[quote=Dark Wind]This is a tricky thing. For example, as I have stated before. The word gay has transformed into something synonymous with stupidity. People will defend its usage and say they aren't insulting someone because of homosexuality and homosexuality doesn't bother them. But, regardless of intent, the connotation is still there. I find this problematic. It's also there in things like the usage of the n-word. Blacks use it with each other, but if you've hung around black people you would know it's a term of camaraderie, but I still believe that its usage brings confusion to the conversation and carries a lot of negatives along with it.[/quote]

Now in terms of words like Gay and Fag I have seen two totally different opinions and cultures on this, both from LGBT communities.

The first one was from the LGBT club at my High School.
They outright shunned the words Gay from being used as an insult, and the use of the word Fag period.
To the point they even had a protest (Which I admit to being apart of at the time) where they cut their shirt each time the word was used in such a sense.
In a way to stand up for LGBT people who were bullied for it.

The other culture was the Pride Club at College.
Completely different opinion/approach to it. I've really heard them use the term Gay outside of the "Man attracted to a man" meaning. But words like Fag weren't shunned. During my first few weeks with them as a straight ally I strongly tried avoiding the use of the word cause of what the High School club taught me. The other's in the College club would have to use the word and fill in the blanks when I would pause lost as for another word to use. Basically telling me that they were fine with the words being used, they weren't sensitive people who were going to be offended by it or anything.

Honestly though, the people in the High School were still High Schoolers. Growing, learning, and were full of people who only started talking to me cause I was in the club, and slowly stopped when other things in my life took over at the time. While the college club was largely grown ups and people who I knew and had gotten along with for a while before first joining the club even. So maybe I'm a bit bias in how I read this, but in my mind even the LGBT community is showing to be more practical with the use of such words, not taking them as homophobic remarks or anything but rather just words.

As for nigger?
That... has taken an interesting and hypocritical turn.
People in the black community use it with each other all the time no problem, but the second anyone else does it's racist.
That's just messed up logic in my opinion, and I tend to avoid people who think or act with such a lack of logic anyways.

[quote=Dark Wind]Words like dick, douchebag, prick won't mean much to men who hear them. Unless it was hostile, and even then it isn't necessarily something that registers. Could be totally common with the way people throw them around. The same goes with pussy, bitch, whore, etc. But my distinction with this is that while we feel these words have evolved to mean different things, and this may be true, there are still negative connections to the word on a psychological level that are an issue. Meaning and intent can be hazy and mixed up and interlinked because there are meanings already attached to the word that have been internalized.[/quote]

Basically what Jorick said on the issue.
When someone says they're offended on a topic, what they're basically saying is "I don't agree with it, and I don't want to hear things that disagree with me".
Or they have a problem where they take everything they hear personally rather than what they actually mean.

Either way, what needs to be done here is for those people to learn to be tolerant of different viewpoints, and to not let what people say insult them so easily.
They're the one's creating the problems by getting negative about, society and his rational expansion shouldn't be hindered or held back cause of it.

[quote=Dark Wind]We're venturing into hazy territory here. 

1) "Vultures profiting off making a bad image for the rest of their gender?"I have some problems with this. Modeling is a career choice, they're not modeling in order to make a bad image for their gender. And it's arguable that modeling makes a bad image for their gender. The main problem I have with fashion and model catalogues is what they push as an idealization of beauty instead of a wide variety of what beauty can be. That is hardly the models' fault. 

2) When it comes to pay. It's much like how NBA players get paid much more than WNBA players. Bigger market. I read an interesting study on this about how much training a female model puts into becoming a professional whereas there isn't nearly as much training for the male model. On top of that, beauty is a market that generates a lot of income from male consumers (and females as well)[/quote]

1) I agree in that Modeling is a career choice for a woman. Not all Models may be doing it to harm woman. But as a half-intelligent and aware human being, when you're a model you should be well aware of if the Jobs you take are or are not harming the image of your gender in any way. Even if your reasons for being a model are innocent, if you choose to continue in a certain model shoot that you know will have backlashes against women fighting for equality, then you're being a vulture.

But I do also agree, the root of this problem isn't the problems but what the Media pushes on the models. The Models simply agree or disagree to model for it. If we're to deal with this issue we need to attack and change the media's idea of beauty, not the models themselves.

2) I think Media's just blind to the potential market they have here honestly.
I mean, I've seen girls with pictures of boys posted all over their locker, room and staring at boys online far more often than I've seen guys posting girls up on their wall and starting at girls online.
There is definitely a demand for more male models to appeal to woman if they tapped into the Market.

