A 5:1 Universe

[Paul in Qatar]

In last week's Economist, there was a discussion of how tough it is to be a Black woman in US. If you remove all the Black men who are in prison, or who are felons, there are darn few good men left.

This leads (they say) to a race for the men, with women offering more and more for male companionship. This was all a part of a discussion of gendercide of women around the world. All very intellectual.

So it got me thinking. What would a world be like if five girls were born for each boy? Could I make a good NatNoWriMo story out of it? Would it have to be as pornographic as I imagine it?

Your thoughts?

[Doyle]

Polygamy might be more accepted. I’m not sure this would be a good thing. Many more lesbians.

[SmartAleq]

Polygamy my ass--we'd put you guys into sperm factories and go about our business!

[Zeener Diode]

I'll resist the urge to argue your other points raised in your OP and address your specific question: What would a world be like if five girls were born for each boy?

What a wonderful world it would be.

[Mako]

Although I realise that it's a generalisation, I can't help but wonder if the average woman would be less selective when choosing a mate.

[Taur]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

What a wonderful world it would be.

Interesting soundtrack in your head, Zeener. Mine cued up Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves.

[Zeener Diode]

On a positive note: It may force China into reassessing their one child policy.

[Paul in Qatar]

No matter how many children the Chinese have, there would still be 5 boys for each girl. It has always been that way. Part of the species. (Of course the world like that would be unrecognizable, but a story would be set in this world, only with the sex ratio changed.)

I would think all men could demand prenups, and generous divorce settlements. Lesbians would not be such a small minority. Still man-woman pushmepullyou would be preferred (otherwise, again the world would spin out of recognition). Would there be Gay men? How would their situation be changed?

[Uthrecht]

As to the percentages of gay men and lesbians, your view would be prefaced by whether you think it's a choice or biological.

[puttering]

It means I would have gotten laid a lot more when I was younger.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by puttering

It means I would have gotten laid a lot more when I was younger.

Twice?

[SoylentPopTart]

Easy ladies, there's still plenty of me to go around.

[Borborygmi]

With women having so few options I could really let myself go! I could dress like a slob, get a pot belly, become a lousy conversationalist...


Wait, I already did that.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

Wait, I already did that.

Brother, I support your efforts and wish to subscribe to your blog.

[Auntbeast]

Not for nothing, but there is a lot of that sort of thing in Dystopian fiction, however, usually women are the commodities, especially breeding women. See: Handmaid's Tale, Children of Men, etc.

It would be interesting to flesh out the reverse. Although with the historic subjugation of women, it seems that any man has typically been better than NO man.

5:1 means men would still control the world. Imagine what they could charge for bug squishing and trash removal? Oh, sex? Yeah, we'd still get plenty.

[IronHorse]

I don't know how well it would work now, but if this was how we started, I'd predict the old model of "Men pursue, women choose" would never have started, or would be a lot less. In fact, it would be concentrating even more power into men. I'd fear for women's rights.

[Baldwin]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

So it got me thinking. What would a world be like if five girls were born for each boy? Could I make a good NatNoWriMo story out of it? Would it have to be as pornographic as I imagine it?

Somebody wrote a novel on that premise, about 40 years ago; I remember reading it. One of the British New Wave sf writers. Let me think.

Title was, if I recall, Twelve to Five. Edmund Cooper? Let me check.

I was right about the author and premise; but the title is Five to Twelve (the ratio of males to females in the story).

Of course, that was informed by the changing social background of its time. You could give it a different take, with your 21st century perspective. (The future isn't what it used to be.)

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

I think it would depend on why there were five women to every man. If it was an inherent part of the species, i.e. that's just the way the X chromosome crumbles, then you'd have to have a radical restructuring of society. If there aren't that many men, then you're probably not going to see men involved in warfare to the extent that they historically have been. If men are a limited commodity already, and then you have a war and 10,000 of them die -- well, that's a problem. So I think you'd definitely see way different gender roles for women and men, and I think it's unlikely that men will remain in power in the way they do in the real world. Since there would be so few of them, then I think men would be far less likely to engage in the risk-seeking behavior that's expected of them because they're men and they probably wouldn't be as highly represented in dangerous careers (mining, farming, construction, forestry -- you know, the ones where you can be crushed to death easily) and probably very well represented in the "traditionally" female careers.

