“I need feminism because… I’m tired of being one of 3 women at my Fire Department!”


I’m tired of third wave feminism being so obsessed with equality in every single aspect of life… that they are compromising the safety of others. Did you know that the Australian Fire Department has relaxed its fire service strength and fitness tests just for women because most of them could not even complete the bare minimum required for acceptance? That’s right. Women wanted jobs in the fire department, but because they couldn’t pass the required strength tests they threw a temper tantrum and as a result the government relaxed the entry conditions.  

Do you realise what the implications of this are? Imagine a Fire Brigade being forced to hire a number of women because they qualified under the relaxed strength and fitness test (and not hiring them would therefore be discrimination). Now image that same Fire Brigade being called out to a building that is on fire. If there were unconscious occupants still in that building, the only chance of survival for them would be if a fireman pulls them to safety. Now what if one of the female firemen finds two, middle aged men unconscious on the second storey? What if she was one of the many women who could only pass the relaxed strength test because the original was too tough for her? After a long struggle she’ll eventually heave maybe one man out of the building before the fire consumes it… in the same amount of time it would have taken her male colleague to bring out both men.

The Fire Brigade strength and fitness tests weren’t designed to exclude women… They were designed to ensure the safety of those in danger! They were designed to ensure that the rescuers were physically capable of rescuing!! Do you notice how men have little hips and big shoulders? Not only is it cute, it makes them 1000x more efficient at lifting and carrying heavy loads than compared to a woman of the same height and weight. That isn’t a result of patriarchy, that is the result of biology and human anatomy, so go sue Mother Nature if you think it is sexist.

Lowering the strength standards has put innocent lives in jeopardy. It has nothing to do with real equality, and everything to do with something as trivial as male:female ratios in certain fields of service. Guess what? It is all because of deluded third wave feminists who consistently fail to look at the bigger picture and are so consumed by their victim complexes and their delusion of being oppressed by the patriarchy that they can’t comprehend the harsh reality of any given situation. 

- fraudulentfeminist

*Edited for Clarification*

1. I never said that women shouldn’t be fire fighters. My whole point of that post was that they shouldn’t drop the standards for women. 

2. If that test was unreasonably hard, and even other male fire fighters thought so, I would inquire about the similarity of that ladder compared to the ones used in service. I can’t guarantee that all fire department services have integrity. I don’t know about everywhere else, but in Australia we have a Commonwealth Ombudsman that takes action against places that are involved with malpractice.

3. I never said that women couldn’t be as strong as men, I said men had a more efficient build for lifting, hence why I believe there are more men in the job. 

4. Okay, so being a fire fighter isn’t all about pulling people out of fires. BUT it is a job with a lot of physically demanding roles, and everyone in that job has to be prepared to at least be available physically to do that job. Don’t lower the standards.

5. Like was mentioned by the poster above:
You know why the (equally strong, equally smart) women on my dad’s force are such an asset to the team? Because they tend to fit places that men can’t—like through a schoolbus window last month that was inaccessible to almost every firefighter present.” 
They can only be equally strong if they don’t lower the strength standards

6. Besides, why is everyone here talking about different builds? I was talking about strength. Being small =/= being weak and I never said such thing in the original post. I was a skinny scrawny kid growing up and I was ridiculously strong for my size, I know small people can be strong from my own experience. The reason I didn’t mention size of build in the post because that wasn’t the point. The point was not lowering standards just for women.

7. So I made a mistake with my analogy, but the reason behind it still stands. If a women who could only complete the relaxed strength standard reaches people, she will still drag them out at a slower pace than someone who is more physically stronger. There are plenty of small strong women out there who can fit into small spaces, don’t compromise them with small weak women. Don’t lower the strength standard.

8. I never said ALL men were stronger than ALL women. All I said was that they had a better more efficient build. I don’t put certain disclaimers in because I thought it was just common sense that there are always exceptions regarding weight/gender. We’ve all seen that weak lanky guy or that strong kickboxing chick. Or do I need to disclaim everything so you don’t accidentally misinterpret it? 

9. My point was that the strength standards shouldn’t be lowered. I never said anything about the quality or suitability regarding women fire fighters.

10. I NEVER SAID WOMEN SHOULDN’T BE FIRE FIGHTERS. Seriously, what part of the original post made you think that? Go back, read it again, comprehend what is actually being said.

In response I would like to say this: Good job with twisting my argument and getting offended over things I never said. You’ve all displayed some top quality comprehensive skills right there.


