Is there a men's rights movement now afoot?

[CVT Temp]

On this matter, neither am I. I am questioning whether their strategy will have any salience. It is an identity-politics movement, and one thing that all identity politics movements depend on is a feeling of communal solidarity that comes from being a marginalized group. A successful black businessman during the civil rights movement could feel organic, mutual solidarity with a poor, unemployed black teen living in an inner city ghetto because of the shared experience of racism.

Similar experiences formed the core of gay and lesbian groups as well as feminist groups. Without that shared experience of marginalization, you can't build a movement based on identity alone.

You might be able to create an identity politics movement for gender non-conforming men or gender questioning men, but that's probably already covered by the queer and LGBT umbrellas.

[Blouman Empire]

I also think that any person who actually trots out the "I'm a HUMANIST!" or "I'm an EGALITARIAN!" should be prompted to demonstrate what, exactly, they've done to further the rights of disenfranchised groups.

Does protesting, donating and working on petitions to have gay marriage made legal count?

[The Lone Alliance]

When men now make up a diminishing minority of higher education students, drop out from high school in much larger numbers, and in fact are actively falling behind at every level from elementary school to doctoral degrees, feminists don't feel the need to resolve that issue. They do, however, feel the need to work to increase the number of women in physics, math, computer, etc related fields of study, while not lifting a hand to increase the number of men in education, nursing, et cetera.

Irrespective of whether or not feminists ignore these issues, why should feminist political organizations take up the banner of a cause that for a group of people who tend to not only have little sympathy with their struggle, but also tend to mobilize to oppose feminism and feminist goals increasingly.

Source of this happening in the US on a large scale basis?

Sorry TJ, but a little give and take is necessary here.

What is your definition of "give"?

If men and mens rights activists want feminists to abandon the siege mentality, then they need to dismantle the siege towers.

And what are feminists under siege about?

[Blouman Empire]

It's a mental circlejerk around keyboards, and it's never been anything more than that. And anyone who thinks this actually ACCOMPLISHES something has a gravely inflated sense of their own importance.

Real change is affected in the real world. This is just jerking off.

Probably one of the few things we agree on.

It's why I'm not bothered about what I read on here because I know most of the people whom talk about how things should be different it will never happen. It's why I never worry about the anarchists I read on FB who just talk about how they will change society because I know their vision will never be realised.

[Blouman Empire]

NSG is a way of wasting time when you don't have anything else to do.

THIS IS WRONG

NSG is a way of wasting time even though you still have plenty of stuff to do.

[Blouman Empire]

It's too disorganized to be a movement. There is a growing trend, yes, but I'm not sure if it's a movement.

And for the most part I agree. Men still dominate politics and business around the world, but the majority are facing increased opposition from unfair cultural standards of masculinity.

I will, however, opine that some MRAs are horribly misguided. Some are just misogynists in disguise, others focus on things like "intactivism" that are, honestly, non-issues.

Which is why they need to come up with something else and not say it's about men if they want to push away the media portrayal that husbands are dumb, lazy, fat.

[Tahar Joblis]

I've linked to this before.

It also doesn't even remotely support your claim. In fact, it rather undermines it, and presents the pedophile scare as an attack on feminism.

Read it again. It is a critique of one wing of the feminist movement from another wing.

Feminism did not regain its fervor until the antiporn movement emerged in the late '70s. This campaign almost immediately won a large number of adherents. Antiporn activists were successful in attracting both lesbian and heterosexual feminists. All women could unite against misogynist violence...

...The feminist antiporn movement routinely trashed its feminist critics by attacking them as perverts and advocates of rape, battery, and child abuse. Members of the antiporn movement have been so successful that most people—including the press—today assume that they represent the only feminist position on issues of sexuality, censorship, pornography, violence against women, and the sex industry...

Feminism and the antiporn movement that arose in the seventies were inextricably linked. The fact that this was in many ways counterproductive to the goal of equality is both Califia's claim and my claim. I agree, in other words, that the antiporn movement, spearheaded by Dworkin, MacKinnon, et al, is counterproductive to equality in the long run.

No, I'm asking

Then you weren't replying to what you thought you were replying to.

a cause that has so far almost exclusively been taken up by reactionaries.

