This book is concerned with explaining variation in the status of women. The author, after measuring over 50 aspects of status, first concludes that status is not a unitary concept. Therefore the author looks at 10 different domains of status. Many traditional explanations are not supported; most support is found for the influence of social complexity which generally lowers female status.

This book discusses the role of women cross-culturally. The authors use a cross-cultural sample to examine the differences between men and women in contribution to subsistence as well as the social juxtaposition of the sexes in foraging, horticultural, agricultural, pastoral, and industrial societies.

The effect of female status on women's mate preference in a sample of nonindustrial societies is examined.

This article builds upon gender inequality theory to examine childhood gender inequality in preindustrial societies. Multivariate and cluster analysis are used.

This article focuses on ecological correlates of sexual division in the control of resources. The author tests several ecological theories put forth by others. Sex coalitions are examined in humans, and sexual dimorphism in resource acquisition and control is discussed.

This study uses logistic regression to test the relationship between homosexuality and ecological and psychosocial variables. Significant associations were found between the frequency of homosexuality and type of agriculture, the occurrence of gathering, and psychosocial stressors in women's lives.

This article offers a critique of Stover and Hope (1984). Gray challenges their findings and suggests that a third variable, sovereign groups, explains the correlation between monotheism and gender status.

Considers the effect of data quality and gender of ethnographer on the relationship between female status and cultural complexity. Suggest that data quality controls clarify the nature of the relationship.

This article examines sex differences in sports and games of strategy and chance. Results indicated large differences in participation by gender, especially for combat and hunting sports and in patriarchal societies. The possible cross-cultural universality of this trend is discussed.

The authors critique Anderson et al. (2023) article, "The Myth of Man the Hunter: Women’s contribution to the hunt across ethnographic contexts." The latter article is an ethnographic study showing that women hunt in 79% of foraging societies in their sample. The aim was to demystify the idea that only men have had a role in hunting and to question the stereotypes of labor. Venkataraman et al. (2024) critiqued Anderson et al.'s statements, as empirical evidence shows the existence of gendered divisions among hunter-gatherers. To test its veracity, they reproduced the original study, finding sample selection bias and coding errors. Lastly, they agree with Anderson et al.'s intention to dispel the false notion that forager women are unable to hunt, but they emphasize the existence of gendered divisions of labor in the ethnographic record.