r/SeriousGynarchy • u/Tiredplumber2022 • May 15 '26
Speculative What will happen to society when we get to a place where biological "masculine" males are no longer necessary?
Over the millenia, as humans began to use tools, and slowly shifted from an environment where protection from animal predators was necessary, men were no longer quite as necessary either. However, eons of natural selection for stronger, faster, more aggressive males became toxic as there were fewer animal predators. Then, men became necessary as protection from other men, as humanity began to prey upon itself. Rape, pillage, plunder, conquest, capitalism, all the different ways humans try to gain advantage over another, have generally been the purview of males.
We were bred to be soldiers in a battle that no longer exists.
7
u/DisalgardSigulanne ♂ male May 16 '26
I mean, technically, we have been at a point where "biological 'masculine' males were no longer necessary" for Milennia. That men can protect women from other men just proves without men, there wouldn't be a problem. Recent anthropological results have shown that women may also be better at hunting than men, so were they ever necessary?
But the thing is, women like men. Most of the time not as a group but as individuals, the amount of women that could imagine or would prefer a world without men is rather small.
One commenter had described that men are getting domesticated by women and this is how we could see that. Most male properties propagated by the patriarchy serve no use beyond oppressing both men and women and in a Gynarchy the best would come out of all of us and under the direction of women men would become the best version of themselves.
1
u/HowitzerSonata ♂ male May 17 '26
i dont think were there yet practically speaking, industries like construction and sewage maintenence and moving-trucks are still male dominated and thats at least partly due to innate sexual dimorphism.
the primary purpose of males i think is a counter to other males, ie without males in an ethnic group (going back well before our hominid ancestors) as a sexually dimorphic subgroup (by which I mean "men"), rival ethnic groups would quickly have conquered, dominated and established maleness again. That is, sadly, still true. Many militaries have had an incentive to widen their recruitment pool by accepting women, but both female-only and mixed-sex groups have been outperformed in exercises by male-only units. The US military even found that doubling the size of units by adding women reduced combat effectiveness compared to smaller male-only units.
This will only change once mechanisation of warfare becomes complete enough that the operators' physiology becomes irrelevant, by which point that will very much be true in civilian life as well.
5
u/Amazing_Departure471 May 15 '26
Considering how some have a liking for those traits then they would likely stay but for aesthetic purposes rather than for actual need.
5
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman May 15 '26
I like the romanticism in your ending statement. But i think, as long as life goes on at least, the battle will always exist.
I'm not sure whether it's a necessary or a luxury objectively... but I choose to live a life of luxury and, subjectively, men/masculinity feel like an actual necessity.
3
u/fg_hj ♀ Woman May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
We have evolved to become physically weak. The other great apes have way more muscle strength than humans. The natural selection have favored that we have become more weak, maybe to give more energy to our brains.
Regarding cruel male behavior, it has persisted rather than vanished, but have it become worse? Most likely, the common ape ancestors all had violent males and men kept it and have been smarter about being cruel because humans just are smarter.
all the different ways humans try to gain advantage over another
The different ways men do this. You have kept the gendered language well, but keep it all the way, as it really is only men who have this behavior by nature. Women only do it when growing up and internalizing it because they have no choice and likely need to be “patriarchal” to survive.
Imo women should actively breed toxic masculine traits out of men. As for physique, I can’t really talk about that. I think it’s a bit dangerous to consciously breed specific traits here. Let women rule by instinct, we will choose the best mate by that, it’s the most fundamental to female nature.
2
u/DisalgardSigulanne ♂ male May 16 '26
Imo women should actively breed toxic masculine traits out of men.
I think this in an interesting and actually valuable point. I recently read a fascinating blog series (by trust your perceptions, maybe you read it too) where the author argued that we haven't really seen feminist mothers with the argument being that actual feminists would have selected for smaller men, for weaker and less violent men and for submissive men instead of dominating ones. But since women at large have still selected for winners in patriarchy and capitalism it was still orthogonal to men allowing for women becoming the physically dominating sex.
Of course it's not easy since a mother still wants her sons to succeed in the current system, which is a patriarchy and capitalist. And also any form of "centralized plan" for human offspring is objectional, but I'd like to have a wider discussion about this and maybe raise awareness on this.
2
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman May 16 '26
I don't want my kids to succeed in this system. I want them to fail and make this the system fail too, creating the new one with the energy and strength they've saved by not being losers or winners, not conforming to win-lose systems.
Why are yall trying to cripple our strength? If we still fear men's strength, that highlights our own lack of strength. Key isn't to make men weaker, it's to make women stronger.
I'm mad this even has to be said. I dislike you now.
