What would you do if you wake up and suddenly every woman in the world is 20% bigger, stronger, doninant, and has more bone density than men ?
Be upset because I am happy how I am and don't want to become a man with a vagina
I've always wanted to be bigger, but if every woman becomes comparatively bigger, it's meaningless.
I would be fine with that. I'm pretty small so I'd be in good shape.
Let's just say gender roles are forced to change as women would be physically dominant as men are right now
Which means instead of feminists we would have men rights activists.
All the doorways would be too small.
But you would always be able to make men open the door for you, literally
I'm already usually stronger than the type of men I'm interested in (small framed lanklets and skinny manlets) but this would be an overwhelming advantage. At 20% bigger I'd be 6'7".
I would love to obtain a harem of tiny boyfriends, it would be wonderful. If only, anon, if only.
So I would become a normal height?
I just may develop vertigo.
Find myself a boytoy and crush him with my thighs.>>13497
I lol'd. Perfect post.
I'd bully men when I felt like it. Nothing too mean but I'd push them to the ground if they were in my way or I'd steal their hats and hold it just high enough so they couldn't reach
I would humiliate boys with small dicks, because my clit would be bigger
OP is k9r bloke with giantess/femdom fetishism
I'd still like to be 6'5'' though.
What's the appeal in that tho? Assuming you're not into bullying male harem. As another poster mentioned; the appeal of the relative height advantage wouldn't mean much if the height of every woman changed as opposed to just one's own height
Look at all this misandry.>>13497
What I mean is that the lobbying power would be reversed. Every time you read or hear about a feminist in the media imagine if they were replaced by male right activists, and vice versa.
I bet rape by gender statistics would be reversed too. That's what it means to be the stronger gender.
>>13530>That's what it means to be the stronger gender
Considering how we're all socialized, I don't think we'd be raping anyone the same amount men would. This scenario is if you woke up, so I'm assuming we're still in our world.
I also don't believe all gender roles would be reversed.
Why do women have to be the ones who change in size and adapt to those changes (clothing fitting, furniture etc) as opposed to men? Being 7'+ as a woman would feel awkward and not comfy. Why not just have men become 20% smaller in your scenario.
The doorways would be too small.
would my facial structure also improve?
if not then whatever, i fight my fellow amazons within my cul de sac for the crown, and assimilate them and their partners into my harem.
don't associate my clearly joking post with misandry, please.
Also I'm always suspicious of these Amazon-fetishists.
I'm getting flashbacks to my tumblr-phase days where I would get shoehorned into giantess rp scenarios due to being a part of another fandom somewhat related (not AoT).
Jesus, men are so depraved.
Seriously, why do they make a fetish out of everything?
I think that's just one of those eternal questions that no one can really answer
Giantess stuff in particular is pretty popular though because it links together a lot of common and sometimes overlapping fetishes into a single community (like feet, femdom, powerplay, BDSM, furry).
Ultimately it's all the same stuff. People want to either be powerful or to give power to someone else. It's normal for the man to be powerful and the woman to be submissive, which is why it's usually the reverse on imageboards. Maybe if we all time travelled to prevent ourselves getting into anime everything would be ok.
I think the difference between men with fetishes and women with fetishes is that men will usually feel no shame about bringing it into places where it's inappropriate.
I mean, women are clearly into some weird stuff sometimes. Have you seen the kink thread on lc?Although it may disgust people who aren't into it, since I'm a domme I wouldn't mind a bf who's into this giantess stuff. So long as he's actually smaller than me so we aren't playing with reality too much. I like watching those videos on youtube of strong women beating up skinny men some times, it's a fantasy of mine.
That's true, but it's also the things men have fetishes for–it's like, if it exist, there's dudes jacking off to it.
Is there a fetish for respecting women and acknowledging their viewpoints?
Ugh probably which is why I'm suspicious of men who "respect" women it's usually a fetish (just like everything is).
No I mean that men fetishize everything and so if some 4chan guy says he respects women it's probably getting him off somehow.
