It shouldn't be hard for anyone to comprehend. A compulsion, of any kind, to make somebody do something against their will by leveraging some social edict with the implied penalty of ostracism is heinous.
Be it a woman exploiting the shit out of a guy she is just stringing along, "because its all just a game anyway", or a man sexually abusing the woman he is supposed to love, and saying that because they are married such things are beyond question-- both are sick excesses, and both cross the same basic intellectual line.
That being, that using a societal more to force someone to do something for you -- anything at all-- is inexcusably sick. Doubly so, when there is a pretext that one of the persons loves the other. "If you loved me, you do this."
Given that it is still very much standard practice in US courts for women to pwn the shit out of their male lovers in basically any dispute in which satelite photographs and private investigators with close up telephoto pictures and forensic evidence clearly demonstrating the man's case aren't present, that inch is a token gesture at best. A very promising one, but equality is still a very long way off.
Personally, I love that women fought for the right to serve in the military. I am sickened that they don't have the same zeal for demanding selective service though. It is hypocrisy to claim to aim for equality, then purposefully stop short of the line. Arguments about "for the children" are arguments for women to be objects of reproductive notion; either you want equality, or you don't. Equal treatment in all things precludes the notion of preferential treatment, in any one thing. They are mutually exclusive.
Until we as a species truly embrace that, and continue to cling to tired and worn petards about "different but equal" that include lists of preferrential treatments for one or the other for compromises, we will forever fall short of the goal.
The wheel will turn, and the stink will stay the same: Men do X, Women do Y.
We are PEOPLE. That is what is important.