During all history, men have repressed women. Besides, at ancient times, as men being the more dominator than women, and remembering that at that time power was the most important thing in order to survive, it’s quite normal to realize and imagine how that happened.

Today we have economy and money to regulate actions, and high strong hierarchy at any place. Army for instance, is hierarchy all the time; it is so strong that it became law. Moreover, I wonder if women would have imagined a world like that.

If women would have imagined this world, do you think it would be the same as today?

I do not beleive it would be the same if women made the world. In some places it would be quite similar, but in many other places it would be quite different.
To start i would like to apologize if any women are offended by this, I am generallizing with my limited experience and knowledge of the subject, which means it doesn't neccisarily point you out (but maybe my exs).

Women tend to be better at serveral things that men are not, including comunicating, making friends, relationships, comprimising, and overall generally better than men in social situations. They however tend to lack higher logic, tend to be more emotional, tends to think more with said emotion, are easily aggitated in uncomfortable or confritational situations, and tend to display much more aggression and hostility than men do. All the things i listed above are accociated with emotion, the major driving factor behind the action of women. Like all humans, women are full of emotion, but unlike men, are not as readily able to bottle it up, as men are taught to do so from early ages of life.

To the point, the world would be different, and not better than it is today. Woman's ability to comunicate, negociate, and comprimise would cause several changes in the world, including more treaties, more international organizations (ie UN, Nato). The world would however still have war, hatred, genocide, terrorism, as these tend to be emotional reactions to slights. I also beleive they would be worse than it is. The woman is capable of more caring than the normally apathetic man, but emotion would make her dislikes more prevelant and her resolve to conflict much stronger, as women are much less forgiving. I will await comment prior to continuing.

authemis

men ... ... readily able to bottle it up, as men are taught to do so from early ages of life.

men do this to retain their pride and to express masculinity, strength and dominance. if women had dominated from the start, no doubt, the emotional characteristic would be the other way around.

authemis

Women tend to be better at serveral things that men are not, including comunicating, making friends, relationships, comprimising, and overall generally better than men in social situations. They however tend to lack higher logic, tend to be more emotional, tends to think more with said emotion, are easily aggitated in uncomfortable or confritational situations, and tend to display much more aggression and hostility than men do.

you are being stereotypical. the traits listed above vary from person to person, not by gender. I agree, in the past, there have indeed been more successful men than women, however, it must be taken into account that for many a century women have been limited to only housework and no education.
"Lacking higher logic" is nothing but a feeble excuse for men being better than women. There are plenty of women who can outdo any man in almost any field of study.

Something else i'd like to correct is that not ALL women are humble (something a friend once told me). but i believe they are more humble than men. Many women are able to give up their career and dedicate their lives to simply just living at home and raising children whereas not a lot of men are willing to do this. men seem to prefer to lead a life of material success. this isnt a trait of laziness and unwillingness to do more with life (although, for some perhaps), rather it may be the caring/motherly characteristic of a woman that kicks in.

ok... i think i've kinda contradicted myself a bit and have been a tad stereotypical myself...
in a perfect world, everyone, man or woman, is equal. of course, in reality, none of that exists... i guess that's just how its meant to be.

You can't speak about gender differences without that stereotypy. You have to associate certain features to both sides to be able to make a comparison. This is why these ideas are only applicable to a larger scale and in a homogeneous environment.

I believe we can agree that males have been running the world since long before we were born. As said, they are more logical, but they also hold the power of the body. Having this, males could cast out their emotions and follow the path to power. In their path, they could smash and maim everyone standing in their way without remorse. More logic means less feeling, less thoughts about those around you.
But what if women had the opportunity to seek their own path to perfection? As they are more emotional, I believe they would refrain from such acts or at least try to reduce the damage as much as possible. Maybe they would've loved the people around themselves instead of thinking about them as tools.

However, as much as I may prefer women to men, the idea that all humans are egotistical doesn't allow my optimism to speak any more. Under humans, humanity is decaying.

Well the world changes slightly every now and then, whenever a new governor, president, king, or whatever high powered position rises up, be the new riser a male or a female. So, I believe that the world would obviously be different from the one we're living in today.

The question is if the change would be convenient. Would there be less wars and fights than the ones we have today? Would crime be very rare to occur? Cause these are all power impulsed actions, be them for survival or competition.

I'm not saying the changes would only be positive. It could have surprised us and be actually worse than the things occurring now for all I know. But evidently, the world would be different, even if the difference were so little.