No, it suffices if less women's happiness sacrificed are needed than the amount of men whose happiness will be increased (assuming the "amount of happiness" - whatever that is to mean in the first place - is equal per individual). Then you can regard the happiness of women and still score a net increase in happiness. That's the whole point of the argument.

^ Upvoted for this.

I don't understand what you were saying in the second sentence.

If you reject deals with positive expected outcomes because they violate some sort of ethical law, you're a deontologist. That's what deontology is.