Modern Feminism

[Jorick]

Magic Magnum said +Clarification on my points: I wasn't trying to say "These are men issues, and not women issues" but rather "These are men issues, that people like to try to ignore at times are issues/discrimination men face". Cause often times when feminism is mentioned people go "Women are discriminated in _____, ______, _____ & ______" but then go on to claim men are never discriminated against, and/or ignore the fact that women discrimination issues also have a male version of it going on.

There wasn't enough context to go on to be sure whether you were saying the former or latter, so I went for a middle ground response and just responded to each of them explaining how I viewed them in the broader context of sexism as a whole. As I probably said multiple times in that long post, definitely agreed that male issues are often ignored and swept under the rug and it ought to stop.

-Family Stuff (Equal Issue)
But to note here, it's the men who normally have to empty the wallets and do most of the hard work for culture while women get it easy.
But like you said, women are shamed for doing the same. So I guess it boils down to what is worse? Being expected to foot most of the bill and effort? Or being treated as if you shouldn't be expected to?
Or would said issues be about equal?

Either way though, I agree that this one seems to be a gender equal issue.

Additional context necessary to make a judgment on this one is the pay gap, so given that men are paid an average of about 20% more means that not only are men expected to pay for more things, they're expected to have more money to spend. That's what keeps it being a clearly equal issue in my mind, because otherwise there is indeed a case to be made that being expected to foot the bill is worse than being expected not to.

Rape - I remember that case... Everyone who helped in covering up that case should of been charged with assisting rape and evidence fraud. The Hacker who exposed them should of been hailed as a hero, not charged with Jail time. And all those people who defended those boys should be publicly exposed and shamed for supporting rape *end rant*.

I will agree that the idea of victim blaming has many more factors to it than just gender.
It's a more complex issue than that. But I'm merely pointed at how (depending on the area) if a woman get's raped it's a serious issue, but in a man get's raped it's a joke.
There's even cases where people claim "Men getting raped doesn't happen", and rarely do people claim the same for cases of women getting raped.

So in terms of rape itself? The prevalence and such I'd rule women get it worse.
But when it's specifically how we treat the person who is raped, I'd say men get it worse.

Both a Male and Female dominant issue in different areas.
I won't rule which gender get's it worse here yet, since this also devolves into a big and sensitive topic for people of what's worse in rape?
The act of being raped, or the way you're treated for it?

Which is worse, being mocked for being raped or being mocked and blamed for being raped? Men are just mocked, women are mocked (less, to be fair) and also blamed for it in many cases. I'd say treatment of rape victims is actually worse for women. It's a horribly complex issue, but as far as the sexism bits go it's pretty equal due to shittier things in different areas. I'd say female rape victims are treated worse, but male reports of rape are less likely to actually be acted upon whereas nowadays female accusations are so strong that false accusations can sometimes get convictions when the only real evidence is he said, she said type things. Women are raped more, but underage victims of rape (be it statutory or true lack of consent rape) are treated differently: girls are generally treated as horribly abused victims, but male victims of things like teachers taking advantage of them are sickly encouraged and approved of. It's all a big mess of awful crap, but in the end I'd say it's pretty clearly a gender equal issue when all things are considered.

Oppressors - In regards to oppressing in the whole of the debate.
You're right in that history gave women the short end of the stick. But that's not a valid excuse for seeing men as the Oppressor's today.
It's blaming the men of today for the actions of the men of the last generation.
If feminism is really going to attack today's men for what they're ancestors did... The feminism is attacking the wrong time era and lost it's relevancy.

In regards to that men should be dominant though.
You are correct, this is an equal issue against both men and women.

I'd need clarification as to what he meant here though before I rule this for any side.

That's the thing though, for anyone who views females as still getting the short end of the stick (which I do, and I imagine all feminists and many of those who identify as humanists and whatnot also do) it's not just a matter of previous generations, it's a thing that's still happening. It's not calling men today oppressors for the actions of their ancestors, it's calling men today oppressors for the current state of things. It's kind of ridiculous to claim men are all consciously oppressing women though, as there are all sorts of cultural things going on that are never consciously considered that lead to sexism, so it's not like it's just cool to go yell at random guys that they need to stop oppressing women. That's why I say even if this was the intent it's an equal issue at best, though honestly probably weighing in favor of it really being a female issue, because what's worse, men being viewed as oppressors or all the female issues that are caused by male actions and behaviors?

More clarification is certainly needed though, because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to bring up as a male issue regardless of what meaning is intended.

Prison - Given the stats, it is more logical like you say to be harder on men than women.
That doesn't make it right, or equal treatment though to be doing so.

A criminal should be charged appropriate to the crime on hand, and their criminal history.
Not their crime +What other's of their gender are responsible for.

Mhmm, I agree, which is why I labeled it a male only issue. Just because something makes sense doesn't mean it's right. Eugenics makes a lot of sense on paper, but most people would say it's wrong and immoral and whatnot.

Expendable Men - I'll agree there's some trace of female discrimination here. The idea females are seen as more vulnerable and needed to protect.
But I think that's more than outweighed by that only men are forced to go to war in a time of draft, and when people do start saving lives it is the men made the lowest priority.
They're lives are essentially given the lowest value. If having your life mean less than another's cause of gender isn't sexism and gender discrimination then I don't know what is.

Some trace? It's pretty blatant. Claiming that it's heavily outweighed by the draft is ridiculous given the fact that it hasn't been used since 1973. We've been in wars since then, and the combined action in Afghanistan and Iraq most definitely strained the numbers of active military personnel, but even then the draft wasn't used. Prosecution for failure to sign up for the draft hasn't happened since 1986. Until and unless the draft is actually used again, it's effectively dead and not really worth claiming as a major point of sexist bullshit. Honestly, it seems like a joke to me to equate "having to" sign up for the draft (when the only negative repercussion nowadays is that failure to do so might disqualify you from having a job with the federal government), which has affected barely any men at all since 1986, to how men get the shaft in divorce and child custody proceedings, which affect men all the time. The fact that people have to dig for the draft as a second flagship point for how men have it bad is kind of sad, because when you look at the facts surrounding it it's effectively a non-issue with only hypothetical possibilities of bad things to come.

Now, that aside, I'd say the thing about men being expendable in emergencies (which by the way is a holdover from times long ago when maintaining a viable breeding stock was of vital importance, wherein losing half of your population's men would just mean the other guys have to pick up the slack but losing half of your women halved your breeding capabilities) is made up for by them being of greater importance in almost all other circumstances and by the associated negative things for women about them being frail and weak and incapable of saving men and whatnot.

So in the end, our total results so far are:

Male Specific Issues: 5 (Child Custody, Genital Mutilation, Drafting, Prison, Expendable Men)
Gender Equal Issues: 3 (Family Issues, Feelings, Parent Expectations)
Women Issues: 1 (Body Image)

Now obviously, there are many women specific issues not being highlighted here.
Mainly because this debate began because we were simply trying to argue for how men are discriminated and feminism ignores it.
So we will still need to address all the female discrimination issues before a ruling can be put down on who get's it worse.

I'd revise it to be 3 male specific issues, 4 gender equal, and 1 for women. The changes I'd make are removal of the draft altogether and moving the expendable men thing to the neutral category.

But yeah, this is by no means an all-inclusive list, and trying to claim who has it worse just based on a listing of concrete issues would be foolish anyway.

I can understand the confusion and division that can rise up from changing the name.

But it's still inaccurate and harms the goal and focus for gender equality if the cause that's meant to be supporting for gender equality sticks with a name showing bias to one side.
It would still imply and give the subconscious message that female rights are more important.

Which may have roles to play in feminazi's calling themselves feminist, and people choosing to move to causes like Humanism instead.

I think there would be more harm done by trying to force a name change than by leaving it and having to make a clarification once in a while.

Also, I think those feminazi types are more to do with people declaring humanism and so forth instead of feminism than any naming issues. The name thing is minor, but the awful parts of the group that are after female dominance rather than equality is a huge reason for why people distance themselves from feminism. I am an example of this in action.

Those who don't make a big hubbub about it could he humanist though also.
1st wave feminism claims to be gender equality, so does humanist.

So those who claim to simply support gender equality but aren't vocal about could be either feminist or humanist.

First wave feminism and humanism are basically the same thing, so yeah, they could be. Feminism is far better known in general culture though, so odds are heavy than any non-vocal supporter of equality will call themselves a feminist rather than a humanist.

I'm not denying eliminating women issues would help men issues.

But there may still be some cases like genital mutilation which remains a male issue if we simply address women issues and hope that men issues vanish as well.
We're in agreement though in that it would be neater to simply handle both at once, rather than handle only one and hope it ends up aiding the other.

Humanity over time though has abandoned and grown above more and more of their human nature.
I don't see it being a permanent influence over how we treat each other by gender.

In my mind though, even if after all cultural stigma's are gone and men and women are treated 100% equally we still see more men doing X and more women doing Y due to factors like physical builds, hormones etc that's completely fine with me. As long as they are like that because that is who they are, and not because that what society told them to be like.

Right, I know there are things that wouldn't be affected by just dealing with female gender roles, that's why I prefer the simultaneous approach. What I was getting at is that there's already all sorts of groundwork laid for dealing with female gender role stuff courtesy of feminism, all kinds of momentum for that side of things while male issues are rarely even acknowledged, so there's an argument to be made that it'd be more efficient to just focus on one problem before dealing with the other.

The fact that humans are a sexually dimorphic species is exactly why I am doubtful that gender roles will ever go away completely. So long as there are differences, there will be people who discriminate based on those differences. That's just how the human mind works. The best we can do is minimize the impact, not eradicate it. At least that's how I see it with my cynical world view.

Jorick said There we go. Your list of male problems was a lot stronger than Magic Magnum's. Solid 50/50 on clear male problems versus ones that have balance in related female problems, none that were obviously outweighed by the female side. I could argue that these are a lot smaller issues than the core female problems, but I'll let that half a sentence suffice rather than taking a paragraph or two to do it, though I'll go into detail if asked.

But if you're going to make a claim that female problems are worse than men problems when most of the arguments so far are making points as to why Men's right are just as bad if not worse.
I'm going to want to see the detailed version to support said claim.

