3 women to go do labour while the remaining cares for the children. in this scenario men would have the time for abstracts tasks.
If each mother lives seperatly there would be a serious labour shortage and men would not have time for such things
▶ №17173212[Quote]>>17173246
>>17172913>>17173058I agree. Societies would be unrecognizable and probably under developed technologically compared to ours.
Also i think that men would probably wear these funny codpieces they used back in the 1500's just to show how heckin masculine they were. Probably.
▶ №17173246[Quote]>>17173253
>>17173212Fashion would probably be very weird and bizarre, especially with how much women care about it
▶ №17173253[Quote]
>>17173246Yeah it would be Incomprehensible
▶ №17173261[Quote]
>>17173191I would guess they would live in the same house in nearly all societies to reduce the amount of labor needed. Women fucking each other would also probably be very normalized.
▶ №17173271[Quote]>>17173324>>17173331>>17173518>>17173631
Talking about media. Do you 'teens think that media would depict men as damsels or as saviours? Women prefer taller and stronger men who can protect them but i dont know with the sheer proportion of it
▶ №17173292[Quote]>>17173353
>>17173171Women definitely fight each other pretty frequently but it's always just like pulling each other's hair or whatever. They almost never are willing to use legal levels of violence like men are.
▶ №17173324[Quote]
>>17173271In what situations would men be like damsels in this society?
▶ №17173331[Quote]>>17173337
>>17173271def saviors, macho.
Go look up the history of paraguy.
The had a war in the 19th century that eliminated 3/4 of their men, and bc of this a macho culture evolved
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War ▶ №17173353[Quote]>>17173483
>>17173292yeah they fight over inane bullshit but i doubt they would be willing to go as far as men in a conflict. Prob as soon as it gets serious many would be out
▶ №17173399[Quote]>>17173575
What about economic systems? Women like to consume a lot of stuff like makeup and clothing, so societies would be more focused on like dyes and wool creation like Spain in the middle ages
▶ №17173518[Quote]
>>17173271I'm thinking men would be thought of like aristocrats or elites, powerful but low in numbers and therefore more valuable
▶ №17173575[Quote]>>17173942>>17173989
>>17173399Yeah dyes, perfumes, textiles, clothing, makeup would be some of the more dominant industries. Probably a lot more books too, especially entertainment focused fiction books. Sailors are usually men though so trade might be harder, unless more women became sailors. Mixed gender crews could be a big problem though in premodern times cause of the whole women getting pregnant thing.
▶ №17173631[Quote]
>>17173271There'd be a lot more female-focused media based on relationships and drama and shit like sitcoms and soap operas. Relationships would also be weird since men would have multiple wives, so shows about a family would be like 1 man living with 3 women and all their children. Come to think of it there would be tons and tons of gossip and drama in this society, I might go crazy having to deal with allat.
▶ №17173669[Quote]>>17173754>>17173788>>17174108>>17174127
>>17170557 (OP)Would the sharty exist in this universe and what would it be like this is the only thing i care about
▶ №17173706[Quote]
We still would have penetrative power so we would still dominate
▶ №17173708[Quote]
>>17170769misinfonvke but yes for other reasons
▶ №17173754[Quote]
>>17173669It would be possible something like this would exist but obviously less likely
▶ №17173788[Quote]
>>17173669we would have tomjak.party or just the turdy where people make fun of masculine women or something
▶ №17173842[Quote]
>>17173824very informative!
▶ №17173844[Quote]>>17173893
What would social norms be like in this world? Would it be more conservative because men would have more power, or more liberal because there's more women out there
▶ №17173884[Quote]
Female adolph hitler would say men are the jarty and cut off 6 million moids penises which would make men even rarer. There’d be even more fat bulldykes around which would make breeding more unlikely
▶ №17173942[Quote]
>>17173575>women getting pregnantYeah i agree. Regiments wouldn't mix with sexes because, like what happens irl, women get pregnant and that provokes some issues that high command probably wouldnt like to deal with
▶ №17173989[Quote]
>>17173575Women probably become sailors but mixed crews are banned to prevent pregnancies and stuff
▶ №17174108[Quote]>>17174133
>>17173669Probably. Imageboards would be even more niche because, lets be honest, only men use this shit. Like, per 30 men who browse imageboards, one pooner/crazy/pick me foid
▶ №17174127[Quote]
>>17173669There would be no sharty
▶ №17174133[Quote]>>17174165
>>17174108there's nothing biological that really stops women from using imageboards, it's more of a cultural thing
▶ №17174165[Quote]>>17174194
>>17174133Its nothing biological probably, but sane women dont use imageboards. The only foid i met that did was a goth chick i was friends with back in 2024. She was nuts
▶ №17174194[Quote]>>17174213
>>17174165If there's less men there will be more competition for them, which will lead to more socially isolated femcels that might end up on imageboards
▶ №17174213[Quote]
>>17174194True… Crystal Cafe would probably be a thing in that world. How do we call it anyways? Because 3:1 women ratio doesnt sound good
▶ №17174429[Quote]
>>17174336Holy, fucking
TRVKEGooners think that having 67 women addicted to them its cool until you really get a brain and use it properly.
