Comment by verisimi

They answered your question "are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?"

In this sentence, you are looking at different parts of the equation depending on case 1 and 2:

> Apparently men ought not to get a say in "women's issues", but it is also right that men be forced to put their lives on the line.

No, in the first case it could be argued that men shouldn't have a say, and in the second it could be argued that women shouldn't have a say. In the first case women are (potentially/allegedly) negative affected, in the second (young) men.

> Can you think of a female equivalent where females are ordered by the government to put themselves in harm's way?

Anti-Abortion laws in the US would be such an example.

If absolute gender equality is what we're after, I think the premise is flawed form the start.

Men have less rights by nature/biology because they are expendable (women are the reproductory bottleneck of the species) and they are the only gender with the physique optimized for physical fighting and hard labor, hence the famous line "women and children first".

We can say it's unfair and imbalanced but that's not gonna change biology and the status quo when push comes to shove and an enemy invades or a natural disaster hits and human meat is needed for the grinder, hence why there's no sympathy towards men and why much less societal help available to men in need (men have 10x the suicide and homelessness rates than women).

Men and women can never be equal in absolute terms outside an utopia of peace and prosperity, because evolutionary biology and gender dysmorphia has engineered our bodies to be good at completely different tasks meant to complement each other in order to ensure the survival and procreation of the tribe/species.