Why is it common to talk about "violence against women" and policies that "affect women" and "hurt women" when men experience equal harm, or in many cases greater harm, from the same policies? For example, women getting killed in Mexico generate headlines despite far more male homicides happening in Mexico, and the same goes for Native American stats.

Briefly the reason is that it makes sense to protect women and children above adult men. Morally women are much less capable of defending themselves and (for most of history) providing for themselves. Practically it's important to protect women from hostile forces because it's harder for one woman to birth many children than one man to father many children. Needless to say, a woman is also at a much higher risk of rape (unless they live in the Congo), and rape will severely damage anyone physically and mentally, let alone pregnancy, which directly changes the makeup of the next generation. A society that lets their women get roughhoused and killed at the same rate as men will not last very long.

The reason these concepts seem outdated in the 21st century is because women have largely brought their security up to parity with men through economic, cultural, and technological means. Modern women are capable of meeting and exceeding male earnings due to the white collar economy and affirmative action policies. Advancements in public safety allow unaccompanied women to move about freely. Cars, gated housing, professional services, and guns obviate the need for physical capability. However, the human psyche has not changed, and women's inherent desire for protection is sublimated into calls for economic protection as well as physical. Since women have more economic opportunities than men already, this creates and entrenches a female supremacy.

The next question is, where to go from here? Corporately, we can either attempt to hold women to the new standard (treat them as interchangeable with men culturally and legally, remove all protections) or go the other direction and restore traditional gender roles. The second option is a complex issue that has no real solutions at this time, but the first option is impossible to implement totally because of the indelible nature of the human mind. Male soldiers have been shown to instinctively move to protect female soldiers, regardless of their training. Women will always clamor for protection and assurance. Moreover, even if women were truly forced to exist on an interchangeable level with men, they would be cut down economically and even physically, since they literally have to play by different rules just to survive. Social decay and death will follow.

The final point is that conservatives have to decide which end goal they're driving for. "Equal rights for equal lefts" is a fun way of thinking, but ultimately unworkable and an acceptance of the utopian doctrine that men and women are equal. Taking away economic protectionist measures for women (such as women in STEM programs) is a great idea and necessary, but moves to push women into men's hardships, such as making women eligible for the draft, must only be conceived as accelerationist measures intended to ultimately restore traditional roles.