I already did a little of that in what I said about the draft being a non-issue. I can go for more though, sure. The child custody and divorce thing is the one and only area that I actually weigh as being equal to the major female issues, and they've got three big ticket items as far as I'm concerned: pay gap [note: see next quote response section for a bit of clarification on this one, and why I downgrade it to a minor issue after further research, and in the future I'll probably refer to this realm of issues as employment issues since "pay gap" actually doesn't describe it well, not rewriting things because fuck it, let people see my mistakes], bodily autonomy, and the clusterfuck of media things. That alone is a three [note: two with the correction] to one difference on major things. Now, for the lesser things, let's take a look at what we've agreed are male only issues.

The genital mutilation thing, eh, big fucking whoop? Circumcision is gross and weird, sure, but what does it do exactly? From everything I've read on the subject, it lessens sexual pleasure and sensitivity, but it's also cleaner and makes it so some problems with foreskin aren't an issue. Aesthetics is a wash, people tend to prefer circumcised versus uncut based on personal experiences and what they were first made aware of and such. It doesn't do any real lasting harm to the guy, it doesn't inhibit or prevent sexual activity (like a lot of female genital mutilation does), it just makes it feel slightly to moderately less good (which is a wholly subjective thing anyway, since there's no objective way to measure pleasure) and potentially solves some problems. This is nowhere near as big a problem as things like the pay gap, and if you look at it as a part of the broader picture of sexual things it's dwarfed by some of the crap women face in that area. The genital mutilation thing is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and honestly it's more of a strange religious problem than it is a sexist problem. Circumcisions don't happen out of malice for men, they happen because old books said it should and then it became a tradition. In the first world it's a male only problem, sure, but it's a really small one.

For prison sentencing, the level of sexist bullshit present in it is heavily mitigated by those stats of offense and recidivism rates I brought up. You can't just call it an anti-male thing when there are clear and logical reasons for why it is this way, and why logically women would have harsher sentencing if they instead had the higher rates. There's also the fact that the United States justice system is ridiculously backwards in the first place and in need of major reform just to make it not brokenly stupid, so trying to point to bad things in this area as proof of wider badness is like saying the US military being backwards and stupid about things is proof of society at large being backwards and stupid in the same ways; they're largely separate areas governed by very different rules, so you can't really look at them and judge them in the same way as you'd look at social interactions. This is also a minor issue that gets nowhere near the importance of the big ones, though certainly a more important one than the genital mutilation thing.

And then what else is there for men? Only things that are balanced between the genders or that women have worse. I've sat here thinking for about fifteen minutes, trying to come up with more male-centric issues that weren't already brought up in this thread, but I'm drawing a blank. Right now we've got a major, minor, and tiny issue for men versus three major issues [note: two major, one minor after changed opinion] for women. Add to that things like the general discrimination and negativity women face in sexual activity in general, how human trafficking deals mainly in women for use as sex slaves (this is a thing even in the western world, and it's a growing problem), and all the lesser issues related to the pay gap (such as women perceived as worth less, less dedicated, seen as being not as good at the job as any given male, expected to get pregnant and have that majorly interfere with work) and the media clusterfuck (such as women being seen as trophies for men, being vain as hell and materialistic, incapable of being strong in any sense/being weak in all kinds of ways, and the horrible pressure put on women to look certain ways that is far and away worse than men have it) and it gets crazy. I could have listed more small things there, but the point has been made well enough, I think. Just from what I listed right there, I'd call it 3 major, 7 minor, and 3 tiny issues (those being the perception of being less dedicated, expectation of pregnancy interfering with work, and perceived vanity issues).

1 major, 1 minor, and 1 tiny issue for men that isn't matched or beaten by equivalent women's issues. 3 major, 7 minor, and 3 tiny issues [note: 2, 8, 3 after changes] for women with the same criteria. I mean, hell, I wouldn't claim this to be a definitive list by any means, and it's highly subjective obviously but it's pretty blatantly stacked on one side of the scales here from what I can see. It's a huge improvement from not so many decades ago when you could add things like voting rights and women being viewed as property to the female side, but they've still got a clear lead in the number and severity of issues they've still got to deal with today. This difference is why I find it silly when people say we've reached equality or even that men supposedly have it worse now. I'll give all the clarifications in the world that this difference doesn't in any way invalidate the male issues, but seriously, if you're trying to talk about which gender has it worse the answer is still obviously women. The fact that this was the case even before I threw out ten more issues for women is kind of indicative of how bad things still are.

So there are studies supporting that when childless women work equal hours with equal skill than a man in the same job that the man is still paid more?
Can I see the source? Cause up to this point every time someone claimed women were paid less, they were either referencing the flawed study that didn't consider factors such as leave or career choices, or simply just quoted it cause it's something feminism always states.

Well now, you've seen the notes I made to pay gap stuff in the previous section, so here comes a somewhat embarrassing correction. Those numbers I was quoting? Yeah, thought they were from a legit study, got it from a solid site, but I traced it back and found out that it came from a heavily biased feminist organization and it didn't have very good documentation on methodology. That might've still flown sort of, if not for the fact that I then found very contradictory information when I went to find legit data. Turns out childless women under the age of 30 actually make an average of 8% more than their male counterparts, but it does actually swap back the other way after 30 even if the women remain childless. The overall pay difference is indeed about 20% as I said before, so there's that, but I couldn't find any solid data for pay differences between childless women and mothers in the same field with the same level of experience and education. Also, it's not universally in favor of men: the Bureau of Labor Statistics looked at a bunch of different fields in 2009 and found that women made more money in jobs falling under the headings of "bakers," "teacher assistants," "dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers," and "other life, physical, and social science technicians," whatever the hell that means. That was 4 out of 108 occupations looked at but hey, some advantageous areas are better than none. I also found some things giving more detailed breakdowns of how pregnancy and motherhood might explain a large segment of the pay gap, which was already a blatantly obvious thing, but I'll be giving them a read to see the details bits on how they estimate the effect this stuff has on a woman's pay. There's an argument to make about how taking time off of work to be with kids is largely due to gender role things expecting women to always be the one there for the kids, and they should put their children above all else while men are expected to focus on work, but there's still a large choice aspect going on there since working women and stay at home dads are becoming more and more acceptable, so I can't really count this as just another problem caused by gender roles.

So yeah, I'm downgrading the pay gap thing from a major to minor issue as I see them. It's not as bad as I thought, there are areas where women truly have advantages, but it's still a problem area. It's just no longer as important imo as bodily autonomy and the media clusterfuck, so downgrade ahoy. Thanks for questioning this and pushing me to go do better research Gwazi. Doesn't change the overall picture for me, but I like being as accurate as possible and this helps.

Even if men blame the victim more often than women do, doesn't make the fact a man being raped is a laughing manner that's rarely taken seriously unlike a woman's case is still an argument. It simply means that men have more work to do in this area in smartening up and to stop blaming the victim.

I do agree that women also get mocked and blamed for being raped, and that there are also other causes at work here.

I find the amount women get blamed compared to men though depends on the area.
You'll find those area's whose main concern are those football kids who can land big bucks for their hometown of the rape is covered up.
But also find those area's where raping a women is totally unacceptable, but raping men is a 'myth'.

I think I already covered this stuff when I responded to a rape thing earlier in this post. The point about it differing by area is important though, definitely has some merit to it. Women who accuse "important" people of rape are more likely to be mocked and disbelieved than those who accuse some average schmuck of rape. The thing about raping men being a myth in some places is also very important, and in some states and countries the laws on the books define rape in ways such that legally it isn't rape if done to a male, such as saying rape is the forcible penetration of the vagina. The legal side of things is improving slowly, but the perception and reaction to rape accusations is still pretty awful and hasn't gotten much better in the past decade, and that's pretty shitty.

---

Protagonist said
I'm usually all for gender equality, but the problem with modern feminism is that they seem to hate everything I like and like everything I hate.
For example, many of them hate video games and such for making their male characters "Male empowerment fantasies" and their female characters "Male sexual fantasies"...even in situations where men and women are shown to be equally badass. Thing is, I LIKE most of these games they rant against.

As someone who enjoys video games too, honestly, they've got a point. Video games aren't horrible misogynist piles of shit just because a lot of them fail at making good female characters, but it's true that there's a lot of room for improvement. A lot of it comes from the fact that the sole demographic for video games for a long damned time was males, particularly teenage males, so things were crafted to appeal to teen male sensibilities. If that meant putting the badass warrior chick in a chainmail bikini instead of serviceable armor, so be it, sales > sensibilities. Sex sells, so it continues to be a thing, and I really doubt that will ever change.

However, the video game industry is already getting a lot better about portrayals of females, and they were already getting better about it before feminist attacks ensued. I don't see it as being a massive problem like some say, because this forward movement is a very good sign for the future. Not too long ago the misogynist shit pile thing would have been true, but now video games are already equal to or surpassing other major forms of media in how they portray women, so I for one am content to chill and let the forward progress happen on its own. I'm far more concerned with things like how rap, which is one of the best-selling genres of music in the US, still has a core theme of treating women like shit and it being a cool thing to do, and people are eating it up. Those advocating equal rights need to pick their battles, go after the worst stuff rather than complaining about middle of the pack things, because that's how you make issues apparent and get general support for them. Crying about things like how the RPG character creation for females adds focus on female physical traits instead of giving the exact same options as male character creation is a frivolous battle, just move on to actual issues please. Also, yes, I've actually seen people complaining about that before, and acting like it's a major issue that needs to be dealt with now. Urgh.

And then there's the more radical feminists who try to make the pro-life movement out to be filled with sexists or say that men can't have an opinion on abortion. I do not wish to argue about abortion here, but as a very pro-life man, I cannot in good conscience align myself with these types of people.

