For #1, I imagine you'd see a city that's pretty much wrecked. Gender aside, anything that removes such a large portion of the population is going to cause a lot of strife. The city's economy and industry would take a pretty big, hit, I'd expect. Not to mention that, since the disease is only affecting half of the population, you're going to see family units being broken right down the middle, with all the heartbreak that entails. A lot of more specific consequences might depend on the culture at hand. How does it view women, and their place in society? A highly egalitarian culture will be struck differently than one with rigid gender roles, after all.
As for #2, I can think of a few. Obviously, any city without a female population is going to wither and die before too long. Taking out the women is a much more effective way of accomplishing this than taking out the man. In a pinch, after all, it's much easier to rebuild a population with a few men and a lot of women than the reverse. The fact that it targets a specific gender could indicate that whoever is causing it wants to specifically cause a certain degree/type of emotional anguish, as families are rent asunder and left to suffer rather than being felled together and left, well, dead. The goals could also depend on the above-mentioned societal stance on gender. Or, for a different approach, maybe the disease isn't targeted AT women, but is only affecting them because of something women in that society do/something men in that society do/don't do?