I think the problem is that where you can openly describe the conflicts, you can also openly propose game-theoretical solutions. You can say: "We should live in peace with people of Sylvania... but if they attack us, we will not hesitate to fight against them too." And then you can explain why you think this is a good strategy, instead of e.g. us attacking first.

In the gender questions today, we are not culturally allowed to describe the nature of the conflict, which is: different reproduction mechanisms leading to different reproduction strategies leading to conflicts of interest.

So instead of stating our true interests, and negotiating about them, we speak about something else. For example: "It is good if a man must pay child support for a child that is not biologically his, because such policy is good for children." (Instead of admitting openly that such policy allows a woman to increase her utility function, because she does not have to compromise in her choice of partner between his attractiveness and responsibility, and can maximize for attractiveness instead.) On the other hand, forbidding women access to higher education could also be framed as good for children... except that this kind of re-framing was already thoroughly exposed by feminists.

It is difficult to propose a policy of "I will cooperate in Prisonners' Dillemma if and only if you will cooperate", if in the first place you are not allowed to admit that the conflict exists, and if speaking about the payoff matrices is such strong taboo that many people even don't know them.

So instead we randomly optimize for children in some places, and against children in other places, pretending that this is all done around the adult-child axis, and completely unrelated to man-woman axis. (It's adults who have a right for complete freedom of their bodies and everything that happens to be inside; and it's children who have a right for income proportional to their biological father's income. See, this is almost completely gender neutral! But if you try to suggest that instead the children should have a right to live, and adults should have a right for financial freedom, it is culturally allowed to expose how sexist your suggestions are.)