If by "reactionary" you mean "not explicitly identifying as feminist." If not, then you need to prove yourself. For myself, I am thoroughly satisfied that your claim is otherwise wholly mythological; I get called reactionary if I present a controversial position in favor of equality, in spite of my obvious liberal position, and it's been demonstrated thoroughly that favoring parental relinquishment ["paper abortions"] is positively correlated with favoring abortion rights. The idea that "men's rights" causes are strictly reactionary is a lie.

So. Why have feminists not taken up the cause of ending anti-male discrimination?

Ms. Magazine. As cited therein, Feminist Majority Foundation, Ms. Magazine, and Women's Law Project all were working very directly to install that particular new definition, and the adoption of the new definition met with widespread approval among the movement.

Three organizations does not a movement make.

Actually, yes, that is enough to add up to a movement. In this case, you wanted to know which feminist groups were behind the new definition, and I gave you an answer: Some of the largest, most prominent, and most respected ones within the movement.

Furthermore, if you'd bothered to read the article, the new definition was a massive improvement over the old definition.

With respect to female victims and male perpetrators.

Furthermore, the new definition doesn't specify that the victim must be the penetratee. Under that definition, a it is just as much rape for a women to force a man into sexual intercourse as vice-versa.

As exhibited in FBI and CDC publications issued subsequent to the adoption of that definition and citing that definition, the definition does specify that rape is an act of penetration, and that therefore, the victim must be the penetrated one.

I know you wanted to read it optimistically, but that's not what the new definition actually says, and not how it is used by the FBI.

As noted above, your source doesn't in anyway resemble what you're claiming it says.

It says exactly what I claim it says; these advocate on behalf of not sending women to prison under circumstances that men find themselves imprisoned in.

Not only a lighter sentence, but not being sent to prison at all in those cases. Which is, in other words, fighting for exacerbation of the gender gap.

So apparently, in your world "successful" people don't like having relationships with people with similar tastes, interests, etc.? So apparently, partners are only status objects when women do it to men. Trophy wives, and power couples just don't exist, amirite?

They do exist.

This does not, however, have anything to do with falsifying my point.

Yes, and until you cite something other than self-report surveys

Trotskylvania, I've cited papers examining the literature for evidence of a sexual double standard and finding very little.

Every recent study or survey conducted which asks people about their own actual opinions and behavior demonstrates a very weak sexual double standard, one which is extraordinarily difficult to measure and in some cases disfavors men.

It is perfectly clear that we live in an environment in which men get shit for being promiscuous. This is new, as much older studies don't substantiate slut-shaming of men.

The feminist movement so argued; and then completely failed to do anything other than attempt to push women into high prestige "male" jobs, ignoring low prestige "male" jobs as well as all "female" jobs.

Liberal capitalists behave like liberal capitalists. Details at 11.

No.

Alleged advocates of equality act simply in the perceived interests of a class rather than on behalf of equality. News at 11.

THat's because they are socially expected to not only be the breadwinner, but our social expectation of masculinity is stoicism, rationality, and strength. Only when men stopped being the masters of the universe, and patriarchy was seriously threatened did any alternative even become possible. You can thank feminism for that.

Bullshit.

You can find close and loving father-child relationships from the Victorian age to ancient Greece. That mothers love their children dearly and fathers are distant is an extant norm, but not one that is universal over time and place.

Medea is a fine case in point. It is nearly impossible to reframe Medea in the modern context without violating extant social norms, because Medea is damn sure that Jason loves their kids more than she does. She bore them for him, and she kills them to hurt him.

Does the egalitarian ideology that feminism speaks positively of help us break down that norm? Yes. But the feminist movement is only indirectly helpful here; as opposed to the re-introduction of working mothers, where the feminist movement was vigorously and directly helpful.

I thought we had already established that not all organized advocacy for women is feminist.

If you'd care to define NOW as 'not feminist,' I think - as a descriptivist - that you may have a significant problem related to the definition of feminism.

And if the mark of being a feminist is being a woman who is seriously threatened by the remarks and cultural posturing of Republican politicians, then the word has no coherent meaning anymore.

Which could be a problem.

I'm glad you agree that defining feminism is problematic.

You still can't seem to draw the distinction between women and feminists. Just because women are part of the establishment doesn't mean feminists are.

No, the fact that feminists are part of the establishment means that feminists are part of the establishment.

