Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

if everyone in my country died would threesomes be a good thing? google won't give me an answer

No because dead people can't do that you idiot!
Please stop,
I'm experiencing a mental breakdown as it is, please be nice,

[Dayganistan]

If 2 thirds more men than women did dangerous jobs why can't it be 2/3rds women?

Like was mentioned previously, having that much of a gender imbalance would be absolute crisis mode. Former Soviet countries have a bad gender imbalance and it's something like 1.5 women for every man. And it ends with loads of women from ex-Soviet states looking for men in other countries because they can't find one locally. Ditto with China, except it's more men than women. If 2/3rds of your population is women then you're society is going to probably collapse from women not being able to find a partner. They'll all go marry some secular, westernized Turkish man so she doesn't have to be a low IQ tea plantation owning noble's 8th wife.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

If 2 thirds more men than women did dangerous jobs why can't it be 2/3rds women?

Like was mentioned previously, having that much of a gender imbalance would be absolute crisis mode. Former Soviet countries have a bad gender imbalance and it's something like 1.5 women for every man. And it ends with loads of women from ex-Soviet states looking for men in other countries because they can't find one locally. Ditto with China, except it's more men than women. If 2/3rds of your population is women then you're society is going to probably collapse from women not being able to find a partner. They'll all go marry some secular, westernized Turkish man so she doesn't have to be a low IQ tea plantation owning noble's 8th wife.

But women would be able to find a partner if it's polygamous right?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

If 2 thirds more men than women did dangerous jobs why can't it be 2/3rds women?

Like was mentioned previously, having that much of a gender imbalance would be absolute crisis mode. Former Soviet countries have a bad gender imbalance and it's something like 1.5 women for every man. And it ends with loads of women from ex-Soviet states looking for men in other countries because they can't find one locally. Ditto with China, except it's more men than women. If 2/3rds of your population is women then you're society is going to probably collapse from women not being able to find a partner. They'll all go marry some secular, westernized Turkish man so she doesn't have to be a low IQ tea plantation owning noble's 8th wife.

The difference is polygyny is banned in former soviet countries.

Why couldn't polygamy solve that problem?
(I genuinely want an answer)

[Dayganistan]

Why couldn't polygamy solve that problem?
(I genuinely want an answer)

Most women don't want to be someone's second/third/fourth wife. Most women want to be the only woman their husband is with.

[Purpelia]

I'm experiencing a mental breakdown as it is, please be nice,

In that case do your self a favor and get off the internet. I mean that genuinely.

Why couldn't polygamy solve that problem?
(I genuinely want an answer)

Most women don't want to be someone's second/third/fourth wife. Most women want to be the only woman their husband is with.

Most women want to be married to a rich and successful man and will rather be the 10th wife of such a man than the one and only wife of his opposite. Which is why rich people can easily get mistresses and why their wives so often forgive them.
It's simply in their nature as a biological imperative to seek out a mate that can provide the best possible outcome for their offspring.

[The Akasha Colony]

Most women want to be married to a rich and successful man and will rather be the 10th wife of such a man than the one and only wife of his opposite. Which is why rich people can easily get mistresses and why their wives so often forgive them.
It's simply in their nature as a biological imperative to seek out a mate that can provide the best possible outcome for their offspring.

Usually in the hope they end up replacing the current wife.

Notice how the actual wives of these rich and powerful men often don't react well to the news their husbands are having affairs rather than just going "Oh, I guess he's got enough money to support another wife, so I'm fine with it."

[Redemption-America]

if everyone in my country died would threesomes be a good thing? google won't give me an answer

No because dead people can't do that you idiot!
Please stop,
I'm experiencing a mental breakdown as it is, please be nice,

Brain finally revolting at the cognitive dissonance of basing your nation around threesomes and then discovering that literally none of it can work?

[IshCong]

Honestly, the idea of a nation wherein the male population is reduced by 1/2 to 1/3 primarily through things such as overwork and wartime bloodshed did make me wonder at the result such massive demographic upheaval.

I'm not sure if they'd lead to a system of polygyny, to be entirely honest. I actually wonder if the result wouldn't be somewhat the opposite. Fatalities due to overwork or combat would fall primarily in a certain age range. Let's take Turkey here, as an example. Some 43.26% of its population was between the ages of 25-54 in 2018 and 43.31% in 2020, estimated. These would be the men dying from things like overwork or combat, primarily. (Sidenote: I assume somewhat lower non-combatant deaths as that should cause the number of women to heavily deplete also and I'm not sure this was the case.) This age range contains slightly more men than women (1.03:1), but not really enough to make a substantive difference to what comes next.

