Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!

*Quick disclaimer: This is a hypothetical scenario using the little knowledge I have of biology and Sociology, the scenarios I provide may be graphic and disturbing, so if you are easily put off by that I suggest you don't read. This is not to say either sex is actually superior, it is to discuss the hypothetical result of an all out war of the sexes based on inherent biological advantages.*

I saw an interesting question today about which sex would win in an all out war. And it made me consider the factors of it.

Because it heavily depends on the type of warfare. So I will be pinning men and women against each other in 6 different types of warfare and simulate the outcome.

Now here are the conditions I will set for all battles.

__________________________________

Conditions

Numbered from 1 to 8...

__________________________________

1.) The goal of each war is complete domination and utter genocide of the opposing sex, meaning the only ones left alive are those of the opposite sex to the defeated faction.

2.) Previous male and female world leaders become obsolete, and 1 man and 1 woman will be chosen to lead each faction.

3.) All resources listed for each scenario will be equally distributed among both factions.

(Example: If men have 16 cannons, then women also have 16 cannons. If women have 700 horses, then men also have 700 horses, etc.)

4.) If the war is more than 1 round, 5% of both sex's population are none combatants, meaning they are all that is left after the army is gone, and will be quickly massacred afterwards. Their purpose is to produce resources needed for war, such as food, water, and clothing.


5.) Men and women cannot be double agents for the opposing side, because the hatred has become so vitriol that men and women are conditioned to try to kill each other at the mere sight of the opposite sex.

6.) Male and female ability will not be measured in accordance to current physiological statistics, but rather men and women from their lowest to highest physical potential as a species.

(Example: A short weak man will lose to an average height average strength woman, and an average height strong man will win against and average height strong woman.)

7.) Different types of warfare will generate different types of environments, a different amount of rounds, and all types of weapons used. These will be explained in accordance with each scenario.

(Example: a medieval battle will be fought on hills, will have 3 rounds, and every single member of the population are either soldiers, commanders, or the king/queen.)

8.) Nukes seem like a bad idea to both sides, (since it won't prove either one sex is superior, which is probably the goal) so Nukes are not a factor because it will obviously result in a draw if men and women just launch nuclear missiles at each other. So mutually assured destruction is a factor in this sex war.

__________________________________

But now to set up our scenarios, and map out which sex would win depending on the type of war.

__________________________________

Men Vs Women, to the death!

Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!
Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!

__________________________________

And we'll start with our first scenario...

1.) Brawl to the death!

Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!

__________________________________

Arena: Giant desert

Number of rounds: 1

Weapons: not present

If it were an all out fist on fist brawl to the death, men would win from superior upper body strength, and numbers alone. Martial arts may play a role for both men and women, but average height, strength, and numbers would still determine the final outcome.

This struggle falls to the men as the victor.

__________________________________

2.) Armed Battle Royale!

Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!

__________________________________

Arena: ever expanding hills

Number of rounds: 1

Weapons: Lethal Steel Melee

If it's a Barbarian type of battle royal with deadly melee weapons (swords, shields, daggers, battle axes, hammers, whips, spears, and morning stars), women would be able to hold their own based on the equal opportunity to develop lethal skill.

However the upper body strength required to wield a War hammer, great axe, or great sword, will be less common among women, and less effective due to a disadvantage regarding upper body strength.

Since heavier weapons are considered efficient in crowd control, having proficiency in heavier weapons is a huge advantage.

This would hand the victory to men.

__________________________________


3.) Medieval Warfare

Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!

__________________________________

Arena: Cold And windy hills with a castle on opposing sides.

Number of rounds: 3

Weapons: UK Medieval soldier

If we added bows, horses, catapults, armor, and long spears to the equation, it would still hardly affect the outcome considering the environment.

The likelihood of a man to survive an arrow wound compared to a woman at their full physical potential is higher.

Horses wouldn't give either sex an advantage over another, and spears will be just as likely to kill each member of the opposite sex.