[quote=Jorick]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]

I think there's a misunderstanding here.
I don't mean that you're implying it's not a male issue.

But in some cases such as say Media, we can look at it and say "Yes woman are discriminated by media is some ways, but so far men", that would be the balancing act on say if it's a majority male or female issue.
But for cases like men are oppressors? There is no female equivalent of being oppressors, there are other issues yes such as being vulnerable. But that is a separate issue, not oppression itself.
Both are valid, but separate. Not 100% separate mind you, they're all connected in the same sense that issues like equal pay are connected to other gender issues.

But honestly? This is just arguing fine points, and that really seems to have no point to it.
We both agree that they are all gender issues at least, that's all that should really matter in the end.

[quote=Jorick]-Drafting Snip-[/quote]

I guess it really depends on how much value you put on issues that although mainly irrelevant today, have potential (Life breaking in my case. I know if I went to war I'd shut down... You 'might' find me willing to kill another if it was to protect people I cared for. But throwing me without choice in a kill or be killed scenario? Not even like try to survive, but your orders are to kill? I wouldn't last, that is an environment I would completely break down and snap in.) effects in the future?

Though also, if this is such a tiny issue and there's no risk or need for it cause of things like mercenaries, unmanned vehicles etc. Then why is drafting still a law?
Shouldn't we of been able to easily overturn it by now if it wasn't something relevant anymore?

I'd agree that it seems to be a tiny issue for today, but one with potential to explode into a major issue (If not the biggest issue) if the right events set it into motion.

[quote=Jorick]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]

Probably, maybe I'm from a bias viewpoint.

Since most people I get along tend to identify as humanist, or at least don't identify at feminist.
Most people I see identify as feminist are either woman superiority or the kind I quickly don't get along with cause they're the types to yell, scream and call others ignorant for not agreeing with them.

[quote=Jorick]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. 

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]

I'm more than aware that we won't get the whole population on it. :P
That was more highlighting all many human beings we have to work with overall.

I mean look at other things.
We have enough people to dedicate time towards issues like Autism, ADHD, Depression etc.
Hell we even have enough people to dedicate time to mass pushing coke and pepsi, macs and PC's etc.

We can definitely get at least two different groups or organizations together to be tackling and male and female issues simultaneously.

[quote=Jorick]-Circumcision Snip-[/quote]

I was more addressing it from a right to consent to what's done to one's own body standpoint than from a physical effects standpoint.

From physical/health effects, like I said above I outright agree women do get it worse in body rights.
As for consent over one's body. There is potential moral argument to made that removing pleasure before they can experience it is worse than taking away something after they know of it. Cause they are unknowingly robbed of a greater pleasure. As for parent approval, I can understand and agree with parent consent for a child's operation before the child can consent when it's in regard to health issues and concerns. Circumcision though, is like you said a cosmetic surgery, meant for appearances and not that much health wise.

That's the sort of thing that should be left up to the Individual once they're at a consenting age, not to the parents since there isn't an immediate danger or risk by being uncircumcised.
As for minors needing parent consent for abortion? I assume by this you mean young teens? I think at that age the child is old enough to make the choice of going through the pregnancy or not themselves rather than the parents decide. However, the parents would probably still have say over if the baby is to be cared for by the family or put up for adoption.

Also, it really is no surprise that both of these issues are from Religion. :P

[quote=Jorick]-Pay Gap Snip-[/quote]

I tackle this one element at a time.

First a reminder, I'm not just saying Maternity leave causes the 20%. It can also be from career choices, and the fact that time off from maternity leave or raising kids leaves the woman with less work experience overall. Which means less chances/likelihoods for promotion. Both from less time to work, and from an employer's fear of the woman getting promoted, and then leaving cause of family matters. That last part we can argue is sexism in the workplace, but like the Prison rates is one ran by fact and not pure sexism. And one that should correct itself as men and women start to balance/even out the time they spend at home with the children.

Constructions job's being less than 8%, well that is a largely male dominated field.
With other factors causing women to be paid less considered, it makes sense the overall gap get's smaller when you restrict it to a job where men are dominant.
While desk jobs tend to have more women in the workplace than fields like construction.

But to take financial manager's specifically, [url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwpr.org%2Fpublications%2Fpubs%2Fthe-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-1%2Fat_download%2Ffile&ei=qpckU575OcTerAHRvoCYDg&usg=AFQjCNHhX2CjH__F7oDLxmCd1TYIgyevHQ&sig2=3sVKNuwgHY_KtPl-GHZ_hA]I'll use this graph here to help calculate this.[/url] 

Note: It is from the "Institute for women's policy research".
Not sure of this is the same source you had, either way though note the potential bias this data will have.