Because, of course, if half (arbitrary, it's easier than one third) the male population is dead and that loss falls primarily in this age demographic that's...basically this entire age demographic. Presumably there's some exceptions, but basically the entire male population between the ages of 15-54 would be wiped out. This alone doesn't account for fully half of men and it is probably those men closest to this range who are most likely to be deceased. Boys around 13/14 or men around 55-60. Most men remaining are either minors or nearing what should be retirement years. The male population of such a state is either too old or too young to run a functional country.

Oh, yes, of course, older men can still govern. But the physically demanding jobs that any remotely modern nation requires would be beyond them. Factory and other labor intensive jobs, for example. EMS, fire-fighters, soldiers, police are all necessary and all tough to do when you're pushing past 60. There are also not enough older men to do these jobs. In Turkey, only about 17.6% of people are over 55, and the Male:Female ratio is actually lower the older you go. So most of the surviving males would be under the age of 15, too young to fill the gaps vacated by their fathers. It'll take them easily 5-10 years before they can start really filling in the parts of the workforce that you need and longer before they're ready to govern and lead.

But you know who is around that can do physically intensive labor immediately? Who can take on jobs requiring more maturity and education than a 15 year-old possesses? The females. After all, their sex wasn't obliterated by whatever calamity caused a 1:3 Male:Female ratio. They didn't work themselves to death. They were not killed in combat. We're talking about the foundation for a feminist revolution the likes of which the world has never seen.

But equality is a boring objective, so ignore that. Let's go harder.

The men destroyed this country. They wiped out half of their own sex somehow, through their leadership. Clearly the men of this country are wildly unfit to lead or govern. Furthermore, there's no one in place to stop a female revolution. Older men probably still have political power, but men in general are outnumbered 3:1 and all their fighting age men are dead. Sure, you can throw senior citizens and child soldiers into the breach, but the women have actual fighting age soldiers and more of them. Sure, they probably lack experience, but how hard is it to seize a nation where like half the remaining men are in diapers for one reason or another?

Now, granted, the women may not immediately know much about running a country. But neither did the men, so who cares. Maybe they invite foreign advisors, request aid from the international community, doctors, educators, etc. It may take a few years to get settled, but they can get there. By this point those older men who once held power are dying off. Many would have been imprisoned, executed, or exiled during the revolution. Meanwhile, the youth are coming of age in a newly matriarchal society. Sure, older kids would have a hard time adjusting to the fact that all important labor, military, and political positions are occupied by adult women now, but what choice do they have? Those women are the only option to fill those positions.

Congratulations, you've got yourself a matriarchy. This could devolve into polyandry, since women hold all political and social power now, but it doesn't have to necessarily. It could also simply because a monogamous matriarchy. I think the latter is more probable, to be quite honest.

[Gallia-]

>too old

bruh the next american president is going to be >75 what are you talking about lmao

[The Islands of Versilia]

What was the state of Detroit in the 1920s? Specifically in regards to the city’s economy, crime and overall living standards?

How difficult would it have been for a French-speaking Montreal-Quebec mafia group to firmly establish itself in Detroit during that era and what challenges would it have faced? What could it exploit to its advantage?

I ask these questions because I am planning to create a fictional mafia centred in Detroit, set either during the latter half of the 20th century or the modern day. By this time it’s well established and has its fingers in the city’s services and government, and enjoys a relative degree of secret autonomy within some areas of the city.

[IshCong]

>too old

bruh the next american president is going to be >75 what are you talking about lmao

If you're referring to me, I said quite explicitly that older men are able to govern a nation. I said they would be incapable of filling all the physical-labor intensive jobs a modern society requires, however.

[Gallia-]

it would be easier to import foreign males than to have females do physical labor

even better if you can buy property and dont need to import anyone when you can just build factories next to their dirt yurts in "czechia" or whatever

t. western european economies

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Honestly, the idea of a nation wherein the male population is reduced by 1/2 to 1/3 primarily through things such as overwork and wartime bloodshed did make me wonder at the result such massive demographic upheaval.

I'm not sure if they'd lead to a system of polygyny, to be entirely honest. I actually wonder if the result wouldn't be somewhat the opposite. Fatalities due to overwork or combat would fall primarily in a certain age range. Let's take Turkey here, as an example. Some 43.26% of its population was between the ages of 25-54 in 2018 and 43.31% in 2020, estimated. These would be the men dying from things like overwork or combat, primarily. (Sidenote: I assume somewhat lower non-combatant deaths as that should cause the number of women to heavily deplete also and I'm not sure this was the case.) This age range contains slightly more men than women (1.03:1), but not really enough to make a substantive difference to what comes next.