Of course, you also have to take into consideration that part of the reason that women have been oppressed historically is that men wanted to be sure that their children were actually their children and not some other dude's. So does that affect the way illegitimate children are viewed? Does it change the tradition of primogeniture? Are women more likely to be able to inherit in their own name or will they need a male administrator? If primogeniture no longer favors firstborn sons but any firstborn child, what does that do to the order of inheritance for crown royals?

And what is this going to do to language? Will the default gender still be male? I mean, look at women and female. The root words are men and male, respectively. Would the imbalance in sex ratio mean that roots are altered to make them masculine now?

You might want to read [url="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/417157.Egalia_s_Daughters_A_Satire_of_the_Sexes">E galia's Daughters</a> by Gerd Brantenberg. It's a feminist satirical novel from the 1970s, so it is a little dated, which presents a matriarchy without it being a utopia.

If there's a 5:1 ratio because there was some sex-specific disease or chemical that wiped out the male population, then it's going to be more like [i]The Handmaid's Tale[/i], I think.

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

Oh, so much coding fail. That should be Egalia's Daughters by Gerd Brantenberg.

Also, I wanted to mention that if you wanted suggestions of books that might help with research, then Barbara Hanawalt's book about women in medieval London is full of great information about the economic and legal position of women. It's called The Wealth Of Wives: Women, Law, and Economy in Late Medieval London. It's really readable for an academic text. She also has a book about gender and society in medieval England, 'Of Good and Ill Repute': Gender and Social Control in Medieval England, which I haven't read yet, but am anticipating to be excellent as usual. It's sitting on my bookshelf. I just need to find the time to read it.

Um, not that anything suggests that you're going to be setting this in medieval times, but the medieval period sets a whole bunch of standards and expectations that still influence gender roles today. Like that whole virgin/whore dichotomy? Thanks, Christianity, for being so firmly entrenched in medieval society. Women's sexuality was viewed differently in medieval Europe than it is today, but it still wasn't a pretty picture, and we basically have Marian worship to thank for that.

[Mbossa]

Originally Posted by Miss Purl McKnittington

And what is this going to do to language? Will the default gender still be male? I mean, look at women and female. The root words are men and male, respectively. Would the imbalance in sex ratio mean that roots are altered to make them masculine now?

Minor nitpick that doesn't detract from your point: 'female' and 'male' actually originated from completely different words. Female was borrowed from the Old French word femelle and ultimately the Latin femella, while male came from Old French masle and Latin masculus. It was only when they were introduced into English that their spellings were brought into line with each other.

'Woman' was definitely derived from 'man', though.

[hilarity n. suze]

Originally Posted by Mako

Although I realise that it's a generalisation, I can't help but wonder if the average woman would be less selective when choosing a mate.

No. We already have to pick men.

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

Originally Posted by hilarity n. suze

No. We already have to pick men.

Unless a woman is lesbian or bisexual. The choice isn't necessarily limited exclusively to men.

Thanks for the clarification, Mbossa. I did not know that.

[Dancer_Flight]

One of the societies in David Weber's Honorverse is a very religious/polygamist paternalistic society with a very skewed sex ratio due to heavy metal poisoning in the planet's ecosystem (further explanation comes later in the series). As the society modernizes, the role of women is beginning to change. While it isn't a major chunk of the story it does add a background flavour to the series.

-DF

[Dancer_Flight]

One of the societies in David Weber's Honorverse is a very religious/polygamist paternalistic society with a very skewed sex ratio due to heavy metal poisoning in the planet's ecosystem (further explanation comes later in the series). As the society modernizes, the role of women is beginning to change. While it isn't a major chunk of the story it does add a background flavour to the series.

-DF

ETA: The Graysons are introduced in book two or three (Can't remember) which is called "The Honor of the Queen".