There are actually people who enjoy being soldiers. They get a rush out of it. Otherwise, I agree with you though.

Being ten years old and told, "either you kill or get killed" isn't the same as being a soldier in our part of the world.

Not to mention that there's a good possibility that the boys who refuse to fight for guys like Kony are subjected to all kinds of horrible things, including [censored]. I highly doubt that only women are ever [censored] in such situations.

Oh, when you put it that way....

But sure, girls and women suffer too and that is utmost terrible. But it's a shame that the media often play it off as, if you got a [censored], you've made it, if you got a [censored], you're dead. The majority of child soldiers are boys. Boys that almost certainly won't grow up to become respectable men. They might even become as bad or worse as the ones who put them in such a situation, and that is, if they're lucky and didn't die when they were twelve or somewhere around that.

EDIT: P?nis and v?gina is censored?

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin...

First (again), can you please cite your sources? What are you basing your claims on --- actual facts, or just your own subjective experience?

- In case you haven't noticed, women serve in the U.S. military and are dying overseas too (common knowledge).
- Male circumcision is not mutilation in terms of causing permanent damage to the point of dysfunction. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilation for definition of mutilation)
- And don't even get me started on birth control -- men and women are equally responsible (and equally have access to) birth control methods, although the refusal of many health insurance companies to cover birth control while they have no problem covering drugs like viagra is another matter. (http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/56-birth-control-and-health-insurance.html, for example)
- There are in fact shelters for men who are victims of abuse. (e.g., see http://www.batteredmen.com/bathelpnatl.htm)
- And I'm not sure where in the world your comment about men losing their homes came from, so I can't really comment on that.

Many points you make are true, though it's obvious that the whole "divorce system" is geared massively in the favor of women,

If you're referring to child custody, I would agree with you -- although my opinion is that mothers tend to get custody more often than men because women generally take on the majority of childcare during the marriage, which weighs in their favor during divorce proceedings. So if men are concerned about losing custody in a divorce, I'd say their best bet is to take on at least half of the childcare responsibilities during the marriage so they can use that to support their case for why they should get custody in the event of a future divorce.

If you're referring to the splitting of financial assets, it's purely based on who the "breadwinner" is, which still tends to be men. But in cases where the woman makes a higher salary and/or owns more assets, the man is entitled to just as much as cases where the roles are reversed.

Even though I'm not sure what he meant when he phrased it like that I have to say that those fighters are volunteers. I'm going to assume he's thinking of conscription rather than signing up at one's own accord. The US hasn't had conscription in a while but men are still registered in case it is to be reinstated And the countries that still require some form of military education/service (the more developed ones) usually only demand the males to participate. The only country I can think of off the top of my head with female conscription would be Israel, but then the service is also shorter if you're female rather than male (unless you volunteer). But if you count the 20th century then males have most certainly drawn the shortest straw.

What a ridiculous way to twist my words. I'm talking in a wider sense. I'm very community minded, helpful and polite. I'm also first aid trained, so no problems with choking!

I can't change people's attitudes, so I'm not going to try. That's essentially what I'm getting at.

They are not subject do drafting laws. They don't have to go kill themselves once they're 18 just because their country happens to be at war. Not so with men in a lot of countries.


I'll agree with you on this point. I will ask this, though: why are parents allowed to reduce their male children's sixual pleasure without their consent?


Agreed on this point.


That may well be the case, but the social stigma that male victims of abuse experience is overwhelming. I understand that female abuse victims experience this, too, but not to the degree that men do. A woman isn't seen as not womanly if she's abused. Humour involving abuse of women is generally considered reprehensible; not so abuse of males. Etc. Men do have the short end of the stick here.


