Og almighty.
Scotty Mo let’s take this one bit at a time.
History proves that men are more violent than women.
Maybe, maybe not. There are a few inherent problems with this analysis of history. Up until VERY recently, combat was limited to hand to hand conflict. Males being larger, stronger, and far more expendable to a society than women would naturally fall into warrior roles. While a well trained female warrior can trump an untrained, or poorly trained male, it makes no sense to field smaller, weaker, biologically valuable young women against the enemy’s male recruits. They would have to be a well trained, rather elite force to be effective in that sort of combat. Even in a reversed society that encouraged aggression in women, I suspect that biological differences would rear their heads around late adolescence when the males suddenly gain their size and strength. Women would have to create a fairly oppressive, and carefully administered society towards males to ensure their own safety.
Males commit more crimes than females.
Possibly. We know for certain that they are likely to commit certain types of crimes more often than women. We also know that women are far less likely to be prosecuted. Society is not equal here, and without a truly egalitarian application of the law these statistics are fairly meaningless. Add into the equation that a huge majority of offenders are incarcerated for non-violent, minor drug offenses and the numbers might be more meaningful. Biology also plays a role here. Women are more likely to poison or drug a victim because they are well aware that most of them are not the physical equals of their male victims. They also tend to value their personal safety more than males do when angered. (exceptions exist, I am speaking very broadly here)
Female dominated workplaces are more peaceful than those run by males.
Uncertain. What we DO know is that women manage differently, and those that are most successful in managing a mixed or male dominated workforce do so by utilizing a “male” strategy. Whether this is an attempt to fit in, or simply the natural result of having to manage a diverse group of people is also unclear. Groups tend to respond well to strong, clear leadership. While there is no difference in the sexes abilities to provide this leadership; the subtlety, subtexts, and implications often used more heavily by women might be a natural impediment to achieving a harmonious workplace.
Basically this boils down to the following: Until the last 50 years or so and the advent of technology to even the playing field, women naturally fell into roles determined largely by biology and acculturation. We haven’t had enough time yet to truly determine if either sex is superiour at governance, but I suspect that the answer is that it is the individual, not their sex that will separate a good leader from a poor one. A violent leader is by modern standards a poor one. Modern leaders rarely dirty their own hands, and I do not see women to be any less likely to order troops in than men.