My first bit of advice is to suggest that you recognize (as I think you do) that you may be being abused here. I would need to know more to be sure, but "male domination" kind of sticks out a bit here.
If the advisor has something to add to the paper (and you agree that it does) then co-authorship of a revised paper would be proper and possibly even advantageous to you, depending on the general reputation of the the advisor. But if the "revision" is just "moving the chairs around" then it is clear abuse to insist on co-authorship.
But, my second, and more important, bit of advice is that you do what you need to do to make the advisor happy enough that you get a good recommendation and get away from his influence if the request is, in your view, improper.
You suggest that you don't want to press it to higher authorities. I can't disagree with that, though I think it would be a proper course to do so. Sometimes you just need to protect yourself and your future career.
While a sole author paper is good, any paper at all is also good and can be a positive point in getting your career going. Think long term. Think strategically. Don't take any action that will come back against you. Life ain't fair in many ways. People with power often abuse it. In Tai Chi we would rather side-step an attacking opponent than counter attack. The point is to remain safe.
Caveat. In some fields, advisors are accepted generally as co-authors. I don't particularly like that standard, but it happens. People in that field understand what is going on so it is, in that world, acceptable. A contributions section in the paper can, then, be used to clarify who did the work.