[quote=Magic Magnum]I really hate people at times... -.-

But yea, this is really a too complex issue to be claiming either gender has better or worse.[/quote]

Agreed on both counts. :lol

[quote]You have a point in that there are a number of female issues going on.
But we can't use the number of cases women face to discredit individual cases of men.

That's the whole point of the tally/list at the bottom. To count the male issues and the female issues.
To rule male issues as not male issues before it even get's to that point because female issues exist simply defeats the purpose of the tally.[/quote]

It's not a matter of discrediting or dismissing male issues, I was simply trying to point out why it's one that should go in the overall neutral category at least, not the mostly-male issues category. Even if it's categorized as one greatly outweighed by the female side of things, it's still a real male issue in some respect, just like the body image one.

[quote=Magic Magnum]I wouldn't rule this as a major issue at the moment.

This issue is more dependent on the time/situation we as people are in at the moment.
The concern is though, with how politic's work a big war that requires draft could break out at any moment.

As a male, you need to spend your entire life living, with the risk that the government could at any point drag you away and force you to kill or be killed if the situation ever arrived.
That fact that's a constant (though unlikely) danger for males is why I still list it as a valid issue and not simply grasping at straws.[/quote]

I wouldn't even call it a tiny issue at the moment. It's grasping at straws because all signs point to it being a dead and gone thing of the past. After Vietnam the US military shifted to a volunteer-only model where before it relied on the draft to be able to have enough men in times of war. Later on we started hiring private companies to do a lot of our military work, which lowers the number of volunteers needed for things, and our use of private companies in military areas is only growing. There is a large move toward unmanned vehicles happening right now, which also lessens the number of men needed to do things. It is a well-acknowledged political fact that reinstating the draft would be tantamount to political seppuku and ruin whichever party pushed it forth, as evidenced by even warmongering members of Congress arguing against use of the draft whenever it's brought up. The fact that we got through running two wars at once without using the draft is further evidence that it's unlikely to ever be needed again.

Saying this is a valid male issue is like saying huge packs of midgets roaming the streets of American cities and gang-raping all females in sight is a valid female issue, because it could maybe possibly happen at some point even though all signs point to no. Potential risk isn't real risk, potential problems are not actual problems. Like I said before, if it ever gets used again then it's a valid thing to bring up once more, but given that it's so very unlikely to ever happen again it's really not a valid issue to bring to the table in the gender issues discussion.

[quote]As for the expendable men being countered by women being more frail?
I use the same response I said early of you can't rule male issues as not male issues before it reaches the tally because women issues also exist.
You're right in that women being frail and less capable probably does balance it out, but that's a call to make at the tally and not before hand.[/quote]

By saying it's made up for by the weakness thing, I meant that it's an equal problem area due to the ever present gender role stuff rather than a mainly male problem, which you tallied it up as.

[quote]I'd rule it as 5 Male/3 Equal/2 Women

Keeping the Drafts as a male issue (But a minor one depending on the times), and keeping the Expendable men as a male issue. But also noting the women being seen as weaker/more vulnerable and adding that as another women issue of it's own.

But I do agree, making an overall ruling based off such a list would be foolish.[/quote]

Disagreement noted. No reason to argue those two points further than I already did above. Suffice it to say I stand by my own revised tally from the previous post, draft removed and the expendable men and weak women thing being rolled into one equal issue.

[quote]That's more an issue of general awareness of the options out there though.
How many of those quiet feminists do you think would remain feminists if they were all aware of the Humanist movement?[/quote]

Not a whole lot, I'd wager. Feminism has all sorts of sociopolitical power built up already, people generally know what you're about if you say you're a feminist and the term carries a weight and a certain level of prestige that varies in different social groups. Humanism is one of those things where you get blank looks and questions, so I doubt many would change their self-identification term if they knew there was another option. I'd say it's more likely that given more research and awareness most of them would start clarify what kind of feminist they are whenever they bring it up rather than changing the label entirely.

[quote]Humanity has over 6 billion people, we're capable of dividing up effort and multi-tasking. :P

We can have people deal with the laid out and easier to carry out female issues while still having people work on the male issues.