Metal armor may slow down women more than it will men on average giving men a speed advantage.

Catapults will hit the same amount of targets, but women may take a longer time to load boulders due to their average upper body strength.

Men will most likely win the entire battle, it won't be an easy victory, but even without their

population advantage it favors upper body strength overall without factoring archery, and that becomes a glaring disadvantage for women on average.

Thus this war ends with men as the victors.

__________________________________

4.) Trench Warfare

Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!

__________________________________

Arena : extremely large plains with trenches dug.

Number of rounds: 3

Weapons: WWI military technology


Trench warfare would only be a game of numbers, and will most likely be won based on who has the higher population. Neither Men nor women have any advantages against bullets, mustard gas, or explosive shells. Men would gain the victory through numbers and that alone, and it will most likely be down to the very population difference.

The fog, mustard gas, and explosions would be too much for a soldier to act with anything but their instinct, man or woman it would just be a blind, bloody, and disorientated shoot out and charge. Dog fights would result in a draw due to piloting being reliant on staying above the chaos. Thus handing it to men for sheer survivability in numbers.

__________________________________

5.) Fully Armed Assault Warfare

Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!

__________________________________

Arena: Very Large forest
Number of rounds: 1
Weapons: WW2 soldier inventory

If it's a full on infantry assault (tactical rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, grenades) with no breaks and the entire population on the battlefield... men and women would come to a close draw. This is due to a woman's intuition, awareness, and decisiveness. While men have a slight disadvantage in being able to be completely in tune with their environment, and are more likely to be shot first.


Women being smaller on average would give them a considerable stealth advantage in the forest.

That being said, it isn't enough to secure a victory on either side.

Women being outnumbered, and men on average having a higher carrying capacity when it comes to artillery, would even out their advantages.

So it would end in a draw, aka the extinction of humanity.

__________________________________


6.) Modern Warfare

Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!

__________________________________

Arena: the whole planet

Number of rounds: unlimited

Weapons: Whatever weapons have been developed since 30 minutes before I write this.


Men and Women will now have as many battles as it takes to eliminate each other in any part of the world. They now have war machines to fight each other in. That being said neither men nor women are immune to getting flattened by a tank or obliterated by a rocket.

Men will still have the population advantage, and they will split their territory down the middle in terms of space and land, the men occupying the west, and the women occupying the east.

All battles fought are now organized and planned, and can take weeks to accomplish, thus making the outcome only possible after several decades.

If it were a modern day war with all of the technology and strategies at our disposal, I think women might win, and I have a reason.

But it's very fucked up, since all ethics and morals are out the window.

We are assuming men and women no longer even interact without trying to kill each other, but men cannot reproduce without women, and women cannot reproduce without men.

So both sides would most likely capture male or female soldiers, rape them, and continue to reproduce and create offspring to be trained in hopes of becoming future soldiers.

That being said men have the advantage of being able to capture... Say... A dozen women, impregnate them all and have 12 babies delivered. But the disadvantage for men is that not only is there a chance the captured women will just give birth to another girl, but also that they can only capture so many women if they are going to win the war.

The women's advantage is that they only need to capture at least one man. They can then have 100 women rape him, become impregnated, and reproduce more potential soldiers.

They can also just extract semen from their captor over the course of a few days and have hundreds of samples by the end of the week, and can just kill the prisoner if they're confident they can acquire another one.

Now the obvious disadvantage is the same as it is for men, there's a chance they will just produce a boy.

But they can also just keep the boys overtime, and use them as semen dispensers for the girls. However another disadvantage is that if the women are impregnated, they cannot work as infantry or a combatant until they give birth, it would be foolish to do so.

So they sacrifice the ability to use certain troops for 9-12 months, giving them a slight numerical disadvantage for a period of time.

But this can be avoided if they only impregnate non combatants, drill sergeants, generals, or even commanders. They can still do their job, just not in an overly physical manner. but overall the increase in numbers will eventually exceed that of the male population.