Everything might be a fetish for someone, but it doesn't mean everything is a fetish for everyone. Or if a guy said to year "yeah, that's an interesting idea, I hadn't thought of it like that" would you just screw up your face in disgust and call him a sicko?
>some 4chan guy
but what about real people?
Real people I'm not as suspicious of, I'm talking more about 4chan guys who seem to be the bottom of the barrel of malekind.
dis is the future …
I meant that in sarcasm and purposely overlooking the actual cases of self-proclaimed and self-righteous "nice-guys" and "male-feminists" who force themselves onto groups and always aim to please themselves first with their own viewpoints before acknowledging women's own viewpoints. Relating to the topic at hand there are indeed some cases of men who get off to those things like femdom/amazon fetish (Joss Whedon, Tarantino). I was merely joking in hoping there are men who enjoy treating women like basic human-beings by actually doing so and not attaching labels to themselves and making a show out of it to merely please themselves and later behave otherwise.
I'd be scared that we all had some sort of disease and would all possibly die soon
Haha, equality abandoned, superiority achieved
There's an interesting question hidden beneath the immediate question here.
That question being, how would you raise a
*son* in this world?
There isn't a good parallel in any part of the natural world. Bonobos are close relatives of humans, and female bonobos are larger than males. But the way bonobos raise their sons is not something that human beings could adapt to.https://www.sciencealert.com/sick-of-your-mum-prying-into-your-love-life-be-grateful-you-re-not-a-bonobo>Bonobo mothers have also been observed actively breaking up copulations between females and other males who aren't their sons, calling to mind the title of a certain crudely named, big-screen comedy released last year.>Sometimes a bonobo mom will even team up with her son to beat up sexual rivals and help him rise in their social group's hierarchy.>On the contrary, even low- and mid-ranking males were able to safely enter the center of the group when their moms accompanied them.>"They act as social passport allowing males to 'enter' the female core of the bonobo society," Surbeck wrote in an email.
I don't think human beings could adopt any of these behaviors. The 'overbearing mom' and 'overbearing mother-in-law' stereotypes as seen in the media involve a mother who tries to prevent her son from having sexual or romantic relationships, particularly with women she dislikes for one reason or another, quite the opposite of the behavior of our closest genetic relatives.
If the only changes are physical, and the social changes that result from those physical changes, then males would still be more impulsive and aggressive than women, and far more sexual. But being smaller and less physically capable would make your son less able to be independent from others, to burn a few years as a bachelor seeking to establish himself and a career. The traditional labor careers and trades would not be open to your son, but neither would the service sector, since, again, males would be unruly, untidy, and far more likely to be sexually interested in the clientele than vice versa. If you were hiring waiting staff at a restaurant you would almost certainly prefer to hire young women to serve established women rather than hiring male social vagabonds, seething with male anger, social desperation, and sexual frustration. Nor would academics offer any meaningful path to self-sufficiency and social integration to your son. Males in our world don't attend college, as a rule, and don't do particularly well when they do so. There is no reason to expect that this would change in an environment where males are less capable rather than more.
I think it would be pretty common for males to be aborted, and it might be socially frowned upon but legally legitimate for male-specific infanticide by exposure and neglect. Only the extremely well off families would be able to sustain them in any case. There would not be any particular genetic bottleneck issues to this, either. The species would be just fine if men's lives were far cheaper than they are considered in our current society.
I'd have to agree, but the important aspect of the question is the 20% part. 20% of what men? All men, or men based on the corresponding woman's ethnicity? Either way, it would really disproportionately influence ethnic populations which aren't on the higher end of height, weight, musculature ect. 2m tall giantesses roaming India would be a lot more influential than the same woman in the Netherlands.
>20% stronger than men
You read this as:
>20% stronger than women are right now
this is interesting. I have no answer
why wouldn't you build bigger doorways?
You're assumption is flawed from the start in two ways. First, OP explicitly states.>What would you do if you wake up and suddenly every woman in the world is 20% bigger, stronger, doninant, and has more bone density than men ?>wake up
That means everything is the exact same but women are stronger, in the current year. That's it. We're still in modern times with modern jobs and modern technologies. Despite what some might say, our child rearing and educational standards are quite egalitarian.