“I need feminism because… [underarm hair]”

Yesterday, while my boyfriend and I was watching Game of Thrones, he had his arm around me and I began to snuggle into his shoulder. He immediately pulled his arm into his side, and when I asked him why, he said he felt a little bit embarrassed because of his armpit hair. He was worried that it would’ve smelt and repulsed me, which is why he pulled his arm in. I asked a few more questions and he eventually he said that he thought it looked repulsive, it caused bad odor, felt a little bit itchy, and simply made him a little bit self-conscious. I tried telling him that most men had it and that it looked perfectly acceptable, but he kept his arms down and just said it was gross.

Yes, my boyfriend hates his underarm hair.

So I asked him why he doesn’t just shave it off. As embarrassed as he is by his armpit hair, he still feels pressured to look like a man. He said he didn’t want to shave it off because it wasn’t the manly thing to do. He NEVER said that he would look like a woman, because the difference between men and women is obviously a bit more complex than just a bit of hair under the pits. He simply talked about the pressure that he felt as a male to live up to certain expectations.

Now feminists will insist that de-stigmatising female armpit hair will magically make men feel better about shaving their pit-hair. They are wrong. They are simply making an excuse to prioritise female issues while justifying their discrimination by saying that the second-hand benefits will solve the mens issues too. Those sort of excuses are disgustingly manipulative. 

I absolutely abhor the fact that many feminists will blame certain male behaviour on a “deep-rooted hatred” of all things feminine as the underlying cause of their issues. For example:
- Men don’t wear dresses, because they hate feminine traits.
- Men don’t shave, because they hate feminine traits.
- Men don’t wear the colour pink, because they hate feminine traits.
- Men don’t sew, because they hate feminine traits.

Could we then insist that females do not shave their pits because of a deep-rooted hatred of men? For example: 
- Females aren’t hairy, because they hate masculine traits.
- Females aren’t dirty and unkept, because they hate masculine traits.
- Females aren’t bulky at the gym, because they hate masculine traits

Of course not, because as soon as you apply that exact same logic to women, it is suddenly invalid. As soon as you suggest that women shave their armpits because armpit hair is masculine and they do not want to look like manly men, feminists will go into defense mode and talk about the patriarchy and being oppressed. It is a double standard that they use, again, to promote and prioritise their own struggles, while ignoring the alternative struggles that men face. 

Does it ever occur to anyone that sometimes, men don’t like the gendered stereotypes society has placed on them either. Or are we going to continue to presume that only women are affect by armpit hair related stereotypes?

- fraudulentfeminist


I need feminism because… what about teh menz!

People are so consumed by focusing solely on female issues, no one actually stops to think about the validity of the “whataboutthemen” argument. As slow as the dialog is in the video, the creator makes some good points. 

- fraudulentfeminist


Just a few screen shots showcasing some of female-exclusive scholarships and handouts available in Queensland. 

This makes my blood boil right through my skin. 

If you are a female and the amount of males is deterring you away from a particular field of study, then maybe your motivation and ambition for that area of interest isn’t particularly high. You should probably consider other study options. If you are seriously going to let the gender of other students discourage you in such a way, you really aren’t mature enough to be studying in such an environment. Those other students are there because they are passionate and excited to learn something they love, and you want to demonise them for it because of their gender?  

Men aren’t the problem for consistently and overwhelming preferring fields such as engineering and architecture. Why should it be their problem? Why should they be sorry for trying to study and learn about something they love? If anything, females are perpetuating their own problem by not consistently and overwhelming preferring these areas of study (God, I hate the term “male-dominated”). Sitting back and waiting for other females to fill the void is lazy. Complaining about other females not choosing these stereotypically-male career paths is ignorant. You either lead by example, or your opinion means nothing. 

(For those of you are curious: I am a female architecture student)

I fully believe that enrolments, scholarships, job proposals, pay rises etc. should be competency based only, with no regard to the gender of the recipient/applicant. I stand by this 100% because that is what gender equality is. Gender equality isn’t filling up quotas to balance female:male ratios because gender equality is giving credit where credit is due without discriminating against their gender (this can also apply to age or racial discrimination). Denying a exceptionally qualified man a job because the company already has lots of men, and instead settling for a lesser qualified woman because of a thinly veiled excuse like diversity, is discrimination. 

I do think females need to be more encouraged to be proud of their enjoyment of maths and engineering from an earlier age. I don’t want to see young girls being ashamed of playing with robots and other mechanical toys. Yet with gender targeted scholarships like the ones above, it still sends the message that women aren’t good enough to do it on their own. Nothing is more disempowering, and undermining, than babying females with special treatment. It is condescending.  

I want to see women actively seeking these career options because they have a passion for that field of study. Passion is what makes a truly gifted and respectable career woman. You can buy numbers with gender-discriminatory scholarships, but you can’t buy passion. 

