a reply to: bucsarg
I've thought about & discussed this very topic many times with my coworkers & family. And my answer is always "Yes, to a point".
Nearly every study shows that women are far less likely to commit crimes in general (except shoplifting, I think), particularly violent crimes. And
they're less likely to be in organized crime groups. So I'd guess most women would wage fewer wars, make fewer side deals with cartels/warlords, and
push for a stronger social safety net. And even when women get violent, they usually only target the person or people that they dislike. But
bloodlusted men have no problems killing innocent bystanders (even kids), or with killing an entire country because we don't like its leader. So I'd
expect more assassinations and less full-scale wars.
Women also seem less likely to try a coup or hostile takeover than men, especially when they feel fulfilled by a job or organization. Of course, this
isn't always true. There are women who are far more cunning, ruthless, racist, and controlling than men could ever be. I've had the bad luck of
learning this first hand. But I think those women would be isolated if every governing body was female-dominant.
Unfortunately, I also think having a female-only power structure could have disastrous consequences for the fields that women don't generally care
for. I mean things like engineering, information technology, weapons development, etc. Also, women tend to be less likely to experiment with random
(and potentially dangerous) things; & less likely to randomly dig massive holes in the ground. Guys love stuff like that, which is why we're so keen
on mining for minerals & precious stones, looking for petroleum & natural gas, etc. Women are usually more caring for the environment & wildlife, so
they would be less likely to destroy a small ecosystem for potential wealth. Whereas most guys would have no problem destroying a hill or mountain if
there's a good chance we''ll strike gold, oil, or even a large enough copper vein (bye bye wildlife).
So I'd guess this hypothetical society would have stronger social programs, stronger (and stricter) educational programs, less infrastructure &
weapons development, and far more of an emphasis on clean technology. But I'd imagine the rules & regulations would be much stricter in every aspect
of society, especially
if they could involve safety.
In time, I'd imagine many men would rebel or simply abandon that society. So I think something close to a 50-50 ratio would be best. That would
probably have the best balance.