Two ways to look at it, and in each case the woman loses, or rather the man is rightfully protected both morally and financially.
case 1: The woman guilts the guy into foregoing the prenup/legal protection. In this case the woman has actually prostituted herself. If she puts a monetary value on her companionship/friendship/etc then she is a whore, valuing her companionship at a greater value than the man's. Sorry ladies this is the price of feminism, you can't have it both ways.
case 2: If she agrees to sign this is better for her and the man, though she will lose potential financial gain when the relationship fails. Neither party should be able to sue the other when the relationship ends, whoever does so is a whore and has valued their companionship higher than their partner's thus negating the supposed basis of the relationship. Once legalities and money enter the relationship it is now a transaction, and this is what whores or business people do. There is nothing wrong with entering into contractual relationships as a business, but it should be defined from the start. If you don't define it as a contract from the start then it is a relationship and you can't change the rules after the game has started.
I would love to hear the thousands of excuses women would offer to refute case 1. The more excuses and the more vehemently they pronounce them the more it cements them as whores.
The problem boils down very simply to deceit, either of people deceiving themsevles or intentionally deceiving their partner. It is not a feminist or financial issue at the core.
If you enter into a relationship with pure intentions then you don't expect to profit. If it ends then it ends and that's it.
I think all men should have quadruple protection these days, prenup, cohabitation contracts, and a laundry list of any other legal protections they or their lawyers can dream up. It's not offensive to a woman with pure intentions, and it affords the woman the chance to be with the man.