I think that there _could_ be a significantly different society, at first glance, whether it'd be an all female or all male society. But! When looking a little deeper I guess there you would see more similarities with the existing society now.

I don't think that in the long run there would be much difference, based on fundamental basic needs for all humans, regardless of there gender. We all have a male and female side within us, although many might vehemently object, but we women don't differ too much from men. We are capable of violence just as much as men, and men do have a significant caring nurturing side to them. To name just two of the more obvious assumed differences between the two.

On another note. Have you read the serial Sappho from Aardvark? It's a beautiful story about a male landing in a female-only society, where he must cope with what you might call an aftermath of genderwar. Although maybe a self chosen exile for a female-only society and severing all ties with their ancestors isn't wholly the same as a war.
But Aardvark comes with a very nice original view, and solution, on what could be seen as a flaw in a one-gender society, and is essentially leaning on the basis of the adage of 'we are all a little male and female in ourselves'. Some a little more this, others a little more so. If you haven't read it yet, do so. It's a wonderful story. I like it better than Warrior from Batuk.

And another source of information, or basis of experience, if you will, can be the penitentiary system. Look at the -inside of- men and women prisons and try to determine the lay of the land in these societies. As I've read and heard of these institutions there are exponents of contra-gender behaviour in these one-gendered societies who, because they seem to fulfill a basic human need apparently, which keeps them -reasonably- safe. And no, I don't mean the pure obvious sexual need alone, while it _is_ there, there is more to it than just that.

Just some thoughts.

Jo-Anne

...on the subject: The Disappearance, by Philip Wylie. (I was hoping it had showed up online, but Google says there's no ebook version.) Briefly, an unexplained event splits Earth into two worldlines, one with only men and one with only women.

Haven't read it in about 30 years, but based on my memory:

Given the Cold War and postwar conformist behavior, you can probably guess where this goes: at the climax, the men of the US and USSR are about to start a nuclear war while the women of the two countries exchange delegations and try to find a cooperative future, since Soviet women have more industrial skills and the Western standard of living is so much higher. (One scene shows the awe of the Soviet group on touring a normal working-class house in the U.S., electric kitchen and all, "and they were about to get a television set!".)

The men have started various crash projects in hopes of making reproduction possible. They're frantically following up every rumor of one woman surviving in some isolated third-world country. Morphine and other controlled medical substances are quietly being distributed to "responsible citizens" so that they'll be able to help when everything collapses, whether it's war or other causes.

The anticommunist witch-hunt has reached epic proportions, on the two countries' assumption that something like this could only have been caused by the other side. Everyone wears American Flag lapel buttons reading "110% American" in public to avoid the risk of being ostracized or worse.

The day after the event, professional female impersonators are beckoning people in with an almost contemptuous "we're all you've got left", but as time goes on, a small percentage of men take on the role of "b-girls" (usually traveling in groups, presumably for their own safety), dressing and behaving as women and apparently feeling the need to provide the country with some of what's been lost emotionally. It's just a two-paragraph digression with no impact on the plot; the author notes that some of those who have chosen this life are ones that one never would have expected.)

The women are starting reproductive projects too, but IIRC aren't quite as urgent about it; after all, they can still get pregnant if they can synthesize sperm or an equivalent. Their instinct, as noted before, is to cooperate, with enough empathy for those who no longer fit in to allow them to save face as they're set aside. (The First Lady is the acting president; can't recall if any female politicians turn up, though she has many knowledgeable advisors from in and out of government circles.)

On both sides of the divide, estranged families reunite, seeking strength in each other.

The story ends with the two worlds reunited in the same unexplained way that they separated, with humanity having learned that men and women both provide something essential to society on more than the reproductive level.

That said, I don't recall any clear indication that the women couldn't have made it work, though I may have forgotten over time and there are certainly nuances that I could have missed. (I've omitted just about all the interpersonal story events as irrelevant to your question, but truth is that I probably read the story mostly for the background.) The primary women in the cast, as I recall, showed great relief in having the men they loved back in their lives, and felt good (or at least claimed to) that they no longer needed to make leadership decisions, but I think they had an improved sense of their abilities and self-worth. (Sort of weird, since this was published just six years or so after Rosie the Riveter, that such lessons had been forgotten in 50s America, but from what I've read elsewhere, that seems to have been the case.)

Eric