In total agreement for the dimorphic point though. We still have examples of that with black and asian racism, people who still follow Nazi tradtion's and beliefs etc.
But in a species over 6 billion big a few bad eggs are bound to happen, making every single person accepting of everyone is a pointless effort.
As long as the rules/laws we live by and the culture that influences us is not being sexist, racist, homophobic etc then that's the best we can do and focus on.[/quote]

That's assuming that anywhere near that many (and it's over 7 billion now, btw) people will actually work toward things. You'd be lucky as hell to get a few percent of the population of a first world nation to actively work toward equality, much less those around the world. :lol

Agreed on the rules and laws thing though. That's the realistic success goal line I see, that all possible negative discrimination is removed from laws and hope that society follows suit as best it can.

[quote]As for Circumcision, we're in agreement in that it is an issue caused by religion.
But honestly I'd be ruling this one category up against women bodily rights because it's essentially the same battle under a different light.

Women being told what they can and cannot do with their bodies when pregnant.
Men having people make choices for them about what to do with their body before they're even old enough to resist.

From a Health Concern standpoint women have it worse in this by far.
But from a standpoint of pure control over your bodily rights, I'd rule men have it worse cause it's made for them when they have no way to stop it.
If a woman truly is against it they are at least in their power to move somewhere it is allowed (Not a great defense, but it is at least more control over the situation than men with circumcision are granted).

However, I will grant there is a way shown to recover from the effects of circumcision.
The method being you take a specific kind of metal weight (I forget what it's called) and warp your penis skin around it.
The idea is that it slowly stretches the skin causing it to grow, do it long enough and you're penis is in it's natural state again.

As for people preferring the circumcised penis look, you can credit largely because of the religious influence raising people to basically prefer it.
Because that's the state that you're 'supposed' to be at, and it's what media will show more often.
Where basically people are being raised to dislike and shy away from our natural bodies features.
If you grow up and on your own free will decide to alter your body and you don't like _________ that's fine and totally in your rights.
But it should not be because society told you to.[/quote]

You've got a point by placing this in the body rights category, but equating it to abortion? Nah man. Circumcision is a minor procedure that causes an unknown but probably small (in the grand scheme of life) amount of.. not suffering really, more like a lessening of potential pleasure? It's really awkward because due to the subjective nature of the senses it's impossible to objectively measure how much pleasure might be lost through this. It's a highly ambiguous thing, especially when you add in the minor cleanliness boost and avoidance of foreskin problems it provides, but it's something that in all likelihood doesn't drastically impact a man's life. For a guy who barely ever has sex in his lifetime it's not much of a difference maker, and for a guy who has a lot of sex there might have been some major noticeable difference... but the fact that he still went and had tons of sex means he probably enjoyed it sufficiently anyways, so... It's just really hard to place a value on hypothetical and potential sensations when you can't even measure them in any objective fashion.

And then you have abortion, or rather forcing women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. Circumcision is one fairly minor alteration that doesn't have a clearly quantifiable impact, but forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy has a slew of blatantly obvious negative impacts ranging from the egregious breach of bodily autonomy to the pain and suffering sustained through pregnancy and labor. Saying that the male thing is a greater breach of rights because it's done before they can make a choice isn't quite right, and it brings up a weird grey area: legally, parents can make choices for their children for all sorts before they reach the age of majority in their country, such as being able to provide consent for them to undergo surgery, which is directly related to the circumcision thing because that's essentially a cosmetic surgery. An infant's utter inability to provide consent for things does not mean nothing dealing with bodily autonomy can be done, it means that the choice is given to the parents. It's a strange grey area that in many respects is there for the good of the child (it would be really stupid if your small child couldn't get life-saving surgery because they can't legally consent to it), but it also means the child circumcision thing falls under the legally allowable umbrella whereas trying to force an adult male to get circumcised would be a clear violation of rights. Disallowing abortion is a blatant violation of bodily autonomy rights for adult women, no grey area there, so in my opinion that sets it as clearly the worse of the two in all respects. Oh, by the way, minors getting abortions is another grey area thing where they can't consent and thus would need their parents to okay it, which goes to show how parental rights are placed above a child's right to bodily autonomy even at a much higher age, thus why circumcising a child isn't seen as a violation of rights. There's a lot of grey area going on with the circumcision thing, and it has a far smaller impact on a life, so it just doesn't really compare to female bodily rights issues.