After each battle and each capture, women continue to grow at an exponential rate in population, men continue to grow, but cannot do so without capturing at least 50% of how many women it's possible for the female faction to reproduce without being outnumbered (since pregnant women would be a liability on the battlefield).

An that happening is only possible if a male army were to capture the opposing female army without any casualties, and even if that were a probable outcome (which it is not unless there is absolutely no resistance from female soldiers) , it still wouldn't be enough to match a woman's capability of reproduction.


The male population would slowly dwindle over time after every battle. Larger female armies would begin to dominate other male armies sent. More men would be captured, more babies will be made, and eventually it will come down to the last man.

Which they will most likely harvest for sperm, then promptly put a bullet through his brain.

Women would be victorious, and most likely use any males born in the future as an additional harvest, sustaining woman kind for years to come.

__________________________________

Wrapping up.

__________________________________

So out of all these scenarios, men win 4 out of 6 rounds and women win 1.

So those are all of the outcomes for a war between men and women!

If you have a different opinion, please leave your opinions below.

I hope you found this boring and fucked up, and have a good day!


1|3
1539
SketchForger is a GirlsAskGuys Editor
Who are Editors?

Most Helpful Guys

  • Men. It will always be men, a weak man is still stronger then the average woman. In fact men have on average 60% greater upper body strength and about 50% greater lower body strength. One man is equal to in physical strength alone, one and a half women, if we base it just off that, it would be the equivalent of 150 women vs 100 women. But that's not all their is, men also have more muscle and thicker skin (25% thicker), which makes them much tougher then women, significantly denser bones, greater threshold for pain all of which makes men substantially physically tougher then women, so not only are they outcompeting women in brute force, they outcompete substantially in physical resilience. Then you have to factor in all the data we have on mental toughness. According to studies, women get PTSD at twice the rate as men do (both groups where in the military), this is before we even factor in that the women where almost never near the front lines or direct combat and the men where (thus the rate would more then likely be substantially higher). Men in general, as this shows, have a greater resistence to negative stimuli which war is nothing but. Males also have greater testosterone which creates a greater drive to compete and protect. Now this is going to have a ambivalent affect, on the one hand greater drive to risk oneself to complete the objective, on the other men are literally hard wired to protect women (hence, despite popular belief, the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by women against men and children, not the other way around). However males also have a much more stable biochemistry meaning that one, they will not have times of lower efficiency as women i. e. menstration, and they, along with larger body mass are also more resilient to poisonings and chemical agents. Men also based upon studies are far more likely to work together and to build social bridges then women. Based upon data men make up more often and generally end up with more positive feelings for the person they fought with after the fact, women on the other hand are far more likely to have negative feelings for them long into adult hood. This would mean men have a substantial advantage over women when it comes to team work and over all functionality as their bonds grow stronger after conflict rather then weaker, and due to high stress situations these conflicts are far more likely to occur. So with the superior strength, resilience (both physical and mental), greater drive and willingness to put themselves in danger and uncomfortable situations, greater team work and ability to mend social damage between members comparative to women, it is a hands down victory for men. The only advantage women have (and this would have to be exploited substantially for women (even then, its likely not going to be enough despite its considerable advantage)), is that men are far more hesitant to harm women then women are to harm men. In fact they are also less willing to inflict harm onto civilians as well. One study found that men have a greater tendency towards shaudenfreud (probably butchering the spelling), which means "harm-joy" that is satisfaction in anothers suffering, HOWEVER this only applied to those who were viewed as having done wrong or an enemy. In fact in the study they found that men where actually more willing to sacrifice themselves and other men in a combat scenario to destroy an enemy BUT where less willing to do so if women and non combatants where present. For women, their willingness did not change, it was consistent with or without combatants and women. This means that males are wired to protect above all else and this would be the greatest advantage that women would have over men, women do not have that protective instinct for men as men do for women and women could and would exploit that to their advantage. However I do not believe it would be enough.

