The woman's role is to apply resources to producing the best children she can. She has specialised on that task. She does not concern herself with acquiring resources, just applying them. In order to be this specialised she must convince others to provide the resources for her to spend. She does this primarily by convincing one man to fall in love with her. In this state he will happily give over all he can produce. Though in some contexts it might make more sense for her to depend upon several men or even other women. Though ideally she would have a primary provider and a few backup providers that will be happy to step in in case something happens to her man. Broadly speaking the female strategy for acquiring resources is to be liked.
This strategy has dominated for long enough to manifested itself into evolved traits. The most obvious of which is that human females have become extremely aesthetically pleasing. Which is rare amongst the animal kingdom and completely unique amongst mammals. In other species if there is any sexual dimorphism it will be the male becoming more impressive in order to market his superior genes. Human females are the only one's to use dimorphism to keep their partners interest rather than simply to borrow it.
Much more interesting though is the way woman have evolved psychologically to be more likeable. The primary way they do this is just by dedicating more of their brains to modelling social interactions. This comes at the cost of their ability to model the physical world which is why women find gossip more interesting than cars or other physical systems 1. Men can visualise each of the subsystems in a car effortlessly while for women it takes more deliberate effort. On the other hand women can visual social interactions effortlessly. So when a woman hears a small bit of gossip it instantly comes to life in her head without any conscious effort on her part. While the same bit of gossip to a man will tend to seem like trivia unless he forces himself to think about it. But the juice to squeeze ratio will always be worse for men so they will never enjoy gossiping as much as women do. Unfortunately, due to the Dunning Kruger affect we don't defer to members of the opposite sex often enough for the things they are better at.
Another evolved difference is increased righteousness in women. They tend not to self criticise as much as men. Which may seen like a maladaptation since nobody likes a know it all. But as politicians continue to demonstrate we dislike people who admit to wrongdoing even more than we dislike people who brag about being right. The optimal strategy here seems to be neither boastful of one's successes nor admit one's failures. It's a fine line but women seem to be very well adapted to walking it. I'll call this the line of minimal agency since walking it essentially means pretending your actions have no affect on the world. Neither good nor bad. Apparently us humans prefer it when everyone else is an NPC's 2.
Part of what makes it easy for women to walk this line is that they tend to lack the desire to brag about successes. And when they don't they learn to suppress it at a very young age. This is because another key psychological adaptation of women is to avoid standing out. They do this partly by actually being closer to average on most metrics 3. And the rest of it is done by down playing their successes as due to luck or some special privilege like an uncle that taught them something.
The other half of walking the line of minimal agency is avoiding taking responsibility for wrong doing. Evolution achieved this by making women fear being wrong. A relatively clean solution since it has no undesirable side affects on the other side of the line. However, fear is a very powerful emotion so is a bit overkill for the job at hand. As a result it can cause women to defend themselves even when they are caught red handed and continued defence does even more harm to their relationships than admitting wrong doing would 4.
This is why women are quite bad at picking good men despite in spite of a strong evolutionary incentive to be good at it. They can only see the social dynamics around men, they can't evaluate the men directly. This would be fine if they could view the men in their work environment since the social interactions in that context would reflect his competence. But in the modern context most women only get to see men in purely social contexts which generally have very different hierarchies to the workplace. Most high social competence men are terrible at production. In hunter gatherer times women would of seen men in a wider range of contexts which would of made it reasonable to judge them by social dynamics.
This is why protestantism and Judaism are my favourite religions. They encourage all their followers to embrace main character energy. And America, which was primarily protestant-ish, is proof positive of how much better it is for society when everyone feels comfortable in the role of main character.
On most metrics like IQ women fit within a steeper bell curve than men. This can be easily demonstrated to yourself by thinking of the dumbest and smartest person you know and noticing that both them are men. Then repeat this with all other metrics you can measure people on. Even on things that women are typically worse at than men you will find one man who is even worse and vice versa.
I think this is the root cause of what was known as hysteria. When women feel unsafe in their social group they experience constant fear and will formulate ever more insane interpretations of events in order to portray themselves as innocent victims. To a neutral bystander informed on the events in question the female will look like she has gone mad. And in a way she has though the solution is very simple. She just needs to be made to feel safe again and then never asked to reflect upon her prior insanity.