Feminism

[Ultimaja]

*sigh* I get the feeling you're not really taking in what people are telling you. Personal accountability =/= fault. It's nobodies fault they was raped, no matter where they were or what they were wearing, since to rape is an action made by the rapist. The victim is, however, accountable for what they chose to wear, where they chose to go and who they chose to trust. Their own actions. That is all.

I don't care about that, that's a completely irrelevant point that has been spammed through this thread, people trying to get over on the point I've made that the subject of rape is not a defensive subject for feminism because the only way it can be deterred is if women in fact don't do and wear as they please.

People have been hitting some dislike button, or whatever decides that reputation bar thing on my profile- same old crap that happens with hot debates, everybody wants to act like a moral blowhard and the thread and all reason just goes right out the window.
And I'm tired of that dumb shit.

 

[Sheechiibii]

I don't care about that, that's a completely irrelevant point that has been spammed through this thread, people trying to get over on the point I've made that the subject of rape is not a defensive subject for feminism because the only way it can be deterred is if women in fact don't do and wear as they please.

It's not completely irrelevant at all, it's directly relevant to the points you were trying to make actually. You specifically said that the victim is at fault for their rape if they did x,y and z to put themselves in danger. Then you tried to call that personal accountability. That is not personal accountability as I've explained. So I think you'll find it's entirely relevant.

But this is going off topic now. We've stopped discussing feminism altogether. My only point when I brought rape up in the first place (big mistake) was that feminism ignores any victim that is not female, it ignores any perpetrator that is female. When it comes to getting equal pay, feminism ignores any men who get paid less than women for the same job. When it comes to domestic violence, feminism ignores when women are the perpetrators or when males are the victims entirely. Feminism just ignores too much, and focuses too much on one gender for me to ever accept the idea that it is for equality. If it was for equality it would consider people equally, but it doesn't, it prioritizes women.

 

[Ultimaja]

It's not completely irrelevant at all, it's directly relevant to the points you were trying to make actually. You specifically said that the victim is at fault for their rape

Yeah, they made poor decisions that landed them in a bad situation.

The fuck..
You all are being stupid about it, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Acting like I'm defending the rapists, wanting to demonize me instead of just conceding that I make a very real point.

 

[Sheechiibii]

Yeah, they made poor decisions that landed them in a bad situation.

The fuck..
You all are being stupid about it, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Acting like I'm defending the rapists instead of jus conceding that I make a very real point.

That's because you specifically said :

If you wear revealing clothes and get raped, it's because you were wearing revealing clothes while a rapist was around.

That is not why they were raped. They were raped because someone chose to rape them. What you said here had nothing to do with personal accountability or responsibility and was just putting fault on the victim instead of the perpetrator. They were not raped 'because' of what they were wearing, they were raped 'because' a rapist chose to do that to them. They were wearing what they were wearing because that's the choice they made. The rapist raped them because that's the choice the rapist made.

Making a poor decision means you are responsible for that poor decision. You are still not responsible for the actions of other people.

Now can we please get back on topic.

 

[greenyxi]

Calm it down a wee bit guys. While I understand the debate threads are always going to get slightly heated, there's a line to it all that shouldn't be crossed.

Thanks

 

[greenyxi]

Ok, I'm gonna close the thread for a bit, for obvious reasons. It may be re-opened a bit later

 

[greenyxi]

~Grand Re-opening!~

*Fireworks Music Cheering*

 

[Harlequin]

You know what's always puzzled me? Women's Rights. What are these special rights that only apply to women? Which rights do I as a man supposedly have that women don't?

The pay gap issue is confusing as well. Forget statistics, pay is negotiated. Even the "non negotiable" pay rates are negotiable. Pay me x amount or I take my expertise elsewhere, simple.

 

[Galadín]

I don't think one can just forget about statistics in light of the fact that pay is negotiable. Sure pay can be negotiated, however the problem arises when there is discrimination in these negotiations. There are lots of complex reasons for the pay gap and it is highly speculated that one of the reasons is the fact that women are seen as the primary carer of children and/or dependents and experience greater difficulties in having to balance work and private life. This would add a major discriminatory factor in pay negotiations.

 

[iSmiff]

You know what's always puzzled me? Women's Rights. What are these special rights that only apply to women? Which rights do I as a man supposedly have that women don't?

I think womens rights refers back to when they weren't considered equal. I'd argue now theres no such thing as womens rights; just human rights. Or maybe it's a womans right to an abortion or to birth control? Idk.