Oh, also, a thing worth noting is that this is another gender issue that doesn't actually stem from sexist things. Assaults on bodily autonomy come predominantly from religion rather than a truly gender-based position, which is kind of amusing. No surprise really that groups that think they have all the answers of what is right or wrong for your life would also think they have the right to say what you can or can't do with your body. :lol

[quote]You have a point in that it's something based on fact, and not a matter of people trying to make women better than men.
But still a male issue none the less. May it be ruled more or just as important as genital mutilation probably depends on how much value you put in Prison sentences vs Bodily Rights.[/quote]

Yup, no disagreement that it's still a male issue even when taking the mitigating factors into account. I'd still place this as a minor issue and circumcision as a tiny one, because of general life impact and the grey area of rights that the circumcision thing is embroiled in.

[quote]So essentially. younger childless women are paid more then men, but older women are paid less than men?[/quote]

Yep. It's weird. From what I read things still swing the other way after about 30 even for childless women, so there's probably some shenanigans going on there.

[quote]Personally though, until I see a legit study showing the pay differences I'm going to be operating by the explanation of that the original "Pay Gap" is a result of parental and maternity leave of mothers more often than fathers, and the fact that women tend to pick less paying jobs then men tend to do. Simply a natural result/by-product of other Gender issues going on, not any kind of conscious discrimination against women. An issue that in theory doesn't need and should not be countered and handled on it's own. But rather something that should fix itself over time as other gender issues are resolved. If it is something that get's addressed separately all you'll have is an issue of women being paid even more then men once the other gender issues are solved.

You're welcome for pushing it. That claim specifically in gender equality is something I've learned to approach with caution and suspicious cause without fail every claim of such a wage gap existing has been proven to be false and/or from a bias source.[/quote]

The maternity leave thing doesn't really account for a 20% difference though, imo. It's not like women work 20% less even accounting for maternity time and then possible further missed time due to emergencies and whatnot (although I can find no data on it, I'd venture to guess that emergency stuff dealing with children is more evenly distributed across men and women than maternity/paternity leave), so there shouldn't be that much of a difference in pay. It's also kind of wonky when you look at some specific fields: the pay gap in construction jobs is less than 8%, and that's something where pregnancy and maternity leave would make the women entirely unable to do the physical job for quite a while before the birth even; one of the occupation categories with the worst pay gap is financial managers with a 33% difference in pay, and that's largely a desk job that wouldn't see as much interference as a construction job. It seems pretty clear to me that there's more going on than just the maternity thing, especially considering that pay for older childless women is also less than men doing the same job, but I can't find any reliable studies from places that aren't clearly biased. Bleh.

The thing about women taking lesser paying jobs isn't really valid though, because that average of ~20% less pay comes from studies that look at pay differences in individual occupation categories and then average out the results. The gap is actually wider if you look at total overall pay, more like a 25-30% difference (depending on what study you look at), but due to the other gender role issues you mentioned I don't feel like those figures are an accurate representation of the issue at hand that is a pay difference based on gender for the people doing the same job.

Also, gender issues vs pay isn't as directly related as you're making it sound. Enforcing equal pay now wouldn't necessarily cause women to come out ahead as gender issues are solved, because it's not like this sort of thing is planned out where it's like "oh, women are fat shamed far more than men, let's take another 2% off their pay." :hehe

Caution and suspicion are fine, but be wary of dismissing the issue altogether just because past claims have been proven false. There's a pretty apparent pay gap and it's not at all a sure thing that this is caused by maternity and whatnot, could be that in reality accounts for like half of the difference and the rest is stupid sexist bullshit. There don't seem to be any great studies done on the subject so far, just a lot of unreliable things and then bits and pieces of the larger picture, so making a final declaration on the issue now would be rather premature.

---

[quote=Dark Wind]I haven't hung out with a bunch of Australian dudes, lol. I've had it mentioned before, though. On the stuff about words evolving to mean different things, I can agree and understand that point of it. However, I will get to why I think it's still a damaging part of our society and psychology. Mainly because I feel the origin of a word still retains its power in more hidden ways that are embedded in our subconscious and other forms of our psychological make up. It creates a lot of confusion, which I find to be a problem.[/quote]

You should hang out with Australian dudes if possible, they're pretty amusing folks in my experience. :lol

I don't see possible confusion as a valid reason for avoiding use of some words, else I would stick to a 6th grade reading level vocabulary to avoid confusion. Confusion is inevitable in language, and I have little regard for people being offended by things (because taking offense is just another form of whining about something you don't like), so I'm perfectly fine with using words that others fine objectionable. Oh, and speaking of word origins, there are a lot of things that impact language, particularly societal connotations and personal interpretations. Generally I feel that the origin of a word has no true power and that any supposed power ascribed thereof is really derived from connotation and interpretation. These are things that can and do change over time, and with those changes the supposed power of origins also changes, so I don't place much stock in arguments that the origins of words matter. As I said before, usage is the thing that really matters, and usage has little to nothing to do with origins.

