This is only from a simplistic evolutionary perspective, and doesn't mean that all women behave selfishly nor all men behave altruistically. Both can behave either way some of the times.

Rereading the book The Selfish Gene, I came across these two terms and wonder how they can apply to how humans have evolved. I believe we wouldn't be where we are today if women were not wired to behave more "selfishly" and men to behave "altruistically". Since women are the more important sex in our species ability to pass on our genetic material, they needed to behave selfishly by ways of seeking out security and doing whatever it takes to keep their offsprings safe. Men were the less important sex in our evolutionary timeline since after giving the women his seed, they were then expendable. They were therefore designed to give up their life to look for food, provide security for the family unit, and also if necessary to fight to the death when there was any threat to the female.

If you look at male and female characteristics, you wouldn't have wanted it any other way in order for humans to thrive and prosper in the harsh environment of ancient times.

If what I postulate is true, then our red pill only have to come from looking at evolution. It shows us what is rather than what we want it to be. Females will continue to be "selfish" and men will continue to be "altruistic".

I believe that men's tendency for altruism has allowed civilization to advance to the degree it has. I do not believe a female run civilization will ever be great. It's too Darwinian in nature, where it is based upon selfish and impersonal relationships between people, communities, and the sexes, and the individuals will only look out for themselves and their offsprings. There will be less sharing of knowledge, resources, and labor, so in time society will crumble.