Because, of course, if half (arbitrary, it's easier than one third) the male population is dead and that loss falls primarily in this age demographic that's...basically this entire age demographic. Presumably there's some exceptions, but basically the entire male population between the ages of 15-54 would be wiped out. This alone doesn't account for fully half of men and it is probably those men closest to this range who are most likely to be deceased. Boys around 13/14 or men around 55-60. Most men remaining are either minors or nearing what should be retirement years. The male population of such a state is either too old or too young to run a functional country.

Oh, yes, of course, older men can still govern. But the physically demanding jobs that any remotely modern nation requires would be beyond them. Factory and other labor intensive jobs, for example. EMS, fire-fighters, soldiers, police are all necessary and all tough to do when you're pushing past 60. There are also not enough older men to do these jobs. In Turkey, only about 17.6% of people are over 55, and the Male:Female ratio is actually lower the older you go. So most of the surviving males would be under the age of 15, too young to fill the gaps vacated by their fathers. It'll take them easily 5-10 years before they can start really filling in the parts of the workforce that you need and longer before they're ready to govern and lead.

But you know who is around that can do physically intensive labor immediately? Who can take on jobs requiring more maturity and education than a 15 year-old possesses? The females. After all, their sex wasn't obliterated by whatever calamity caused a 1:3 Male:Female ratio. They didn't work themselves to death. They were not killed in combat. We're talking about the foundation for a feminist revolution the likes of which the world has never seen.

But equality is a boring objective, so ignore that. Let's go harder.

The men destroyed this country. They wiped out half of their own sex somehow, through their leadership. Clearly the men of this country are wildly unfit to lead or govern. Furthermore, there's no one in place to stop a female revolution. Older men probably still have political power, but men in general are outnumbered 3:1 and all their fighting age men are dead. Sure, you can throw senior citizens and child soldiers into the breach, but the women have actual fighting age soldiers and more of them. Sure, they probably lack experience, but how hard is it to seize a nation where like half the remaining men are in diapers for one reason or another?

Now, granted, the women may not immediately know much about running a country. But neither did the men, so who cares. Maybe they invite foreign advisors, request aid from the international community, doctors, educators, etc. It may take a few years to get settled, but they can get there. By this point those older men who once held power are dying off. Many would have been imprisoned, executed, or exiled during the revolution. Meanwhile, the youth are coming of age in a newly matriarchal society. Sure, older kids would have a hard time adjusting to the fact that all important labor, military, and political positions are occupied by adult women now, but what choice do they have? Those women are the only option to fill those positions.

Congratulations, you've got yourself a matriarchy. This could devolve into polyandry, since women hold all political and social power now, but it doesn't have to necessarily. It could also simply because a monogamous matriarchy. I think the latter is more probable, to be quite honest.

Even if it could lead to a matriarchy why not a polygynous matriarchy since in this case polygyny would actually benefit most women (because most women want a husband)?
Also Sharifistani women mostly act submissive for cultural reasons.
Military coups based on gender are rare (at least I've never heard of one).

Why would it not lead to polygyny?
If a man can marry 3 women and 3 women are available to him (and he's a highly paid Army Colonel so he doesn't need to worry about the cost of supporting them) what's to say he won't want to marry them?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Clearly the men of this country are wildly unfit to lead or govern

No they're not, Sharifistan is influential, the deaths of those who were martyred in military service or martyred themselves through hard-work are necessary to create the beautiful society Sharifistan's monarchy wants.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Will giving concubines political power be the death of Sharifistan?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

I'm experiencing a mental breakdown as it is, please be nice,

In that case do your self a favor and get off the internet. I mean that genuinely.

Most women don't want to be someone's second/third/fourth wife. Most women want to be the only woman their husband is with.

Most women want to be married to a rich and successful man and will rather be the 10th wife of such a man than the one and only wife of his opposite. Which is why rich people can easily get mistresses and why their wives so often forgive them.
It's simply in their nature as a biological imperative to seek out a mate that can provide the best possible outcome for their offspring.

1. But would most women become a rich man's mistress, it's easier for them because it's a significant number but is it most?
2. True but if they have 10 wives that's a bad outcome for their offspring if they have children with each of them.
Their offspring in particular would be better off with some half the income but who only shares it amongst 2 wives and can also provide emotional support, good for their mental health.
Also since the income is divided by 2 but the expenditure is divided by 5, each wife has more money.

