There can be little doubt that, for over a million years, our ancient ancestors existed in a state of sexual equality.  This does not mean that males and females were the same.  Far from it : there was an increasing division of labour between the sexes and this division led to deep-seated, inborn differences.  There may have been a gender balance, but there was no gender blurring.
            In a hundred small ways some in anatomy, some in behavior males became more male and females became female. It is important to explore these differences in order to understand the perfect balance they can offer in an ideal human environment.  It is also important to investigate the ways in which this balance has been disturbed by modern  life.
            Before farming replaced hunting as the basic survival system  of our species, the balance of the sexes was safe enough. The men went off  to hunt and the women remained close to the tribal settlement. The men killed prey animals and returned home with the spoils. The women gathered vegetable food.  Their separate efforts combined neatly to provide the richly varied diet on which out ancestors not only survived, but thrived, multiplied and spread out to cover most of the globe.
            Then, about 10,000 years ago, the vegetable gathering was made more efficient by planting crops. This concentrated the food supply, but it also attracted many large herbivores such as wild pregnant cattle, sheep and goats, which became serious pests, devouring the crops and robbing the farmers of their new-found advantage.
            The answer was simple the animals attracted to the crops were trapped, penned in, killed and eaten.  Now there was no need to set off on the chase. The prey was coming in of its own accord. Even better, once trapped, these prey animals could be kept alive until another meal was required. The old 'feast and famine' pendulum swings of primeval hunting life became a fading  memory.
            Soon, vital new step was taken. Some of the trapped animals were pregnant and gave birth. It dawned on the early farmers that this could be exploited. What if they kept some of them alive and bred from them in captivity, only killing off the surplus? Domesticated livestock and animal husbandry had arrived.
            Now there was a food surplus and food security of a kind undreamed of by the primeval hunters of earlier times. Before long, food stores made it possible for small settlements to grow into large villages, villages to swell into market towns, and towns to spread into huge cities.  In a mere 10,000 years, the bright lights of modern civilization had emerged out of the darkness of primitive tribal existence. There had been no time  for human beings to evolve into a new species of urban animal. The city-dwellers, in their smart suits, fast cars and insulated dwellings, were biologically identical to the Stone Age people who painted hunting scenes on the walls of caves. They possessed the same anatomy and were driven by the same urges. Only their lifestyles had changed. And what a dramatic change it was.
            In the past, women had been at the heart of social life, while the men were largely out on the periphery in the hunting grounds. Now the tables had been turned. Urban life unfairly favored the males. Their new, symbolic hunting took place in the city center while the females were confined  to breeding dormitories in the suburbs. They were no longer at the heart of society, but on its fringes. Eventually, in modern times, they rebelled against this unnatural bias, attempting to regain their ancient, natural sexual equality in a new way.  If urban life favored the males and made them the dominant sex in life , then the females would join them. If the male work ethic was so rewarding, they would have it too. Their brains were as good as those of the males, so all that was necessary was to overcome the masculine prejudices that suffused modern culture.
            In some parts of the world the females succeeded, but not without cost. In other parts they failed and remain unfairly exploited and suppressed to this day. Even in those regions where they did succeed, their campaigns led them to an uncomfortable victory. Instead of regaining their original, natural form of equality based on a balanced division of labour, they struggled toward a pseudo-male position, attempting to compete with males rather than succeed on their own, female terms.
            This, in a nutshell, is the story of The Human Sexes. In the male and female chapter explores the biological differences between the sexes and asks: just how different are men and women in their anatomy, their physiology, their senses and their brains? In the
language of sexes chapter takes a close look at the many ways in which different human cultures have varied these biological differences, exaggerating some features and suppressing others, to create the rich variety of human gender signals that we see today. In the patterns of love chapter examines the different human mateship systems that exist and asks questions about the primary monogamy of our species and its relation to polygamy, promiscuity, prostitution , celibacy, homosexuality and solitary sex. In the passages of life chapter deals with the gender aspects of the typical human rites of passage,  from birth  to death. In the maternal dilemma chapter takes a hard look at the maternal dilemma how the modern human female can manage to find mental fulfillment while at the same time obeying her powerful material urges; a balance that was simple enough to achieve in primeval times, but is increasingly  difficult in today's urban environment.  In the gender wars chapter, the controversial subject of the gender wars is confronted.  What is happening to the relationship between the sexes today?  And will the primeval harmony between the sexes be fully regained?
            Throughout the book, every attempt is made to remain objective. This is not easy because. Since I am male, there could easily be a tendency for me to favor the female in order to avoid accusations of masculine bias. Currying favor in this way a fault of several recent male authors is almost as offensive and irritating as the old-style 'male supremacy' approach. The plain fact is that human females are superior to males in some respects and inferior in others. Taken together, this gives a primeval sexual equality based on mutual aid, with the male specialties combining with the female specialties to create an efficient survival team.  Any attempts to ignore this arrangement and to suggest that the sexes are identical in most respects, or that one sex is in general better than the other, have to be scrupulously avoided if the scientific truth about our species is to be told. I am aware that some of my remarks will offend one extremist campaigning group or another, but that is something I can live with it, in the process, I can illuminate the true nature of the human sexes.