OK, I'll try again. You're right, in that men and women have evolved differently for different roles, if we take averages of weight, height, strength etc. As a matter of interest, I'm male but smaller than the average female in my part of the world. I'm still stronger, faster etc though, so I don't disprove your argument. The problem with your argument is that you then make several invalid leaps with no logical basis. Women have, throughout history, gathered as many resources as men. Different resources, yes, but still just as vital. Women also have brains that seem to be better adapted for long-term planning than men, whereas us men are better at instant decision-making. These are complimentary to one another, one is not superior to the other. This is one of the underlying factors in the success of our species. Add this to the obvious evolutionary advantages of complex communication and co-operation and it becomes fairly clear why humans dominate the globe. We work together, to achieve collective objectives, like a pride of lions or a troop of monkeys. Lone monkeys don't do as well as those in a troop. Nor do lone humans. To give a modern example - look at a football team. The goalkeeper is tall, it is more-or-less essential to be tall in that position. Then the central defenders, also usually tall, but with some exceptions (Gary Medel, for example). But as you get closer to the attacking part of the team, height becomes less important, and speed and agility are as valuable, if not more so, than height and strength. The most successful teams have a mix of physical types, as this strengthens the collective. Same applies, broadly speaking, to all of human society, including the nation state. We work better when we work together than when we compete in a simplistic manner. And that competition is not natural to our species, in any case, as I hope I have already demonstrated.
On your other prejudices - I referred to "pre-religious society" in order to make it clear I was referring to humans prior to the invention of religion as a means of social control. So religion is not the driver of human behaviour, rather a means to control it.
On single parents - prior to the development of state healthcare, for example, it was common for one parent or the other to die during the period of child-rearing. The collective, the tribe, especially the older members of it, would then support the growing orphan. In fact, the elders would often undertake childcare for perfectly normal families, so that the younger parents could go and gather food. Again, early collective behaviour. In Celtic society, couples married for one year, and then had to either marry again, or marry someone else, or go unmarried for a year. This event occurred every Beltane (roughly when Easter now occurs). So your prejudice against single parenting is also unfounded. Modern studies that show improved outcomes for the children of married parents routinely ignore subtleties such as outcomes for the children of happily separated and still co-operating parents. When such outcomes have been studied, they have been found to be far closer to the married norm, and better than the outcomes for the children of unhappily-married, "staying together for the kids" couples.
Hope I haven't upset you further with my reply. I don't cry a river of feelings, I look for evidence. I hope you can follow the thread of evidential argument I have provided.