>particularly with women she dislikes for one reason or another, quite the opposite of the behavior of our closest genetic relatives.
That's because for humans, unlike bonobos, marriages and the societal benefits are predominately monogamous. We could argue about it being culture or not, but this paradigm is firmly in place for the majority of the world. In that case, unlike a bonobo, where the male pumps and dumps every female in the group with little consequence, humans have to play tactically to avoid heavy losses from a bad marriage. The overbearing mother is attempting to protect her son from bad matches he may choose himself and pick a mate age finds. It's not a fair comparision between promisicious bonobos and (predominately) monogamous humans. You could argue that humans would stop being monogamous, but that's an entirely different argument.
>The traditional labor careers and trades would not be open to your son
Wrong for two reasons. 1. While the jobs are very strength based, most high paying jobs in this sectors come with incredibly high mortality rates. Males are more expendable then females in a reproductive sense, so even with increased female strength, it would not be a straight conversion. In fact, with women having less aggresice instincts, they would be incredibly dissuaded from performing such jobs due to defensive passivity. 2. Men did not get weaker, women got stronger. Men could still perform all jobs at their current rate. If women did start joining the labor force, while they would be more capable, men could still remain competitive. Tool use is also making sheer strength less and less important. Most of those jobs it isn't about how strong you are but how hard you can push yourself to keep going. I've had guys joke about seeing how long they can stay up straight and keep going to their oil field jobs. They managed 5 days, women just don't do that in a physical sense, even if they were stronger it's a fundamentally different skill.
>but neither would the service sector, since, again, males would be unruly, untidy, and far more likely to be sexually interested in the clientele than vice versa.
This already occurs in service based jobs in our world and it barely affects anything in modern society.
I severely doubt that everyone will just start doing this.>I think it would be pretty common for males to be aborted, and it might be socially frowned upon but legally legitimate for male-specific infanticide by exposure and neglect.
As we don't do dowrys in the first world currently and economic factors would very rarely hit levels where this is considered. Anywhere in the first world. You may have a point about what happens in countries where gender-based infanticide occurs, but in the modern world those are rare. Modern technology makes this strength difference meaningless in a large number of jobs. In the jobs where it does matter, such as the military, construction, etc. men are not immediately unfit for the job, and are more expendable which is a key component of the job.
High pay is not directly caused by high mortality rate. Slaves, especially mining slaves, had the highest mortality rates of all. Today, prostitution probably has a higher mortality rate than any of those traditional labor trades, including electricians, so it's not like women aren't willing to do lethally horrible jobs for good pay.
The two things that have led high pay and high mortality rate to coincide are:
–Technical competency requirements
The first works against men continuing to hold those high-paid positions even one generation down from the change (so, by the time your hypothetical son comes of age). The strength of unionization lies in their ability to strike and picket, meaning their strikes would have to be composed primarily of women just in order to prevent women from immediately replacing the entire workforce.
The second gets into the a girl-brain-boy-brain argument that I find dubious and tiresome. I am reasonably sure that the direct physical and sexual threat that radiates from groups of physically focused men has been the biggest barrier to more women entering the trades as a career path.
> This already occurs in service based jobs in our world and it barely affects anything in modern society.https://www.moneytips.com/30-percent-of-millennial-men-have-no-job/885
You can't tell me that there aren't a host of male pathologies that have grown out of being worthless like this.
>>47485>High pay is not directly caused by high mortality rate. Slaves, especially mining slaves, had the highest mortality rates of all.
We don't live in a society with slaves so this point is moot, unless you are arguing we would become a society with slaves.>Today, prostitution probably has a higher mortality rate than any of those traditional labor trades, including electricians, so it's not like women aren't willing to do lethally horrible jobs for good pay.