Not wanting to argue abortion here is a good idea. However, if you want to see an argument for why it really and truly is a female issue that is about more than just whether or not life starts at conception or whatever, I'll throw the thing I said about it in another post in this thread in a hider. Feel free to send me a PM about it it you want to have a discussion about it elsewhere, or don't bother responding at all, no worries.

thing

It's not just a matter of having little in the way of abortion rights, it's a matter of large segments of society attacking female bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is a very important concept that is the core to laws dealing with your right to choose how your body is treated (which is what the term 'bodily autonomy' means, for anyone who wasn't already aware). Without bodily autonomy you could be forced to donate blood or bone marrow or organs to those in need. Without bodily autonomy people wouldn't have the choice not to donate their organs after they die, it would just be done if the hospital wanted to regardless of your preferences or religious beliefs on the matter. Without bodily autonomy the government could dictate whether or not you could get tattoos, or what style or color your hair could be, or pretty much anything to do with your choices about your body. Bodily autonomy is a core reason for why rape is illegal: you have the right to say what can and cannot be done with your body, so someone trying to have sex with you against your will is violating that right. The fact that people are trying to tell women they don't have say over what they do with their body, by way of trying to force them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, is extremely troubling both because they're trying to reduce women's rights to less than that of a corpse (the organ donation thing means corpses have bodily autonomy still in effect) and because of the possible future implications of what could happen if the concept of bodily autonomy is legally thrown out the window.

And then there's the final issue of feminists who try to blame all of women's problems on some sort of 'patriarchy'. I see this as being a sort of 'self-victimization', when someone artificially makes themselves look a victim of persecution in order to reap the benefits. Lord knows every major political movement does this, but I think feminists are a particularly egregious example. Back to the video game example, it seems very difficult to actually present a female character that feminists like.

The patriarchy thing is objectively false based on the definition of patriarchy, even the modified definitions feminists try to give, so agreed there. The modern wave of not-really-feminists definitely goes for the "woe is me, I am a victim" thing a lot. The worst of them cry victim whenever someone objects to or counters their arguments, so it can become a sort of defense mechanism against opposing views. It's just awful, and there's no way to shut those kinds of people down other than through a war of attrition where you have to bat away their "STOP VICTIMIZING ME!!!" while calmly refuting their points long enough to expose them for the annoying windbags with no substance that they are.

---

Magic Magnum said
I'm honestly Pro-Life myself so I can sympathize.

Personally though when I look at the issue of Abortion I see it as a "Child Rights VS Parent's Rights" issue, not a "Women's Rights VS Men's Rights issue".
If men could also be pregnant, but they had abortion rights that women didn't... then I'd call sexism.

But as it is? The fact only women are targets of this is a biological result of only women can get pregnant.
So it does bug me when people use Abortion as an example for discrimination against women (at least in the sense of discrimination because they are a woman).

Well, you should've already read what I had to say on bodily autonomy, so whether or not you agreed with that you should have an idea of what the argument is for why it is indeed a female issue above all else. Pro-life attacks on bodily autonomy aren't really sexism (it's not about gender and they'd probably say the same things if men could get pregnant too), and they aren't exactly discrimination against women for being women, and it's good to make the distinction that it's not a sexism-based thing, but it nonetheless is a major issue for women that isn't an issue for men. Explain it away with sexual dimorphism all you like, the fact remains that female bodily autonomy is under attack while the sovereignty of male bodily autonomy isn't even questioned. Aiming for gender equality isn't about dealing only with the differences that stem from sexism, it's about dealing with all gender-based issues regardless of what they stem from.

Oh, and that thing you said about it being a women's rights versus men's rights thing, those two things needn't be in opposition for an issue to fall under one or the other. Abortion and thus female bodily autonomy is a women's rights issue that has literally nothing to do with men's rights. And the parent versus child rights thing... Actually, nah, that'd be getting into abortion debate territory. I'll take Protagonist's lead and not go there.

[Gwynbleidd]

Man, I will respond to you Magnum and you Zaresto… But Jorick did such a good job of summing up most of my beliefs. Give me a moment to look at these things carefully.

[Gwynbleidd]

Zaresto said
That might be because men do not get preggo. Not the fault of any patriarchy, just evolution.Although it still is tainted by those who give it a bad name. Acknowledging this, many feminists do little to quell these more radical feminists. Questions the priorities of many feminists, doesn't it?

I've never argued for an existence of a patriarchy. I've also never looked at anything regarding the patriarchy seriously, or have looked at any legitimate studies or works on the idea of a patriarchy with a finely constructed definition of what exactly a patriarchy is and does. Although, societies of the world have traditionally been male-dominated or "patriarchal". This is not to say it is the case in first world countries. Women in less developed countries are subject to more discrimination, much like women in older US times, and probably worse.

And, regardless. I'm not referring to only single women. I'm also pointing out that married women still take the hits to their careers while they also have husbands who are fathers of that child. More husbands should take leave as well.

The priorities of genuine feminists are on gender equality for women, why should they be the ones that have to quell radicals? It's not their fault if the media that is extremely sensationalist likes to grab extremist feminist words and spread them everywhere. I'd say the priorities of genuine feminists are where they should be.

Zaresto said Sure, I can see how women have it worse in other parts of the world, but for you to say that they don't have massive amounts of privileges above men here is downright ignorant.Let's see:-Male genital mutilation is acceptable-Men are constantly seen as the oppressor-Women get an average of 60% less time in prison-In the US, men are required to enlist for the draft-Men are seen as expendable (Drawing off previous point)-Men are seen as bad fathersOf course, women don't have alot of abortion rights, but that is about it.

Jorick pretty much said everything I wanted to say here.

Zaresto said They have the right to vote, they have equal pay, and they are generally adored by society. On the subject of sexual activity, I can see where the stigma comes from. Generally, women have a much easier time securing a partner, so it is seen, by some men, that "getting the girl" is an accomplishment. As for the fact that there are more gender-based insults associated specifically towards women rather than men, I'm going to have to ask for some examples.

Jorick again has pointed out that it is not exactly 100% equal pay. Adored by society? That's very debatable in a slut-shaming, and often times victim blaming society we live in. And whether or not women have an easier time securing a partner, it doesn't change the fact that shaming a woman for enjoying sex while letting men who can be equally promiscuous get off without any negative social judgment is wrong. When it comes to sex, everyone should mind their own business.

And with gendered slurs, Jorick has gotten to that. The worst things men are called are pricks, dicks, assholes, douchebag, etc. And most men don't really take these things seriously. Whereas with women, specific things that come from being a woman are cunt, pussy, slut, whore, and bitch. Also old time things like "You hit/throw like a girl." In these cases it's like being a girl is a big insult.

(Whereas Jorick has a stance opposed to the idea of gendered slurs, I lean more to that they are a bigger societal problem and I will get to that later)

Zaresto said Looking at it now, it seems that men have the short end of the stick, don't they?Media doesn't really matter. Even if it did, it still favors women. Also, why are you both a feminist and an egalitarian? Why not just be egalitarian and not have your movement correlate specifically towards women, and rather towards equality?

Media does not favor women. Not by a long shot. I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion. And media matters quite a bit. The manipulation media can have on one's conscious and subconscious are pretty alarming.

I am both a feminist and an egalitarian because their ideals intersect with each other. Feminism is still needed in many parts of the world, and perhaps a bit less needed in more developed countries. Feminism is a well-established movement and it's easier to get things accomplished through feminism than start up a whole new movement and get distracted by so many other things. However, I still welcome discussions about rights for men and the problems men face. There is something to be said about efficiency in focusing on one problem at a time.

[Gwynbleidd]

Magic Magnum said
I realize there are still issues for women here like maternity leave. I wasn't trying to say there wasn't, but those things have been listed and argued for millions of times now.But the issues facing men are largely ignored or brushed off, so I felt specific need to bring those up when the topic was about if we're feminist or not and why.As for feminism = Gender equality.This leads me to one big question right off the bat. If this is true why is it called inism?

Not saying you were. Nor do I disagree that there are issues that face men that are ignored or brushed off.

Feminism is called feminism because it is gender equality for women. For women to become equal with men. It has not been achieved yet. I feel we spend to much time deciding to be feminist, men's rights activist, egalitarian, humanist, etc. Why can't I be all of them? I would not hold myself to a single label or thought. I feel these activist organizations intersect when they are genuinely for what they hope to accomplish.

Magic Magnum said Other than that, I'd argue simply looking at feminist today that seems to be pretty split down the middle.You've got plenty of those who do want gender equality, and plenty who don't.Hell I've been called "The reason feminism still needs to exist" simply for saying that I was a humanist.

Eh, I stay away from this. These things are hard to quantify, so this just ends up being opinions that can't really be argued with evidentiary support. Again, that is your experience with one or a few other people. There are a ton of people. I like to avoid generalizing things by using my personal experiences.

Magic Magnum said Globally yes, but individually you've got the 3rd world countries where it's still a big issue. Then 1st world countries where for many of them it's not an issue.You can't just say "Globally women are treated like less" and then address every country like that's an issue.That's like saying "Globally people are starving" and then solving that by starting food drives and charities for Americans.You need to look at area's in a case by case basis.

It's a bigger issue in 3rd world, no doubt. But there's still improvement needed for 1st world as well. And I was not saying that, I was pointing out that globally, discrimination is a big issue in 3rd world countries so feminism is still necessary. But I also pointed out that we are specifically talking about 1st world, and 1st world countries still are not all the way there. I was not trying to imply that other countries are the same case as the USA.

Magic Magnum said Also like I said above, I agree there are issues women still face. I never argued this, but there are also male issues.And at least with women issues the majority of people are agreeing they're treated unfairly and working to fix it.

I don't know if there is a majority of people agreeing. This is hard to quantify.

Magic Magnum said Men and their issues? Not so much... Many people just think of it as silly, or that somehow fighting for men's rights is sexist against women.You're half-right in saying fighting against women gender roles will help men. It would help by extension some men issues.

Didn't say that men's issues weren't being ignored or under evaluated.

Magic Magnum said But Ultimately all it does is make women accepted into everything, and men simply more commonly filling in the blank. Rather than say both men and women being accepted into everything.