    0|0
    0|0
    • About half of your reasons have since been debunked, but fair points nevertheless.

    • Show All
    • First and foremost how do you know that its underreported if its not reported? Answer: you can't, its a claim made to dismiss well established data. Second, this has been shown to be true in many different studies, Harvard being in charge of one. Third, the CDC also used the NCVS which is the largest victimization survey in the US, i. e. using non officially reported crimes, and they found the same data. This means that even if we make believe that your statement had ANY validity to it, that could only be verified as true through the NCVS as its an official report, that is not through police or FBI, and it shows exactly what other research shows, that women are more likely to commit violence against men (70% of non-reciprocal violence perpetrated by a partner is perpetrated by a woman against a man), and other data shows that abuse towards children and deaths of children due to negligence are also more likely to be from the mother rather then the father (and statistically the child that is most likely abused will be the male child). So again, we know this quite conclusively. Also I would point out the fact that you defending women at every turn while demonizing men (claiming we don't want to protect women, we just want to "possess" them) is also evidence of the male instinct to protect women. We can even see that in sentencing differences (women get a third of the sentence for the same crime, if they get sentenced at all (which is also substantially less likely to occur). As for "more aware", that is also incorrect, males are able to survey their surroundings better then women, they have better spatial recognition and motor functions allowing them to see, assess, and respond to threats better then women can. This should come as no surprise as we are biologically wired to do these things. If you said that women have better peripheral vision (which is different), able to distinguish colors better, or had better sense of smell, that would be true.

    • As for resilience, yes it will always matter. A man survived not one but two grenades, he used is body as a shield and survived, after his recovery he went back into the military. 50cal bullets go through a car and an enemy combatant just as easily, it still doesn't stop that combatant from continuing fire. That's why the military keeps increasing the power and diversity of bullets and guns, because as most military people will tell you, standard bullets don't drop a man as quickly as you would like and they take hours to die, hours they spend shooting back at you. So unless your talking something that destroys them to the point of instant death, yes resilience matters. As for your hypothetical, again, your ignoring biology which is rather absurd as one strand of DNA isn't two meters long for nothing. So yes, women being women will give them a slight advantage over men because the men will be less inclined to kill them (which is why violent crime victims are overwhelmingly male) due to natural inclinations, neotenous biological traits etc. As I said, it will more then likely not be enough but it will have an affect, like making them hesitate, even if its only a second (its only going to take half of a second to pull a gun and fire). As for reproduction, you said they where separate, so no, women will not be reproducing unless they have men and every woman that has a child is out of commission for combat, a man who reproduces is not. Further more that implies a long and protracted war, it wouldn't be. Women would be wiped out (and thus the human race) within in an incredibly short amount of time. I would be stunned if it was longer then a month (we are probably talking days at best, but I'm being generous).

  • Why would women fight a war with men when the they're already winning... But still someday if it's needed.. They are creating a army of manginas for that 😅 most men are stupid and women know how to manipulate and control them. Other men who knows this don't allow women in their lives and focus onto creating and inventing things.. bunch of genius idiots. 🤓😝

    0|0
    0|1

Most Helpful Girls

  • In arm to arm, men would probs win (trust me, I hate that reality) but in things like tech warfare and stuff, I think women have a good chance. But in reality, it really depends. One guy could slip or something and a girl could get the upper hand. Men might be physically stronger on average, but women tend to be more agile and so on, so they could always win. It's really hard to say, because it really depends on chances. Like I said before, there could be an opening somewhere were women get an advantage, or men do. It'd actually have to happen.

