Would we have formed any society if there were to be only women, or alternatively, only men?
Just wondering..... what society could be like if sex difference did not exist.
Secondly whose need for society is more... women's or men's.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Its an interesting question.
It may be that society exists in order to aid in the general success of the family.
If the members of that society did not have separate sexual roles then they would have to be hermaphrodites (self-impregnating individuals) in order for that society to continue.
In nature, some hermaphroditic plants live in colonies. Other animals live solitary lives, apart from close associations with their own kind.
So, hermaphrodism does not automatically lead to the formation of Society.
A society of hermaphrodites could still have all the same driving motives as our own; less the drive for sex. There might still be the desire for status, for example.
By "need for society", I take that to be, "who benefits most", from being in society.
Probably children. During the early years of their membership in society they provide little, if any support to the society's day to day survival .
But the very helplessness of children is also part of the glue that holds society together.
Without children, a society has no future and must face a term of hopelessness and futility.
So, the least members of society, the children, are the very means of the society finding meaning and purpose.
Because children in our society are both male and female, they would benefit equally by their membership.
Thank you for such an interesting question.
- Love of TruthLv 51 decade ago
Some men are more feminine in nature just like some women are more masculine in nature. Having the physical male or female parts are not the only factor in determining social roles. I'm sure no matter how hard we would try there will still be a categorization of roles, and in many cases willingly so.
Think of roles in terms of division of labor. With division of labor society because more efficient, though admittedly less well rounded.
In essence there are reasons for societies differentiation. Maybe not the reasons you might, like but nevertheless reasons.
As for who needs society more I'm not sure I understand the question. But if you mean being around people I would say women in general tend to be more social than men.
But then again it really depends on the person. Generalizations are just that generalizations and are not a catch all.
- zilmagLv 71 decade ago
Yes, we would have, if you mean to begin the experiment with humans and not our precursor who didn't have symbolic language. It's kind of a strange question because humans by definition are social creatures. Without sex, we might not be social, yeah. But then we wouldn't be human either.
Your second question is interesting, but isn't really about sex: those who need society most are children in general, not men nor women. You might say women do, but they only do so long as they have the primary responsibility for rearing children (which is also the primary responsibility for passing along most of human culture, which children need to survive). Men could do that too, and would then "need society" most.
- Mr. 210Lv 71 decade ago
an interesting take on this question is Ursala LeGuin's novel: The Left Hand of Darkness, which imagines how society would have evolved if there was no gender at all. you have to read it to see how she solved the reproduction question. the reproduction is the key to how you would build a society. its amazing how much society in general is based on the desire to reproduce and achieve certain reproduction needs. (how many commercials use sex to sell a product?) to answer your specific question society in theory could evolve if there was exclusively females but not males. someone would have to carry the babies or lay the eggs, both uniquely female traits. there is actually a species of lizard that is only female. the two of them mate both can become pregnant and lay eggs. as there is no Y chromosome they can only produce females.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
This seems like a silly question to me. . .
The need is equal.
Yes, there would still be a society. Perhaps even a peaceful one but I doubt it.
It is human nature to desire company, companionship and even compete with each other on certain levels.
And I wouldn't prefer to live in a world without men.
They are funny little monkeys.
I'm gay/lesbian by the way.
I can't be expected to fix everything. lol
- 4 years ago
How will we deny the existence of a be conscious it quite is needless to say contained in the dictionary? Who has denied this be conscious's existence? What are you speaking approximately? "those are the comparable 'womyn', by the way, that experience the would desire to alter words like waiter and waitress to 'waitron' and history to 'herstory'" I even have in no way in my existence ever heard the be conscious "waitron" in my existence. As for "womyn", i'm a feminist who thinks that be conscious is stupid and clumsy finding and that i do no longer use it. And "herstory" is regularly used while they're bearing on a minimal of a few thing managing women (like the "herstory" of ladies's rights, as an occasion). that is nonetheless dumb, and that i doubt that maximum feminists use that be conscious. i do no longer understand the place you're getting your guidance from, in spite of the indisputable fact that that is incorrect.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
first of all this world is in balance. . . . men and women are both in need of society its a balance set by god. . i.e if you believe in god!! sorry . . .and society would not be called a society if we dint have different sexes. .
- 1 decade ago
- who da wha?Lv 41 decade ago
probably we would have found other ways to differentiate roles in society. for example, class, race, height, hair color, left handedness.....