So in this case the total number of male workers is 55.971,000 and for women it's 44,486,000.
Now, for financial managers specifically 0.9% of men work there, and 1.4% of women do.
After some quick math that becomes... 503,739 men and 622,804 women.

That's more women then men, but not by a huge amount.
So even if women were paid less than men for entirely non-sexist reasons, the fact it's only 65.9% of the pay (According to the same source above) is fishy.
You do seem to be onto something in this case, but this does require more digging and research before anything concrete can be done.

As for same job pay gap vs overall pay gap? 
I think we need to find a more neutral/unbiased and altered source before we can make any rulings there.

Note when I said gender issues were related to the pay gap. I didn't mean all gender issues.
I meant specific ones that would realistically effect it such as maternity leave, career choice etc.

I'll note for the future not to dismiss this issue outright.
But until we got that unbiased source we need to make a proper ruling I'm still approaching this from a "Claim without proper evidence" viewpoint and therefore won't be addressing this as a current issue for women.
 
[quote=Zaresto]Oh my, that's alot of text! I think it would be best if I omit using quotes within this post and go straight to my arguments.[/quote]

That's how we tend to work here! :P

[quote=Zaresto]On the topic of genital mutilation: I was mentioning to why circumcision is so accepted and promoted in Western culture, as opposed to how making incisions to a woman's clitoris is seen as such a terrible thing. In fact, actions that have been taken to allow doctors to cut a woman's clitoris have been Weird, seeing as how foreskin serves for sexual pleasure, and the clitoris serves for sexual pleasure, but only one can be cut without the public condemning the action.[/quote]

Like we said, we acknowledge the sexism here by doing it for boys and not for girls.
Though when it comes to who has it sexism worse at the moment of men or women this is naturally going to be compared to the only body rights issue happening for women at the time, abortion.

[quote=Zaresto]On the topic of media: Sure, women are portrayed very sexually in advertisements, but that's really only because those are meant to appeal to a specific group of people. Advertisements are meant to make a profit, so they have to cater to people.[/quote]

Honestly, when it comes to this we as society could end up reaching equality here two different ways.

1) We stop the current representation of women, and try to value all kind of women on media so there's no longer a sex'ed up high standard of beauty.
2) We keep showing women how we currently do, but also raise the the standards for men.

If we let business and profits take priority I imagine it's more the latter.
But the latter also has separate discrimination issues where it would change from female discrimination to human discrimination based on appearance.
Which would (and in a sense already is) a battle in it's own right. So in the end I still we'll end up with the former.

The biggest thing that will make it happen though? Change the demand, make the public demand more average looking people, and avoid stuff like superstars and the business while start offering the new product in demand. Simple Business. The issue there is convincing most people to want to see average looking people more than the current models we got.

[quote=Zaresto]Television, on the other hand, can sure be seen to favor women in multiple capacities. Let's look at, arguably, the most influential shows of the past two decades: The Simpsons. What do you see there: dumbass Homer Simpson, his wife the voice of reason in his life, his daughter a highly intelligent critical thinker, while his son is a rowdy, lazy, troublemaker. If you want more examples, fine: Lets look at Adventure Time. A show where girls have all the power and are almost flawless, while the men cause all the problems. And yet people still think that women are portrayed badly in television.[/quote]

That's just two shows though. 
To satisfy a group of people with just a small handful of things like that is called tokenism and is a kind of discrimination in itself.
Is it progress? Yes it sure is, but we're not at a point of women being shown just as well in media overall yet like men are.

[quote=Zaresto]Video games, they don't matter.[/quote]

Video game's do matter actually. It's a kind of media and art form, one that has a huge influence over today's generation and is working to being respected in the same way movies and books are.
Now is there sexism going on Video Games? Yes there is, but not now people like Anita claim there is.

And also like Jorick said, it's already recovering on it's own. So there isn't really anything feminists or humanists need to do at this point, outside of convincing the gaming community that this is a good change.

If you want some more examples of how video games and sexism are still an issue though, I suggest watching some extra credits episodes.
They handle it from a very logical, rational and honest viewpoint. Being people all about video games they use inside knowledge and experience on the issue, and address it without attacking the field as a whole. 
Unlike some feminist who lied about being a gamer to begin with just to make money off of false claims *grumble grumble*.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slJIiUTVXds]Extra Credits: Diversity[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1qndga6SNU]Extra Credits: True Female Characters[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6gXZPVgD4]Extra Credits: Sex in Games[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt9GwmOWoqo]Extra Credits: Harassment[/url]