Really? Just straight to "micro-tyrannies"? I'm just going to throw this out that this is an unscientific claim, and it's a matter of opinion.
I think it's sensationalist gun-jumping, and does not take into consideration the actual economics at play (at least in the U.S.). Nor does it take us hackers as a serious economic force into consideration.
I don't have anything constructive to respond with in terms of "where women would fit in" given than your claim amounts to a biased post-apocalyptic scenario to begin with. (Also unscientific.)
Your abstractions I do not think are doing the work you want them to. The U.S. isn't some "macro-government" that can be thrown into the pot of all other "macro-governments." It's the U.S., and it's considerably unprecedented.
When Jeri Ellsworth left Valve, she said there is a de facto hierarchy in Valve even though they claim to be "flat". Plenty of discussion about the effect from when that happened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6015182
You should look further than the USA for examples. "Power vacuums" attract people who want power. When a warlard gets killed in an area with no effective government, another one steps in.
There's an interesting corollary to this, which is that organized crime is often better than the alternative. Locking up Pablo Escobar didn't cause his cartel to just go away, it caused his cartel to disintegrate into warring factions which led to even more crime and violence. Drug lords and mob bosses tend to keep that stuff under control because it's bad for business.
It's not just that, either: it's that single people can be reasoned with, but large numbers of people can't be. If you have a mob boss, you can make a deal with him and he'll enforce it on his side for you, but if there are a hundred random guys, you have to make a deal with all of them.
Democracy very quickly makes plain the scope of this challenge, and it's why it works with so much less effort on small scales.
That Urban Archipelago is interesting in the way it's a sign of the times - from 10 years ago. After Bush got elected, the "blue" folks felt besieged, and there was talk of a republican government forcing its backwards ways on the world. The republicans controlled both houses and the presidency.
Times are quite a bit different now; republicans control only the house, although the Tea party has radicalized them. I still don't know what that has to do with anarchy, though.
The mere idea of anarchy is itself inherently sensationalist - it's something that wouldn't happen without an apocalypse. It's also something that we can never evaluate "Scientifically" - we're not going to just disband a government and see what happens in the aftermath.
I think it's sensationalist gun-jumping, and does not take into consideration the actual economics at play (at least in the U.S.). Nor does it take us hackers as a serious economic force into consideration.
1. The Urban Archipelago: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813
Nor does it take into consideration that the political compass is vastly more complicated than is popularized in the mainstream political theatre.
2. http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm
I don't have anything constructive to respond with in terms of "where women would fit in" given than your claim amounts to a biased post-apocalyptic scenario to begin with. (Also unscientific.)
Your abstractions I do not think are doing the work you want them to. The U.S. isn't some "macro-government" that can be thrown into the pot of all other "macro-governments." It's the U.S., and it's considerably unprecedented.