Basically, it's a prisoner's dilemma on a global scale. If man and woman work together, we both get to reproduce with an equal share of our genetics going to the child, and have a relationship which is emotionally rewarding and physically satisfying. We each have different but complementary abilities and in a wonderful synergy, the two together can produce more than the sum of each part. The woman is born with the inherent capacity to produce an entire human being from only 10cc's and 5 minutes of male input, and can turn whatever scraps she can scrounge up in the garden into an incredible and nutritious milk that can keep a vulnerable and helpless child alive for years. The man is born with the physical strength to endure dangerous conditions outdoors and survive predatory threats, he can work harder and longer, and his biology means that his capacity to defend himself does not decrease with the number of offspring he produces. Together, man and woman can create a home miles better than what each would have on their own.
Neither of us can reproduce on our own, so we must work together if we want to pass on our genes. And on a practical level, two people taking care of a shared household is more than 2x one person taking care of their own household due to economies of scale. If both participants are good and honest actors, both will be infinitely better off.
This is the dream which gets women considering men as partners in the first place.
Of course, women can't pass on our genes without participating in pregnancy, and while breastfeeding is literally optional, it's a very risky strategy (it risks not only us losing our genetic legacy, but after having bornw the cost of pregnancy). Pregnancy comes at a cost to the woman, as does breastfeeding: physically, mentally, emotionally, practically, socially, you name it. Meanwhile, men can pass on their genes even if they skip out of their part of the deal, (which is to not just stick around afterwards, but to take an active role in defending us, keeping our home, and protecting our shared child). Sex offers no physical or social risk to the male and, given how desperate they all seem for it, it must also be very rewarding to their sense of being.
So one 'prisoner' can defect a lot more easily than the other, and with a lot more gain to himself.
One way we women attempt to minimise this defection from happening is to hold back on sex (which holds the risk of pregnancy for us, and zero risk for a man) until we have confidence that our Nigel is more likely than the other moids to stick around afterwards. We run all these tests to see if there are any red flags which might give some indication he's a moid, we talk to his social circle (he should have one), we want to know if he has other children, who are his former partners and how did he treat them, do our friends think he's a moid.
But the fact is that there is nothing we can do to ensure this defection won't happen. It's basically loaning someone a million dollars today on nothing more than a promise from him and a smile from his bank manager and hoping he really does stay true to his word to repay it over the next 20 years. It's an insane proposition woman face. There is literally no way a woman can pass on her genes without trusting a man to hold up his side of the deal, because all of the payment and drudgery for the man comes after he's already gotten his reward. So we have to participate in this deranged game, and at some point, we have to take an enormous risk.
I say women should always hold a bit of hate for men because it stops her falling into the trap of assuming her Nigel is definitely a good one, she is one of the lucky ones living the dream, and the two of you are definitely going to work together to achieve incredible things.
The minute a woman's first child is born, a little bit of her heart should be carved out in hatred of her baby's father. This is the part of your heart that reminds you of what you are sacrificing, that keeps you skeptical and doubting of his motives, that ensures you have a lot of money secreted away and an escape plan should you need it. This part of your heart keeps you maintaining your social networks (especially those with other women) and your connections to your blood relatives. It's the part of your heart that knows if you die, your Nigel will likely move on within the year, which means you are never more than 12 months from being replaced. With a man, nothing is guaranteed. You must look out for yourself, just as your Nigel looks out for himself.
You're right that heterosexual women are at a disadvantage. Occasionally, a really really good man sees that opportunity for a free ride, and doesn't take it. He treats his partner well, and both are better off for it. But for the most part, men love a free lunch. As you say, a man always has more to gain than a woman.
She might be exhausted, overrun with nagging children and work tasks, and there's nothing she can do to force her man to vacuum the floor. If she doesn't do it, it just won't get done. It might take him 20 minutes and cost him nothing in terms of fatigue, but it doesn't serve his needs, so he won't. This example can be applied to any shared task that sucks.
What does a woman, who has already given him children and tied her finances and genetics to him, do? She's weaker than him, so she can't beat him, she can't rape him, she can't do any of things to him that men do to women to force them to cooperate.
All we have is hope that he's a good one, and hate if he's not. We have no other option.