 

[Harlequin]

I don't think one can just forget about statistics in light of the fact that pay is negotiable. Sure pay can be negotiated, however the problem arises when there is discrimination in these negotiations. There are lots of complex reasons for the pay gap and it is highly speculated that one of the reasons is the fact that women are seen as the primary carer of children and/or dependents and experience greater difficulties in having to balance work and private life. This would add a major discriminatory factor in pay negotiations.

There are reasons that will never be overcome unless we enforce equal outcome by imposing unreasonable laws. Equal opportunity is one thing, outcome is another. Women have the opportunity to acquire the right qualifications and the choice to be a mother or not and all these things will be considered in the recruitment process.

How good a job can they do? What is their availability like? What does the company stand to gain by hiring them? All these things are considered when recruiting someone but also and invariably what that person's contribution is worth and how much the company is willing to invest in said contribution. Does this mean a woman will have to choose between her career and motherhood? Not necessarily. It would seem men haven't had to but then these are men who have either sacrificed their roles in their children's lives for their career by managing to offset the primary role of childcare onto someone else (ie housewife, nanny, etc) or they just haven't been around.

What we're seeing in response to this illusion that males can "have it all" is women attempting to "have it all" without realising that it's impossible without compromise. Most women still want to be a hands on mother whilst not compromising their positions in the corporate realm. When they come to the realisation that it's not possible to be in two places at once and they can't find someone to offset their motherly duties onto (think househusband, etc) some rally for changes in the laws to keep the fantasy going. Positive (really?) Discrimination is a good example of the farce. Enforced equal pay will make a mockery of the basic laws of economics.

I completely understand a woman's frustrations in that regard, I'm not mocking women, but it's reality. You're paid as much as you can persuade your employer that you're worth, end of story.

 

[Harlequin]

I think womens rights refers back to when they weren't considered equal. I'd argue now theres no such thing as womens rights; just human rights. Or maybe it's a womans right to an abortion or to birth control? Idk.

That's how I saw it but women's rights and modern day feminism are still intrinsically linked. Wikipedia ties women's rights into their definition of feminism. The implication is that women either are entitled to rights men aren't, or aren't receiving rights that men are. From this observer's perspective that's certainly the impetus that drives young feminists in their protests.

I'd like to have this clarified by someone who actually believes in it. What type of equality are we aiming for?

 

[Sheechiibii]

That's how I saw it but women's rights and modern day feminism are still intrinsically linked. Wikipedia ties women's rights into their definition of feminism. The implication is that women either are entitled to rights men aren't, or aren't receiving rights that men are. From this observer's perspective that's certainly the impetus that drives young feminists in their protests.

I'd like to have this clarified by someone who actually believes in it. What type of equality are we aiming for?

Considering Feminism is about advocating for Women to have more rights, and considering women in western countries have more rights than men already, Feminism is the opposite of an equality movement and is redundant in most western countries if not all.

 

[Linnaete]

Considering Feminism is about advocating for Women to have more rights, and considering women in western countries have more rights than men already, Feminism is the opposite of an equality movement and is redundant in most western countries if not all.

Feminism (the general definition of it anyhow) and equality are not mutually exclusive. I'm a bit bewildered as to why there's this insistence that they counter each other. I'll hazard a guess and say that feminism just doesn't look like a homogenous movement these days, but rather a nebulous bunch of different voices that may overlap in agreement with the general tenets of seeking equality, but then go on to chat about other things like banning page 3 of The Sun (something I've no enthusiasm to give any active support for, as I have publicly made clear in the SB, because if a woman wants to tastelessly exhibit her chest in a shitty tabloid for men to gawp at, that's entirely up to them).

The reality remains that there is socio-economic disparity on gender lines; men and women are simply not treated equally when it comes to jobs. You still find tales of businesses, typically SMEs, asking female job applicants if they're pregnant, or if they plan to be in the near future, because paid maternity coverage may as well be the plague to many of them and their margins. Hardly the fault of the woman, which coincides with the social expectation that they bear most of, or the entirety of, the burden of childcare. Workplace equality remains a fantasy yet to be attained. Ripe cases come to light of women earning less than their male peers of same qualifications and skills in the private sector, even at top executive positions. This is the chief contradiction beneath the veneer of progress; yes, more women are making it, and more women are slowly upturning the old male dominated environments at company executive boards (still nowhere near enough, if you ask me), but their pay still does not align with that of men. How much less? 10-30% less, according to a study of over 80 countries by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Even the encouraging sign that more women are working is soured by the realisation that this increase is down to the need to have two wages just to make ends meet.

