In this study, we see evidence for precisely that, and the implications seem profound and generally unacknowledged.

High status males share more than their high status female counterparts with lower status same-sex collaborators. This can be seen at the academic level when publishing research and sharing the credit, and extends far beyond it. But what's quite interesting is that it's not a trait that we can directly blame women for, it's only a negative trait that becomes expressed once they acquire status and power over others. So the problem appears to be power itself and presumably it's corrupting influence on human psychology, not their sex/gender.

We know this is true because the study found no sex difference in sharing between low to low status collaborators. And before you go blaming the patriarchy for this phenomena, the same selfish bias is seen in non-human primates as well. So clearly this is some sort of evolutionary psychological phenomena. It's possible men in particular were forced to adapt to healthy management of hierarchical structures, and this imparted them a reproductive advantage over more oppressive high status individuals hoarding their inherent advantages over others.

Lets face facts folks, women have questionable judgment once granted power over others. Anecdotally, this has been obvious for a long time that female bosses tend to suck, powerful female politicians are highly disliked by both men and women (see Hillary Clinton and now Vice President Harris) and dating women of higher status is an inherently unstable arrangement (on average) compared to the reverse, and now we have the proof. How do I know this, because studies prove that as women outearn their husbands the risk of divorce drastically increases. Presumably women of high status begin to resent "carrying" someone else of lesser status.

While this study only dealt with same sex interactions, I'm sure it bleeds into male-female relationships as well based on other evidence I've seen. The higher status a woman achieves, the more her standards and demands go up for any sort of social interaction (romantic or otherwise). Men, however, are quite willing to 'date down' as they say and share resources with someone who is obviously beneath them, thus having a moderating effect on income inequality overall in society. If you're wondering why housing prices got so ridiculous, it's partially the increase in pair bonding of high to high status individuals that has accelerated in the last 50 years or so.

Generalizations like this are obviously not perfect, but they are useful. So before you decide to dazzle me with your personal anecdote about being a stay-at-home dad or working for a great female boss, please know that I will dismiss your anecdotal data as irrelevant.

Again, this is not because women are inherently bad or worse than men. This phenomena is an artifact of modern society's ample opportunities for women to excel economically despite their lesser physical strength, as such attributes are not as valued as they were for most of human history. Given this radical departure from historical norms, adverse and unintended consequences were bound to happen, as women possessing status and power is an inherently unnatural state of being that is maladaptive for healthy societal cooperation with a proven history of dramatic success over the long run.

So, no, we do not need more women as CEOs, politicians, and the like, to create a more harmonious and successful society. We need less. The wage gap is a good thing, the only problem is that it's not larger than it already is. Women's primary purpose has always been to reproduce and raise kids. Any significant deviation from this core principle is a mistake, and will inevitable lead to societal decline in the long run, perhaps even to the point of full scale collapse. I'm not saying women should never have careers, but it should always take a backseat to their family, raising the next generation, and supporting their husband's career.