Women were part of the establishment when Queen Elizabeth reigned. Women have always been part of the establishment. Feminism being effectual dates back to not long after the establishment of feminism. The current wave of feminism becoming part of the establishment is AFAIK relatively new, but it's quite real. When my mother was young, these were outcast rabble-rousers working outside the system, with the system deciding to placate them.

Now, those rabble-rousers are in their seventies and eighties. Their immediate successors within the movement are professors, department chairs, politicians, civil servants, heads of non-profit organizations receiving large amounts of federal funding, lobbyists with extensive DC connections, campaign fundraising experts, et cetera.

[Katyuscha]

Wait... so, now there's a Masculinist movement? That's just silly.

If we really want to solve gender equality, why don't we just drop such titled movements like feminism and... masculinism, and just start working for the equality of both sexes? Is that really too much to ask for?

[Ostroeuropa]

Wait... so, now there's a Masculinist movement? That's just silly.

If we really want to solve gender equality, why don't we just drop such titled movements like feminism and... masculinism, and just start working for the equality of both sexes? Is that really too much to ask for?

Apparently so.

[Gravlen]

I'm not going into all of your claims, just two points:

Ones that you misunderstand.

Don't lie.

Interesting that you're unable to provide sources to back up your claims since none of the ones you've provided show feminists "actively work against women receiving prison sentences at all".

Respectively:

The Taskforce acknowledges that there are some women whose offending is so serious that there is
no option but custody.

WIP has a vision of a fair and just criminal justice system where only those women who pose a threat to society are held in prison and that, where this is necessary, prisons are designed to meet the specific needs of women.

To reduce the numbers of women who are criminalized and imprisoned in Canada.

All of which are working against women receiving prison sentences at all, under circumstances in which men do indeed receive sentences.

Source?

You know, since the sources you provided before shows no such thing...

Did you ever watch Scrubs? You know, the show about doctors and female nurses? If you think the four episodes featuring the character of "murse" Paul Flowers (described as "somewhat feminine") inspired men / helped getting men into nursing...

No. Instead, I asked a male nurse whether or not "Scrubs" had raised interest in men among becoming nurses. He said yes.

So I believe him.

Funny that. I asked a nurse whether or not "Scrubs" had raised interest in men among becoming nurses. She said "Hell no, are you kidding me? I'm sure you are aware that we are in the midst of a nationwide nursing shortage and that fewer young people - men and women alike - are choosing nursing as a career. And while the causes of the nursing shortage are complex, society's image of nursing does play a significant role.

The problem is that portrayals, such as the one on the Jan. 30 episode of "Scrubs", while fictional, still harm the profession by reinforcing negative, unrealistic and sexist stereotypes of nurses, and often damage nurse recruitment efforts as a result."

So I believe her.

[Tahar Joblis]

Source?

You know, since the sources you provided before shows no such thing...

They did.

To reduce the numbers of women who are criminalized and imprisoned in Canada.
Better outcomes for women mean a reduced use of prison and an increased use of community alternatives. Prison does not work. The best way to cut women’s offending is to deal with its root causes.
It recommended that proposals to close some women's prisons be accelerated, with the money saved used to run community services for female offenders.

It's all about putting female offenders into anything but prison. Which, mind you, female offenders already are being fast-tracked away from in the event they are convicted, compared to male prisoners.

No. Instead, I asked a male nurse whether or not "Scrubs" had raised interest in men among becoming nurses. He said yes.

So I believe him.

Funny that. I asked a nurse whether or not "Scrubs" had raised interest in men among becoming nurses. She said "Hell no, are you kidding me? I'm sure you are aware that we are in the midst of a nationwide nursing shortage and that fewer young people - men and women alike - are choosing nursing as a career. And while the causes of the nursing shortage are complex, society's image of nursing does play a significant role.

The problem is that portrayals, such as the one on the Jan. 30 episode of "Scrubs", while fictional, still harm the profession by reinforcing negative, unrealistic and sexist stereotypes of nurses, and often damage nurse recruitment efforts as a result."

So I believe her.

OK. One? I doubt you actually did just ask a nurse that.

Two? Check the pronouns. And check the counterfactuals. Men entering nursing has been on the [very slow rise] for a number of years. It just hasn't gotten far. It doesn't make a dent in nursing shortage numbers, because the fraction of nurses that are male is very small, but it is rising.

Three? We're not even talking about the insider take. We're talking about the recruitment angle.