[quote]I can agree in a sense that pussy and bitch take on meanings that people don't intend to be insults relating to women. But, is it too much of a stretch to point out that most people today associate the word pussy with the female genital? On top of that, people are called a pussy when they are being perceived as a coward. The idea of being too much of a "girl" is attached to the statement whether it was intended or not. The same applies to the word bitch when it comes to the stereotype of women nagging and whining. Again, crying/whining like a "girl" or in this case, like a bitch. I'm suggesting it's a problem because while some people may not have the intention of insulting a guy because they're "acting like a girl", it's that they are doing it without knowing it. It's one messed up ride of confusion. And I don't like it. 

I don't know if this is a good comparison, but… It's kind of like when a word like gay became synonymous stupid. People will say "We're not against homosexuals, but…" They will still say the word gay anyway. Looking at slurs through usage and psychology is a complex thing, and that's what I'm trying to do. I may never be able to weed out everything because it's a freaking mess to be honest. But I find the confusion, the exceptions, the distinctions, all of which eventually run into contradictions to be major problems.[/quote]

For things about the word pussy, words can have meanings that aren't entirely related to one another, especially when you're talking about slang. The meanings have diverged, so far as I'm aware most people calling someone a pussy isn't thinking "hah, I'm comparing them to a vagina, that'll show 'em," they're just using a word that is a harsh synonym for coward. Same goes for bitch, most people aren't actually intending to insult them with femininity, they're just using a harsh word to express their distaste with the whining and complaints. You say these things come with gender baggage whether intended or not, and I must disagree. As I said before, usage is what matters. If people are using it with no actual intent to refer to females, then it really ought to stop being associated with it. The obsession with the origin of words is kind of a self-fulfilling cycle: meanings diverge from the origin in usage, but then people have to come around and bring up how it's related to those origins and so people start thinking of it that way again, so on and so forth. Words like pussy and bitch could already be insults lacking gender baggage, ranking among the likes of fucker as all purpose insults, if not for people insisting on clinging to said baggage.

The thing about gay being used as a general synonym for dumb is a great example of this in action. It was quickly going the way of a term highly divergent from its origins until people started up with the "omg don't use that word" campaigns. Most people weren't using this meaning with the intent to insult homosexuals, it was just a word that caught on for use in a separate context. Then along came people who were offended by the word being used in a way not endorsed by the homosexual community, and whoosh, in came the origin police to remind everyone that they were "using the word incorrectly," even though divergent usage of words is how a language grows and changes, so there's not really such a thing as incorrect use when it comes to slang; also, these people were conveniently ignoring the fact that using the term 'gay' to refer to homosexuals is one of those divergent uses that became common use, which is kind of interesting to note. It could've been left alone since the majority of people using it as a synonym for dumb had no malicious intent, but of course people had to bitch about it because they were offended and lots of people stopped using this other meaning because of concerns for political correctness, so the cycle starts anew and will likely repeat a few more times before the new diverging meaning is grudgingly accepted or finally gets crushed in general society. For an example of a word that underwent a change of its slang definition mostly successfully, I refer once more to the prevalence of the term 'cunt' amongst Australians and how this usage is successfully spreading around other English speaking cultures.

My whole point here is that the intent of the usage >>>>> the origin of a word. If the word nigger were to start being used to refer to unconventional things (for example "did you see that guy's face tattoo? it was so nigger.") with no malicious intent directed at black people, then it's a totally fine divergent use of the word. Doesn't matter how bad the origin of a term might be, the actual usage is the only thing that really matters.

[quote]They are easily used on men. But, when it happens it comes off as a joke or something to laugh at. At least when it happens amongst guys I know, and friends of mine when we have actually called each other sluts or whores. This is a personal example, so take it with a grain of salt. It doesn't reflect a whole. However, I'd still point out that there are clear negative connotations to the words slut and whore that sting when used toward a woman, that don't have the same effect when said to a man. Slut and whore stand out to me as specific words that are used to shame women for enjoying sex.[/quote]

They're also coming to be used jokingly toward women. I recall some movie that was pretty popular (Mean Girls I think) where some girl said they couldn't go hang out or something and one of their female friends responded with "boo, you whore." That kind of usage is growing, from what I've seen.

