Circumcision is not a medical procedure. It is popular among jews for religious reasons. It was popularized in the United States as a means to prevent boys from masturbating

Ah, yes, tell me more about how a procedure which at one point was done for foolish reasons means it can never be medically valid. And then pray to god you never have intracranial pressure needing to be relieved via trepanning... I mean craniotomy. Since clearly that is "not a medical procedure", having originated "for religious reasons" millennia ago.

I was born in 1987 and have never faced a draft. But I was forced to sign up on my 18th birthday "just in case

Remember that whole "potential future actions are not present harm" thing? Yeah, maybe stop whinging about how you had to sign up for a program saying that if we changed the law to bring back the draft you could've drafted. Which was true anyway. And is true for women.

You signed a piece of paper, so did I, stop trying to get a rousing rendition of "we shall overcome" going.

But that dodges my point - your argument rests on a premise that society is deferential to men's individual rights and autonomy. The draft is a pretty good piece of evidence that "no, it isn't."

It has always been deferential to the traditional masculine values, values which are contenporarily no longer shared by even a plurality of men. The draft existed both in America and abroad as a necessary consequence of the dick-measuring contest via war of people like Teddy Roosevelt.

You can make a decent argument that the lives of poor men have been subjugated to the interests of wealthy men, but even then you're simply accepting that men have power which sometimes makes other men do things they'd prefer not to. But remember please that President Wilson was Woodrow, not Edith.

What do you base this conclusion on? Men currently do not get pregnant, but they do have children. Men receive less leave, and are generally punished more for taking leave

About the same place that you presume that if men became pregnant they would be told to "man up": complete speculation attempting to extrapolate from what currently exists into what would exist in a completely different world.

Men receive less leave because the entire societal set-up is that women will be relegated to child-rearing while men accomplish things and make money. That expectation is retrograde, to be sure, but not actually based on preferential treatment for women.

Can you give me any examples where men are given preferential treatment when it comes to reproductive rights, parental rights, workplace flexibility, and medical spending

Do you want to start with how for a very long time in this country it was not rape for a man to have sex with his wife without her consent? Or that women could not own property for much of western history?

To say nothing of societal expectations which prior to very recently had women unable to work in a huge number of industries. Want to talk about "flexibility"?

If your position were correct, wouldn't men's right to paternal surrender have come first

Nope, because being the more preferably treated gender does not come with carte blanch. Society has long treated the greater power of men with a sense of noblesse oblige.

Of course they do. Women can unilaterally put a child up for adoption or drop a child off at a safe haven

To the first, no they cannot. To the second: so could a man who for some reason has sole possession of a child whose other parent is not interested in raising it.

Find me a case where a man objected to a woman using a safe haven provision and was denied custody because "bro, safe haven" and we'll talk.

But using cases where a father walked away and then the mother availed herself of safe haven protection as examples of how women have more rights is simply dishonest.

Christ, a woman can disclaim the father's financial responsibilities on his behalf i the two ways I just listed, or through IVF, or by simply keeping the pregnancy and child secret from the father

The first two you listed are incorrect, sperm banks are a special category separate from what we're discussing, and the last one isn't legal.

That'd be like saying a man already has the "right" to paternal surrender because he can refuse to pay and go into hiding or flee the country. We're talking about what people have the right to do, not what they're capable of doing if the law is irrelevant.

the mother will typically sign away custody with the agreement that the father not seek child support

First, please provide your source for that being "typical", second no agreement of that nature would be enforceable, parents cannot abrogate their children's rights by contract.

Such an agreement is technically unenforceable, but if the father breaches the mother will seek (and probably win) custody.

Not technically, completely.

But you also seem unclear on what it means to "win" custody.

It's true that only in a small minority of contested custody cases do men win sole custody, but the same is true for women. In the vast majority of contested custody cases the result is shared custody.

So would the woman most likely "win" in the sense that she gets some custody? Sure. By that definition the man will also most likely win.

Finally, even in the instance where women do have child support obligations, they tend to default at higher rates, but receive less punishment

[citation needed]. Preferably for both claims, and please avoid anything relying on "women filed for relief and modification of child support terms more frequently and thus weren't punished."