(10:31:39 AM)
Proven Paradox: Hm. Sexism would vary race to race.
(10:31:58 AM)
Proven Paradox: Orcs are the obvious example here since the group is facing a violently patriarchal society right now.
(10:32:23 AM)
Proven Paradox: Orcs value strength as the highest virtue. To the orcs, might makes right.
(10:32:38 AM)
Proven Paradox: However, the difference between orc men and orc women is less pronounced than in humans.
(10:33:44 AM)
Proven Paradox: So their sexism isn't based in a difference in aptitude. Orc societies would probably include more women warriors than others.
(10:34:41 AM)
Proven Paradox: I think the issue here becomes one of childbirth.
(10:35:03 AM)
Proven Paradox: Consider two orc tribes. Tribe A starts with 10 men and 10 women. Tribe B starts with 5 men and 15 women.
(10:35:43 AM)
Proven Paradox: Discard ideas about monogamy, and Tribe B will grow approximately 50% faster due to starting with more women.
(10:35:53 AM)
Dani: though uh
(10:36:05 AM)
Dani: that introduces problems with genetics
(10:36:12 AM)
Dani: genetic diversity^
(10:36:35 AM)
Proven Paradox: Yeah, that's true, inbreeding becomes a problem eventually, but for the sake of my oversimplification let's ignore that shall we? <<
(10:36:47 AM)
Dani: <3 kk
(10:37:51 AM)
Proven Paradox: So, Tribe B grows faster. But you don't want women in higher risk jobs, like hunting and so forth. Losing a man doesn't reduce the growth potential of this tribe.
(10:38:22 AM)
Proven Paradox: So the women are more valuable to the tribes' success by staying home, out of harm's way.
(10:38:23 AM)
Dani: wait
(10:38:25 AM)
Dani: that uh
(10:38:28 AM)
Dani: that seems kind of wrong
(10:38:33 AM)
Proven Paradox: Howso?
(10:39:00 AM)
Dani: with less men they'd be considered more valuable, wouldn't they? You could afford to lose a woman in tribe B because there are 3x as many of them as men
(10:39:12 AM)
Proven Paradox: Remember, we're ignoring inbreeding.
(10:39:21 AM)
Dani: whereas in tribe A reducing the female population would actually slow them down considerable
(10:39:24 AM)
Dani: considerably
(10:39:27 AM)
Proven Paradox: As long as there's one man left, he can produce children with all 15 women.
(10:39:29 AM)
Dani: because there would be less males than femals
(10:39:34 AM)
Dani: females^
(10:39:46 AM)
Dani: er
(10:39:50 AM)
Dani: more males than females^
(10:40:02 AM)
Proven Paradox: When/if Tribe B gets down to one male, then we suddenly see a gigantic flip in priorities.
(10:41:45 AM)
Dani: With 3x times females than males, you can afford to lose females more. All things remaining the same, in both cases a female can only hold a single child at a time. But when you have the same amount of females as males, females become more important to save because having more males than females is useless. But you can lose females in the tribe with extra females so long as the total number of females is greater than or equal to the amount of males.
(10:42:26 AM)
Proven Paradox: That presumes a male can only father a child with a single female.
(10:42:34 AM)
Dani: No, it doesn't
(10:42:38 AM)
Dani: It means that's the minimum
(10:42:49 AM)
Dani: You want to meet the minimum
(10:43:00 AM)
Dani: If you want to meet the minimum you need at least the same amount of females as males
(10:43:11 AM)
Dani: Which means tribe A is at their minimum
(10:43:14 AM)
Dani: They want to stay there
(10:43:22 AM)
Proven Paradox: Wait, why do you want to be at minimum?
(10:43:34 AM)
Dani: You don't want to be BELOW minimum
(10:43:44 AM)
Dani: Because then you have useless males.
(10:43:47 AM)
Proven Paradox: But being above the minimum is better, is it not?
(10:44:24 AM)
Dani: Yes. But it also means there is more freedom for females because losing one of them isn't affecting the minimum, whereas for a tribe AT minimum (A) losing a female puts you below that line
(10:45:00 AM)
Proven Paradox: Okay, I see what's happening here. Okay, let me expand a bit.
(10:46:09 AM)
Proven Paradox: Okay, Tribe A puts more priority on protecting females, yes. But if the five males in Tribe B are sufficient to cover hunting duties by themselves, is there a reason they wouldn't also protect their females to preserve their greater growth potential?
(10:47:24 AM)
Dani: Well that comes into complications of if five males can handle that growth potential. Because first you're just feeding 20 people, then you're feeding 35 people...then you're feeding 5 males, 15 pregnant women and their 15 toddlers...
(10:48:03 AM)
Dani: Assuming orcs advance much the same as humans that puts a huge strain on five males to support a rapidly growing tribe
(10:49:20 AM)
Proven Paradox: Hm. I was constructing this model (in my head, as I type <<) with a base assumption "there is plenty of food, that's not a problem, we're hand-waving that" without stating it. Take that away and yeah, you're right, this falls apart. Hm.
(10:50:32 AM)
Dani: Not considering as well the need for clothing, building materials...
(10:51:50 AM)
Proven Paradox: Mmm. I need to put that on the backburner then, my rationale has serious holes in it.
(10:53:11 AM)
Dani: Well, it's a good thought exercise.