Two points. 1. Prostitution only has high mortality rate in countries where it's illegal. Where it's legal, they're far less likely to get killed though injuries remain high. 2. Even if I were to concede that point, please give one more occupation that is predominately female with similar rates mortality and injury rates to a logger or construction worker. You can't can you? With one very obvious exception (that women own an obvious monopoly on anyway) all high mortality rate jobs are worked by men.>The two things that have led high pay and high mortality rate to coincide are:>–Unionization
Which remember, we are talking about the current day, the unionization has already occured.>The strength of unionization lies in their ability to strike and picket, meaning their strikes would have to be composed primarily of women just in order to prevent women from immediately replacing the entire workforce.
And women would. The only way the unionization would be undercut was if women were willing to be paid less to do a job that gets you killed easily that men were doing anyway breaking the union. Does that not sound retarded to you?>The second gets into the a girl-brain-boy-brain argument that I find dubious and tiresome. I am reasonably sure that the direct physical and sexual threat that radiates from groups of physically focused men has been the biggest barrier to more women entering the trades as a career path.
Based on what assumptions? Little Sally didn't get to grow up to be a a garbage-woman because of men being scary? Little Tommy probably didn't want that job either but he got it. The types of labor jobs you describe are not sought after as dream career paths. Most men enter them because they can't do better. I have never heard a someone complain to me that she couldn't get a labor job, they are constantly in high demand.>You can't tell me that there aren't a host of male pathologies that have grown out of being worthless like this.
I certainly can, you're stating all these "pathologies" will phase out based on one consensus that also states that Millennial women have high unemployment rates. Are those female "pathologies" worthless as well considering your source data? Your data only shows what's happening as people disengage from an ultra-capitalistic society as precariots.
The unionization argument was that a union would first become reliant upon its women, since women would be emboldened to enter the high-paying trades since the social barriers would be so drastically reduced. Unionization among men is already in a fairly precarious state, at less than 14% of your example of construction workers, and even unions still run by sexists would realize that the only way to remain relevant would be to take on as many women as possible. Women, having further barriers removed, rapidly become the majority of unionized workers and then nonunion workers, since women would feel much freer to join in those jobs with the certainty that a union full of women would still fight for their interests. Men become a minority of less significant scabs existing at the periphery of the workforce, effectively removed from the trade.
>Based on what assumptions? Little Sally didn't get to grow up to be a a garbage-woman because of men being scary?
If little Sally grew up in poverty and lives in poverty, then yes. If little Sally works her whole life in retail service being paid less than garbage-men while garbage collection jobs are actually open, then yes. And there's a lot more women in poverty than your statements about little Tommy would indicate.
>I have never heard a someone complain to me that she couldn't get a labor job, they are constantly in high demand.
I have heard that many times about wastewater and sanitary sewer work, actually. Wastewater operators would be paid significantly higher wages if demand were as high as online criticisms of the unemployed made it out to be.
Your argument about men scaring women from working doesn't even make sense considering the job. You're telling me that the women have a high enough risk taking profile to want to work jobs with high mortality and injury rates while simultaneously being scared of mortality and injury from male laborers on the job? That doesn't make any sense, they can't be simulatenously be scared of dying from men and not scared of dying from their work at the same time. This gets even worse when you consider homicide rates outside of law enforcement and security jobs are a fraction compared to on the job hazards. Of course, assuming rational decision making. The observed behavior doesn't match up with your predictions at all.>I have heard that many times about wastewater and sanitary sewer work, actually. Wastewater operators would be paid significantly higher wages if demand were as high as online criticisms of the unemployed made it out to be.
Wages wouldn't increase until the apparent numerous people you talked to got the jobs. Assuming the amount of jobs is set, it's too many people desiring the job at that moment.
The "high mortality rate" of construction work is still similar per hour to the mortality rate of commuting, just extended from 1/2 an hour a day to 8. Women have a high enough risk-taking profile to commute, though women do tend to take jobs which involve shorter commutes or more local work such as teaching in the same town or city where they live. This is largely for social reasons, rather than fear of danger.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/commuting-driving-women-workforce
The harassment women can expect to receive from men, particularly men who, as you said about little Tommy, "can't do better," is of a different variety, and on a much more intense level than the social conditions that make commuting 4 times as stressful for women as for men. The social conditions Tommy's presence creates would mean a lot less to someone more physically capable than Tommy. Not nothing, but more on the level of a long commute.