But yeah, I agree that these are words with clear anti-female connotations at work in most usage cases, I just disagree with the notion of "gendered slurs" because the term implies a lot of fallacious things. I'm pretty sure I mentioned.. somewhere in this thread, maybe in another recent one, that these two are words that could die off and I'd been cool with it. Even when used against males they're typically aiming to shame (even jokingly) someone's sexual activity, and there's no need for that. They could get to a point where I'd view them on the same level as bitch and pussy, where they've diverged so much from their original context in actual usage that they're fine now, but that's not the case currently so fuck 'em, I don't use them (aside from calling people attention whores, due to that being the most apt phrase for referring to the behavior) because there are plenty of other general insult words I can choose from already. I doubt they will become obsolete terms, but I wouldn't be displeased to see it happen.

[quote]Usage does matter. 100% agreed. But, the origins do matter in some sense. Or perhaps, a lot of senses. As you said, amongst Australian guys the word cunt does not necessarily mean to be a jab at women at all. But, I'd point out that the easy-going usage of words, and the remarkable ease in which we toss around words like, cunt, bitch, pussy, slut, whore, bitch, etc. to be a problem because eventually there will be confusion, and that normally means trouble.

Personally, I don't get insulted when I get called a dick. One, it's never really happened, especially by someone I don't know. Nor do I get insulted if I get called a bitch. I'm educated enough to know meanings behind insults and that if they were ever trying to compare me to a girl that I wouldn't be insulted. Cus, women are pretty awesome people. Jokes aside, with the high amounts of usage of bitch, pussy, slut, whore, etc. there will be issues. As said before, while there is not the intention, there is still a connection with where the term come forms that will resonate with someone's conscience.[/quote]

I would (and already did) argue that origin is effectively meaningless. It may have some impact on connotation, but if a word is used a lot in a completely different way the connotation will change unless people insist on forcing the origin into continued relevance. The confusion and issues you talk about arise from the pushing of the importance of origin, not the actual usage of the terms. Conversations about the common usage about the word bitch tend to go like this: "but wait, isn't that insulting to females because it originated from a term for a female dog and then was used to refer to women in a derogatory fashion?" "oh, yeah, that's true, I guess it's kind of not cool to call people bitches..." In an ideal world, the response would instead be something like "nope, the meanings of words change over time, awful used to mean the same thing as awesome, terrific used to mean the same thing as terrifying, bitch now just means someone whining or complaining and has nothing to do with females unless the user or recipient of the word is female." If we could get to that kind of understanding as a society, that the origin of a word only holds as much power as you choose to let it and that actual usage is what really matters, there would be no confusion or issues arising from these things.

The only opposition ever brought forth against these changing usages is "omg no that's offensive." That is not, has never been, and will never be a valid reason for why something is bad or wrong. Being offended is a person's personal and highly subjective thing, and they have no right to enforce their sensibilities on others in society (unless it's happening on their private property, in which case they can enforce their own rules and tell the person they don't like to fuck off). It's really and truly a "deal with it" situation, wherein those offended by the divergent uses of certain words need to just deal with it. There is no good reason to oppose these differing uses of words, just a cry of "but that hurts my feelings," and that sort of pointless whining helps nothing. There's an old saying that these folks should learn to live by: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I'm kind of ranting here, so I'll just cut myself off here and move onward.

[quote]It kind of sucks. Especially when we get to it that women say these things to each other too. It's a collective cultural problem where these words are tossed around and then women internalize these insults and begin to shame themselves and each other. See: Virgin/Whore dichotomy, plus things like issues people have with females being their boss.

I don't like these words, personally. Note: when it comes to consent behind closed doors, that's up to the couple

What I'm saying is that there are not many words that shame men or have the same "sting" and internalization effect that specific slurs have towards women.[/quote]

You're bringing up things that aren't really related to the words themselves now. The internalized negativity would happen even if there weren't succinct words to use like slut or whore, because the silly concept of women needing to be chaste and pure would still be around anyway. People having issues with female bosses has nothing to do with insults really, it's really a gender role thing at work. Of course there aren't as many words meant to specifically shame men, that's a product of the long history of men being the dominant gender, a product of sexism in society rather than sexism in language itself.

These are all points that have a place in this thread, but not quite in the context of how the language is used, though since that's where my mind still is that's the sort of response they get from me. I could switch gears and respond in a broader context, but sleep beckons so I won't.