Four? IIRC, you don't even live in the US, and here I am talking about whether a US show is encouraging men to go into nursing or not.

But all of that is beside the point. Men are very slowly entering nursing; very slowly, in the absence of programs to bring men into nursing; programs which, for any nearly-all-male career with low physical danger levels requiring that much education and getting that much pay, would be a high priority that feminists would have been pushing for the last several decades.

[Freelanderness]

So I like to read the occasional article on The Good Men Project, in between the dodgy rape apologist ones, it's generally got a lot of insightful articles. Now they had this one, which I thought was pretty cool. It was a survey among MRAs on the site about what their main concerns were within the movement. It's worth a look. While the first choice, Father's Rights, is near and dear to my heart, the second choice was feminism. This definitely mirrors what I've experienced, with quite a few MRAs being reactionary. Even the little write-up underneath makes me shudder.

[Gravlen]

Source?

You know, since the sources you provided before shows no such thing...

They did.

To reduce the numbers of women who are criminalized and imprisoned in Canada.
Better outcomes for women mean a reduced use of prison and an increased use of community alternatives.

So you don't understand the word "reduce", and you fail to understand the context of the statement. Unsurprising.

Prison does not work. The best way to cut women’s offending is to deal with its root causes.
It recommended that proposals to close some women's prisons be accelerated, with the money saved used to run community services for female offenders.

You also fail to understand the word "some". Hmm.

It's all about putting female offenders into anything but prison. Which, mind you, female offenders already are being fast-tracked away from in the event they are convicted, compared to male prisoners.

You've failed to show that this is "actively work[ing] against women receiving prison sentences at all".

Funny that. I asked a nurse whether or not "Scrubs" had raised interest in men among becoming nurses. She said "Hell no, are you kidding me? I'm sure you are aware that we are in the midst of a nationwide nursing shortage and that fewer young people - men and women alike - are choosing nursing as a career. And while the causes of the nursing shortage are complex, society's image of nursing does play a significant role.

The problem is that portrayals, such as the one on the Jan. 30 episode of "Scrubs", while fictional, still harm the profession by reinforcing negative, unrealistic and sexist stereotypes of nurses, and often damage nurse recruitment efforts as a result."

So I believe her.

OK. One? I doubt you actually did just ask a nurse that.

What?!?! You don't believe anecdotal evidence??? My word!

Two? Check the pronouns. And check the counterfactuals. Men entering nursing has been on the [very slow rise] for a number of years. It just hasn't gotten far. It doesn't make a dent in nursing shortage numbers, because the fraction of nurses that are male is very small, but it is rising.

A nurse does not believe Scrubs had anything to do with that and neither do I.

Three? We're not even talking about the insider take. We're talking about the recruitment angle.

"The problem is that portrayals, such as the one on the Jan. 30 episode of "Scrubs", while fictional, still harm the profession by reinforcing negative, unrealistic and sexist stereotypes of nurses, and often damage nurse recruitment efforts as a result."

Since you like fun with fonts.

Four? IIRC, you don't even live in the US, and here I am talking about whether a US show is encouraging men to go into nursing or not.

And?

But all of that is beside the point. Men are very slowly entering nursing; very slowly, in the absence of programs to bring men into nursing; programs which, for any nearly-all-male career with low physical danger levels requiring that much education and getting that much pay, would be a high priority that feminists would have been pushing for the last several decades.

And yet, as far as I can see, Scrubs has not had an impact on this.

[Tahar Joblis]

So you don't understand the word "reduce", and you fail to understand the context of the statement. Unsurprising.

Reduced use of prison meaning...

...cases in which a woman would go to prison, which these advocacy groups would like to see her go to prison for a shorter time or not at all.

Cases which, to be blunt, a man can expect to serve a full term in prison. Meaning these groups are working, in effect, to exacerbate the sentencing gap, and have women not go to prison at all in a number of cases where a man would serve a long prison sentence.

You seem to be having some trouble with the English here. Re-read and try again.

What?!?! You don't believe anecdotal evidence???

Not when it sounds like you just made it up on the spot in order to reply to my statement, no.

A nurse does not believe Scrubs had anything to do with that and neither do I.

And a nurse does. A male nurse, in particular, thinks that Scrubs and the like have helped bring awareness of nursing as a career to men.

