There's way too much political correctness with regard to gender politics going on in this thread. I'm not supportive of the thesis offered in the OP, not because I think Dr. Neave is necessarily wrong, but because one of the features of human behaviour is that we're not slaves to biological imperatives. He's talking about biological imperatives, but unlike any other animal, humans can choose how we behave. But Dr. Neave might have some useful insights, we shouldn't dismiss him simply because we don't like some of his conclusions. He's quite right about some things, for instance. Men on average are physically larger and stronger than women. Fact of life. Pick any man and any woman and chances are you'll find the man has much greater upper body strength, even if the woman is quite a bit larger than he is. Fact of life. Women can get pregnant, bear babies, and nurse them, men can't. Fact of life. These things have causes, and consequences.
And consider this: in terms of simple reproduction, just perpetuating the species, one male could easily (and probably very happily) provide the necessary sperm for hundreds or thousands of pregnancies, so why isn't the male:female ratio 1:100, or 1:1000? Why is it almost exactly 1:1? There are evolutionary reasons for that, selection pressures that keep the sex ratio about even.
In this thread I've seen ad hominem attacks on Dr. Neaves, and many instances of the fallacy of composition. Not liking his conclusions doesn't mean he's wrong, nor does the fact that any particular woman doesn't behave as he suggests mean he's wrong. He's talking about statistical behaviour patterns, not the behaviour of particular individuals. Has it escaped your notice, for instance, that the makeup and fashion industries are directed almost entirely at women? You think that's an accident? It's not. Been to a formal do lately and noticed the difference in how men and women dress at such things? Compare a man's tuxedo to a woman's formal gown. The former pinches the waist and exaggerates the shoulders, accentuating particular male secondary sexual characteristics. It's an intimidation suit. The latter usually reveals a lot of skin and the exaggerates the size and shape of the woman's secondary sexual characteristics, mostly breasts. It's a costume that says I'm healthy and fertile. That's not an accident either.
In short, Dr. Neave's thesis is a good deal more subtle than many of you want to accept. He may or may not be right, but nobody yet has posted a scientifically sound reason for thinking he's not.