It's not genuine feminist job to focus on everyone's problems. I have said before there is something to be said about solving problems one at a time. Distractions cause progress to slow down. True feminists are not trying to take away from men's rights. They're simply trying to elevate women to the same level. Once that happens, more progress can happen for both men and women. Meanwhile, there can be other movements to work forward and fight for men's rights as well. I find fighting about what movement is the right movement to be a complete waste of time.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Jorick said Which is worse, being mocked for being raped or being mocked and for being raped? Men are just mocked, women are mocked (less, to be fair) and also blamed for it in many cases. I'd say treatment of rape victims is actually worse for women. It's a horribly complex issue, but as far as the sexism bits go it's pretty equal due to shittier things in different areas. I'd say female rape victims are treated worse, but male reports of rape are less likely to actually be acted upon whereas nowadays female accusations are so strong that false accusations can sometimes get convictions when the only real evidence is he said, she said type things. Women are raped more, but underage victims of rape (be it statutory or true lack of consent rape) are treated differently: girls are generally treated as horribly abused victims, but male victims of things like teachers taking advantage of them are sickly encouraged and approved of. It's all a big mess of awful crap, but in the end I'd say it's pretty clearly a gender equal issue when all things are considered.

Good point, though there have been cases of men being blamed for rape.
Not nearly as often mind you so I'd still give that point over to women. But with comments such as "That Player, he probably asked them too".
However, this is less of a blame in the sense of "She shouldn't of worn that dress" and more simply thinking the male wasn't raped, and simply had willing sex with the girl.
But, that kind of blaming also happens to Girls, with comments such as "She wanted it".

I really hate people at times... -.-

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

Jorick said That's the thing though, for anyone who views females as still getting the short end of the stick (which I do, and I imagine all feminists and many of those who identify as humanists and whatnot also do) it's not just a matter of previous generations, it's a thing that's still happening. It's not calling men today oppressors for the actions of their ancestors, it's calling men today oppressors for the current state of things. It's kind of ridiculous to claim men are all consciously oppressing women though, as there are all sorts of cultural things going on that are never consciously considered that lead to sexism, so it's not like it's just cool to go yell at random guys that they need to stop oppressing women. That's why I say even if this was the intent it's an equal issue at best, though honestly probably weighing in favor of it really being a female issue, because what's worse, men being viewed as oppressors or all the female issues that are caused by male actions and behaviors?

More clarification is certainly needed though, because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to bring up as a male issue regardless of what meaning is intended.

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.

Jorick said Some trace? It's pretty blatant. Claiming that it's heavily outweighed by the draft is ridiculous given the fact that it hasn't been used since 1973. We've been in wars since then, and the combined action in Afghanistan and Iraq most definitely strained the numbers of active military personnel, but even then the draft wasn't used. Prosecution for failure to sign up for the draft hasn't happened since 1986. Until and unless the draft is actually used again, it's effectively dead and not really worth claiming as a major point of sexist bullshit. Honestly, it seems like a joke to me to equate "having to" sign up for the draft (when the only negative repercussion nowadays is that failure to do so might disqualify you from having a job with the federal government), which has affected barely any men at all since 1986, to how men get the shaft in divorce and child custody proceedings, which affect men all the time. The fact that people have to dig for the draft as a second flagship point for how men have it bad is kind of sad, because when you look at the facts surrounding it it's effectively a non-issue with only hypothetical possibilities of bad things to come.

Now, that aside, I'd say the thing about men being expendable in emergencies (which by the way is a holdover from times long ago when maintaining a viable breeding stock was of vital importance, wherein losing half of your population's men would just mean the other guys have to pick up the slack but losing half of your women halved your breeding capabilities) is made up for by them being of greater importance in almost all other circumstances and by the associated negative things for women about them being frail and weak and incapable of saving men and whatnot.

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.

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.

Jorick said I'd revise it to be 3 male specific issues, 4 gender equal, and 1 for women. The changes I'd make are removal of the draft altogether and moving the expendable men thing to the neutral category.

But yeah, this is by no means an all-inclusive list, and trying to claim who has it worse just based on a listing of concrete issues would be foolish anyway.

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.

Jorick said I think there would be more harm done by trying to force a name change than by leaving it and having to make a clarification once in a while.

Also, I think those feminazi types are more to do with people declaring humanism and so forth instead of feminism than any naming issues. The name thing is minor, but the awful parts of the group that are after female dominance rather than equality is a huge reason for why people distance themselves from feminism. I am an example of this in action.

That makes two of us examples of the action then. :P

Jorick said First wave feminism and humanism are basically the same thing, so yeah, they could be. Feminism is far better known in general culture though, so odds are heavy than any non-vocal supporter of equality will call themselves a feminist rather than a humanist.

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?

Jorick said Right, I know there are things that wouldn't be affected by just dealing with female gender roles, that's why I prefer the simultaneous approach. What I was getting at is that there's already all sorts of groundwork laid for dealing with female gender role stuff courtesy of feminism, all kinds of momentum for that side of things while male issues are rarely even acknowledged, so there's an argument to be made that it'd be more efficient to just focus on one problem before dealing with the other.

The fact that humans are a sexually dimorphic species is exactly why I am doubtful that gender roles will ever go away completely. So long as there are differences, there will be people who discriminate based on those differences. That's just how the human mind works. The best we can do is minimize the impact, not eradicate it. At least that's how I see it with my cynical world view.

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.

Jorick said I already did a little of that in what I said about the draft being a non-issue. I can go for more though, sure. The child custody and divorce thing is the one and only area that I actually weigh as being equal to the major female issues, and they've got three big ticket items as far as I'm concerned: pay gap [note: see next quote response section for a bit of clarification on this one, and why I downgrade it to a minor issue after further research, and in the future I'll probably refer to this realm of issues as employment issues since "pay gap" actually doesn't describe it well, not rewriting things because fuck it, let people see my mistakes], bodily autonomy, and the clusterfuck of media things. That alone is a three [note: two with the correction] to one difference on major things. Now, for the lesser things, let's take a look at what we've agreed are male only issues.

So we basically got Child Custody Rights VS Bodily Rights and Media?

Fair enough, I can agree with this one.

Jorick said The genital mutilation thing, eh, big fucking whoop? Circumcision is gross and weird, sure, but what does it do exactly? From everything I've read on the subject, it lessens sexual pleasure and sensitivity, but it's also cleaner and makes it so some problems with foreskin aren't an issue. Aesthetics is a wash, people tend to prefer circumcised versus uncut based on personal experiences and what they were first made aware of and such. It doesn't do any real lasting harm to the guy, it doesn't inhibit or prevent sexual activity (like a lot of female genital mutilation does), it just makes it feel slightly to moderately less good (which is a wholly subjective thing anyway, since there's no objective way to measure pleasure) and potentially solves some problems. This is nowhere near as big a problem as things like the pay gap, and if you look at it as a part of the broader picture of sexual things it's dwarfed by some of the crap women face in that area. The genital mutilation thing is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and honestly it's more of a strange religious problem than it is a sexist problem. Circumcisions don't happen out of malice for men, they happen because old books said it should and then it became a tradition. In the first world it's a male only problem, sure, but it's a really small one.

Circumcision VS Pay Gap

Pay Gap I'll address later where you talked about the study you were using.

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.

Jorick said For prison sentencing, the level of sexist bullshit present in it is heavily mitigated by those stats of offense and recidivism rates I brought up. You can't just call it an anti-male thing when there are clear and logical reasons for why it is this way, and why logically women would have harsher sentencing if they instead had the higher rates. There's also the fact that the United States justice system is ridiculously backwards in the first place and in need of major reform just to make it not brokenly stupid, so trying to point to bad things in this area as proof of wider badness is like saying the US military being backwards and stupid about things is proof of society at large being backwards and stupid in the same ways; they're largely separate areas governed by very different rules, so you can't really look at them and judge them in the same way as you'd look at social interactions. This is also a minor issue that gets nowhere near the importance of the big ones, though certainly a more important one than the genital mutilation thing.

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.

Jorick said -Snip of saying there are more woman issues than males-

If I think of more issues against men I'll be sure to bring them up here.
But with the issues we currently have addressed here what you say would be correct.

Jorick said Well now, you've seen the notes I made to pay gap stuff in the previous section, so here comes a somewhat embarrassing correction. Those numbers I was quoting? Yeah, thought they were from a legit study, got it from a solid site, but I traced it back and found out that it came from a heavily biased feminist organization and it didn't have very good documentation on methodology. That might've still flown sort of, if not for the fact that I then found very contradictory information when I went to find legit data. Turns out childless women under the age of 30 actually make an average of 8% more than their male counterparts, but it does actually swap back the other way after 30 even if the women remain childless. The overall pay difference is indeed about 20% as I said before, so there's that, but I couldn't find any solid data for pay differences between childless women and mothers in the same field with the same level of experience and education. Also, it's not universally in favor of men: the Bureau of Labor Statistics looked at a bunch of different fields in 2009 and found that women made more money in jobs falling under the headings of "bakers," "teacher assistants," "dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers," and "other life, physical, and social science technicians," whatever the hell that means. That was 4 out of 108 occupations looked at but hey, some advantageous areas are better than none. I also found some things giving more detailed breakdowns of how pregnancy and motherhood might explain a large segment of the pay gap, which was already a blatantly obvious thing, but I'll be giving them a read to see the details bits on how they estimate the effect this stuff has on a woman's pay. There's an argument to make about how taking time off of work to be with kids is largely due to gender role things expecting women to always be the one there for the kids, and they should put their children above all else while men are expected to focus on work, but there's still a large choice aspect going on there since working women and stay at home dads are becoming more and more acceptable, so I can't really count this as just another problem caused by gender roles.

So yeah, I'm downgrading the pay gap thing from a major to minor issue as I see them. It's not as bad as I thought, there are areas where women truly have advantages, but it's still a problem area. It's just no longer as important imo as bodily autonomy and the media clusterfuck, so downgrade ahoy. Thanks for questioning this and pushing me to go do better research Gwazi. Doesn't change the overall picture for me, but I like being as accurate as possible and this helps.

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

Jorick said I think I already covered this stuff when I responded to a rape thing earlier in this post. The point about it differing by area is important though, definitely has some merit to it. Women who accuse "important" people of rape are more likely to be mocked and disbelieved than those who accuse some average schmuck of rape. The thing about raping men being a myth in some places is also very important, and in some states and countries the laws on the books define rape in ways such that legally it isn't rape if done to a male, such as saying rape is the forcible penetration of the vagina. The legal side of things is improving slowly, but the perception and reaction to rape accusations is still pretty awful and hasn't gotten much better in the past decade, and that's pretty shitty.

