# Women-only world: Are there wars? How are they fought? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008 "2017-07-11T16:01:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/21 "2017-07-11T20:01:16Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > True. But even ordinary women participated in mass murder ( as part of or even leaders of violent mobs or post-battle “clean-up” ) and torture quite commonly in history. Women might be a bit less aggressive on average, but we’re an aggressive species - less aggressive doesn’t mean unaggressive. And under the right circumstances they will certainly resort to physical violence. Probably the most viciously bloody teenage scuffle I ever saw was between two girls. > > In a modern age( all men vanished today ), I think I might agree with _fewer_ wars, but not _no_ wars. I’m not sure I’d even go so far as to say “fewer”. In the past, wars may have been fought because leaders just could not contain their aggression. Such wars may well be “less” if there were only women, because women, as a group, are somewhat less aggressive than men. These days, wars are most often fought because of historic ethnic or nationalist grievances, because of ideological conflicts, to preserve or overthrow a balance of power, out of other types of perceived national self-interest, or even as a sort of systemic failure (think WW1); personal aggression on the part of leaders plays little part. Moreover, there is a certain self-selection that goes on in people becoming leaders. Those who rise to such positions tend to be ambitious, dynamic and forceful (whether for good or bad!). I see no reason why, if such leaders were chosen from women only, they would be significantly less likely to pursue nationalist grievances, ideological differences, etc. using the tool of conflict (conflicts that, as leaders, they probably won’t personally fight in). The pattern I’m thinking of is leaders of major corporations. In the past these were typically all men. Now, there are a fair number of women, and one can confidently look to a future in which men and women will be more-or-less equally represented in the highest leadership roles in business. Has business changed much thereby? No - because the goals of business (maximize shareholder profits) remain unchanged; the leaders who rise to such positions, men and women, are self-selected as those capable of maximizing shareholder profits. Women as a generality may (or may not) be more caring and compassionate and all other good traits than men as a group - but the individual women who become business leaders are self-selected as those capable of generating maximum shareholder profits. Likewise, women national leaders. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/22 "2017-07-11T20:02:46Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > A few weeks and starved bodies litter the streets. Perhaps in some places where laborious subsistence is the rule. But there is enough prepared and canned food in at least modern western societies to last awhile. Long enough for those women with the requisite expertise to get the train partially back on the tracks. Not to mention huge stocks of livestock, many of whom will perish in more industrialized lots, but many more of which will just go feral on open grazing land. Nobody in the U.S. will starve in a few weeks and cannibalism won’t be an issue - remember you have just reduced the number of mouths to feed by half. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/23 "2017-07-11T20:05:44Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > Men form the armies of history not because they are larger and stronger but because they are more aggressive and violent. That would be the testosterone thing. Men may imagine that women are like them except smaller and weaker, but that’s not true. Testosterone is the difference. > > While there have been female leaders who have waged war successfully, they did so in the context of a completely male-dominated, warlike world. They cannot be used as examples in this case. > > Women are not free of aggression or violence but it is on an entirely different scale. It is far less about the simple enjoyment of violence and the emotional rewards of the exertion of force to dominate others. The aggression I’ve observed (and been the subject of) by women is always emotionally complicated and individualistic. It is rarely physical beyond pushing and hair-pulling. Yes, women can certainly be bullies but their bullying is far more emotional than physical. > > I don’t think there would be any wars if there were no men. There would certainly be things like economic sanctions, breaking off diplomatic relations, and things of that nature, but I just can’t imagine women banding together for the specific purpose of killing other women. > > For there to be armies, violence has to be rewarding for the participants, on some level. The percentage of men who enjoy violence versus women? There just is no comparison at all. The fundamental flaw with your reasoning (even assuming all the generalities you cite are correct) is the assumption that wars are fought because the soldiers who fight in them enjoy violence. This simply is not true. In the modern world, the vast majority of soldiers fight because they believe it is their duty to do so, or because they are coerced into it via conscription. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/24 "2017-07-11T20:09:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But now, when we can wage war like a video game in air conditioned comfort? Wow. Things sure are different than when I retired from the Army a touch over two years ago. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/25 "2017-07-11T20:11:13Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > There have been more male leaders, period - because of the patriarchal nature of state-level societies. > > The issue would be whether female leaders, taken as a group, display less warlike tendencies than male leaders, taken as a group. > > I think they tend to be, in fact, more or less - exactly the same. Well a counter argument to that, which I think is somewhat reasonable to consider in the OP’s context, is that those women became leaders in that patriarchal context and either consciously chose or happened to be “man like” in their leadership traits in order to become national leaders. In a world without men, would female leaders still be inclined to flex muscle? