Sounds like Gender Rarity in action. If only twenty percent of your population is male, it's more cost effective to send off your women to war.
Inb4 Gender Rarity pun.
I don't think it follows that it would lead to more incest. That seems kind of pointlessly gross and disturbing.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffHumanity never fails to make me more and more disturbed that real life is even creepier than stuff you see on TV.
Send Rarity into battle? She'll die before she ever fires off a single bullet.
That being said, you'd probably send in the females but there'd at least also be males too.
The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.I'd say that with twenty percent being males it's actually pretty easy to avoid impregnating your own daughter. Just because you're rare doesn't mean you go straight to incredibly gross stuff. Now, you'd probably end up with cousins breeding at some point. but that's about it. We have that without gender rarity and it doesn't cause too many problems.
What would be the lowest that the male population could go before problems start popping up?
♥♥II'GSJQGDvhhMKOmXunSrogZliLHGKVMhGVmNhBzGUPiXLYki'GRQhBITqQrrOIJKNWiXKO♥♥I read somewhere that there's like a ratio of one guy to every seven women? *shrug*
Well... if this is a world that never had the male dominance bias, I don't see why they'd have a problem sending women into combat more than men. Hell, with such a large female majority, they'd probably be the dominant gender, and thus considered "less special" and "more expendable," as we currently implicitly consider the male gender.
If we're talking about going from the current world to this, it would probably not work nearly so well, however. I couldn't say exactly how it would go, but...
I am now known as Flyboy.percentage-wise, very low, one male could impregnate dozens or hundreds of female, there are sliders episode on this.
total number must be great enough to maintain genetic diversity (possibly in hundred? )
Well, actually total gender equality in military today is quite fine. Hardly 1% (at 1%, that's an extremely high amount) of the population can be in the military without backbreaking your economy, and of that, hardly 1 in what 20 or 30 are even frontline combat troops. So with such a low percentage of the population in the military, it's very easy to have equal split between males and females, but the search cost for females that meet the requirements is somewhat higher than males because our society tends to gear our women to do girly stuff rather than strong physical tasks.
edited 13th Oct '11 7:45:17 PM by breadloaf
1 to 7?
That would be interesting.
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.For today's military, in which enrollment is voluntary, the split can be even, though if a draft was instated then the split would probably lean more heavily towards the female side.
♥♥II'GSJQGDvhhMKOmXunSrogZliLHGKVMhGVmNhBzGUPiXLYki'GRQhBITqQrrOIJKNWiXKO♥♥I know that in production animal herds they often have ratios like 1 male to 100 females. But then, maybe the only reason they don't have problems with inbreeding is that most of those offspring go straight to the abattoir without furthering any offspring of their own. Plus, people don't care about inbred cows.
Be not afraid...Men Are the Expendable Gender does not come from male domination (though it's certainly related to it), it comes because if one woman dies there's a much greater effect on a small group's population than if a man dies. If a man dies the woman or women who had sex with him can just go have sex with other men. If a woman dies that's one less baby every year-ish for a generation.
Note that this becomes less true in societies where women put more time between children anyway* , or when the population is great enough relative to the size of the army that it doesn't matter* , or when a large population is not particularly conductive to survival* . Which is why plenty of modern countries have women in their armies and some hunter-gatherer tribes have women hunt.
edited 14th Oct '11 11:04:59 AM by BlackHumor
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1Germane to the topic in general: it has been theorised that Russian women are more attractive on average due to natural selection because of Russia's constant demographic crises stemming from war (the biggest and most recent example being the Second World War, because of which the current Russian population should be approximately double what it currently is - losing 20 million people, of which 7-8 million are young males of military age, is not going to do wonders for your population growth).`
edited 14th Oct '11 12:02:04 AM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.Truth.
@OP: Yeah....call me when women have to sign up for Selective Service.
OK, I had this thought while contemplating the Equestrian Army* but can be related to other things. It went something along the lines of "If 80% of the population is born female, would that make them the expendable sex and therefore more eligible for the draft?" The reasoning was that even though the males may be bigger and stronger, if too many of them are killed fighting for their countries it could lead to problems of inbreeding because of the likely-hood that one male might end up having to impregnate his own daughter. So even though females are necessary for birthing future generations a cut in their numbers wouldn't mean the end of the world population wise. How does that sound in terms of logic?
note: I used "Gender" in place of "Sex" in the thread title as I couldn't say "Sex Ratios" with a straight face.
♥♥II'GSJQGDvhhMKOmXunSrogZliLHGKVMhGVmNhBzGUPiXLYki'GRQhBITqQrrOIJKNWiXKO♥♥