    2|0
    0|2
    • I didn't even mention the bottom!! I agree with you, but you also have to remember, men are able to get a boner until what? 90s? That means they can keep delivering sperm. Women stop being able to give birth upon what? 50s 60s, so say women captured some men, men would be able to give sperm for years, enough to keep their population growing even if we have a limit to for being able to give birth. Men however, will be able to keep supplying sperm, but girls are more likely to be birthed then boys, so do both genders keep the opposite babies that are born? Because if that's true, men can use the girls that are born to populate their society. You have to remember to, will men actually hurt themselves also? With such little supply of women, will men hurt other men to get one? Will they resort to other men for release? Because ya, masturbation, but if that was the answer for all sexual desire, rape wouldn't happen. So, women could always gain more soldiers quickly, even supply themselves with more babies because any boys born will be used just like the girls with the men, so, ya, men would eventually outnumbered as well, then again, it depends on the casualties and because women have to carry the children, it makes even less soldiers. This is a very fun question.

    • Show All
    • Yeah, and I know plenty of women who could beat my ass as well. I view female strength as a signifying to their willpower, but some women also don't want to look masculine, which is why a lot of them will outright avoid it.

    • We’ll just turn few men.

  • Men are more ruthless. You can be savages. Probably after mercilessly beating us into submission, you'll rape us first just for the fun of it and kill us afterwards. As a woman, I can't see myself doing that. If I have the heart to kill a man in such a war, I'd have to do it quickly and then weep in guilt. If I manage to make it so far with a handful or dozens of kills in my belt, I still don't think I'll resort to savagery or take pleasure in my enemy's loss even if I reached that point of being a cold-blooded killer.

    2|2
    1|2
    • Yeah all the people who say "oh women will just charm the men" I'm just thinking "if men and women are at war, that means rape wouldn't be punishable or even looked down upon, if anything it would be encouraged in and attempt to show dominance. The women wouldn't be intimidated if it was life or death, but if men are in the position where a woman is trying to "bargain sex" with them, they would have no reason to just take what they want from them (rape them) and take them back to home base, just to rape them again later.

      It's a viscous factor of social psychology...

    • Your aware that men and women rape each other at the same rates right? Also, its pretty rare based upon all the data, you have about a 3% life time chance of being raped. Clearly men are not holding back some near uncontrollable desire to rape women (and I kind of have to question why you feel that's the case? Do you feel that way?). Also men are not "more vicious", in fact based upon studies men where absolutely willing to sacrifice themselves and other men to destroy an enemy, however the second women and children came into the picture their willingness to risk lives diminished greatly, it didn't however for women. Its rather ironic that we continue to talk about how evil and terrible men are even though all data shows that either women are as bad as men or in some cases (like domestic violence and violence against children) worse.

    • Exactly men are savage beasts.

Recommended myTakes

Loading...

Join the discussion

What Girls & Guys Said

1337
  • We’ll just date you for a couple weeks, get pregnant and drag you through the court system. After that you’ll all kill yourselves. easy peesy.
    But seriously women don’t have a chance and we all know it.

    3|6
    0|0
  • OMG this is horrible!!!

    It wasn’t even funny, and usually your stuff is funny.

    This is totally antithetical to a world I would want to live in.

    0|3
    1|2
    • It wasn't meant to be funny. It specifically warned you at the beginning that it was fucked up.

    • Show All
    • I see.

      Sundown, and you better take care
      That I don’t find you creepin round my back stair...

      We are not helpless, sweetie. Not at all.

    • Yeah women are naturally intuitive, and are capable of defending themselves when they feel unsafe.

      I was more so talking about a sexual negotiation being the last thing to happen in a war against the sexes.

  • Nobody wins, but especially for Number 6 Modern Warfare.