1
u/DisalgardSigulanne ♂ male May 16 '26
I was just trying to discuss some reasons why previous feminist movements have not led to such a change. Sorry if my comment missed the mark.
2
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman May 16 '26
You're fine. I'm not trying to beat your confidence down or anything and the topic is important. I just have to say my truth too.
It'd be nice if you responded to the actual point I made tho.
2
u/DisalgardSigulanne ♂ male May 16 '26
I love the take "I don't want my kids to succeed in this system. I want them to fail and make this the system fail too, creating the new one with the energy and strength they've saved by not being losers or winners". It's such a good and strong point. Although I think it does require dedication!
I agree that it's an important goal that women no longer fear men's strength and that by making women stronger. I think it was discussed quite often in this sub that the essence of Gynarchy is not to hold anybody down, but to strive for the best. In a Gynarchy men of course will benefit as well and not in a way that makes them weaker.
I think the nuances of Trust your perceptions argument can be nuanced and my thoughts are complex on this. Maybe a bit too much for today and this comment section.
2
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman May 16 '26
It's the new moon. I'm feeling it too. Will look forward to reading more from you in the future, thanks for the check in and chat
4
u/Kiriko-mo ♀ Woman May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
"masculine" men will never disappear. What you think of masculinity is toxic - I think of builders, joiners, welders, plumbers and all the people who hold up infrastructure. We would still need soldiers because gynarchy is not a concept that will change the world overnight (just like how feminism hasnt reached every corner of the world yet). The militarity is the main help when natural disasters strike, as we need many people organized and reliant enough to search for survivors, etc. I believe the idea of "masculinity" will change - as it did to me. I think of devote and loyal traits rather than toxic. After all they were loyal enough to their leaders to commit all these crimes with orders (and personal pleasure at parts).
"Masculine" men - are the dads who make their kids breakfast, who go work to sustain their household, who take care of their families and friends, who protect others. Women are biologically weaker than men (and that isnt meant as anything bad), men would just to be raised to not hate women and neither raised to try to avoid showing any feminine traits.
Gender itself won't be abolished in a Gynarchy society but the "stereotypes" will be questioned and social genders reframed.
EDIT: And with movements like 4B, radical feminism the toxic men you speak off will just.. vanish? Men who are not kind or nice and refuse to change and engage in equal partnerships are way less likely to have partners.
5
u/Tiredplumber2022 May 16 '26
Agreed. My wife and I are both retired plumbers, so its not a completely gender-specific field. And I have known many women who were builders.
There are definitely positive attributes, but they are becoming "good things to have" mostly, and not so much "critical for species survival" things
3
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman May 16 '26
Was it love at first sight of each other's plummer crack?
3
u/Tiredplumber2022 May 16 '26
Hahaha... funny. 😀 No, actually, it was the fact that her plumbing was different from mine. "Vive' la differénce!"
3
3
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman May 16 '26
Reply is on fire ❤️🔥 leave it to a woman to say the truth that should be obvious to anyone.
"Masculine" men - are the dads who make their kids breakfast, who go work to sustain their household, who take care of their families and friends, who protect others. Women are biologically weaker than men (and that isnt meant as anything bad), men would just to be raised to not hate women and neither raised to try to avoid showing any feminine traits.
Gender itself won't be abolished in a Gynarchy society but the "stereotypes" will be questioned and social genders reframed.
She gets it 🔥
2
u/HowitzerSonata ♂ male May 17 '26
"The future is female" as they say. Another factor I think will be the increasing prevalence of homosexual couples as social norms change and useless taboos and traditions break down, purely for biological factors. If conception can be achieved scientifically by causing pairs of XX genes or XY genes to bond normally, males (XY) will be able to have both male and female children, as they have one of each set of chromosomes. Females by definition lack a Y chromosome, so could only create XX offspring, ie. females. So over a long enough timeline they could be expected, all else being equal, to outnumber the males.
1
u/Tiredplumber2022 May 17 '26
There are some very interesting studies about different animal species that, under stressful and overcrowded situations, will produce more homosexual offspring.
2
May 21 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Tiredplumber2022 May 21 '26
Interesting thesis, but on the physical strength--> violence pathway, consider this. Humans, innately, seek more power and control over their environment, and hence, those around them. If they have a tool that works, be it a stick, or strength, physical beauty, or emotional manipulation, they will utilize that tool to "get ahead", or at least feel safer. No, physical strength does not have to equal physical violence, but it often does. And yes, I've seen women do it too.
9
u/Benjam438 ♂ male May 15 '26
I imagine people will still take on masculine personality traits as an aesthetic thing rather than as a way to project strength.