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/26 "2017-07-11T20:19:01Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > Wow. Things sure are different than when I retired from the Army a touch over two years ago. Sure. Of course infantry is still critical. But they have soldiers in offices running drones and video controled smartbombs. You dont need a lot of muscle to be a fighter pilot or to launch a nuke. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/27 "2017-07-11T20:19:08Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > While there have been female leaders who have waged war successfully, they did so in the context of a completely male-dominated, warlike world. They cannot be used as examples in this case. But they can - because if men vanished today ethnicity, religion, jealousy and other dividing faults will still be there. Men may have initiated the Irish insurgency of 1641-1642, but it was Jane Hampson who took the lead in ushering 20 civilians at Shewie into a house, locking it and then burning it and everyone in it alive. Men may have started the massacres in very patriarchal [Rwanda](https://universitas.uni.edu/article/women-leaders-rwandan-genocide-when-women-choose-kill), but a number of women were in it up to their elbows. You can correctly argue that all of those actions were initiated and precipitated by men, but the _very fact women participated in any capacity_ is a damning indictment of our species’ capacity for violence. I really doubt men are an absolutely necessary precursor to trigger violence - women have testosterone as well. I think men are perhaps better characterized as an accelerant. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/28 "2017-07-11T20:21:39Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > Wow. Things sure are different than when I retired from the Army a touch over two years ago. Not to mention that the vast majority of the world doesn’t have the insanely moneyed and technologically supreme military of the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/29 "2017-07-11T20:21:47Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The fundamental flaw with your reasoning (even assuming all the generalities you cite are correct) is the assumption that wars are fought because the soldiers who fight in them enjoy violence. > > This simply is not true. > > In the modern world, the vast majority of soldiers fight because they believe it is their duty to do so, or because they are coerced into it via conscription. This. Furthermore, modern military training is intended to overcome the natural aversion to killing that the vast majority of humans possess. Left to their own devices, soldiers don’t fight, they hunker down or flee, as any glance at military history will indicate. If you subject women to the same training methods (and [other inducements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops)), I see no reason to expect a different outcome: killing, followed by psychological trauma. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/30 "2017-07-11T20:26:14Z")
Self-identified radical feminist here. a) I do not claim or believe that there is anything built in to female people’s brains or natures that makes them less warlike than men. So if that’s what you’re asking, no. b) On the other hand, in your hypothetical situation you’re waving a hand and making men “vanish overnight”. If roughly half the world’s population vaporized, and the remaining half was all female people, that would be an interesting science fiction story, but I’d think the women and their behavior under those circumstances would be overshadowed by the concern that something had just _caused_ that event. That, and their various reactions to it, would be the first issue. Or that in conjunction with the general chaos of suddenly a shitload of daily tasks and occupations and whatnot no longer have the person who formerly performed them showing up to do so. Probably many of the women would think the Sisterhood had indeed arisen. And the fact that _they_ hadn’t been let in on it beforehand is somewhat worrisome. Oh shit, will the jackbooted sentinels from the Society for Cutting Up Men show up later this afternoon to start winnowing out the insufficiently radical women? Or maybe it’s the first move of the invading patriarchal Martians: you know, vaporize the menfolk and then we can capture and impregnate the women and use them as baby-incubators. Or as food (they taste better, men are all gristly and don’t taste good). It’s a stressful situation, this business of all the guys disappearing in a puff of smoke; Stressed-out women in the midst of chaos won’t necessarily behave the same way that women might behave if there had never been any men, you know? c) Going at it the other way, radical feminists have often posited that the social system, patriarchy, exists as an outcome of the structured relationship between the sexes as an unequal one. Would an all-female society develop as the same kind of hierarchical, power-worshipping, oppressive kind of thing, with other ways to determine the out-groups? Well, not if that kind of society is an outcome of how sexuality got organized, not unless the controlling of sexuality is, itself, an outcome of something more fundamental that makes all this shit happen. But it is important to note that some radical feminists would say that an all-MALE society would ALSO not necessarily develop that way, since once again there would be no original pattern from how sexuality got organized. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/31 "2017-07-11T20:29:21Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Well, men are a large majority of workers in agriculture, manufacturing, warehousing and transport, as well as construction, maintenance and the emergency services. > > In other words, imminent death for everyone. A few weeks and starved bodies litter the streets. > > Now if there was time to adapt, rather than the sudden and surprising disappearance of all the men, then I would expect more wars, once the armed forces are put back together with women. > > But that’s not the OP. The OP doesn’t give time to attempt to adapt to what would be the largest and most catastrophic social and economic change in history. So immediate chaos followed by speedy starvation of everyone not willing to adopt cannibalism or who doesn’t already live on a farm. OK, so what if we phased out men over the course of 1 year, with men gradually dying out? