First off, I think you may be a few decades late to worry about feminism as a sufficiently disruptive power that we need to devote any energy to placating it. The feminists have won. Young women in the west have sex with whom they want when they want, dress the way they want, bare ankles be damned, compete for the jobs they want, and have kids if and when they want. Whatever residual disagreement with my above sweeping declaration of victory is weak enough that it need not be dealt with by interest groups in which it is not particularly central.

In any case, the "resolution" between feminist concerns, and evolutionary psychology is to understand that evolution does fine by itself, and hardly needs help from law or custom to get its job done. The fact that evolution biases many women towards child-rearing is enough, the laws don't have to push on this as well. The evolutionary fact that men feel a conflict between attraction to women and needing to not act like assholes (a technical term describing a male who performs actions that make him less attractive to females) doesn't require laws to hide women away from men so that they can at least pretend to go about their business without sex on their minds all the time.

There is evolution in cultures as well, and natural selection. The west with its increasing abandonment of codifying differences between males and females is, production wise, kicking the butts of cultures that want to limit things. Western ideals leak at a flood rate into these cultures because of western domination of all production, including entertainment, information and education.

If even 95% of males are heterosexual, those who would ban homosexuality as unnatural need to answer this evo psych question: why are 5% of males not heterosexual? Evolution tends towardss great efficiency. We don't have a 5% blindness rate or deafness rate. If we have evolved to have a significant population which is homosexual, one would screw with evo psych's result at one's peril: there is probably an advantage to having homosexuals. Of course the same reasoning would apply to women who want to be engineers or CEOs or whatever, they got here by being descended from a LONG line of ancestors ruthlessly culled. To put legal and/or cultural barriers in the way of evolution's decision is to entirely miss the point of how optimization works.

In summary, feminists yelling angrily at evo psych results are not enough of a current phenomenon to require any special plan to deal with any more. And evo psych only supports oppression if really poorly understood, if looked at through a remarkably blurry lens. Rather, evo psych is more reasonably understood to have produced distributions of characteristics in the highly social human population, distributions which should be consciously adjusted only for compellingly logical reasons, and not merely from a misunderstanding between the value of 90% and 100% participation in some endeavor.