This point's a bit convoluted, but I'll try to keep it short. The idea behind the splitting of assets during divorce is that the people involved receive as much as they brought to the table. In a good marriage, this should be 50/50 -- even if the man is out working and the woman stays at home, she does other things that contribute to the marriage and their relationship. I think what he means to say is that, in marriages where the woman has been selfish or contributed little to the relationship or to the couple's general well-being, courts are still more likely to give her 50% of the property than if the sixes are reversed. That's unacceptable. Not to mention that in most countries, women are more likely to be granted custody of the children than men are, even if they're bad mothers.

To me, the important distinction is between actual legal oppression (say, not giving women the right to own property) and different education/career/hiring choices, which I'm largely indifferent to.

The PC/AA crowd instead focuses on specific groups, such as women or blacks, while ignoring most other groups (and individuals). Some inequalities are more equal than others, so to speak:
-Some women are billionaires while other women are homeless beggars.
-They deserve it!
-Women might earn a few percent less than men with similiar jobs.
-AAAHH sixISM!!! THIS IS JUST AS BAD AS SLAVERY!!!

Come to think of it, perfect equality, even in the more limited form of economic equality, is a very difficult goal.
Consider a population of at least two individuals. Unless all individuals have exactly the same income, the rich will earn more than the poor. Also, even if people earn equally much, some might drink it all up, while others save a substantial amount. Hence consumption must be centrally controlled, too - the citizens could live in state barracks, be fed all their meals in state soup kitchens, dress in the same uniforms, etc.

Speaking for circumcision sometimes medical reasons at birth require it.

In ancient Sparta, that exact system worked out fairly well for a considerable amount of time. Can't imagine it was a very pleasant place to live though.

So there's a holiday to celabrate woman but not men....FEMINIST!

If I only ever spent one day lavishing on a girlfriend..

..my son would have never been born.


As it stands I'm single because she turned out to be nuttier than a peanut farm, which had nothing to do with my attention lavishing techniques.



I also have to face facts that if a woman wants to spend time with me, I'm going to lavish all kinds of attention on her simply due to the statistical improbability of the occurring situation, and my dedication to prolonging the anomaly

Women in the United states military do not die nearly as often as men. 4,000+ men have died in Iraq, 100+ women have died. The same type of divide exists in Afghanistan, with thousands of male casualties to a very small number of female deaths.
It's involuntary disfiguration of our bodies that may reduce sixual pleasure and is of debatable usefulness as a medical procedure.

Although feminists have been campaigning for women to be able to serve in all areas of the military for years. Can't really blame women or feminists when its the conservatives who refuse to allow them to serve on the same terms as men.

No one is "blaming women." I'm just pointing out that saying that "[women] are dying overseas too" belies the fact that women constitute a very small number of America's blood sacrifice overseas, and that male soldiers face the overwhelming majority of the fatality burden in our current conflicts.

I think that would be a bad idea to be honest. I'm open minded, but I think front line war is a bit much.

Why? If it's voluntary then they've chosen it. If it's not voluntary, like thanks to a draft in the face of an invasion, then it's possibly/probably because it's needed for the nation's and the people's well-being and in times of need you can't afford to be picky. If you worry about them not being able to handle it, physically or mentally, then I think your fears are unfounded since (I hope) the people in charge will deal with any shortcomings the same way that they deal with mentally or physically weak men. And besides, if women have all the rights and privileges of men then it's only proper that they have the same responsibilites.

But then the labouring population would be decimated.

Workers aren't much good if they are getting gunned down by invading forces because there wasn't a big enough armed effort to keep them out. And you can still have different priorities when choosing who to send for war without caring for what's found in their pants. Like sparing the people with jobs essential to both the civilan populace and the war effort and sending the ones with less valuable tasks instead, regardless of six.

Soldiers aren't much good if they don't have weapons or ammunition because there wasn't a big enough workforce to supply them. And who will look after all the children? What makes a task less valuable? Why do the people with less valuable jobs have to fight? How is that fair on the people who couldn't get those jobs?

I didn't say you were but Tonal Architect who 1st raised that particular issue seems to have a problem with women in general and feminists in particular.