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/32 "2017-07-11T20:34:15Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well a counter argument to that, which I think is somewhat reasonable to consider in the OP’s context, is that those women became leaders in that patriarchal context and either consciously chose or happened to be “man like” in their leadership traits in order to become national leaders. In a world without men, would female leaders still be inclined to flex muscle? I don’t see any particular reason why not. To use the analogy I introduced above: female business leaders today typically resemble male business leaders. The argument could of course be made that they came into their positions in a system created by patriarchal male society, and that they (consciously or not) modeled themselves after it - but I would suggest the better argument is that they resemble male leaders because the goals of success for business are measured by shareholder profits, and shareholders will always want profits - whether they are male or female - and leaders will always be rewarded for creating those profits - whether those leaders are male or female. That’s because, at the end of the day, men and women alike enjoy having stuff, so enjoy having money; and that’s what the whole system of business is about. Similarly with wars. Wars, I contend, are the creations of nations, inspired by all sorts of things such as ethnic conflicts etc., all of which would still exist if only women existed; women leaders who stepped into the shoes of vanished male leaders would simply inherit their problems, which will not go away simply because men vanished. The women leaders who arose would be selected exactly because they were the sort of ambitious, forceful and dynamic individuals suited to attacking such problems … and so one would expect wars to still happen, simply because nothing has really changed. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/33 "2017-07-11T20:36:36Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > OK, so what if we phased out men over the course of 1 year, with men gradually dying out? Well, if you want to look at the actual effects, I’d say that the reality would be almost certainly a collapse of society if the men actually died (all of them I mean) over the course of a year. Hell, society would collapse if half of the people in the world died over the course of a year, let alone all of one or the other sex. Think about both the emotional devastation as well as the economic and societal impact. If we are beyond the clean hypothetical of just removing all of the men by magic space bat fiat power and having the women be emotionally ok with that to the gritty reality, I’d say that there won’t be any ‘wars’, per se, fought initially, but there will be a whole bunch of violence and destruction. I also doubt that in any sort of realistic time frame women would magically put things back together enough to not only rebuild society and get things going again but solve all of the world’s problems AND save the species from extinction as well. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/34 "2017-07-11T20:41:21Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, if you want to look at the actual effects, I’d say that the reality would be almost certainly a collapse of society if the men actually died (all of them I mean) over the course of a year. They’d have a shot, if only so much stuff wasn’t sealed away in pickle jars. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/35 "2017-07-11T20:46:31Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, if you want to look at the actual effects, I’d say that the reality would be almost certainly a collapse of society if the men actually died (all of them I mean) over the course of a year. Hell, society would collapse if half of the people in the world died over the course of a year, let alone all of one or the other sex. Think about both the emotional devastation as well as the economic and societal impact. If we are beyond the clean hypothetical of just removing all of the men by magic space bat fiat power and having the women be emotionally ok with that to the gritty reality, I’d say that there won’t be any ‘wars’, per se, fought initially, but there will be a whole bunch of violence and destruction. I also doubt that in any sort of realistic time frame women would magically put things back together enough to not only rebuild society and get things going again but solve all of the world’s problems AND save the species from extinction as well. 😛 A complete side line, but it appears, from what few examples we have, that society can recover from a third of the population dying off (Europe, Black Death - mortality rate of one-third) but not from a mortality rate of 80-90% (North America, Smallpox and other diseases, Native Americans). Of course, those percentages may only be true for societies at their particular state of social evolution … but Poland (to use a more modern example) was able to recover after WW2, despite losing one-fifth of its population, and its cities (particularly Warsaw) reduced to rubble. It is an open question if modern society could recover after losing half. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/36 "2017-07-11T20:50:35Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t see any particular reason why not. > > To use the analogy I introduced above: female business leaders today typically resemble male business leaders. The argument could of course be made that they came into their positions in a system created by patriarchal male society, and that they (consciously or not) modeled themselves after it - but I would suggest the better argument is that they resemble male leaders because the goals of success for business are measured by shareholder profits, and shareholders will always want profits - whether they are male or female - and leaders will always be rewarded for creating those profits - whether those leaders are male or female. > > That’s because, at the end of the day, men and women alike enjoy having stuff, so enjoy having money; and that’s what the whole system of business is about. > > Similarly with wars. Wars, I contend, are the creations of nations, inspired by all sorts of things such as ethnic conflicts etc., all of which would still exist if only women existed; women leaders who stepped into the shoes of vanished male leaders would simply inherit their problems, which will not go away simply because men vanished. The women leaders who arose would be selected exactly because they were the sort of ambitious, forceful and dynamic individuals suited to attacking such problems … and so one would expect wars to still happen, simply because nothing has really changed. The reason “why not” is because you can’t assume that the goal marks created by the patriarchal society are all obvious/unavoidable and anyone would do the same, like you just did. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/37 "2017-07-11T20:56:56Z")