Since I know my anecdote is real and, moreover, comes from someone in a better position to comment on men in nursing than the one in your anecdote

Three? We're not even talking about the insider take. We're talking about the recruitment angle.

"The problem is that portrayals, such as the one on the Jan. 30 episode of "Scrubs", while fictional, still harm the profession by reinforcing negative, unrealistic and sexist stereotypes of nurses, and often damage nurse recruitment efforts as a result."

Since you like fun with fonts.

Second "Scrubs" episode with Rick Schroder continues positive depiction of male nurse

February 21, 2003 -- The February 20 "Scrubs" episode again featured Rick Schroder's portrayal of Paul Flowers, the confident, witty and sensitive nurse character currently dating physician Elliot Reed (Sarah Chalke). The episdoe was entitled "My Karma."

The Flowers character easily shrugged off anti-male nurse bias from a surgeon the show regularly depicts as an obnoxious fool. In another scene, Flowers embarrassed the show's lead character, intern J.D. (Zach Braff), by offering a vastly superior toast to J.D.'s newly engaged friends. The Center hopes that the show's producers continue to feature Flowers and/or other positive male nurse characters, ideally in contexts that also convey the importance, autonomy and range of real life nursing, which recent episodes have not done.

Let me put it this way: The insider scoop is at worst mixed.

And?

Which is why I think you're making shit up.

And yet, as far as I can see, Scrubs has not had an impact on this.

Whether or not it you think it has, male nurses are [very slowly] entering the field.

It's hard, and it's a struggle. And feminists aren't doing jack and shit to help it. Scrubs has done more than the feminist movement in that regard.

[Bottle]

So I like to read the occasional article on The Good Men Project, in between the dodgy rape apologist ones, it's generally got a lot of insightful articles. Now they had this one, which I thought was pretty cool. It was a survey among MRAs on the site about what their main concerns were within the movement. It's worth a look. While the first choice, Father's Rights, is near and dear to my heart, the second choice was feminism. This definitely mirrors what I've experienced, with quite a few MRAs being reactionary. Even the little write-up underneath makes me shudder.

Doesn't it just?

Makes it pretty clear that they're not actually interested in fatherhood, just getting back more of the old "rights" that men had which they can use to punish their exes.

Because, see, the biggest fighters for Father's Rights right now? Feminists. The biggest advocates for greater involvement of male parents? Feminists. The people trying to dismantle the idea that a man's contribution is his paycheck while a woman should do all the childrearing? Feminists. The loudest voices objecting to the portrayal of men as incapable of tenderness, responsibility, and involved parenting? Feminists. Those bitches!

And the loudest voices I have ever encountered arguing AGAINST me on every single one of those topics? Self-identified MRAs. They're the ones arguing that women are "naturally" better able to love and care for children. They're the ones who inform me that a man's role is to provide and he can't possibly be a father to his children if his wife makes more money or if (god's forbid) the family situation would work better if he were a stay-at-home dad. Who insist that it's sex discrimination when courts award custody to the parent who has been taking care of the children for their entire lives. Who insist that no man wants to pay child support for his own fucking kids. On and on and on.

Sorry guys, but feminism got there first. If you want to fight for father's rights then, well, you'll have to wait in line, because we're already on that. You can work with us, of course, but if you want to work against us then your only option will be FIGHTING father's rights.

[Ostroeuropa]

And in your opinion bottle, if I object to feminism as a term while still advocating gender equality, does that make me an MRA? Or would you consider me a feminist. or neither.

Note, I do not explicitly reject feminisms values. I accept that within the feminist movement there is a legitimate gender equality movement, and that persons within that movement would consider the misandric movements that have tacked themselves under the label "Feminist" are not "Proper feminists". It is not out of disidentification with the equalists I dislike the term, but rather for it's linguistic focus on one section of the populace, and it's ability to provide cover for those misandrists. I only object to the term feminism, not feminist ideals.
Or rather, not all feminist ideals, seeing as at some point different ideals of feminism become incompatible with one another anyway.
In addition, feminism provides a quick and dirty method of obtaining legitimacy for misogyny by labeling ones self a masculinist and arguing about it being a counterweight.
I feel that the term feminism has a strategic and tactical cost that is simply not worth it's continued use within the movement, and advocate we change to gender egalitarians or gender abolitionists.