    If nothing is off the table to both sides, including biological weapons, nuclear weapons and chemical weapons all unleashed by both sides and it's adiós homo sapiens. Especially if the biological weapons are powerful and potent enough that it mutates and rapidly spreads airborne, etc. and is able to adapt that it simply can't be vaccinated against. Nuclear weapons, if all of those are unleashed would results in long term nuclear winter and massive amounts of radiation, the majority wouldn't make it for the long term and die from disease and starvation. But either case would be a good kill switch to end all of the abuse and conflicts from both sides permanently, for good. The planet can then be returned to all of the animals and plants, as all the homo sapiens die off killing each other over whatever reason it was that started it. The latter may not apply to the nuclear scenario, but maybe new life will eventually emerge, mutated from the effects of radiation.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It can turn both ways. Men win due to their physocal advantages or women win because some of the men were stupid and went to women's location to sleep with them and accidentally told them all the secrets which gave women and advantage in making plans.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Woah! I really enjoyed this. Creative. I think women would have more soldiers over time. They know how to brainwash men and get those men on their side. But after a long long time, both sexes will die one way or another.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I mean why ask this question the obvious choice is men. The gender who’s ancestors fought hundreds of wars in our genes the stronger gender physically and even the more populated gender.
    The only thing I can give girls is their lack of hesitation a girl with her crosshair on a guy won’t think twice just by looking at him just like how girls don’t think twice about breaking hearts. A guy will though easily.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't know why, but this just reminded me of that scene from Shaolin Soccer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a2rRggz_-M

    0|0
    1|0
  • I never imagine this would happen... if so then how are human species even able to exist? Any technological advancement allow men to have children without women and vice versa? If yes, then I might consider answering your question.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Search up artificial wombs on google

    • Show All
    • Hey vegetable, if you like me feel free to follow me and pm me HAHAHA!!!

    • Are you actually 26?

  • Men. Because women would have to much petty bickering with each other. Imagine trying to call in an airstrike and the person fielding the call refusing to respond because she's giving her the silent treatment.

    0|0
    0|0
  • 1. You have way too much free time on your hands
    2. Men would easily win, despite what you see in retarded Hollywood movie propaganda, a woman stands no chance in a fight against a man, whether its hand to hand, melee weapons or whatever. And while guns and modern weapons do level that playing field, women still lack the aggression, the tactical, strategical way of thinking, and many other leadership traits that are necessary for war. Simply put, women are not meant for any form of violence.

    0|1
    0|0
  • If it ever gets this bad. The human race is for sure doomed and there are no winners.

    But I’m sure the guys would win all categories. Hand to hand needs no explanation. I think that the women would do better in modern warfare but they’d still come up short because we will have more than half of the worlds engineers on our side.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I’m commenting so I can come back to this question. Someone like this or something so I get the notification 😂😂

    1|0
    0|1
  • Women we use sex or make fembots like ones in Austin Powers something like in the pictures.

    1|3
    0|0
  • I do not agree on war but if a war like this was to happen it should be hand to hand combat. Some weapons that would be used are: arming sword, claymore, battle axe, flail, mace, morningstar, war hammer, military fork, partisan, ranseur, bow, crossbow, catapult etc

    0|0
    0|0
  • So the objective is to just obliterate the opposite sex? Lettuce be serious. Men would win and it wouldn't be close. Only thing women have on their side is their sexuality. Using their sex appeal to control and manipulate men and get what they want. By far the number one tool women use against men. Wouldn't work in war though. Like you said they could just be captured.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Men would still win because they're more mentally suited for war... and sorry to say, but the smartest people are usually men, so we'd have better generals and scientists on our side.

    0|0
    1|0
  • No one because nether society would be able to replace combat losses with new soldiers (no new babys). It would end up being more of a "MAD" situation.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No one wins in war. If one gender is erradicated, the other will it survive it's as simple as that. No one wins.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Will not survive*

    • Pretty much since homo sapiens are completely dependent upon and rely on sexual reproduction to avoid dying out in the very first place. I mean theoretically maybe one side can grow new people in test tubes or something like that, but I wouldn't count on it getting any real results.

  • Lets be real.
    After enough time had passed men would get so desperate women could simply jiggle their tits in front of the guys and they would be begging and doing anything they wanted lmao

    0|1
    0|0
  • This would have been way easier if men got to keep all the weapons they made.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Women would be victorious, because women can capture and rape the men to reproduce.

