I started writing a post in Blast's thread "step 1 Step 2" but then I got wiser and changed my mind about posting it. However, one sentence I had included in that post was " I wish there was a planet where men didnt need women ". That made me thinking about a possible survival scenario where a group of survivors included several men ( 5 - 10 ) and no woman, or worse ... ONE woman. Do you think that on the long run the group will be distracted by the woman presence over their own survival situation and then, their survival chances be affected ? Or, do you think they will be a way to sort things in a logical or rational manner ?

On the less serious side, I thought about another scenario where there is ONE man, and several female survivors. Anyone wants to be in such a situation ? (devilish smile)

I suspect that in the "one woman" thingy, she would be the boss. And in the "one man" a women would still be the boss...

I wish I had been that smart...

-Blast

This post reminds me of the ethnic joke about 2 men and 1 woman of various ethnic backgrounds on an island. It can be found at: http://www.afunnystuff.com/jokes/Ethnic-jokes/On-a-tropical-island.html.

And I will say no more.

Not if they're female bodybuilders. Well, on second thought there is that Helga fantasy......

The book "Lord of the Flies" is probably a realistic portrayl of such a situation, though the survivors are boys ages 9-14 or so rather than men. Not much difference though, right Sue?

-Blast

I think that I will pass on this one...

Actually, this was the premise of a book called The Disappearance by Philip Wylie (1951). To the men, all the women had disappeared. To the women, all the men had disappeared. The story jogs back and forth between how each group handles it.

Sue

OBG, I believe you are 100% correct.

You sure know women!

I try. I also remember a contest that Backpacker Magazine (the old version, pre-Dorn) had once, looking for the lightest backpacking gear for a weekend. While she did not win, one gal won honorable mention with this: She would carry one birthcontrol pill. Her boyfriend would carry everything else...

the movie "the quiet earth" deals with this situation somewhat: everyone has disappeared except 2 men and 1 woman.

Depends on what you mean by 'long-term'.

The navy has experience with all-male and mostly-male crews (one or two females out of a crew of 1100) on extended deployments of six months or more.

Typical all and mostly male patterns include a sharp uptick in conflict and possible sporadic violence at about the six week mark. This resolves itself in a week or so and things rapidly return to normal.

A lot of it depends on the culture. The navy had to learn how to handle women on-board. It took time to develop protocols and regulations to deal with it. But once everyone was up to speed conflicts were not a major problem as long as the situation was monitored and managed.

In the very long-term, years, it would be a matter of how and how well organized the culture was. History shows many cases of female led cultures that were at least as well organized, effective and productive as male led ones. I don't see a major problem. People tend to adapt.

The difference with the Navy and other military organizations and a random group of five people is the presence of a strong command structure. As long as the command structure is sound the system works problems are minimal and everyone knows what the consequences of their actions are. However, in the case of a non-existent or flawed command structure, serious problems can develop. Another military example being the problems which occurred at the US Air Force Academy.

I also think its important to note that the situation would be guided as much by the woman's personality and actions as by the men's. A woman who was calm and impartial could keep the situation stable. A woman that decided to tease or play other members of the group against each other would create trouble that would probably end in blood shed.

I don't have as much "experience with women" as my age might lead others to believe, but one thing I have learned about people, regardless of gender or what-have-you, is that it is best to treat all people as equals. Dignity isn't only for men. A survival situation will bring out the best and worse in everyone, not just men, not just women. I think personal strengths that might be shelved in society quickly lose there dust in a survival situation. They have to, or they die. I also think that most people like to think that they are in a survival situation when they might not actually be, as well as thinking that they aren't when they actually are. I think that having someone "else" to objectify displaces some of the uncertainty that comes with survival. Emotional displacement is a distraction from true awareness. To think less of anyone, or more of anyone for that matter, especially in a survival situation, is just plain...well I think it is a mistake! Having an open mind, and giving everybody equal status is essential to group cohesion, and ultimately to survival itself. Diversity does not necessarily mean "power struggle".
Bottom line: men and women get along just fine as long as there is mutual respect.

I agree that military personnel are trained and equipped to the point that what would be a survival situation for a group of random individuals, would be mere exercise.
But just to put things into perspective I have changed woman to man: 'A man who was calm and impartial could keep the situation stable. A man that decided to tease or play other members of the group against each other would create trouble that would probably end in blood shed.' It reads the same either way. Emotional manipulation is not limited to sexuality.
I think that if people feel that they have time/energy to "play" sex/power games with each other, they either aren't in a survival situation or they don't know they are.
That game show is not what survival is all about.
True survival brings people together. Only fools choose to live their lives dividing into waring factions, or fighting over "the females", and only idiots limit themselves to having no choice. Survival precedes "living", and living is about compromise and cooperation, not "I'm gonna get you sucka'!"
Maybe a bit off topic, but anyway, LOL.