Do you think estrogen or testosterone has any effect on people’s nature?
Uh, why not? A society that is composed only of women because men have all disappeared or died out would have exactly the same " goal marks created by the patriarchal society", because it would have exactly the same history and institutional memory as ours, because it would be ours - only, no men.
It would be no different, really, from a society transitioned out of patriarchy - which ours is, very arguably, in the process of doing. Without, it may be added, any evidence whatsoever that the goals of nations (or businesses) have changed one iota.
I did not ignore that. You’re simply forgetting that investors drive business leadership and still attached to the idea that there’s only one way for a business to be successful and profitable.
At a level of individual fights between two people, women fight less often, but when they do, it’s typically more brutal. There are some things that men are reluctant to do in a fight, but for which women won’t hesitate.
Would this same tendency scale up to wars? I don’t know.
I do, although it is important to comprehend that we only see those effects in a social context. We see how additional testosterone or estrogen affects someone against the backdrop of other factors; we see how certain differences manifest against that backdrop.
In general, males and females differ (behaviorally and in terms of personality characteristics etc) as populations but there’s more difference within each population than on average between the two populations, and there’s a whole lot of overlap between the two populations.
Exaggerations (and polarizations) of the observed difference often results in notions like “men are warlike and aggressive so a world of all women would be peaceful and cooperative”. Those notions do not serve us well.
Yeah, exactly.
A good portion of what is inside of people’s heads is not due to their nature as individuals but to the nature of the society of which they are a part. Most of our perspectives and opinions are really the species itself doing long-range cogitations which are reflected locally inside our heads.
No, I said that the goal of businesses was to be profitable. Where did I say that there was only one way to do that?
Naturally, business leaders will tend to resemble each other, though there will, obviously, be a wide range in variation as to how they achieve their goals.
Actually looking at leadership in business, what surveys find is that women leaders tend to score better in every category than male leaders:
(once again, it is worth pointing out that the differences are pretty minor)
Why? Because women are just plain better leaders in every way? If so, we ought to replace men with women!
No, it is because women have (and continue to believe that they have) faced discrimination - so those who become leaders have to be better at everything, or they don’t rise to the top. Pure self-selection. If women did not face discrimination, then one can presume, they would be … more or less the same.
I never said that female investors are better in every way, nor implied that female business leaders are better in every way. The article I quoted was taking about them being more cautious basically. The point is they are, generally speaking, different than male investors. Which is why your assumption of samenesss seems, at this point, unsupported.
I was going to say I agree, but thinking about it a bit further I’d say…it depends. It’s going to depend on how traumatized society would be if all the men died, and it’s also going to depend on what changes need to be made for the survival of the species in the aftermath. If, somehow, you took away all the men (no bodies) and somehow made the transition completely clean and painless for the women, and somehow transitioned them into all of the vacancies opened by all the men being gone, then what you say is true…after all, a woman from America is American, a women from China is Chinese, and a woman from France is French. But toss in all of the implications of the OP and I don’t think it’s nearly as clear cut as to how things would spin out. Personally, I think it would be an extinction level event, since even though you COULD have women propagate with only women I don’t think that enough societal structure or technology would remain to have it work on a scale where enough women would be able to breed new children to make it more than another couple generations, tops.
So, whether there would be wars or not would be moot.
XT, while legalistically you’re playing along, I am rather confident you’re fighting the intended hypothetical. The OP is clearly wondering about a society of women not the aftermath of a 50% extinction event.
Yeah, true. I’m more interested in the implications but don’t want to derail the thread with my musings, so I’ll bow out. 
But women, like men, are more likely to using violence (of any variety, not just blows) on those they know to be weaker than on those they know to be stronger or as strong. After 12 or so we tend to be on the smaller side of any large-enough population, so we’re less likely to be throwing our weight around… we realize it’s not the biggest weight.
Being a bully does not equal being dumb enough to take on someone bigger than you. But if you’re the bigger one, the smaller ones don’t have anybody who’ll help them, and you happen to be a bully, what you happen to have between your legs is irrelevant.
This is the point where some may be upset with gender differences so I’ll start out with animals.
For example in the insect world, it’s the females who often fight. The males in many cases are smaller, or in the case of social insects like Ants, Bees or Termites do zero fighting and little besides reproduction.
If we shift toward primates, they are all dominated by males. The males make the decisions and do almost all of the fighting.
Moving toward human females they can start wars ( Queens have in past history ) but are seldom seen fighting in them. I’d estimate 99% of all military inventions were by men. Women were just not equipped for the physical labors of war, but today that means a lot less as the equipment and machinery are very different. But what has not changed is female jealousy, emotional anger, and such among their own sex, which was probably an important part of our evolution long ago.
There are one or two people I really don;t like, that I sometimes have to be in the same room with. Women if they really don;t like someone can’t seem to do this, especially if the other person is another women. If there were only women and this still existed, I think you have the same problem of war, but different reasons for them started
Bonobos, the closest genetic relative to humans, are a matriarchal society.
And I, in turn, never claimed you said that!
I pointed out a survey of business leaders that found that, of the leaders surveyed, the female leaders were basically better in every category. Including in those categories ‘traditionally’ designated as ‘males are better at this’.
What is the significance of this in this debate?
Simply this: that claims of gender essentialism and generalities relating to women as a whole don’t have any real-world predictive value at all, when it comes to the abilities of women leaders.
Why?
Because women leaders are selected for certain leadership traits. In cases where they face a certain amount of discrimination, they are as it were over selected - that is, a female leader has to be better than a male leader to achieve the same level of success as a male leader!
It may well be true that women as a whole have certain stereotypical traits - as a whole and on average. It may not be true.
Whether it is true of not doesn’t really matter, because even if true, they are simply differences on average, with a great deal of individual variation - and women who become leaders aren’t the “average woman”, they are women selected for leadership!
Not sure how much more plain I can make the point.
See above. It doesn’t matter if women are “the same” or not on average. That’s why a survey of investors, meaning of the average person with money to invest, tells one exactly nothing about how women would behave in leadership roles.
Not to junior-mod, but the investment discussion takes us far from the thread topic.
Well it is a way of examining the gender differences in risk/reward decisions which I would think is useful to guess how war-like a woman only society might be. But I’ll drop it anyway.
Are there wars? Yes.
How are they fought? Big-ass weapons.
While I realize the last answer was tongue-in-cheek, I cannot recall any instance of a girl-on-girl fight in a school involving weapons.
I wonder if, rather than nation vs. nation wars in the Women World (i.e., Israel vs. Iran,) that instead we’d see numerous tiny civil wars within countries, of clique vs clique, political faction vs. political faction. None fought on a level greater than the weaponry available to a Crips or Bloods type of faction. Perhaps a lot more infiltration, sabotage, surreptitious action than male open-air warfare.
Maybe an answer could be inferred from studying isolated, female-only populations in history? There probably aren’t many, but I wonder if any records exist to see how females got along in isolation. Prisons aren’t a good example, since this association is by force, but maybe there are voluntary groups.
I can only come up with one example of this, Avenger Field in Sweetwater Texas. For several years in the 1940s, it was home to the largest all-female military base in US history (maybe in the history of the world). It seems like there would be records of day-to-day life there and maybe these have some insight into how all-female populations interact.
Quote from the Wiki article:
*Avenger Field was the largest all-female air base in American history.
…in February 1943 Avenger Field became an all-female installation except for a few male instructors and other officers.*
I thought of this because I recently went to the museum there. The workers/curators told me that with few exceptions, males were quite literally forbidden from entering the grounds. So for a few years they existed as an entirely female population.