There are way worse examples:

Male students are getting a whole one level worse marks than female students with the same knowledge [1] (Czech).

Theoretically, each parent has an equal right to the custody of the child when they separate. In reality, with a whooping 85-90% the custody is resolved according to female preference [2]: "It is a very common scenario in divorce in England that the house is transferred into the wife's sole name, the children live with the wife and the husband pays maintenance for the children..."

Males are 400-600% more likely to be attacked than females, while it is females safety that is discussed way more.

The vector of home violence is woman against child and not man against woman as often believed: "The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers."

Even worse, when child is killed: "And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers."

[1] https://www.scio.cz/download/vektor/Vektor_prezentace.ppt

[2] http://www.terry.co.uk/men_div.html

[3] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf

Your point #2 (along with other reasons for a child to more commonly live with a single mother, e.g. the father isn’t known, is in prison, or runs off) partly explains your points #4 and #5. From the document you cite, 27% of abuse victims were living with a single mother and another 5% were living with their mother and another adult, while only 3% were living with a single father. If you only look at children living with both parents, it looks like either parent could be the abuser with approximately equal likelihood. Looking at the source document, your claim #5 seems to be a complete misinterpretation of the data, but in any event, the largest cause of fatalities is “neglect”, and most fatalities were in children under the age of 3.

More generally, I suspect a significant proportion of children spend substantially more time with their mothers than their fathers, e.g. because fathers are more likely to work, tend to work longer hours when both parents are working, and do much less housework and childcare. I suspect these disparities are even more prevalent if you restrict your examination to households where child abuse occurs.

If you want to understand child abuse by parents, you should try to gather concrete data about the family structure and other context. Aggregate statistics about which parent is more often the aggressor can be misleading without considering those other factors (most relevantly here, who the primary caregiver is).

Interpreting this document to imply that children are at much greater danger from women than men is disingenuous, or sloppy at best.

Similarly for your point #3. What is the context for the “attacks” you are talking about? Gang violence? Bar fights? School bullying? Muggings in dark alleys late at night? You don’t cite a source, so it’s not clear quite what you’re referring to.

By arguing that the level of abuse by man and woman is roughly the same you are actually enforcing the point, not making is weaker. And if we are looking at the whole picture, presenting totals makes complete sense. We don't need detailed statistics to point the imbalance. There's no question that the type of abuse differs among men and women.

For one thing, unless you've done some rigorous surveying of the total communications landscape, your perception of how seriously everyone is taking these imbalances is going to be limited by what you happen to see (intentional or accidental filtering), and what you remember (confirmation bias).

For another thing, the solutions are not mutually dependent--some people can try to get more women into STEM jobs without hurting the efforts of other people who are trying to get more men into nursing jobs. We don't need to achieve some fair and balanced level of discourse before we start actually fixing things.

Finally, imbalances are not themselves a problem, they are a symptom. In STEM jobs, the big problem is not there are too few women, it is that the culture of many places is abusive and off-putting to women. That's what needs to be solved. Gender imbalance is just a proxy that's easier to measure.

Well, that's the point the grandparent comment was making. The fact that there is multiple sides on this issue shows that it is not as black and white as you seem to see it.

The people hunting foxes and badger are not devils made of pure evil, so there must be a reason why they are doing it.

But the actual debate about hunting foxes does not matter here, the point is : the world is not as black and white as people see it.

If it comes up often in the teaching community, its not something which much money is being directed to, projected being run, and time being spent on. There is no political pressure to apply affirmative action, no ear marked funds in the budget, and no policy changes in order to change the dominated female culture that the teaching profession has (The report attribute the culture as a major cause for male teacher having significant higher exit rate both as student but also after they have worked a few years).

As for campaigns "running for a long time", the report says the exact opposite. It explicitly say there hasn't been any significant effort to bring male student to female dominated professions, while the opposite has existed for about 50 years. It suggest that university programs should look at the past and current efforts to bring female students to STEM subject and use it as a guide in order to create programs for gender equality which also include male students.

Personally, I think the recent decided policy by Norway is a good step in the right direction. A simple policy that dictate that minority students, that is when the gender ration is less than 20%-80%, will receive some benefits/incentives to counter gender discrimination.

(The report is 2009:7 R, by the Swedish national agency for higher education)

I think this is great idea. It is simple to execute and does not attempt to prescribe an "optimal ratio". Of course, there's always room for debate, like whether it should only be applied to gender minorities, but that's simple enough to tweak.

Cats injure, torture, and play with their prey before killing it. Humans should not do that.

Secondly, you say that hunting is permissible if you're hunting for survival. Why doesn't the same apply for slaughter? You don't need to eat farmed animals for survival.

The same would apply for slaughter - if it would be a survival matter, then any methods would be permissible (i.e. some of the more cruel traditional approaches) but since it is not, it should be mandatory to use only the less painful approaches to slaughter.

I don't think it's ok to torture a fox because it had a nice life before the torture started.

I don't think it's ok to torture a fox because we kill a lot more cows than foxes.

I don't think it's ok to torture animals that we raise for slaughter. I pay more for organic grass-fed cattle, free-range chicken and eggs, etc, in the hopes that the animals that provide my food were treated well while they were alive.

As I said at the start, I'm not a vegetarian. I'm definitely a part of the animal food chain, so I'm ok with the killing of animals further down the chain for me to eat, and I avoid the animals further up the chain so that I don't get eaten. (I wouldn't blame them if they got me, though.) What I object to is killing in a way that causes more suffering than it has to.

I don't eat meat for pleasure, particularly, and certainly not as recreation. Fox hunting is purely recreation.