Technically you can rule that when a woman rapes a man that she forcefully uses the mans dick to penetrate her vagina.
Therefore still a forcible penetration of the vagina and can be legally claimed to be rape. :P

We're in agreement here with that it's an awful situation still being worked on, and it is easier to accuse an average person for being a rapist than it is to accuse an 'Important' person.

Jorick said Well, you should've already read what I had to say on bodily autonomy, so whether or not you agreed with that you should have an idea of what the argument is for why it is indeed a female issue above all else. Pro-life attacks on bodily autonomy aren't really sexism (it's not about gender and they'd probably say the same things if men could get pregnant too), and they aren't exactly discrimination against women for being women, and it's good to make the distinction that it's not a sexism-based thing, but it nonetheless a major issue for women that isn't an issue for men. Explain it away with sexual dimorphism all you like, the fact remains that female bodily autonomy is under attack while the sovereignty of male bodily autonomy isn't even questioned. Aiming for gender equality isn't about dealing only with the differences that stem from sexism, it's about dealing with all gender-based issues regardless of what they stem from.

Oh, and that thing you said about it being a women's rights versus men's rights thing, those two things needn't be in opposition for an issue to fall under one or the other. Abortion and thus female bodily autonomy is a women's rights issue that has literally nothing to do with men's rights. And the parent versus child rights thing... Actually, nah, that'd be getting into abortion debate territory. I'll take Protagonist's lead and not go there.

I read it, and I've debated this topic tons on the atheist group I've mentioned in the religion thread.
So I've heard almost every argument in the book, argument's that have definitely caused me to re-look my stance on Abortion.
The only thing really keeping me Pro-Life at this point is claiming a child before birth isn't a life.

That's a debate for another topic though.
As for Abortion and Gender rights though?
Although I personally view it as a child vs parent issue rather than a gender issue, it is still a topic which I grant does count as an example of a gender issue for women.

Dark Wind said
Man, I will respond to you Magnum and you Zaresto… But Jorick did such a good job of summing up most of my beliefs. Give me a moment to look at these things carefully.

No problem. These posts are getting pretty long to read and reply to anyways. :P

[Gwynbleidd]

Jorick said
Oh, okay, that makes sense. I wasn't sure if you were trying to say that was an advantage or disadvantage for women, or something else entirely. Turns out it was the something else category. I don't really have anything of value to add or respond with as far as this idea goes, so on to the next thing.

It's interesting stuff. I suggest picking up The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild.

Jorick said We've gotten to the point where "gendered" slurs in the current generation are not actually tied to gender in any meaningful way. Ever hung out with some Australian dudes? They call each other cunts all the time. It's not quite so common in most other parts of the world, but it's gotten to the point where calling a guy a cunt is just a normal thing. Calling a woman a cunt no longer means "you are a women and therefore awful," it means the same thing as it does to men, which as I see it is basically one large step above calling someone an asshole but meaning the same kinds of things. Calling someone a dick has nothing to do with their penis or lack thereof, it's a lesser form of the meanings found in asshole.

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.

Jorick said Side note: it's funny how so many of our insults are based on body parts, but hey, whatever works. Pussy and bitch have both taken on meanings that have nothing to do with gender, pussy being an insulting version of coward (and the term stems from words talking about cats, animals often viewed as cowardly, with the female genital use coming into prominence much later) and bitch being used to refer to someone whining and complaining, such as the meaning seen in "quit your bitching."

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.

Jorick said Slut and whore are the only ones that really have any grounds for being called gender-biased terms nowadays, but the fact that they're so easily used on men as well without seeming out of place shows that they're not truly directed to one gender alone, which is the one qualification I have for whether or not something is truly a "gendered" word or not.

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.

Jorick said See, my whole thing is that usage is what matters, not the supposed origin or supposed meanings of the terms. The fact that cunt started off as a slang term for vagina doesn't mean that using the term is a jab at women. The meanings of words change over time, so claiming their gender of origin makes them a "gendered slur" that is extra insulting for one gender is just stupid. Anyone who gets more offended by being called a bitch than they are about being called a dick is just a hyper-sensitive turd who needs to stop seeking sexism; when you look hard enough for something, you're gonna find it eventually.

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.

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.

[Gwazi Magnum]

And... In the 2 hours I took to respond to Jorick you posted.
Well, here goes another hour (Or 23 minutes...)! :P

Dark Wind said Adored by society? That's very debatable in a slut-shaming, and often times victim blaming society we live in. And whether or not women have an easier time securing a partner, it doesn't change the fact that shaming a woman for enjoying sex while letting men who can be equally promiscuous get off without any negative social judgment is wrong. When it comes to sex, everyone should mind their own business.

Agreed. But as we see with the world, "Purity Pledge", "Adultery in one's heart", "Gay Marriage still being a debate" etc. People just love to get involved in other people's sex lives. -.-
I will fully admit that women get it worse when it comes to sexual culture and how women are treated opposed to men when they sleep with multiple different people.

Dark Wind said And with gendered slurs, Jorick has gotten to that. The worst things men are called are pricks, dicks, assholes, douchebag, etc. And most men don't really take these things seriously. Whereas with women, specific things that come from being a woman are cunt, pussy, slut, whore, and bitch. Also old time things like "You hit/throw like a girl." In these cases it's like being a girl is a big insult.

Eh...

I don't see any issue in terms such as dick, douchebag, cunt, bitch, whore, pussy etc.
Literally speaking, yes they are based off specific parts of the human body (some male/female specific). But English has words meaning several different things all the time.
Culturally speaking, I find they're more general insults thrown at both genders rather equally, it's a typical case of where I think people need to not be offended by the word itself but rather the meaning and intent behind the word.

As for saying like "You're acting like a girl?".
Those I'm with you 100% on. That's outright saying that girls are less competent/worse then men.
That women are something to avoid and not be like.

Dark Wind said Media does not favor women. Not by a long shot. I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion. And media matters quite a bit. The manipulation media can have on one's conscious and subconscious are pretty alarming.

Depends on how you look at it.
If you mean as in the image/representation women are given on Media? Then yes, women get the short end of the stick.
If you mean how they benefit from Media? Such as how much a girl may get paid for photo shoots, being revealing etc? Women models and such have it better... by far.
But honestly, that's just a case of female vultures profiting off making a bad image for the rest of their gender.

Dark Wind said
Not saying you were. Nor do I disagree that there are issues that face men that are ignored or brushed off.

Feminism is called feminism because it is gender equality for women. For women to become equal with men. It has not been achieved yet. I feel we spend to much time deciding to be feminist, men's rights activist, egalitarian, humanist, etc. Why can't I be all of them? I would not hold myself to a single label or thought. I feel these activist organizations intersect when they are genuinely for what they hope to accomplish.

If you want to identify as all of them feel free to.
I get along with several people who choose to do so just fine.
It's just I personally choose not to cause I don't like identifying with any cause in this case that's focusing on just one element of the overall problem.

Dark Wind said I don't know if there is a majority of people agreeing. This is hard to quantify.

I guess it largely depends on area.
Where I live that's what the majority thinks (or simply of the majority of the kind of people I'm around).
It may be different in your areas and the people you all interact with.

Dark Wind said It's not genuine feminist job to focus on everyone's problems. I have said before there is something to be said about solving problems one at a time. Distractions cause progress to slow down. True feminists are not trying to take away from men's rights. They're simply trying to elevate women to the same level. Once that happens, more progress can happen for both men and women. Meanwhile, there can be other movements to work forward and fight for men's rights as well. I find fighting about what movement is the right movement to be a complete waste of time.

This honestly might be the best solution to the issue.
Having feminist focus on women issues, men's rights focus on male issues and have the two agreeing and on the same side as allies rather than being against one another.

But as long as causes like feminism are plagued and ran by Feminazi's who want to push a female dominant agenda, it's not going to be so easy.
Those who are fighting for men's rights will speak up against Feminazi's, just like they do against anything else that tries to attack and take away men's rights.

In other words, if both sides lost their extremists I can see this working and people simply identifying as both feminists and men's rights.
Until that day comes... Conflict is going to happen.

[Gwynbleidd]

Magic Magnum said
And... In the 2 hours I took to respond to Jorick you posted.Well, here goes another hour (Or 23 minutes...)! :P

Lol, replying to these issues which takes time and deep thought. Coincidentally, I'm working on a paper applying gender representation and specific feminist theories to men and women in specific episodes of tv shows like Star Trek, I Love Lucy, and two anime shows (Genshiken and Revolutionary Girl Utena if you were curious).

Magic Magnum said
Agreed. But as we see with the world, "Purity Pledge", "Adultery in one's heart", "Gay Marriage still being a debate" etc. People just love to get involved in other people's sex lives. -.-I will fully admit that women get it worse when it comes to sexual culture and how women are treated opposed to men when they sleep with multiple different people.

Oh, I know. It's frustrating. Had a friend once say such and such is a slut, and I asked why/how, and they go "are you kidding me? do you see what she's wearing?" I restrained myself from hitting said person and calmly disagreed.

Magic Magnum said
Eh...I don't see any issue in terms such as dick, douchebag, cunt, bitch, whore, pussy etc.Literally speaking, yes they are based off specific parts of the human body (some male/female specific). But English has words meaning several different things all the time.Culturally speaking, I find they're more general insults thrown at both genders rather equally, it's a typical case of where I think people need to not be offended by the word itself but rather the meaning and intent behind the word. As for saying like "You're acting like a girl?".Those I'm with you 100% on. That's outright saying that girls are less competent/worse then men.That women are something to avoid and not be like.

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.

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.

Magic Magnum said Depends on how you look at it.If you mean as in the image/representation women are given on Media? Then yes, women get the short end of the stick.If you mean how they benefit from Media? Such as how much a girl may get paid for photo shoots, being revealing etc? Women models and such have it better... by far.But honestly, that's just a case of female vultures profiting off making a bad image for the rest of their gender.

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).