Additionally there are the issues that go beyond simple employment-related statistics. I'm all for an evolution of general societal attitudes towards the treatment of women, especially if one is unfortunate enough to have had to put up with shit like casual rape jokes. Women of stature in terms of achievements and position shouldn't have to find themselves and their professional work casually denigrated or dismissed on the basis of their gender - or perhaps, who they are married to. However I'm not as hung up on this as the more tangibly visible forms of inequality like in employment. Oh I know there are plenty of identifying feminists who are, which leads to the loud calls for Page 3 to be abolished as a first step to tackling the current image of women in mass media (banning is a shite idea. I'm not about to back this kind of authoritarian move). It doesn't suggest I necessarily have to agree with their methodologies and where they elect to place the emphasis of their efforts in, but to hope for an eventual shift in this area of societal norms should be a reasonable, general tenet of contemporary feminism.

 

[Sheechiibii]

Feminism (the general definition of it anyhow) and equality are not mutually exclusive. I'm a bit bewildered as to why there's this insistence that they counter each other.

I just explained that. Feminism and equality are not mutualy exclusive it's true. But feminism is about advocating rights for women. In the past when women had less rights than man this made Feminism a movement that furthered equality. Now, when women have more rights than men, it's a movement that does the opposite, it furthers inequality. Sure, in many countries feminism would be a movement that helps equality, but unless you're ina country where women have less rights than men instead of more, then it's not an equality movement, it's counter-productive to equality.

You still find tales of businesses, typically SMEs, asking female job applicants if they're pregnant, or if they plan to be in the near future, because paid maternity coverage may as well be the plague to many of them and their margins. Hardly the fault of the woman, which coincides with the social expectation that they bear most of, or the entirety of, the burden of childcare.

Of course it's the fault of the women, she's the one who chooses to become pregnant, she's responsible for that choice and will have to take into consideration what that will do to her career. Employers cannot be expected to purposely employ someone they know will lose them money can they?

Workplace equality remains a fantasy yet to be attained. Ripe cases come to light of women earning less than their male peers of same qualifications and skills in the private sector, even at top executive positions.

It's illegal for a woman to be paid less than a man for doing the exact same job. The statistics that feminists use ignore the difference in the types of jobs women go for compared to men, ignore the difference in employers, ignore the difference between part time pay and full time pay. I've never seen an statistics showing women making less than men for the same job, probably because it's illegal and doesn't happen.

This is the chief contradiction beneath the veneer of progress;

Progress towards what? It's certainly not equality that feminism is striving towards.

How much less? 10-30% less, according to a study of over 80 countries by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Even the encouraging sign that more women are working is soured by the realisation that this increase is down to the need to have two wages just to make ends meet.

Again, these studies compare all men to all women. They don't take into consideration that women and men often choose different careers. If you did a study of brunette's vs blonde's I'm sure one would earn more then the other, it wouldn't be 50/50 but I'd hardly attribute this to their hair colour, so why is it attributed to sex when there's already laws in place that guarantee a woman will get the same pay as a man for the same job?

I'm all for an evolution of general societal attitudes towards the treatment of women, especially if one is unfortunate enough to have had to put up with shit like casual rape jokes. Women of stature in terms of achievements and position shouldn't have to find themselves and their professional work casually denigrated or dismissed on the basis of their gender - or perhaps, who they are married to. However I'm not as hung up on this as the more tangibly visible forms of inequality like in employment. Oh I know there are plenty of identifying feminists who are, which leads to the loud calls for Page 3 to be abolished as a first step to tackling the current image of women in mass media (banning is a shite idea. I'm not about to back this kind of authoritarian move). It doesn't suggest I necessarily have to agree with their methodologies and where they elect to place the emphasis of their efforts in, but to hope for an eventual shift in this area of societal norms should be a reasonable, general tenet of contemporary feminism.

Even if the gender pay gap was considered to be a right men have that women do not. That is one right and one alone. There are multiple basic human rights that women have which men do not. So even if the gender pay gap was valid (and there's much debate there) it wouldn't make feminism an equality movement unless they were also advocating to take some of these rights away from women or give them to men. Which they just don't do, nor should they considering if they did they'd no longer be feminists by definition.

