A society full of women would still have war. Men and women experience the same intensity of anger, yet express it differently, with women striving to ruin reputations and men settling things with violence. However, no matter how such anger is expressed it is still nonetheless, expressed. A world full of women would presumably experience more ideological wars, with women tending to settle disputes in a non- aggressive manner. A study by the University of Chicago examining 198 monarchs from 1480 to 1913 and discovered polities run by Queens were more likely to participate in interstate conflicts.[1] Demonstrating that women may be perceived as more timid and more peaceful than they really are. It has been argued that women are acting as aggressive as men with the increasing gender equality in the present day. A recent study demonstrates in 1957 men were responsible for 11 violent offenses for everyone committed by a woman. [2] In modernity, it is 4 male charges to every 1 female charge. Therefore, if all men suddenly left the earth today, women would be likely to wage war as we are being socialised to ignore gender norms (like women should act ‘ladylike’ and not act aggressively), in turn making the modern woman as likely to wage war as a male. A great example which counters this opinion is Queen Elizabeth the First. Throughout her reign she waged war with Spain for 18 years (and won) and fought wars within England (such as the Desmond Rebellion). Her fierce independence in a time when women were seen as having a lower status to men demonstrates how women are not always as agreeable as stereotypes portray them to be and are able to take action against those who threaten them. References [1] https://qz.com/1115269/would-the-world-be-more-peaceful-if-there-were-more-women-leaders/ [2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3789957/Why-modern-women-aggressive-s-called-dark-equality-surge-respectable-women-flying-violent-rages-trivial-reasons.html

In life, both men and women argue, fight and go to war, both between members of the same sex and the opposite sex. Margaret Thatcher, for example, was a female British Prime minister who went to war in 1982 against the Argentinian military junta who had set up camp in the Falkland Islands - an overseas British colony. After 74 days, the British won, and this political victory put Thatcher back in favour with many British people, at a time when she was becoming unpopular (1). I do not believe that if the Argentinian military junta was run by women, this war would have been avoided as women can also be territorial, as is proved by Thatcher herself in this instance. Therefore, I think even in a world of all women, between different global areas and governing bodies (which will have different geographical, historical and social problems to prioritize) political leaders will still fight and disagree with each other. Women as leaders could still become power hungry, and would still be susceptible to the ideological polarization that occurs in our current world, which can lead to war. Therefore, I believe even in a world with only women, war would still occur. 1. https://www.history.com/news/margaret-thatcher-falklands-war

Every mostly female organization I've ever been to has been a hotbed of work gossip, politics, and sometimes violence. If anything, there would be more war.

I posit there would be fewer open wars, and a lot more assassinations.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA, that's bollocks. Has there been a matriarchal society in history that hasn't been at war at some point or other? Historically, female rulers are more likely to declare war than male rulers.

In the modern world, nations seldom declare formal war anymore; for better or for worse. I could envision a comedy sketch of an all-female world where world-leaders are passive-aggressively bombing eachother and poisoning eachother's water supply's while offering sympathetic lip-service apologies.