Magic Magnum said
If you want to identify as all of them feel free to.I get along with several people who choose to do so just fine.It's just I personally choose not to cause I don't like identifying with any cause in this case that's focusing on just one element of the overall problem.

And that's fine by me. We all go about things differently.

Magic Magnum said I guess it largely depends on area.Where I live that's what the majority thinks (or simply of the majority of the kind of people I'm around).It may be different in your areas and the people you all interact with.

This could very well be the case.

Magic Magnum said This honestly might be the best solution to the issue.Having feminist focus on women issues, men's rights focus on male issues and have the two agreeing and on the same side as allies rather than being against one another.But as long as causes like feminism are plagued and ran by Feminazi's who want to push a female dominant agenda, it's not going to be so easy.Those who are fighting for men's rights will speak up against Feminazi's, just like they do against anything else that tries to attack and take away men's rights.In other words, if both sides lost their extremists I can see this working and people simply identifying as both feminists and men's rights.Until that day comes... Conflict is going to happen.

Agreed. To me at least, this would be the most efficient. I sometimes look at feminism, men's rights, etc. to be temporary things, while egalitarianism is eternal.

[Jorick]

Magic Magnum said I really hate people at times... -.-

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

Agreed on both counts.

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.

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.

Magic Magnum said 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

---

Dark Wind said 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Commander]

The United States may look at gender equality as being a fixed issue, but if you live here, you know it's not. It's not just a men/women either, the same goes for same-sex rights, and a host of other things that simply shouldn't be an issue in the current times. I think we're slowly moving in the right direction however.

As far as feminism goes, I understand why it exists and I think it should, however as others have mentioned there are some out there that just ruin it. I'm friends with somebody on facebook (they teach women's studies) and I've just become numb to how they go about themselves. For them it really seems women are better then men, and men are just awful. That not only isn't true, but as others again have mentioned, damaging to everybody.

I can understand and certainly appreciate equality for everybody, but sometimes you just need to say "get off your high horse". Again this is just my opinion, and individual mileage will vary.

[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.

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 rejected by society. 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.

On the topic of gender-based insults: It seems as though alot of insults have a distinctly male connotation. (see: douchebag, asshat, asshole, dickweed, dickcheese, faggot, fucker, fuck, etc.) However, insults aren't really considered a problem, due to how they are meant to be insulting and used to demean opposition.

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.

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.

Video games, they don't matter.

Gender Wage Gap: Debunked, time and time again.

I'm not trying to belittle the plights of women, I'm simply saying the we shouldn't focus solely on them.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Dark Wind said 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.

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.

Dark Wind said 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.

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.

Dark Wind said 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)

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.

Jorick said 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.

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.

Jorick said -Drafting Snip-

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.

Jorick said 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.

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.

Jorick said 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.

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.

Jorick said -Circumcision Snip-

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

Jorick said -Pay Gap Snip-

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, I'll use this graph here to help calculate this.

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.

Zaresto said 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.

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

Zaresto said 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.

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.

Zaresto said 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.

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.

Zaresto said 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.

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.

Zaresto said Video games, they don't matter.

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*.

Extra Credits: Diversity
Extra Credits: True Female Characters
Extra Credits: Sex in Games
Extra Credits: Harassment

[Jorick]

Zaresto said 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.

Video games, they don't matter.

Eh, I wouldn't say that cartoons are the best representative group for television as a whole, seeing as they don't even nearly make up a majority of television programs. I could just as easily cite reality show type things like that one show Bridezilla that shows women being crazy assholes, or that one show about teen moms showcasing women who made dumb choices in their life. Those are also not perfect representatives of TV as a whole, but you can see the problems that arise when you make a very limited and biased selection and then try to generalize with them.

Video games don't matter? Oh, well then, I'll go inform the world that this brilliant fellow who calls himself Zaresto has had this startling epiphany that changes everything. Sarcasm aside, yeah, video games do matter in this context. All kinds of media can have an impact on societal expectations, including video games. You could argue that since they reach much fewer people than television and movies that means it's not worth it to devote so much effort to trying to get the video game industry to fix up some of their problem areas, and on that I would agree with you, but declaring that they don't matter at all is simply incorrect. That's just arbitrarily saying "nope, they don't affect the way people think, irrelevant" despite all the psychological evidence and studies that say otherwise. You might as well say books don't matter, because you've got the same exact lack of evidence to back that claim up as well.

Zaresto said Gender Wage Gap: Debunked, time and time again.

Hmm, I'm annoyed that that one didn't come up in my searches the other day, though I think I might see why it wasn't high in the results. That report is kind of wonky because it's taking the raw wage gap of 20% across all fields and all types of work, then says the wage gap isn't that big because of part-time versus full-time employment numbers, differing occupational choice trends between the genders, and pregnancy; they're left with a range of 4.8-7.1% of the raw wage gap that they have no strong explanation for, so they don't even debunk the wage gap, they just shrink it. However, when you look full-time workers in the same fields (removing two of those explanatory factors) you still see a 20% wage gap (as shown here in table form, and shown here in fancy graph form). That report you linked claims that 50-60% of that raw wage gap can be accounted for by the different fields that are more dominated by women and happen to pay less and that women work part-time jobs more than men, but the fact that there's a 20% wage gap even when you look only at full-time workers in the same field throws that into question. Also, that report says they found that pregnancy and motherhood, and the interruption of work and loss of experience they entail, account for a 7.3% (though the number gets smaller when they account for other factors apparently, I'll just use the biggest one because why not) wage gap between men and women. Where's that other ~12.7% difference in pay for full-time workers in the same fields coming from? How about the ~30% pay difference that remains in occupations like physicians and surgeons even after you take away the 7.3% that is explained by pregnancy? It can't be explained away with different fields and part-time work because these are numbers from full-time workers in the same fields, so there must be something else to account for it. Whether it's sexist things or other reasonable things like the pregnancy issue remains to be seen, and that lingering question is why the pay gap is still considered an issue despite imperfect attempts to debunk it.

---

Magic Magnum said 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.

The female equivalent of male oppressors is that females are the oppressed. That counts as a directly related issue, I think.

But yeah, fine points, fuck it, they all go in the "things that need to be dealt with" bucket in the end so who cares.

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.

Clearly I am one who puts very little value on unlikely hypotheticals, heh.

I'd guess that the reason it hasn't been struck from the books is that it would be seen as and cast as an anti-military move. Congress has gotten to the point where anyone who isn't vehemently pro-military is a pariah and will have to fight tooth and nail to keep their seat in their next election. It would be easy as hell to overturn if it were up to a vote by the American people, but that's unlikely to occur because the issue would be blocked and crushed before it ever got put on a ballot. There's a lot of money in the maintenance and outfitting of the military, so anything that looks like an attack on it gets buried under the monetary counter-attack of the industries that have so much invested in the issue even if it wouldn't actually harm their profits. Case in point, pushes for reform in how the military deals with sexual assault and rape get crushed by money from the military-industrial complex, presumably because they just don't like anything that casts their cash cow in a negative light. All national level politics come down to a matter of money in the end, which should be a surprise to nobody.

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

I'd have to argue the opposite moral philosophical position, that reduction of pleasure before one can experience it is not as bad as removal of pleasure after someone has experienced it. There are two phrases that come to mind that apply here: you don't know what you're missing and ignorance is bliss. Circumcised men retain the capability to experience sexual gratification, and it's still a highly pleasurable sensation that most would say trumps all other physical pleasures, so the argument that it's some grievous loss doesn't hold much water for me. Say you give arbitrary point values to sources of physical pleasure, say sex for circumcised men gets a 90 and the next highest thing is only a 70, trying to say a further potential 10 points being lost just isn't that big of a problem because the 90 is still the best thing they've ever known and most circumcised guys probably can't even conceive of a higher level. The fact that they don't know what they're missing is precisely what makes it a lesser problem: there is no noticeable negative impact, thus it's all a matter of hypothetical subjectivity and therefore rather pointless to even bother with.

Whether or not it should be something left to the guy to decide once he's an adult, the fact of the matter is that it exists in an ethical grey area that has no easy answers. Either a child's bodily autonomy remains sacrosanct and parents cannot allow surgery on their minor children, or it's not sacrosanct and that allows for things like circumcision to be legally allowable. I happen to agree that circumcision shouldn't be done to little boys at all, but it rests in that weird grey area that makes it lack a hard and fast answer with solid argumentation to back it up.

By the way, this sort of thing is exactly why an attack on adult female bodily autonomy is so troublesome, just imaging what kind of fucked up things could come in through the door if that right was cracked or torn away completely. And while I'm on the subject, I agree that young women should be allowed to make the choice for themselves, but the law sucks like that. A reasonable first step would be to make it so consent for abortion is in line with ages of sexual consent in each state, because it seems really weird that in some places a girl can legally choose to have sex at the age of 16 but cannot legally choose of solely her own will to have an abortion even if it's otherwise totally legal and available in her state. For some weird reason the age of sexual consent isn't the same thing as the age of consenting to contractual obligations and whatnot though, and I have no idea why that is.

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.

See my response to Zaresto in regards to the pay gap for more clear numbers on the maternity thing.

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.

What? I don't get why you say it makes sense that the pay gap would get smaller in male-dominated fields. Construction work having one of the smallest pay gaps seems really strange to me, both because it's so heavily male-dominated and because it's a physically intensive job that brings up both biological facts and societal perceptions about women being less physically capable than men. Also, if you look at mining and quarrying type jobs, also physical work and even more male-dominated than construction, they're running a 20% pay gap. If there were some truth to male-dominated jobs having less pay disparity, that wouldn't be the case. Agriculture is another area more male-dominated than construction, and they're running a 15% pay gap. Construction is a weird outlier, not the norm.

But to take financial manager's specifically, I'll use this graph here to help calculate this.

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.

Nope, my source was the thing from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that I linked when responding to Zaresto. I should've linked that the other day when I first brought it up, whoops.

But yeah, this kind of thing is what I mean. Even if you take that 7.3% lesser income due to pregnancy and motherhood figure that I pulled from Zaresto's link, these pay gaps that remain for full-time workers in the same fields are still far too large to be waved away as a debunked issue.

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.

