> We immediately doubled our species intellectual output and achievements by harnessing the abilities of both men and women rather than just men.
We're not harnessing those women's biological potential, though, to produce large numbers of high-quality children, who can be the workforce of the future. Nor are the few kids those women have getting the motherly attention they could if their mom stayed home with them.
> If it's advancement for the species we want then we should choose hierarchy by intellect and if we did that we could very well find ourselves in a matriarchy or at least a swing backwards and forwards.
Women are clustered more toward the center of the bell curve when it comes to ability; there are fewer women on the tails of extremely high or low ability. So it would be unlikely to see a lot of women in top leadership positions. Even if women were promoted by affirmative action once an organization became mature, the founders of new organizations would still tend to be men because there's no affirmative action for the position of founder. Men have more time to play around with ideas that may or may not pay off, because they don't have to worry so much about a biological clock; they don't have eggs that are going to expire so quickly.
The suicide rate has been rising faster among women than among men. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-04-08/us-suicide-rate-climbed-35-37-in-two-decades
Perhaps as women take on more male responsibilities, they find they're also taking on a lot of the same psychological burdens as men, and some crack under the strain. It could also be that they find life less meaningful as a lot of them end up childless and therefore don't have anyone who depends on them and will be left in the lurch if they died; without responsibilities, they feel freer to shuffle off this mortal coil. Can a change be considered positive if it makes people feel like their lives are less meaningful?
Women are nearly twice as likely as men to be on antidepressants. https://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20170815/us-antidepressant-use-jumps-65-percent-in-15-years
So, maybe they're more sensitive to the stress, or maybe they're just not that well-suited to their new role as men's equals. The home should be less stressful than the workplace, because you don't have to put on your work clothes, sit in traffic and worry about being late, and then have to sit in an open office being watched by everyone; you can just relax with your kids in your pajamas.
If equal rights benefit women, it should have been them happier; instead, it's correlated with their level of happiness dropping. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/13/20959863/women-happy-chores-gender-gap
> Back to the question itself, if it was just two people then there wouldn't be enough genetic diversity to save the species anyway so we might as well just dance and enjoy the swansong of the last days of humankind.
I think it would be awesome to be the patriarch of the new human race; with everyone as your descendants, all of society would feel like a tighter-knit human family. They would have more homogeneity and therefore more affinity with one another. Inbreeding is underrated.
• ( https link ) Outbreeding depression