For example: > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, financial institutions and academics who have studied the respective investing habits of men and women do agree: Men are generally more confident about investing, while women are more goal-directed and trade less. [Male Investors vs. Female Investors](https://www.wsj.com/articles/male-investors-vs-female-investors-how-do-they-compare-1430709406) “How is this possible?”, you may ask, “they both just want to make money!” ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/38 "2017-07-11T21:01:16Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, if you want to look at the actual effects, I’d say that the reality would be almost certainly a collapse of society if the men actually died (all of them I mean) over the course of a year. Hell, society would collapse if half of the people in the world died over the course of a year, let alone all of one or the other sex. Think about both the emotional devastation as well as the economic and societal impact. If we are beyond the clean hypothetical of just removing all of the men by magic space bat fiat power and having the women be emotionally ok with that to the gritty reality, I’d say that there won’t be any ‘wars’, per se, fought initially, but there will be a whole bunch of violence and destruction. I also doubt that in any sort of realistic time frame women would magically put things back together enough to not only rebuild society and get things going again but solve all of the world’s problems AND save the species from extinction as well. 😛 OK, what about 5 years? How long does the phasing-out of men have to take place, for the women to have sufficient time to keep the society going stable and functional? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/39 "2017-07-11T21:12:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > A complete side line, but it appears, from what few examples we have, that society can recover from a third of the population dying off (Europe, Black Death - mortality rate of one-third) but not from a mortality rate of 80-90% (North America, Smallpox and other diseases, Native Americans). > > Of course, those percentages may only be true for societies at their particular state of social evolution … but Poland (to use a more modern example) was able to recover after WW2, despite losing one-fifth of its population, and its cities (particularly Warsaw) reduced to rubble. It is an open question if modern society could recover after losing half. Men make up the majority of people in the armed forces, police, fire and rescue, and so on. I think the impact of all of them dying (i.e. bodies in the street) would be catastrophic alone, let alone the emotional impact of every son, husband, father and grandfather dying in such a way. I suppose it’s possible that society could recover, but short term I think it would be completely devastating and the disconnect to society would be hard to even calculate. [QUOTE=Velocity] OK, what about 5 years? How long does the phasing-out of men have to take place, for the women to have sufficient time to keep the society going stable and functional? [/QUOTE] If you want society to basically be stable then posit that no new men would ever be born. Only women (for some space bat overlord or magic reason). Basically, society would come to terms with this and be able to work through the issues and you’d have a more gradual transition of the workforce as people got older and only women entered the workforce in the future until the last man finally died off. That would also give humanity time to get technology in the pipeline to allow only women to have kids in a massive, worldwide way (otherwise you are going to have a lot of issues with women no longer able to have kids because their countries are too poor to allow the technology to any but the richest…which would cause all sorts of violent issues right there). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008/40 "2017-07-11T21:16:38Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > For example: > [Male Investors vs. Female Investors](https://www.wsj.com/articles/male-investors-vs-female-investors-how-do-they-compare-1430709406) > > “How is this possible?”, you may ask, “they both just want to make money!” Of course individual investors are likely to be different, as they grew up in society that has socialized them to be different. However, two points: 1. The differences measured are pretty minor, at least according to your article. > [@](#): > > Women, for instance, are more likely than men to choose the target-date funds offered in employer-sponsored retirement accounts. Men tend to invest more in other options on the menu, including stock funds. Their overall stock exposure is about the same, on average, 74% for men and 73% for women in 2014, according to data from mutual-fund firm Vanguard Group. But target-date funds gradually reduce stockholdings as retirement approaches, something financial advisers generally recommend. > > Men also tend to trade more, which can be a disadvantage. In 2014, according to Vanguard, 11% of men made an exchange among mutual funds in their accounts, compared with 7% of women. By trading less often, women are less likely to trade at the wrong time, explains Jean Young, senior research analyst at Vanguard. 11% of men made an exchange among mutual funds in their accounts, compared with 7% of women!? Stop the presses! gender essentialism is a proven fact! 😃 1. More significantly - you missed the entire thrust of my argument about leadership: that leaders are, to an extent, selected for certain traits. Investors are not leaders: they are simply ordinary folks with money to invest. They are not selected for their ability to achieve certain goals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-only-world-are-there-wars-how-are-they-fought/791008.md?page=3)