For example, some rights in western countries that women have that men do not:

Women have the right not to have their genitals mutilated as a baby: men do not.
Women have the right to opt out of parenthood: men do not.
Women have the right to murder a man is he has abused her: men do not.
Women have the right to vote without having to sign up to fight for their country: men do not.
Women have the right to call it rape when a man forces them to have sex: men do not.

(these apply to America since that's where feminism is most ripe, but they certainly apply to other western countries too)

 

[Galadín]

Should feminism not be morphing towards respect rather than equality? Men and women can not be truly equal since we have very different abilities, expectations and goals in life. There are things that a man can do better and areas where women excel, why should it be an aim to expect both parties to be equally employable in all sectors? I'm not advocating barring men or women from any career or life choice, rather I'm pointing out that there are distinctions between the sexes. Furthermore it is through these distinctions that women are fighting for equality. Ideas like "We are not men but can do just as good a job as them" or "We have a right to a family and this should not hinder our pay" are sentiments I agree on, however, under true equality these ideals would be baseless due to the distinctions they create.

Fighting for respect on the other hand rather than equality would acknowledge these differences and further the idea that the life choices of either sex (particularly in terms of family and career) should not hinder their advancement or right for betterment. If women were respected as people and both sexes held mutually beneficial and synergistic roles in society than this would be a matter of regard rather than mere equality.

 

[Paddy McGee]

Third-wave feminism, or what we have now, is less of a rights movement, and more of a movement with the aims to redefine the social and cultural structures which currently define what women should aim to achieve, where they should aim to be and generally who they should be.

Honestly, I'm in complete agreement with that idea. I'm completely for a world where we can all be judged equally on our merits and not on our gender(or the stereotypes our gender should fit into)!

Pay wise? I've seen statistics of women being paid 23 cent less than a man(in US dollars) to them being paid 3 cent less...I won't comment on what amount it is, but I do believe that the pay gap does exist in some shape or form... And I'd prefer to avoid debating it because I don't want to look at 20 different stats.

Do I think women are under-represented in STEM? DEFINITELY. I think that the stigma associated with women going into tech, and the general consensus that women aren't good or suited for tech( I think I remember @Lady Livi Comstock you mentioning how you were advised to avoid STEM), which I honestly believe is nonsense.

Do I believe that men- by being male- have some sort of privilege due to their birth? Well... There are two sides to one story, there are pros and cons from both genders. Sexism and social pressure to fit into the dynamics laid out by society for both genders are aspects of the world we live in that needs to change. From the casual sexism against women, to the unrealistic "Real man" persona for men to reach... Yeah, both genders need this to be addressed.

But after all this, I wouldn't call myself a feminist. I think the word has been tainted and corrupted from what was once a collaborative effort to strengthen women, into a movement which presents women as shrinking violets and victims by a large chunk of the people in there. Particularly on the internet, there seems to be an avid mob of feminists who feel that it's okay to sprout hatred against men(Particularly white,cis, heterosexual men). That's a complete and utter no-no to me.

A brilliant example of this hate-mongering is the sensational Gawker deviant "Jezebel". What a shining bastion of journalism that site is! Check it out if you want to have a laugh(Of course, the entire set of sites from Gawker "media" are places of muck, cheap and trite clickbait "journalism" of the highest kind).

So I've preferred calling myself an egalitarian, in this regard. I'm in it for total equality. Should we be able to celebrate our gender? YES! But, fundamentally, I believe we all deserve the same status- to be judged simply on our strength of character, or our merit.

We shouldn't be discriminated against for who we are... But, nor should we be token-ised or used as a quota filler for the workplace either. I honestly think it's sexist to hire a woman simply because "Well, the team needed *minority in industry* to look good"! You're judging and using that person's gender, race or religion to define them- not the actual person.

The person who's best suited for the job should get said job, imo. Obviously, there are more complexities to this... But that should be at the core.

So yeah... TL;DR: McGee's for total equality for men,women and non-binary people. He's liberal as they come... But he's not a feminist(or one of those nasty MRA's) due to his opinion of them being tainted as movements, and poisoned by extremist Misogynists and Misandrists. He thinks that society needs to grow to accept this- and that can only be done by a continuous effort by everyone.


Thanks for actually getting this far... Sorry for anyone who is confused by the layout of my opinions. 0.0

 

[CassinoChips]

I just explained that. Feminism and equality are not mutualy exclusive it's true. But feminism is about advocating rights for women. In the past when women had less rights than man this made Feminism a movement that furthered equality. Now, when women have more rights than men, it's a movement that does the opposite, it furthers inequality. Sure, in many countries feminism would be a movement that helps equality, but unless you're ina country where women have less rights than men instead of more, then it's not an equality movement, it's counter-productive to equality.

