Nothing's specifically wrong with the mutual behaviours of the sexes when left to their own means and nature plays itself out unimpeded as it has done for millenia.
Things start to go wrong when such and such group begin to assert themselves to be oppresssed by nature and as such are entitled to have it both ways.
For example:
1.
In exchange of resources and material security for sexual and reproductive access, males and females got together in mutual trade offs. Nowadays males are held out and portrayed to be evil for their part in this equation because it implicitly binds the woman against her natural sexual liberty and economic rights to freedom. What femaleist genderists never mention is the way men are also sexually and economically bound by the same equation. And they want to keep men inexorably bound by their previous part of the human equation.
2.
In exchange of the agreement to be mutually bound by familial deed, males and females have been procreating children in health and safety for millenia. Nowadays males are held out and portrayed as oppressors for daring to want to remain in the family as overseers until their children are of majority and have outgrown the need for protection. What femaleist genderists never mention is the absolutely critical need of children for their fathers protection and oversight, against strangers, intruders and even the mother herself.
3.
In exchange for mutual care and assistance to each other, males and females have been happily growing old and happily dying, one after the other in their 80s and even 90s. Nowadays femaleist genderists wish to portray males as not as deserving of their benefit arising from this well established human equation. Hence women are held to be entitled to withdraw their part of this mutual caring equation, whilst the man continues by force, to provide his part. For example the mans home and pension is held to be communal property of which the woman is entitled to half.
4.
Even young women are nowadays groomed to view themselves as owners of sex, which is only to be given or withdrawn on their own one-ided terms. But cultural bigots and femaleist genderists hypocritically deny the very existence of the other side of this sexual equation. That is that to young fdemales, young males whatever their material worth have just as much, if not more allure, sexual currency and sexual potency to be given or withdrawn on their own terms.
So you see Galt, it is not that one genders' side of the human equation is naturally bad or good, naturally more lascivious or less, naturally more grasping or less. No. It is that the underlying social model adopted is glaringly biased, hypocritical and damaging because of its one-sidedness.