    Ignoring for a moment that history is filled with the exact opposite, with Libya continuing to have open slave markets for Yazidi sex slaves...

    If women are busy getting pregnant, men have 9 months to kill a weakened opponent. Morning sickness, cramps, the 24 hours or so where they are immobile and in labor...

    You made a ludicrous scenario to try to give women a win, when the reality is that all of human history suggests men would win every form of war - because we are physically stronger, reproduction requires a few minutes, and testosterone drives aggression.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Women can reproduce without men. Doctors can take the genetic material of one egg, and inject it into another egg, since the genetic material is all that is really used from a sperm cell. The offspring would all be female, as there would be no Y chromosomes. So if the war lasts long enough, women would win, simply because men would die out.

    I don't know about if it's shorter. It really depends on who gets the most resources. That's how most wars play out. The larger groups, who have more resources to begin with usually win.

    0|0
    0|2
    • Stronger groups win.

      Poland, Czech, Austria, France, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway, large parts of Russia, large parts of North Africa - all of that combined dwarfed Nazi Germany. The Germans won those fights.

      The Germans ultimately lost, but for five years they dominated a force that was multitudes larger.

      You say women would win because men would die out; you forget one thing - men would just enslave women and breed them. Raping women has long been a spoil of war, even WWII had thousands of rape in Berlin alone at the end of the war. We don't need a lab to make test-tube babies, the truth is we'd raid a maternity war, steal the kids, kidnap the fertile women, then breed them.

      It's harsh, but do you really think morality would matter in a genocidal war? Nah. Women would be used for utility pretty quickly - again, just look at history.

    • Show All
    • @Daniel3035

      That's not a source. It's pretty easy to find sources, even if it's not from the royal society of chemistry, as you said. You can say you're a scientist all you like, but you have yet to establish yourself as an expert. I'm guessing you don't want to post all your credentials on here, as to do so would be to give up anonymity, which is understandable. But if you don't, then it doesn't really matter if you say you're a scientist. You haven't proven it. Even if you do post those, it won't hold up in the face of peer reviewed and edited articles written by people who specialize in that field. I may not be a scientist, but I know that chemistry and biology are different things.

      Also, I know what meiosis is. I've just never heard of the part you're talking about where Y chromosomes can become X chromosomes. Again, it's not that hard to find sources.

    • Oh god. Ok first I have nothing to gain from proving anything to you. Secondly the royal society of Chemistry is an organisation not a source. But the royal society of chemistry has sources online only accessible to those who are chemists.
      Fyi chemistry is biology chemistry is fundamentally the stufy if atoms biology is the study of anatomy which is also made up of atoms half the stuff biologists have was invented by chemists.
      With regards to specialising I don’t need to it’s one thing to research to this level and another to write about it. When you reach this level you don’t read sources you read lab reports. Those lab reports are the secret to billions of dollars of research hence why I can’t and won’t show you. It’s like giving someone your bank code or secret recipe.

  • Wouldn't it make more sense for one man to work with the women to kill all the dudes? Then have the entire world of women to himself. That would make the most sense to me.

    0|0
    0|1
  • The women as they control the most powerful men anyway. Something behind every powerful man is a strong woman.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Not always true. The most powerful men tend to be psychopaths, and that's the reason they get to the top. They're able to handle higher stress levels than normal people, and are able to run over their competition and survive in a cut throat way without losing any sleep. Sometimes leaders have to give the orders to kill thousands. Sometimes, they even have to send in a certain number of their troops to attack the enemy, knowing that it's also a suicide mission for them but is necessary to win the battle. A normal person couldn't handle that, it would traumatise them, but a psychopath can because they have no guilty conscience. They're also not easily manipulated.

      For example women didn't control Genghis Khan. He has 16 million descendents, because he slaughtered and raped his way through Asia. Pure psychopath.

    • Show All
    • ... and yet he has 16 million descendents because they didn't.

    • This is a theoretical war not an account of history. Yes I understand Genghis Khan has multiple percent of the world's population as descendents.