How do you quantify rights? Is freedom of speech one? Or is it like seventy because there are so many versions of speech?

Of course it's the fault of the women, she's the one who chooses to become pregnant, she's responsible for that choice and will have to take into consideration what that will do to her career. Employers cannot be expected to purposely employ someone they know will lose them money can they?

It's not the woman's fault men can't get pregnant. Moreover, a pregnancy, barring complications, is covered under short-term disability insurance, which all persons have access to through various means. Thus, there should be no differentiation between the genders in this regard.

It's illegal for a woman to be paid less than a man for doing the exact same job.

Is it? And why do we need those laws then? Perhaps because, on the whole, women are (still) being paid less than men?

The statistics that feminists use ignore the difference in the types of jobs women go for compared to men, ignore the difference in employers, ignore the difference between part time pay and full time pay. I've never seen an statistics showing women making less than men for the same job, probably because it's illegal and doesn't happen.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...men-for-same-job/story-e6frfm9r-1226763747500
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=247967224
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/gender-wage-gap-economic-stimulus_n_2007588.html
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/pf/college/women-men-pay-gap/index.html
http://www.theminorityeye.com/yes-women-still-earn-less-than-men/
http://www.nationalmemo.com/same-job-same-size-budget-equals-less-pay-for-women/

Progress towards what? It's certainly not equality that feminism is striving towards.

Yes it is.

Again, these studies compare all men to all women. They don't take into consideration that women and men often choose different careers. If you did a study of brunette's vs blonde's I'm sure one would earn more then the other, it wouldn't be 50/50 but I'd hardly attribute this to their hair colour, so why is it attributed to sex when there's already laws in place that guarantee a woman will get the same pay as a man for the same job?

Women are typecasted into lesser paying jobs. Girls are not advanced in math and science classes, which generally lead to higher paying careers than those in the liberal arts (/single tear). Women are nurses, not doctors. Women are secretaries, not executives. There are studies that prove these things. It is a problem on a societal level.

Even if the gender pay gap was considered to be a right men have that women do not. That is one right and one alone. There are multiple basic human rights that women have which men do not. So even if the gender pay gap was valid (and there's much debate there) it wouldn't make feminism an equality movement unless they were also advocating to take some of these rights away from women or give them to men. Which they just don't do, nor should they considering if they did they'd no longer be feminists by definition.

For example, some rights in western countries that women have that men do not:

Women have the right not to have their genitals mutilated as a baby.
Women have the right to opt out of parenthood: men do not.
Women have the right to murder a man is he has abused her.
Women have the right to vote without having to sign up to fight for their country: men do not.
Women have the right to call it rape when a man forces them to have sex: men do not.

(most of these apply to America since that's where feminism is most ripe, but they certainly apply to other western countries too)

Um... one in four rape victims are men, so.... yeah. Rape is rape, gender is not an issue there. As it should be. But did you know that until the last 50 years or so, a husband could not be a accused of raping his wife?

Also, women do not have the right to murder their significant other if he is abusing her. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ot_for_abused_women_in_domestic_disputes.html

The selective service thing is a non-issue. We'll never have a draft.

Not gonna touch the abortion rabbit hole. Or the circumcision thing.

 

[Sheechiibii]

How do you quantify rights? Is freedom of speech one? Or is it like seventy because there are so many versions of speech?

I consider laws that protect people from injustice or harm to be rights. Humane treatment under the law basically.

It's not the woman's fault men can't get pregnant. Moreover, a pregnancy, barring complications, is covered under short-term disability insurance, which all persons have access to through various means. Thus, there should be no differentiation between the genders in this regard.

True it's not her fault men cannot get pregnant. But that doesn't mean she's not responsible for what she chooses to do with her own body and career etc.

Is it? And why do we need those laws then? Perhaps because, on the whole, women are (still) being paid less than men?

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...men-for-same-job/story-e6frfm9r-1226763747500
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=247967224
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/gender-wage-gap-economic-stimulus_n_2007588.html
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/pf/college/women-men-pay-gap/index.html
http://www.theminorityeye.com/yes-women-still-earn-less-than-men/
http://www.nationalmemo.com/same-job-same-size-budget-equals-less-pay-for-women/

None of those links shows women being paid less for the exact same job. Employers pay different wages, the employee chooses who to work for and if they're not happy with their pay they should look for a higher paying job. If they are making less than their male co-workers then there's a law against that and they should report it to the police.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm

Yes it is.