[Tahar Joblis]

Because, see, the biggest fighters for Father's Rights right now? Feminists.

Bullshit. NOW treats "more fathers getting custody" and "more abusers getting custody" as synonymous. Other feminist groups are right in line with that.

The reason that women got default full custody, which NOW is fighting for them to regain through primary caregiver legislation, which will amount to a presumption of full maternal custody, as we presume that mothers are primary caregivers unless otherwise demonstrated? First wave feminism.

Feminists have not now and never have been particularly active in advocating on behalf of fathers gaining custody.

The biggest advocates for greater involvement of male parents? Feminists.

Again, bullshit.

The people trying to dismantle the idea that a man's contribution is his paycheck while a woman should do all the childrearing? Feminists.

Feminists like Warren Farrell, you mean?

Because a number of other feminists have been standing behind every policy change that has generated a wealth of single mothers raising children alone with a man's only contribution being his paycheck. No fault divorce with no impact on custody presumptions? Check. Attacking shared custody arrangements? Check. Helping make the child support system a mess? Check. Turning domestic violence law into a snarl of presumptive male guilt? Check.

It's not just in what you say; it's in what you do. Getting fathers more involved is, ultimately, one of the things that feminism's political actions have worked against more than for.

The loudest voices objecting to the portrayal of men as incapable of tenderness, responsibility, and involved parenting? Feminists. Those bitches!

The loudest voices painting men as demonic pedophile rapists? Feminists.

The loudest voices saying men are entirely superfluous? Feminists.

The loudest voices saying that there's no benefit to having men in the lives of children? Feminists.

And the loudest voices I have ever encountered arguing AGAINST me on every single one of those topics? Self-identified MRAs.

Bottle, when I started taking you to task for your bullshit, I was very vigorously identifying as feminist. Now, of course, I find the definition of feminism problematic. I am a feminist by the definition you claim; I am not by the definition you practice.

Let me put this bluntly: On every gendered issue, and on any position from egalitarian to misandrist, the feminist voices are the loudest ones. This is because feminism has claimed exclusive dominion over all discussion of gendered issues.

They're the ones arguing that women are "naturally" better able to love and care for children.

These are the same MRAs screaming bloody murder about divorce custody and fathers' rights?

I think you have a coherency issue. And the loudest voices I've heard making that argument ... are feminists.

Look, you've thrown out these lines before, but the very simple fact is that in terms of policy, there are feminists reflexively opposing anything that looks like it might give fathers a bigger slice of the pie. NOW used to stand behind joint custody; but now NOW opposes joint custody with the fervor of a thousand suns.

When NOW puts out press releases, "more fathers gaining custody" is treated as synonymous with "more abusers gaining custody." And that's sick sexist shit right there. Needs to stop.

[Bottle]

And in your opinion bottle, if I object to feminism as a term while still advocating gender equality, does that make me an MRA? Or would you consider me a feminist. or neither.

Despite my persistent lobbying, the Feminist Collective has not seen fit to arm me with the Official Seal Of Feministness, so I am not equipped to stamp you with the label of feminist. You can either choose to adopt the label yourself, or you can choose not to.

If you choose not to identify as feminist for the reasons you have described here, then I personally would not regard you as a useful ally. You make your support contingent upon removing anything that might suggest the primacy of female people in the struggle for gender equity, and my personal experience has been that people who do that sort of thing are not especially helpful or productive in feminist discussions or activism.

And really, the whole "BUT FEMINISM STARTS WITH FEM" thing is so Feminism 101 that it brings on a gigglefit. If you're still stuck at that point, you're, well, a n00b. That's okay, we all were at one time (I went through the "I'm a humanist not a feminist" phase myself about a decade ago), and when/if you ever learn more and gain more insight then feminism will still be here.

[Tahar Joblis]

And in your opinion bottle, if I object to feminism as a term while still advocating gender equality, does that make me an MRA? Or would you consider me a feminist. or neither.

Despite my persistent lobbying, the Feminist Collective has not seen fit to arm me with the Official Seal Of Feministness, so I am not equipped to stamp you with the label of feminist. You can either choose to adopt the label yourself, or you can choose not to.

If you choose not to identify as feminist for the reasons you have described here, then I personally would not regard you as a useful ally. You make your support contingent upon removing anything that might suggest the primacy of female people in the struggle for gender equity, and my personal experience has been that people who do that sort of thing are not especially helpful or productive in feminist discussions or activism.

