See e.g. http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/08/5-legal-r...

TL;DR: genital integrity (no circumcision), no draft, parental rights, privileged in courts. Differs by country, of course (e.g. in some EU countries, men have to work longer to retire).

Even when women and men have equal retirements' age - the average life expectancy is 10 years longer for women. That means mandatory retirement fund is indirect wealth transfer from men to women. Unequal retirements' age just makes it even more unfair.

It's sad that blatantly obvious differences between genders are fought when they are bad for women (STEM employement, rape, home violence) and ignored when they are bad for man (suicide rate, life expectancy, rights after divorce).

I doubt we will ever see positive discrimination for male patients in hospitals for example, even if it could decrease the life expectancy gap :)

The equalisation of retirement age in the UK was not without controversy https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jan/09/state-pension-...

Also car insurance https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/oct/05/car-insurance-...

I am not arguing your point but it should be about life expectancy once productive age is reached not life expectancy overall. Maybe there are other factors which causes many young men to die but it evens out once productive age is reached (pure speculation but I feel it's an important distinction for the point to be valid).

According to this: https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi

it's only 3-4 years at 25 y.o. Still significant. Also I would like data from other countries, I suspect they are worse.

.

Your statement makes no sense on a purely logical level. Most of the issues we're talking about "should be the default, and" advantage" in the context we're discussing it means "area that one is better off in". GP's point was that having your genital integrity legally protected is not a right that is extended to men.

> genital integrity (no circumcision)

So don't circumcise your son.

I think tomp is pointing out that doing something equivalent to circumcision to a female baby would be illegal. Rightly so, in my opinion. I strongly believe that male circumcision should be illegal as well.

And the solution to pedophilia is "don't rape kids".

Yes, that would work.

If all rapists realized today that they shouldn't rape, and stopped doing it, then no more rape.

Now the only way to even start down a path like that is to start letting people know "don't rape". She's too drunk to walk straight? Don't. She says no? Don't. etc...

Opposing male circumcision doesn't require complaining about how females are privileged. Educate people on why they don't really need to chop up their babies penis.

Right, because 500k women in the U.S. who have undergone actual genital mutilation, not a surgery with tangible benefits, are non-existent.

There has not been a draft in 50 years.

Privilege in courts has been shown to be bullshit time and time again. Men who attempt to receive custody of their children actually get them more than 50% of the time.

Re: 1 and 2, parent was asking for laws. Also, there's no tangible benefits to circumcision in the US (if that's what you were implying). Re: 3, women also receive shorter sentences for same crimes (although the article doesn't mention it, and that's not an explicit legal disadvantage).

1. is extremely ridiculous - reduced risk of cancer - reduced risk of STIs - no difference in sensitivity

I'm at work and don't feel like googling in depth circumcision articles, but "genital integrity" is a ridiculous minimization of the issues faced by women who have actually had their genitals mutilated. If anyone wants to dig up the citations for me, I'd appreciate it. But, this isn't a circumjerk article, so this is as far down the chain as I'll go.

You're misremembering your studies -- women who are sentenced to prison (for felonies) receive roughly the same prison sentences as men. They are however, significantly less likely to be sentenced. But, they are also significantly less likely to commit violent crimes, which you have to take into account in your analysis.

No, you are misremembering your studies.

"Starr's research incorporates disparities found at those earlier stages, and finds that "more disparity is introduced at each phase of the justice process.""

(my emphasis).

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_g...

New data seems to draw different conclusions [1], probably because the study you're linking to fails to take into account prior criminal history [2].

[1] http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-j... [2] http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/02/06/009385481456...

Reading helps:

"After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." "

Same link as before. My emphasis.

Thanks for the tip, the actual studies cited by the article you link to state:

"Pre-charge characteristics, including arrest offense and criminal history, can explain about 80% of these disparities" [1]

1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377

Reading really, really helps.

Sigh.

The study you linked is titled "Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences", says so right at the top, you just have to read it. It is not the study talked about in the press-release I linked to. It is referenced in said press-release as the "previous study" that found racial disparities, which were found to be 6 times smaller than the gender disparities found in the study that the press release is about.

Which is this one:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

You're right, sorry, I was hasty in reading the linked materials.

Here is another contradictory study [1], along with a link to an ABA article explaining why some differences in sentencing should not only be expected, but potentially encouraged [2].

1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.... 2. http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_mag...

I was drafted. There exist places outside the US.

    There has not been a draft in 50 years.

There are plenty of countries with draft. And in virtually all of them it's men that have to go, while women can relax.

Around here, just top of the mind:

Extra points for higher education, even in studies traditionally dominated by women like nurse and chemistry.

Yes:

- In France, the last law about gender equality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12688339

- In France, organizations which support only women, by statute (see last link). In USA, "Girlz In Web" and all similar ventures.

- In France, aid and support that is only dedicated to women (excluding child-bearing support, which is deserved), where there's no mirror support for male problems.