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

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.

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

    • Not at all. Every one of them is accurate and well documented from multiple sources. I really don't feel like spending the next hour or so going through all my sources to give them to you (only to have you completely ignore them), but if I have to I can do so. The fact is the only people who argue against this, are feminists. Kind of like the Israeli feminist neurosurgeon who claimed that their was no male or female brain only male and female parts. First obviously their are male and female brains because you wouldn't have parts that where associated with one gender or the other if they where not more common to that gender, then when you actually look at her evidence it clearly shows that over 80% of the brains scanned where clearly male or female, a smaller percentage where a bit more ambiguous, and a smaller percentage then that where flipped (i. e. transgender brains, they resemble the structure of the gender they feel they are). The fact is no evidence has come out to suggest anything that I have said has EVER been debunked, only claimed to be debunked with no actual scientific data to back it. The majority of the information is just common sense that you can see from just your every day interactions.

    • So we have to consider the sociology behind this scenario. Not only are women and men pinned against each other completely, but the war entails the eradication of the other sex. Men are more than likely to view women as the enemy considering the implications of the desired outcome. Men would win in all feats of strength and visceral combat, but as technology progresses, the need for physical combat fades away. Men on average produce more adrenaline than women, which allows their fight or flight to aid them in dire situations more than a woman. However, considering the norm for strength in women is very low (especially in the west) due to what society expects of women, and too much muscle often means a woman is no longer desirable. Women on average have more body fat, and there is rarely an instance where women achieve 1% body fat, but I will also point out that I would not use statistic in our civilized society, but rather the full potential of men, compared to the full potential of women. Men are not necessarily wired to protect women, they are wired to possess them. (also that statistics about women abusing men more isn't able to be used as an accurate scale, even if it was correct, considering domestic violence is one of the most underreported crimes) some men feel the instinctual need to protect women because of a subtle possession mentality. Women are also more intuitive on average when it comes to their perception, and those statics about PTSD are true, and men are usually able to handle trauma more easily (some of that is due to epigenetics as well.) But women are also more in tune with their surroundings, and generally more aware, and it only takes a single bullet in someone's brain to eliminate them in some of the scenarios. Resiliency isn't going to matter much when it comes to more advanced weaponry, but the implicit response in a woman's struggle to survive, can and more often than not will result in other's not being considered in the process.

    • Show All
  • 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. 🤓😝

    • Thank you Thanos

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.

    • 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.

    • I'm more or less thinking that even with the amount of babies born from the women they capture, it's still not enough to even keep up with 5% of the female population.

    • Considering that 5% of the female population would be about 300 million

    • Show All
  • 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.

    • 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.

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

13 40
  • 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.

  • I'm here to support my fellow women!

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • @Praec Men could try to do that. But a war implies that people are dying. In order to win they would at least have to kill a decent number of women. Unless they enslaved the majority of the remaining ones, they could not possibly reproduce at the same rate as women. Not to mention, some of their children would be female. When women have biological kids with other women, the kids are all girls.

    • Only an idiot kills an asset. If all women were killed, men would die in the same generation. You'd be bred like cattle. When they have female kids, they'd just keep them enslaved for their life and use them as breeding partners for the next generation of men. Human labor is almost always worked to death, rather than killed outright. Reproductive labor would be the same. Again, there's plenty of precedent for what I'm saying throughout history. War implies people are fighting; men would decimate and then capture the women to be used as whores. If you think women could resist men, how come events such as the Rape of Nanking occurred - because I can assure you that those women didn't choose that tragedy, that if they could have stopped their infant daughters being gangraped in front of them they would have. People are equal overall, but through the balancing of different traits. Men are more physically capable, more aggressive, and your only advantage is reproduction - wherein we have 10,000 years of human history where reproduction through rape was entirely normal. You think you're going to fight off men while pregnant, looking after babies, having period cramps that are so bad you can't deal with an office job, post-birth depression, etc? All men have to do is wet their dick for a few minutes, then they can go about there business while one guards tens if not hundreds of sex slaves - just like guards keeping thousands of jews confined, or keeping interned Japanese-Americans confined, or one farmer with a rifle keeping his cotton picking slaves on the plantation. You're having a laugh, and clearly didn't think it through. It's easier to guard a woman that struggles to move, than to protect them; especially when only one side is actually reducing their available force for the duration of the pregnancies.

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

    • You can go to your profile and see what things you’ve commented on😂

  • 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.

    • Wow, that was vicious. True, but vicious.

    • wouldn't the more evil thing to do is to date the person then accuse said guy of rape?

    • @Tomsta no because then we can’t viscous your rip their children away from them.

    • Show All
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    • You discount the importance of manipulation. I learned at age 13 how easily guys can be manipulated when I realized that making out with my Dungeon Master (a guy my age, not the 21 year old) could get me what I wanted (more romance subplots for my character).

    • I discount it because men and women are now in-groups. It all ties back to sociology and even social psychology. And unfortunately, as fucked up as it sounds, in a war between sexes, there's not going to be mutual sex between a man and a woman. If the relations are so exceedingly bad that it comes to both sexes going to war, then the result of any passive interaction with anyone of the opposite sex is very unlikely at the very least. If a woman were to approach a man and try to bargain intelligence in exchange for sex, he would just kill her, if she's lucky. If he actually had sexual desires, and a woman was right in front of him, and he is now part of a group that wishes the extermination of women, he would just rape her, and probably capture her, just so he can rape her again. It's a very grim subject, but there's no sexual manipulation possible when there are men who want all women dead, and women who want all men dead. It's something I don't think will ever happen, but if it did, our moral fiber and conscious is immediately out the window. In fact back in the 1400s during European conquest, rape was considered merciful, because their original job was to murder them and take their land. So rape meant you were of use to them, which is fucked up, but I feel men would have to be that level of toxic to ever start a war against all women.

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a2rRggz_-M
  • No one wins in war. If one gender is erradicated, the other will it survive it's as simple as that. No one wins.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • Men.

  • 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.

    • Search up artificial wombs on google

    • @Vegeta01 has a real child ever successfully grown inside of it? And what sperm/egg do they use to create it? Still need a male or a female donor?

    • Real child hasn't successfully grown inside of it YET. The sperm is definitely from a man but the egg I don't think is from a woman. They build human female eggs in their lab or whatever. Very complicated shit. It hasn't fully been revealed yet but we will know about their methods soon enough. They successfully grew a lamb fetus inside the artificial womb though. It's only a matter of time when human fetus could also be grown inside it. Male donor is a must, female donor? Highly doubt it. By highly doubt I mean no way in hell. Women won't be needed. That's what I am hoping for at least. Technology is advancing rapidly and we all might live to see the day when men won't ever need females ever again.

    • Show All
  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    • 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.

    • Yes but anyone of those women could have killed him in his sleep after intercourse.

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

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

  • Nobody wins because humans die out...

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mens would win all.

  • Show More (33)