I wonder if part of the gender sensitivity is that we find it easy to find examples of motivations in both genders, meaning that they are simply universal traits. That leaves the only non-universal trait being the ability to gestate new life forms within one's own body, and whatever motivations that involves. So if "generic human" is [A], then the human who can gestate has [A] + [B] traits/motivations to rely on. And that, in comparison, means that men are just sub-standard versions of women, in a sense. Genetically speaking, that's sort of right. Humans are a combination of genes from parents PLUS mitochondrial genetic code that ONLY comes from the egg. The human with eggs is a more influential contributor to the continuation of the species.

And complicating it even more is the troublesome "extreme male" male theory of autism. Which lends influence to the stereotype of males as egotistical, self-centered jerks. :D

And complicating it even more is the idea of "progression" toward a peak of fitness, which is absolutely not an evolutionary thing that happens. Environmental demands will change, and species capable of adapting will survive and change, while species incapable of adapting will die out. That's not progress, that's just change over time. We can choose to become a more violent species or a less violent species by our mating practices. (Evolution gave us possum, armadillo, and porcupines, so there are lots of effective solutions to a violent world.) Again, that's not progress, just adaption to changing needs. As humans with foresight, we can choose what traits/behaviors we think will be beneficial into the future. It's hard to see how aggression would be a trait needing more expression in a world with increasing population density. ("Swinging a stick" angrily in an empty meadow versus a busy sidewalk, for example.)

So... I have lots of thoughts on this topic. All of them badly organized. :)