And really, the whole "BUT FEMINISM STARTS WITH FEM" thing is so Feminism 101 that it brings on a gigglefit. If you're still stuck at that point, you're, well, a n00b. That's okay, we all were at one time (I went through the "I'm a humanist not a feminist" phase myself about a decade ago), and when/if you ever learn more and gain more insight then feminism will still be here.

Ah, so you're about a decade behind me, and I should expect in another ten years you'll become all bitter and epistemological, then?

I went through a phase where I avoided the word "feminist" because it started with fem. That ended a long time ago, and I began to identify quite vigorously as feminist.

Then other people started questioning that identification. Quite vigorously. When what I was doing was nothing more and nothing less than attacking sexism wherever I found it.

So I started asking myself: What's up with that? And then I worked out that while the prescriptive definition of feminism was a pretty thing indeed, its descriptive definition was otherwise. Approach equality as a male, addressing an issue on which men are disadvantaged? People will tell you you're not feminist. People who themselves claim the feminist label, vigorously.

But misandrist folks, who bash men? Their feminism pass is never challenged directly. They get disclaimed as "not real feminists" every once in a while to third parties, if those third parties happen to be pointing them out, but that's all, and it's more likely you'll see a feminist rallying to their defense, using in some cases very outlandish excuses.

[Gravlen]

So you don't understand the word "reduce", and you fail to understand the context of the statement. Unsurprising.

Reduced use of prison meaning...

...cases in which a woman would go to prison, which these advocacy groups would like to see her go to prison for a shorter time or not at all.

Cases which, to be blunt, a man can expect to serve a full term in prison. Meaning these groups are working, in effect, to exacerbate the sentencing gap, and have women not go to prison at all in a number of cases where a man would serve a long prison sentence.

You seem to be having some trouble with the English here. Re-read and try again.

I don't think the problem lies with me. I do understand what the word "reduce" mean. I do understand that it doesn't mean eliminate in all cases - which is what you're claiming.

I also understand that a statement like working towards having "only those women who pose a threat to society are held in prison" is not equal to "working against women receiving prison sentences at all". The same goes for acknowledging that "there are some women whose offending is so serious that there is
no option but custody."

You haven't forgotten what you're arguing, have you?

What?!?! You don't believe anecdotal evidence???

Not when it sounds like you just made it up on the spot in order to reply to my statement, no.

Why in the world would I ever make anything up just to reply to your statement which sounds like it's made up on the spot? I am mortally offended!

A nurse does not believe Scrubs had anything to do with that and neither do I.

And a nurse does. A male nurse, in particular, thinks that Scrubs and the like have helped bring awareness of nursing as a career to men.

From your link:

Young people have not been choosing careers in nursing as often as they once did. Part of the reason for this is the way nurses are perceived by society. This perception is due in part to shows like this that propagate your inaccurate and juvenile perspective. Young men have always found it difficult to choose such a career, and often do so after entering into another more traditionally male career. Upon becoming nurses, they often realize that they had a distorted view of what nursing means. You help distort that view.

Since I know my anecdote is real and, moreover, comes from someone in a better position to comment on men in nursing than the one in your anecdote

Darryl W. Roberts, MS, RN
Clinical Instructor
University of Maryland School of Nursing

Which is why I think you're making shit up.

Because it would be impossible for me to interact with people from the US (even have daily contact with someone from the US who've got a background in healthcare) or do research on topics concerning the US?

BTW, does this mean you'll never speak of issues originating from outside the US ever again? Is this an admission that you have no idea what you're talking about when you cite cases from Sweden or speak of situations originating in Europe or elsewhere in the world?

And yet, as far as I can see, Scrubs has not had an impact on this.

Whether or not it you think it has, male nurses are [very slowly] entering the field.

It's hard, and it's a struggle. And feminists aren't doing jack and shit to help it. Scrubs has done more than the feminist movement in that regard.

Source?

[Snafturi]

Which is why I think you're making shit up.

You know, I've been called a lot of things over the years, but "made up" has never been one of them.

I see Gravlen found a quote a little more relevant (coming from a man and all), but I would be the female who worked in healthcare in the US he talked to.