(because usage of some hard drugs like cocaine is statistically significant amongst the wealthy and suicide is apparently also a significant problem amongst all classes,
both due to poor mental health)

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Most women want to be married to a rich and successful man and will rather be the 10th wife of such a man than the one and only wife of his opposite. Which is why rich people can easily get mistresses and why their wives so often forgive them.
It's simply in their nature as a biological imperative to seek out a mate that can provide the best possible outcome for their offspring.

Usually in the hope they end up replacing the current wife.

Notice how the actual wives of these rich and powerful men often don't react well to the news their husbands are having affairs rather than just going "Oh, I guess he's got enough money to support another wife, so I'm fine with it."

1. Is it usually in the hope of replacing the current wife?
Why would they marry her? If they wanted a new wife wouldn't they get divorced (they're rich so can get good divorce lawyers)?

2. You're right they often don't react well to the news.
And when they do though it could be due to prestige rather than purely money.
They're his wife, they're the one with the recognition and social status of Queen, Princess, Lady, First Lady of the United States etc.
The mistress is just a siren.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Maybe most women would want to be a rich man's mistress but I would need a source.

Also "most of their wives forgive them" maybe, probably in fact, but they have a higher status than the mistress.
It's not like competing equally with 10 other wives wives

[Nolo gap]

multiple partners of all genders on an equal basis, sharing some common hobby related interest,
and of course duties of child rearing shared equally, along with supporting household and maintaining it.

not everyone having to do everything all the time, but flexibility based on diversity of individual skills,
but also letting everyone take turns as well.

none of this mistress or servants, no sneaking, nor the other extreme of narcissism, nor dominance of one gender over another, nor of one partner/member.

outside relationships optionally extend multidimentional family.

affection to a degree universal, to what degree a matter of consensus.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Please for the sake of whatever deity you pray to do not sextuple post.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

What suicide rate would Sharifistan have:
1. Most men have been in the Army at some point.
2. Most men work dangerously long hours
3. Military doctrine emphasises protecting materiel over protecting men
4. Social mobility is uncommon

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

If 2 thirds more men than women did dangerous jobs why can't it be 2/3rds women?

Like was mentioned previously, having that much of a gender imbalance would be absolute crisis mode. Former Soviet countries have a bad gender imbalance and it's something like 1.5 women for every man. And it ends with loads of women from ex-Soviet states looking for men in other countries because they can't find one locally. Ditto with China, except it's more men than women. If 2/3rds of your population is women then you're society is going to probably collapse from women not being able to find a partner. They'll all go marry some secular, westernized Turkish man so she doesn't have to be a low IQ tea plantation owning noble's 8th wife.

Not 8th wife, 4th.
You can have a strong emotional connection with 4 people (the Queen has 4 children)
Also girls are socialised from a young age that it's okay for men to have 2 or more wives.
It's seen as "weird" culturally to expect monogamy from a husband

[Dayganistan]

Also Sharifistani women mostly act submissive for cultural reasons.

It really doesn't matter what your culture is or how much you try to prevent it, your women will discover feminism. There are feminists in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, any country you can think of where women are expected to act submissive. Do you really think they're going to want to be submissive in a society where they massively outnumber men?

What suicide rate would Sharifistan have:
1. Most men have been in the Army at some point.
2. Most men work dangerously long hours
3. Military doctrine emphasises protecting materiel over protecting men
4. Social mobility is uncommon

Insanely high. Your society is now 100% women because all the men who didn't die in battle or get worked to death killed themselves.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Also Sharifistani women mostly act submissive for cultural reasons.

It really doesn't matter what your culture is or how much you try to prevent it, your women will discover feminism. There are feminists in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, any country you can think of where women are expected to act submissive. Do you really think they're going to want to be submissive in a society where they massively outnumber men?

What suicide rate would Sharifistan have:
1. Most men have been in the Army at some point.
2. Most men work dangerously long hours
3. Military doctrine emphasises protecting materiel over protecting men
4. Social mobility is uncommon

Insanely high. Your society is now 100% women because all the men who didn't die in battle or get worked to death killed themselves.

It really doesn't matter what your culture is or how much you try to prevent it, your women will discover feminism. There are feminists in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, any country you can think of where women are expected to act submissive. Do you really think they're going to want to be submissive in a society where they massively outnumber men?
Are you saying fear of physical violence is the main reason for that?
There are cultural reasons.
You can get people do things that are not in their interests if they believe they'll go to heaven (medieval peasants outnumbered nobles for example).
Also that's assuming it's not in their interests.