"Can Single-Sex Education Make Women Less Risk-Averse?"

That was what one study argues. I've heard arguments as well - with one such source being the book Why Gender Matters - that sex-segregated education may also result in women becoming more interested in subjects like science and engineering later in life while simultaneously boosting boys' academic performance in general and also increasing their interest in subjects like english literature. One of the reasons for such an effect is not only the peer group within which some of these behaviours develop, but also at the earlier stages of life differences in the rates and orderings in which different parts of male and female brains develop.

All told, I'm happy to agree with most feminists that a lot of what constitutes "male" or "female" behaviour is socially constructed - I just tend to differ in both (a) what the limits on this are, and (b) how this plays out most effectively in society. That means it was a legitimate claim decades ago that schools might be teaching in ways in which girls found it difficult to learn. However, that also means that when the situation is reversed - as currently seems to be the case in many respects - that it's improper to conclude that we've reached the end of men.

What the above I'd argue should lead you to conclude is that there should be some notion of "separate but equal" and that a failure to acknowledge such distinctions is likely to produce a weaker society. Men aren't defective women, nor are women defective men:

Years ago, we got the notion in our heads that women had to become like men to be a success. So women all went on The Pill and that supposedly fixed ‘em right up. Except it didn’t if you know what I mean. It seems to have made things worse, if you ask me.

Now, somehow we’ve got it in our heads that boys have to be like girls. And guess what, we’ve got a pill for that too.

Have the changes that women have seen in the last few decades made them happier? The reverse seems to be the case.