Also, your claim that the years of schooling has gone up for nursing is a little odd since the RN degree went from a 4 year to a 2 year degree (well, you can get a 4 year degree still, but that's more if you want to go into admin-type stuff). Yes, there are NPs, but the education requirement for them has never changed. Or at least, as of 4 years ago, it was the same.

[Neo Art]

You know, I've been called a lot of things over the years, but "made up" has never been one of them.

Who's there? Is somebody speaking?

Just the wind I guess...

[Snafturi]

You know, I've been called a lot of things over the years, but "made up" has never been one of them.

Who's there? Is somebody speaking?

Just the wind I guess...

Lo! I am the ghost of snarkness past!

[The Lone Alliance]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what guys have to "Give" to feminists for them to stop acting like every person with a Y chromosome is out to get them.

[Freelanderness]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what guys have to "Give" to feminists for them to stop acting like every person with a Y chromosome is out to get them.

Okay I'm not the lord highness or grand poobah of feminists, and since it's an incredibly diverse and wide movement, there's quite a bit of variance within it, but I'll make a short list of my personal dreams for the feminist (and wider in general) movement. Also the listing order in no way implies importance, it's simply how my scrambled mind typed them out. Forgive me if I leave something out (I have a lot of dreams for this world):

1.) Bodily autonomy - the ability to control ones reproductive system through birth control methods and abortion without social stigma
2.) Equal Pay/Opportunity - this is more complex than simply paying women the same amount as men for the same time/skill level and allowing women to speak out about the pay discrepancy (see: Lily Ledbetter, et al) but also looking at why the pay discrepancy is there. I get the "but women choose jobs that pay less" tripe all the time. I don't give a damn. Why are the jobs that women choose, lower-paying? Could it possibly be because we steer girls towards "female jobs"? And that we value the labour of females less? Because we can't just say that it's the womens' choice when we've been bashing them over the head with a giant stick while yelling "FEMALE, FEMALE, GET FEMININE AND BACK IN THE KITCHEN!" (Also a similar thing happens to men, and we should fix that too. But imo fixing one helps the other, not the other way around).
3.) Changing our cultural view on women/men/gender/femininity/masculinity - Stop the roles, stop the harmful stereotypes, stop the boxes. People first, gender et al. second, or third, or twenty-fifth.
3.5) Also race would be nice to, because sexism and racism are entwined imo.
4.) Changing out cultural outlook on sexual relations - Getting rid of this stupid Madonna/Whore shit that pervades our culture. Let them have sex. Stop the "slut-shaming" crap that's going on. A slut isn't a woman with the morals of a man, it's a mythical creature made up by people afraid of female sexuality. This whole sex-shaming thing is beginning to extend to males as well, which is the opposite direction we want. Sexual puritanism feeds hostile relations between the sexes/genders.
5.) Changing our culture's narrative on relationships - this ties in with above. The narratives we have within our culture about sex/gender and relationships are downright harmful. Consider "The Notebook" or "Twilight" and how the male/female relationships are twisted as fuck, and how dangerous activities (eg: hanging from a ferris wheel and threatening suicide, and stalking) are considered romantic. Also look at the mainstream of pornography, and the unhealthy situations portrayed and fetishized within them. We've got young kids exposed to these messages from cradle to death, through disney crap stories like the little mermaid (she doesn't need a voice, only two legs to catch a husband). This kind of stuff is as ridiculous as it is harmful. Men & women alike should be outraged at the negative messages within the media. They hurt everyone.
6.) Save the Children (lol) - We have to re-examine the roles parents play in their children's lives. We need to get rid of the woman being the only suitable caretaker, and the similar narrative about men not caring that much about having children. Both parents are important, and these stupid messages are only hurting our parents, and our children. I'm not hating on single parents (my parents were divorced, so I got single-parented, dually) but I do think we should be encouraging having both parents involved with their children's lives, equally. Two is better than one, generally.
7.) *Stop Rape Culture* - this is starred because it's one of my biggest ones. We live in a culture that is absolutely toxic for healthy sexual relationships. The stats I've got for Canada show that 1 in 3 females will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, and since 1 in 10 victims are men, that equals a fucktonne of people getting hurt! Why aren't we taking this seriously already? This crosses genders, race and social class, and yet we're barely doing anything to combat it. It's goddamn ridiculous!

Okay my eyes are getting tired of writing this out, so I'mma stop for the moment. I might come back and edit this later. I await this being ripped to shreds.