Here, the source I've been using. And here's the chart with the numbers used to make that graph. It's a simple layout of the wage data gathered by the Bureau of Census, which is as unbiased as you can get.

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.

Take a gander at my source and see if it fits your need for an unbiased one. The only thing really lacking evidence is the claim the income disparity is caused by sexism, because the numbers clearly show that this disparity exists. It could be another issue cause by gender roles and whatnot, or it could stem from other things, but it is indeed a current issue for women nonetheless.

[Brovo]

@Jorick: Something to take into account when looking at the wage gap is pregnancy and maternity leave. That will put a woman months behind a man in terms of career opportunities and factors into the reason why women have that average 20%-ish lower median income. (Men have a greater chance at promotion than women in those months of maternity leave, pay raises, etc.) This isn't sexism, this is biology.

There have been some solutions suggested, I tend to dislike most of them proposed by feminists because "lolpaywomenmore" is not a healthy solution for the economy by any measurable stretch of the imagination. (If that chart is anything to go by, even increasing median income by one dollar per week would cost $44,712,000 per week.)

The best solution I can think of is while a woman is on maternity leave due to pregnancy, their income should increase at least at the rate of inflation, so they don't return to work with a devalued paycheck. Beyond that, I can't think of anything that couldn't be easily jerryrigged to treat women as an inherently lesser entity that requires assistance to perform at the same level as a man, which has all levels of awful implications associated with that.

@Topic: Modern Feminism, overall, in the first world, is a movement that has based its roots in irrelevancy. The reason why feminism worked before and doesn't work now is because the issues were very clearly black and white, were simple to repair, and left women in a state of empowerment not above that of men but equal to them. Examples include but are not limited to right to work, right to vote, etc. Overall the movement was very aggressive and attacked issues, and it was successful because they were black and white and simple to repair.

Now? Nope. Issues are as grey as they get with severity far less than that of the issues tackled by the first wave feminists (and to a certain extent second wave), so the old approach of dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka~ doesn't work here. Diplomatic solutions work here. Compromise works here.

It really doesn't help that feminism also tends to demonize what is considered normal and harmless behaviour without any sort of logical, coherent thinking as to why such things are bad. Often times modern feminists are also the type of people to scream patriarchy, cis-scum, and other such terminology without any idea what these things actually mean... Or if they're even relevant to female empowerment. Men often get talked down to, and issues (especially sex-related) are often, almost exclusively, placed upon men as the cause of the problem, which further goes to actually alienate the movement from its roots. I, to this day, haven't heard a theory from modern feminism that involves empowering women without using men either as a scapegoat or even as an outright villain akin to Disney-level lunacy.

Essentially speaking: Modern feminism in the first world is the byproduct of a victimization complex poisoning what was once originally a very healthy and necessary instrument towards female empowerment.

And it really shows when modern feminists in the first world care more about what kind of curse words people use, over, say... A law in Iraq that legitimizes rape and child molestation... That may actually pass. Why? Because this would be a real fight, that would involve real consequences, and hold potential harm to the feminists that try to fight against this.

It's safer and easier to fight smaller battles in the first world rather than tackle actual serious issues involving female empowerment. Ergo why I just can't take the movement seriously. When real fights do appear they... Never... Mobilize to fight it. They are content with attacking small time problems, and some of the biggest names in modern feminism, like Anita Sarkeesian, are so far gone in the pool of lunacy that the biggest gender-related problems they can think of... Are in fucking video games.

That's just pathetic. I'm sorry, but it is.

Now, I do take the time as recently illuminated to me by Hellis to separate feminists into categories. The modern feminist fits the above like a glove. Then you have actual feminists, who fight actual problems, whose voice is usually drowned out by the seas and waves of their more extremist, cowardly counterparts, like... Hellis. Hellis is cool, and a feminist. Anita Sarkeesian is a nutjob, and a feminist.

That's about all really. Sorry if this post offended your better sensibilities reading, but, well... Yeah. There you go.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Jorick said -Drafting Snip-

Well financial and reputation motivations doesn't surprise me in the slightest... -.-

We'd all function far better in all of these issues of Government and Politic's focused on what their Job should be, helping and serving the people.
Rather than doing anything possible to stay in a position of power.

Jorick said -Circumcision Snip-

Losing something of value before or after knowing you had it is a debateable/gray moral issue.
I think we can agree here at least that it is that, debatable.

Personally though, I think parent's shouldn't have say over a child's operations if it's cosmetic and not for any actual need or purpose.
That's a human being/child you're supposed to be raising and protecting, not accessorizing.

Over all, with the fact circumscison does seem to be a debatable topic, while women and abortions is a cut and clear issue of body rights and health concerns.
It's probably safe to say that in terms of bodily rights women have it worse atm.

Jorick said See my response to Zaresto in regards to the pay gap for more clear numbers on the maternity thing.

*Looks at it*

That is interesting.
Brovo below did bring up some good counter points to it, but they were counter points I already said before so I assume you've already taken Brovo's points into consideration.

Being 100% honest, I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect some sexism involved when it comes to hiring women or promoting them in the more well paying jobs.
But, to review.

A worker being out of the workforce for a couple of years can keep you back a bit from higher pay and positions.
This multiplies even more so in career's where the higher ranks require constant work, where leaving and needing a replacement can become a massive burden (such as say, a Company head).
A woman taking just 2-5 years off for children can make all the difference in this regard.

Then there's the matter to consider of hazard pay.
Women biologically are not as fit, strong or big as men. Making less woman then men qualify for more dangerous jobs.
So Men by simply being more likely to be allowed to work in hazardous work, are more likely given higher pay.

I'll continue on this with your next quote since it seems more relevant there.

Jorick said What? I don't get why you say it makes sense that the pay gap would get smaller in male-dominated fields. Construction work having one of the smallest pay gaps seems really strange to me, both because it's so heavily male-dominated and because it's a physically intensive job that brings up both biological facts and societal perceptions about women being less physically capable than men. Also, if you look at mining and quarrying type jobs, also physical work and even more male-dominated than construction, they're running a 20% pay gap. If there were some truth to male-dominated jobs having less pay disparity, that wouldn't be the case. Agriculture is another area more male-dominated than construction, and they're running a 15% pay gap. Construction is a weird outlier, not the norm.

Yea... I was off my bonkers when I said that. :/
I don't know what messed up math was going on in my head at the time.

Ratio to men to women shouldn't matter when it's Job/field specific, which is what I think I forgot about.
I'm normally used to addressing the overall pay gap period, where a valid argument is that "women tend to flock to lesser paying fields".

I was probably in a tired state where I tried to translate that argument over to a career specific scenario and naturally it fell flat on it's face.
Sorry about that, rather embarrassing mistake for me to of made. :/

So... when career specific we can rule out the biology argument of build as well, since now we're simply comparing the men and women who were fit enough to enter the field so pay should be equal.
This lead's us with the arguments of basically maternity leave... A factor? Yes, but you're right in that this shouldn't be explaining a 20% gap in a specific field.

I suppose the best other defense (which does loop back to biology) is that the men workers probably are on average more strong and fit than women, allowing for more work and better performance.
Leading to better pay and positions more easily. But honestly, most of these jobs are mainly machine/technology based anyways so even that isn't a good enough defense.

So yes, I will admit. You've highlighted an issue where I originally thought there was none. Well done. :)
Now it's really a matter of finding the answer as to why this pay gap exists, and that would be a far more complicated issue and would need professional opinion from those in those fields of work to figure out.

[Jorick]

Brovo said @Jorick: Something to take into account when looking at the wage gap is pregnancy and maternity leave. That will put a woman months behind a man in terms of career opportunities and factors into the reason why women have that average 20%-ish lower median income. (Men have a greater chance at promotion than women in those months of maternity leave, pay raises, etc.) This isn't sexism, this is biology.

Yeah, I know, I've been taking that into account. If you go look at my last post, particularly the large paragraph responding to Zaresto's thing about the pay gap, there are even some hard numbers provided by people who were trying to show how there supposedly isn't a pay gap. According to their most generous estimates, pregnancy and related things only account for a 7.3% pay difference between men and women. The fact that you can look at only full-time workers (removing the probably not sexist aspect of women working part-time jobs more than men) who are in the same fields (removing the aspect of different genders working predominantly in different fields), look at the pay gap that exists in each of those fields, then average them out to still find a 20% gap (before accounting for that 7.3% due to pregnancy) means that it's not just pregnancy and maternity leave.

Like I said to Gwazi, it may or may not actually be a matter of sexism, but it's a real issue that affects women so it's something worth bringing up in a gender equality discussion.

---

Magic Magnum said -Circumcision Snip-

I just have to note that I find this hilarious for obvious reasons. Moving on...

Losing something of value before or after knowing you had it is a debateable/gray moral issue.
I think we can agree here at least that it is that, debatable.

Personally though, I think parent's shouldn't have say over a child's operations if it's cosmetic and not for any actual need or purpose.
That's a human being/child you're supposed to be raising and protecting, not accessorizing.

Over all, with the fact circumscison does seem to be a debatable topic, while women and abortions is a cut and clear issue of body rights and health concerns.
It's probably safe to say that in terms of bodily rights women have it worse atm.

Yup, definitely agreed that that's a very debatable grey area.

I agree that cosmetic things shouldn't be allowed for a child, this included. Circumcision gets into another troublesome grey area though, that of religion and culture. People can claim that not allowing them to circumcise their male children would infringe on their right to practice their religious beliefs. Bleh.

And thrice agreed on who has it worse in bodily rights, which shouldn't be surprising since that was my starting position in this back and forth.

*Looks at it*

That is interesting.
Brovo below did bring up some good counter points to it, but they were counter points I already said before so I assume you've already taken Brovo's points into consideration.

Being 100% honest, I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect some sexism involved when it comes to hiring women or promoting them in the more well paying jobs.
But, to review.

Yup. I very much took maternity things into consideration, as that's a wholly valid and not really sexist reason for a pay gap existing. My issue is with the remaining gap that doesn't have an explanation. Also yeah, I'd be very surprised if there was no sexism involved there, but assuming that it exists without having any evidence to back it up is a bad starting point, as it makes you seek evidence to support your conclusion rather than looking at it as objectively as possible.

