Read Sociobiology by E. O. Wilson.

The differences originate with different reproductive potential... a bit older than humans. The mammalian pattern is that males have a higher reproductive potential so it is better for them to take risks and compete for females. Women don't have incentive for risk and take a more quality strategy competing for the best genes using beauty and coyness.

Really, if you want to put anthropology on it, about 3 million years ago, the time of Lucy, when we started walking primarily, the brain evolved and grew rapidly because we needed cooperation and communication to survive in an environment we were not adapted to. Then about 70,000 years ago the "brain re-organized" and humans became far more efficient, not just adapted to the ecology, but dominant. Then we could start back on the usual strategy of Mother nature, famous as "red of tooth and claw", based on dominance, male competition and killing each other again. This probably peaked with the Romans as everyone got so absolutely sick of it and developed philosophies to not just cope with it (Stoicism and Buddhism) but also how to prevent it.

Now we have two primary instincts, the common blind competition of nature and cooperation. You can find both of them in yourself and others... as well as in institutions and even nations. That is where I work. Describing strategies that will serve cooperation, because that is the only way humans will be more than animals.

Oh yeah, women will be the ones that get to decide what the future will be and it will only be a good one if they choose love. Men will follow.