No it isn't.
"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism

Women are typecasted into lesser paying jobs. Girls are not advanced in math and science classes, which generally lead to higher paying careers than those in the liberal arts (/single tear). Women are nurses, not doctors. Women are secretaries, not executives. There are studies that prove these things. It is a problem on a societal level.

Does it not occur to you that maybe more girls just prefer not to do maths and sciences and like other things instead? When I was at school there was never any pressure to choose certain classes, but less girls liked maths. You can't force people to choose the jobs you want them to choose just because you want statistics to be 50/50.

Um... one in four rape victims are men, so.... yeah. Rape is rape, gender is not an issue there. As it should be. But did you know that until the last 50 years or so, a husband could not be a accused of raping his wife?

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the legal definition of rape, which does not include men being raped by women since they are not penetrated and so have not been raped.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ew-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions

"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Also, women do not have the right to murder their significant other if he is abusing her. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ot_for_abused_women_in_domestic_disputes.html

I'm not talking about self-defence, which applies to someone being attacked at the time. I'm talking about the battered women's defence, which says that if a man has been abusing a woman then she can murder him at any time since her mental state is not as it should be.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/BatteredWomanSyndrome.aspx

The selective service thing is a non-issue. We'll never have a draft.

It's not a non-issue so long as men and men alone are subject to penalties for not signing up for it while women do not have to.

Not gonna touch the abortion rabbit hole. Or the circumcision thing.

Well there you go then. That's two legal rights women have that men do not. So far the only right that men have that women do not is the wage gap mess, which there are laws already in place to prevent.

 

[CassinoChips]

I consider laws that protect people from injustice or harm to be rights. Humane treatment under the law basically.

That's not what I was asking.

True it's not her fault men cannot get pregnant. But that doesn't mean she's not responsible for what she chooses to do with her own body and career etc.

But by scaling her pay because she MIGHT get pregnant is discriminating based on sex.

None of those links shows women being paid less for the exact same job. Employers pay different wages, the employee chooses who to work for and if they're not happy with their pay they should look for a higher paying job.

Yes, because it's that easy to just up and find another job. And they actually do give evidence that it's the exact same job. But the problem comes in the taboo about discussing one's salary in public with other employees. It's considered impolite. So there is little discussion about it. Moreover, employers may argue that they are paying different rates for reasons other than gender, but in reality, it's because women are valued less and thus paid less.

If they are making less than their male co-workers then there's a law against that and they should report it to the police.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm

We have that law, but why are we still trying to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act? http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/24/489656/5-things-paycheck-fairness-act/

No it isn't.
"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism

"Equality" must have a different meaning where you're from.

Does it not occur to you that maybe more girls just prefer not to do maths and sciences and like other things instead? When I was at school there was never any pressure to choose certain classes, but less girls liked maths. You can't force people to choose the jobs you want them to choose just because you want statistics to be 50/50.

Nah, that's bull.

"The question then becomes why aren't they interested and what has happened in the, say, 18 years prior to entrance into college that has led to girls developing lower interest than boys? And so I think that the sociological and the psychological literature on this is pretty clear in terms of all kinds of subtle discouragement that happens where girls from very early ages, beginning at the end of elementary school or even before, start to disidentify with science and math, start to feel that these fields are not things that they find to be interesting, that they find to be exciting. They don't necessarily see them as relevant. And so it's really about the kinds of messages that girls are receiving and the kinds of experiences that they're having which lead them to develop lower interest despite the fact that they have strong skills and the ability to succeed in these fields."

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/16/212613885/the-stem-gender-gap

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the legal definition of rape, which does not include men being raped by women since they are not penetrated and so have not been raped.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ew-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions

You should really read the things you link. This is the actual, gender-neutral, FBI definition of rape, found on Page 2 of what you linked: "The carnal knowledge of a person, without the consent of the victim, ... ." The one you quoted was sexual assault with an object.

I'm not talking about self-defence, which applies to someone being attacked at the time. I'm talking about the battered women's defence, which says that if a man has been abusing a woman then she can murder him at any time since her mental state is not as it should be.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/BatteredWomanSyndrome.aspx

Backtrack. Why is there a Battered Woman's Syndrome? Why do women need that defense?

It's not a non-issue so long as men and men alone are subject to penalties for not signing up for it while women do not have to.

Women just recently were officially allowed to serve in combat roles. What does that tell you about what value the military places on women as soldiers?