What difficulties would arise from a female only earth?

Question

What issues, if any, would there be if earth only had female occupancy?

(other than the obvious breeding issues that would need to be addressed)

Edit: men slowly died out due to a virus which prevented babies taking on the male gender.

Edit: this question is not about breeding, more so what difficulties would arise without men.

Answer 1

Since men died out slowly, the transition of women into typically male roles would go pretty smoothly. In human history during Wars, WWII is a good example, ladies stepped in very quickly to take over those roles. The difficulty developed when the men came back and the women were aware that they were capable of more than they were previously allowed. I don't know that there would be difficulties (aside from breeding) because people would adjust. There might be societal changes rather than "difficulties." That being said, there's a ton of difficulties to be milked when it comes to reproduction and many, many different directions you can go with it.

Answer 2

1: Heterosexual women will be in for a boring time. It's almost certain to cause a lot of social unrest and tension as the number of males dwindle. people can react badly to being unable to find a partner.

2: Most STD's will die out quickly since very few transmit well by female-female interactions.

3: There's going to be a lot more mental problems and trauma due to issue 1 and due to almost every family losing 50% of children to miscarriage or early death unless the solution to the breeding problem produces no doomed males.

Answer 3

While excluding the obvious reproductive issues. Most politicians and heads of state worldwide are male. Few countries have complete gender equality in the military and most of those who serve are male. The majority of corporate leaders are male. And most dangerous jobs are handled males.

The sudden loss of most males from the world's population would lead to a temporary time of Chaos. Many countries around the world may actually break down at least for a Time.

Eventually of course all these jobs would be taken over by women, but that might take years if not decades.

On the plus side so many dead people would mean more resources and land to be divided up among the survivors.

I suggest you check out y the last man alive comic as it deals with this subject.

Of courseif the loss of males is more gradual in society will have more time to adjust. There will still be a time of chaos as Society first tries to deny what's going on, and then begins to panic as the truth becomes unex capable. Finally people begin to accept and try adjusting to the new reality.

There also would still be an interlude as it would take time to train a large body of woman to take societal roles usually taking by men. (And a lot of women would probably thrust into positions that they aren't qualified for out of necessity) but because there is more time to make the adjustment worldwide Society is less like to completely collapse.

Answer 4

I feel like most of my points have been discussed already so I'll simplify them:

• since gender-based roles are societal constructs, 'male jobs' would be quickly taken as soon as the males are gone
• although there is a small biological aspect making females less aggressive, psychology trumps physicality with most human actions, and with the short period of anarchy (especially in countries where women are heavily oppressed and therefore uneducated) an the general competitive and sometimes destructive nature of humans as a whole, the world would definitely not be in piece.
• I will say that the (approximately) halving of the population would be amazing for the environment and resources, so humanity would no longer be doomed. so that's good
• as for reproduction, there are tests (granted, on mice) that have worked that use a chemical-based 'artificial sperm' to trick the ovum and allow asexual reproduction. And a more complex artificial sperm can be loaded up (for want of a better word) with anyone's DNA, male or female, so genetic diversity still stands.
• as stated before in one of my comments, there would be no need for 'forcing' the women to undergo this process, as many women want children, they enjoy the maternal relationship, and even if not, many would want to heighten the population. A benefit would most likely be employed for bearing children to encourage population increase (this has happened before). As for parental couples, heterosexual couples aren't the only variety on earth, and if you've ever seen an all girl's school you'd probably see that more women 'come out' when there is no male influence (and vise versa). I am not, mind you, implying that the entire female population would become homosexual, as you do not 'turn' gay, you are or you aren't, I'm saying that without the heterosexual populous dominating the statistics, 'closet lesbians' will no longer be so.

Answer 5

The main difference between males and females are upper body strength and general tendency of males being offensive and females being defensive (both has roots in evolution and biology not just psychology). So I would say it would probably be more peaceful world, with robots doing most of the heavy work. An interesting aspect might be forcing women to get genes from another to increase genetic diversity. Because it would be possible to "clone" someone in such a world.