If the world was run by women, our civilization would reach stagnation.

Okay, first of all, I accept the fact that women can be good leaders. History has shown that female leaders can politically and militarily lead and lead well such as Margret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, Elizabeth and Joan of Arc. However, as you can see, historically, there were few of them, and this could lead to slow progress in civilization, that could almost lead to stagnation. I will try explain why there are so few of them in leading roles and what prevents them from competing well with men or competing in general. Life is about the survival of the fittest. Any environment will always consist scarce resources which would encourage competition. Men have three things that women lack. One is testosterone, second is higher comfort in taking risky decisions and third is strategic planning. All that is supported by research, men have higher testosterone than women (1:20 ratio of difference if I remember right). Studies showed that women are risk averse, they would only make a decision if they are somewhere around 90% sure they are right. That can be problematic in decisions that require high risk. About strategic planning, men are better at spatial perception, which means seeing a better overview of what is happening instead of focusing on the small things. Thats partially why there are more men who are pilots and military generals than women. Another point, but which is more marginal, is group cohesion. It is true that a society that is lead by men is more likely to start wars, and because of that lose resources. But if a war is calculated and timed right, it can greatly benefit a society. Look at countries like Israel and America who rose out of war, including many empires like the Roman empire. Anyone who played strategic games like Civilization or one of paradox games titles, knows that there is a point in the game when it is simply profitable to conquer the other civilization ;) If the whole world is civilized and the international economics are clearly perceived, there may be no need to start wars. In that case, diplomacy may actually benefit female leaders.. but it is still unclear about how they would go about different policies to protect them militarily and keep potential invaders at bay. But lets assume that women can group themselves and choose a leader and be bad at planning but good at competing relative to other groups. But still because of the physiological differences between men and women the growth is expected to be lower than if the world had men in them. If economies in the world would have been run by women, they would shrink. Simply because women can do fewer things than a man can. That can also involve jobs that require physical strength such as construction. If we dont speculate on basis of psychological differences that exist between the genders, but look at the state of things today, you will see, how everything may very well reach stagnation. What assisted making todays modern female leaders great has been education. Higher education and education which is scientific. Scientific education such as engineering, physics and chemistry have shown to close the gap between the gender differences that existed between men and women according to a BBC study. Thatcher and Merkel had both Phds in Chemical engineering. However, if you look at any math related scientific department at any university across the world, you would see that there are very few women inside. I dont know why women dont pursue more math related degrees.. But without advances in maths, chemistry, physics and enginnering the world would plummet to a stagnation in scientific progress. If men were to disappear today, would women be able replace men as scientists? history has shown that there were very few female scientists who lead to breakthroughs. And after all, till this point men have proven until this point in time to be the best gender in science and engineering.