A worker being out of the workforce for a couple of years can keep you back a bit from higher pay and positions.
This multiplies even more so in career's where the higher ranks require constant work, where leaving and needing a replacement can become a massive burden (such as say, a Company head).
A woman taking just 2-5 years off for children can make all the difference in this regard.

Wait, what? A couple years, 2-5 years? How long do you think maternity leave actually is? In the US, the bare minimum that must be provided (given a few requirements like the employer must have over 50 employees to need to give it, and the woman has to have worked there for at least 12 months and worked for at least 1,250 hours) is 12 weeks unpaid leave. Smaller businesses aren't legally obligated to give any maternity leave, and women who haven't met those work requirements don't have to be given any maternity leave. From what little I could find on the subject (which was this article, and their data source was apparently the National Center for Health Statistics), the average time off actually taken for maternity things is 10 weeks. The figures they cited also said that 1/3 of women took no formal maternity leave at all and went right back to work soon after (I'm assuming this means less than a week after, given phrasing and context) giving birth, and a further 16% only took 1-4 weeks off. I would wager that the reason for this is that most people can't afford to take all the unpaid time off, so they get back to it as soon as they feel capable. Anyway, that's roughly half of working women that take less than a month off for maternity leave. It's not a matter of taking years off for the vast majority of women, it's a few months at most unless they happen to work for a company that goes above and beyond the federal requirements for maternity leave, which are apparently fairly rare.

Seriously, if it were a year or more taken off from work for each child then the wage gap would not only be explained, I would expect it to be even higher.

Then there's the matter to consider of hazard pay.
Women biologically are not as fit, strong or big as men. Making less woman then men qualify for more dangerous jobs.
So Men by simply being more likely to be allowed to work in hazardous work, are more likely given higher pay.

Fair point for work in fields that have conditions that require hazard pay (though some hazard pay is just a working in generally dangerous conditions thing and would be given to all workers regardless of their actual duties), irrelevant to fields like financial managers and such.

Yea... I was off my bonkers when I said that. :/
I don't know what messed up math was going on in my head at the time.

Ratio to men to women shouldn't matter when it's Job/field specific, which is what I think I forgot about.
I'm normally used to addressing the overall pay gap period, where a valid argument is that "women tend to flock to lesser paying fields".

I was probably in a tired state where I tried to translate that argument over to a career specific scenario and naturally it fell flat on it's face.
Sorry about that, rather embarrassing mistake for me to of made. :/

Haha, no worries, it happens. I was the first one to make a dumb mistake about pay gap things and had to correct it, so that makes us even I guess.

So... when career specific we can rule out the biology argument of build as well, since now we're simply comparing the men and women who were fit enough to enter the field so pay should be equal.
This lead's us with the arguments of basically maternity leave... A factor? Yes, but you're right in that this shouldn't be explaining a 20% gap in a specific field.

I suppose the best other defense (which does loop back to biology) is that the men workers probably are on average more strong and fit than women, allowing for more work and better performance.
Leading to better pay and positions more easily. But honestly, most of these jobs are mainly machine/technology based anyways so even that isn't a good enough defense.

So yes, I will admit. You've highlighted an issue where I originally thought there was none. Well done. :)
Now it's really a matter of finding the answer as to why this pay gap exists, and that would be a far more complicated issue and would need professional opinion from those in those fields of work to figure out.

The only field I can think of that is truly so physically intensive that there's a solid reason for a gender pay difference even when accounting for use of machines making things easier is construction, and ironically that has one of the smallest pay gaps of all work fields (7.8% gap, subtract that 7.3% that is reasonably caused by maternity leaves, you're left with 0.5% and that's not an unreasonable difference given the nature of the work). Other work that was very physically intensive in the past, like mining and farming, now seems to be predominantly machine operated as you said, so their larger pay gaps are weird. Same goes for all the desk jobs and such, where greater average physical capabilities shouldn't be a factor at all.

I agree that it's rather complicated and would require professional assessments. The kind of general data we've been looking at only gets you so far, understanding why the pay gaps exist in particular fields of work would need some in-depth studies and such. It'd be easy to cry sexism and start bitching about it, but that would be drawing a conclusion without evidence, and doing that is just plain awful.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Jorick said I just have to note that I find this hilarious for obvious reasons. Moving on...

I never even caught that!

Jorick said Yup. I very much took maternity things into consideration, as that's a wholly valid and not really sexist reason for a pay gap existing. My issue is with the remaining gap that doesn't have an explanation. Also yeah, I'd be very surprised if there was no sexism involved there, but assuming that it exists without having any evidence to back it up is a bad starting point, as it makes you seek evidence to support your conclusion rather than looking at it as objectively as possible.

Agreed. The second you go out of your way to prove a certain thing, rather than to neutrally find the truth of the matter is when bias studies and results happen.
And those don't help anybody.

Jorick said Wait, what? A couple years, 2-5 years? How long do you think maternity leave actually is? In the US, the bare minimum that must be provided (given a few requirements like the employer must have over 50 employees to need to give it, and the woman has to have worked there for at least 12 months and worked for at least 1,250 hours) is 12 weeks unpaid leave. Smaller businesses aren't legally obligated to give any maternity leave, and women who haven't met those work requirements don't have to be given any maternity leave. From what little I could find on the subject (which was , and their data source was apparently the National Center for Health Statistics), the average time off actually taken for maternity things is 10 weeks. The figures they cited also said that 1/3 of women took no formal maternity leave at all and went right back to work soon after (I'm assuming this means less than a week after, given phrasing and context) giving birth, and a further 16% only took 1-4 weeks off. I would wager that the reason for this is that most people can't afford to take all the unpaid time off, so they get back to it as soon as they feel capable. Anyway, that's roughly half of working women that take less than a month off for maternity leave. It's not a matter of taking years off for the vast majority of women, it's a few months at most unless they happen to work for a company that goes above and beyond the federal requirements for maternity leave, which are apparently fairly rare.

Seriously, if it were a year or more taken off from work for each child then the wage gap would not only be explained, I would expect it to be even higher.

I was thinking in total of all children.
That plus any additional time the mother may take off on top of Maternity leave to be with the child.

Maybe I'm too used to mothers staying at home though so my estimate in how it is for a typically working mother was off. :/
But at the same time, that does help highlight the difference between men and women with staying at home or working atm.

Jorick said The only field I can think of that is truly so physically intensive that there's a solid reason for a gender pay difference even when accounting for use of machines making things easier is construction, and ironically that has one of the smallest pay gaps of all work fields (7.8% gap, subtract that 7.3% that is reasonably caused by maternity leaves, you're left with 0.5% and that's not an unreasonable difference given the nature of the work). Other work that was very physically intensive in the past, like mining and farming, now seems to be predominantly machine operated as you said, so their larger pay gaps are weird. Same goes for all the desk jobs and such, where greater average physical capabilities shouldn't be a factor at all.

I agree that it's rather complicated and would require professional assessments. The kind of general data we've been looking at only gets you so far, understanding why the pay gaps exist in particular fields of work would need some in-depth studies and such. It'd be easy to cry sexism and start bitching about it, but that would be drawing a conclusion without evidence, and doing that is just plain awful.

Agreed. I'd rather find the true issue than to just cry sexism and make a commotion out of something where there isn't one.
Or make a commotion when there's no given reason to be doing so.

[Gwynbleidd]

One of these days I will respond to these, when I'm not drowning in college work. Just posting this here to let you know I am not dead, lol.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Dark Wind said
One of these days I will respond to these, when I'm not drowning in college work. Just posting this here to let you know I am not dead, lol.

Looking forward to it :P

[Gwynbleidd]

Magic Magnum said
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 don't like the term fag, and I don't use it. I actually do agree that gay has taken all sorts of different meanings that it probably isn't as much of a factor. After thinking more on it, I probably agree more with Jorick of late. It's about usage. The only reason I'm on the fence is because language psychology is something I take into account. And I just don't know enough about it to have a clear stance.

Magic Magnum said 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.

To be clear, I am not asking to shun words. I'd only like to make people understand the different things attached to a word, and how they might have effects that were not intended. I'm for free speech. Say what you want. Although there is a difference between bullying and free speech.

Anyways, I do understand all these perspectives. I'm normally just careful with my words depending on the company I'm in.

Magic Magnum said 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.

Again, as to what Jorick was saying, I can understand this. It is more to look at it from a usage standpoint, and the certain tone of voice in which words are used. Tone of voice and intention, but most of the time those things go hand in hand.

Magic Magnum said 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.

Not necessarily nigger. There is a difference between using the word nigger and nigga. That's a culture thing. The word nigga is clearly used in a form of camaraderie, and anyone would know that if they've hung out with a group of black people.

The reason it's taken as racist is because, well, in black circles in inner cities there just are not a lot of white people. And when a white person says it, there is a different connotation. It's built in because a history of racism. And some white people have said it and not been called racist, probably not a majority, but there are cases.

Regardless, there's a lot of work we need to do in the racial relations department of the world.

Magic Magnum said 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.

Not always. It's okay to be offended. It's like going somewhere and saying something racist to a black man, he says he's offended, and you say that he shouldn't be offended and he's just being sensitive. Granted, I know that's not what you're trying to say. But, that's how it comes off.

And, this is really where I'm coming from on a language confusion and language psychology stand point. People will take things personally because there are too many meanings attached to words, and when that happens, there will be people who have had so many negative experiences with specific words those words will be internalized within that person and they will lash out defensively. Rightfully so, I might add. It's not that they're being oversensitive.

Again, I understand and mostly agree with the wide range of meanings and the differences in usage. We should be tolerant of different viewpoints, but that doesn't mean different viewpoints are immune from scathing criticism.

Magic Magnum said 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.

No models are doing it to harm women. At least, I doubt it. I really disagree that a model should be aware of what job does what. But, this is really just a minor disagreement here. The focus should be the odd standards of beauty.

Magic Magnum said 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.

Eh. Guys all over the place have posters of half-naked women in their rooms. Not that girls don't have posters of guys or pictures of guys. There could be a demand for more male models, sure.

But, women consume women products at great rates. They buy those fashion and beauty magazines. It kind of caters to both sexes in an interesting way.