  • Men would always win even with remotely similar weaponry because we are wired for savagery and you are not. We would kill your "Civilized" Snowflake boyfriends and husbands and boys in their teens. We would take you into (at first) sexual slavery and then assimilation into the tribe. The female children would be brought up as ours.
    I am Celt.
    Who would win in a war of men vs women? Let's Speculate!
    We held the Romans out of Hibernia for 1000 years. Do you really think girls would have a chance? The good side is that we would exterminate feminists and social justice warriors and restore women to their rightful natures and roles.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I think you're missing the main point which surely that a sex war is like a trade war. Everybody loses.

    0|0
    0|0
  • TLDR. I don't think there's any comparison, but whateve's. Women will never be as strong as men.

    0|1
    0|0
  • No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy.

    ~ Henry Kissinger

    0|0
    0|0
  • If woman don't involve other men to fight for them then of course women will lose first because biology. I know you are going to hate reality but that is a fact. Men have 10 times more testosterone than women 10 times more muscle mass on average. I don't nobody will exactly win because the human species will be extinct due to that but women will be extinct first. This is not a matter of manipulated because what is in our minds are fighting to death. I won't be surprised if this gets hates. The my take owner is a feminist after all and so does his followers.

    1|0
    1|0
  • The gay men would win, because America's army is the best and most of them are gay.

    0|1
    1|1
  • What if the women offered to have sex if the men killed some other men?

    0|0
    0|0
  • There’s a reason why a super majority of world militaries are comprised of men.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't have to speculate shit
    WE WILL FUCK WOMEN UP IN WAR

    0|1
    0|0
  • No need to be politically correct.

    Men would win all the situations with zero diffculty.

    Men are trained to fight wars against other men. Men vs women is playing the game on easy mode.

    Women have no physical advantages over men at all, and spacial recognition and awareness is much lower than men. So your 5) scenario is wrong and makes no sense at all.

    Add to that, women's inability to work in groups.
    That kind of self-inflicted handicap makes it even easier.

    Ita a no contest.

    What would happen is that men would excecute just enough combatants to prove a point and then the women would surrender or the men would just take them by force. As has happened in all previous wars.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Neither side, I hope both get destroyed cuz I'm curious what a world would be without humans.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Probably men i can take both my sisters on at the same time and i always win

    0|0
    0|0
  • Women would win because they are more devious women can switch of and give 100% men regard women as fairer sex. And with men they would be thinking of Sex 1st. man would be dead Israel army made up of women. israel been out numbered in a few wars and won. Big men Hairy men in 2019 most gay. and grow beards to look more manly it seems in thing to have beard. i am clean shaven nothing to hide and I get to meet a variety of women as I am single and retired and viagra helps to. i am not your average man, well above average. it shrinks 2ins when you turn 60 guys. but I was 8 at 55

    0|0
    0|0
  • Nobody wins because humans die out...

    1|4
    0|0
    • Except maybe the earth, and the rest of the other things that are still alive on it, they "win" only because they "survive" and stayed out of the whole fight the entire time, well most that did anyway.

  • I'm here to support my fellow women!

    0|0
    0|0
  • Mens would win all.

    0|3
    1|0
  • Men...

    1|1
    1|0
  • Men.

    0|0
    0|0
  • 🙄🙄😯

    1|0
    0|0
  • Nobody will win.

    0|2
    0|0
    • If all the humans are gone because of something like this, then the earth, and all other life probably "wins". Well, that's if they don't nuke each other to oblivion first.

  • Logically and realistically it would be men.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Psylogical warfare: advantage women.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Or both sides could consider the nuclear option.

    0|0
    0|0
    • What about germ warfare and bio weapons? He didn't say that's off the table.

  • Women

    0|0
    0|0
  • Of course the men will win

    0|0
    1|0
  • What is there to speculate? It's common sense lol.

    0|0
    0|0

Recommended Questions

Loading...