- fraudulentfeminist

“I need feminism because…. never having experienced STREET HARRASMENT shouldn’t make me feel UNATTRACTIVE”

Wow, firstly what a shit way to trivialise the experiences of people who have actually been harassed. Using the unfortunate experiences of others to pity yourself because you have low self esteem is selfish and insensitive. People don’t get harassed because they are pretty, that’s downright victim blaming and you are feeding into that mentality. People get harassed because they were the unwitting victim of some shit stain who needs to be imprisoned depending on how severe the harassment was (e.g. more than just cat calling).

No, seriously. So you want to ban cat calling and the like, but not until you get cat called yourself because you can use it to gauge how pretty you are? I will never understand feminists. They don’t need men to feel attractive, remember… But then, they need men to harass them to make them feel attractive.

To recap:  It is men’s fault for harassing ladies and making them feel like shit, and then it is a men’s fault for not harassing them and making them feel unattractive. Oh god you just can’t win, can you?


I have so many issues with this, on so many levels. Especially considering I used to think this way myself.

I used to look down on the Indigenous Communities of Australia, as they too receive all of the above benefits yet the majority of them still seemed to be going no where with their lives. I was constantly hearing of the chronic problems in Alice Springs where the handouts were spent on copious amounts of alcohol, and just the issues that arose from those specific entitlements. I very rarely see Indigenous youth around the city or my area who aren’t walking in packs and trying to be gangster. A majority of them, from what I have seen, have quite consistently ruined the reputation of their culture by being poorly behaved, poorly dressed, foul mouthed and bad mannered.

Then one day I had to catch the train during peak hour to get to class. The train was fairly packed, and I chose to sit in a 4-way booth (two seats facing towards two seats opposite). The other man sitting in the corner of the booth was a very tall, burly looking Indigenous fellow. Instead of sitting opposite him, as my knees would have overlapped his, I sat on the adjacent corner of the booth. 4 seats, 2 commuters, peak hour.

As we continued towards the city, making more and more stops, the train very quickly began to fill. All the empty seats were gone, including the priority seating, and people were resorting to standing up in the aisles and holding on to the rails above.  

The only two seats left available on our entire carriage, were the two directly opposite and adjacent to this man I shared a booth with. Eventually I ended up scooting along, giving up my leg room, and sat opposite the burly Indigenous man. It didn’t take long for someone to swoop down and take my original seat, yet the one remaining seat, the seat adjacent to my fellow commuter, was empty for the entire journey into the city.

Meanwhile, I had politely apologised when I had moved and invaded his leg space with my own legs, and when I had finished the puzzle on my newspaper, I offered the paper to him with a smile and he seemed quite happy to receive it. I had noticed the other passengers behaviour towards him, so I made sure he received at least one kind gesture on his trip. Other than that we spent the rest of the journey in silence.

When we reached the main city station, and as the train mostly emptied, I got up to leave. My back was turned but I heard the guy I was sitting with call out to me. I turned around and I will never forget what happened next. He looked at me with an incredibly hurt look in his eyes, and he politely nodded his head and said, “Thank you, it means a lot to me.”

I don’t think he was talking about the newspaper, either. 

All my prejudices and judgements regarding Indigenous people of Australia sort of crumbled instantly at that moment. I finally realised how despite their special treatments from the government, they never really get treated right anywhere else. Probably because many people, like the one who very thoughtlessly threw the above image together, still have many lingering racist and prejudice behaviours, even if it is unintentional. 

I was bullied as a child, by my elder sister. She was never punished because my mum said she was older (could be seen as a privilege), which made me bitter. I began to lash out at my other siblings in the same way my elder sister lashed out at me, yet I ended up getting punished for the same crimes my sister was inflicting on me and getting away with. The injustice of it all really screwed me up, and I grew more and more resentful, angry and destructive.

The man I encountered that day on the train reminded me of my issues as a child, and the injustice I felt. Except he was a victim of a large scale social problem, fuelled by racial prejudices and privileges. Coloured people may be equal under written law, but the way they are treated on a social level still screams with the agony of racism. 

If you agree with the sentiments of the person who generated this meme, you are probably unaware, and unintentionally part of the problem.
- fraudulentfeminist

“I need feminism because… I don’t want to have to dress like a man to be a politician”








List of ladies in order of appearance:
- Hina Rabbani Khar, 26th Foreign Minister of Pakistan
- Laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica
- Yingluck Shinawatra, Prime Minister of Thailand
- Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia
- Quentin Bryce, 25th Governor-General of Australia 
- Cristina Kirchner, President of Argentina 
- Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Prime Minister of Denmark


“I need feminism because… I can’t cook and I’m not ashamed of it!”

Wow, I’m so glad you are proud of your inability to grasp the simple concept of such a basic life skill. Are you so obsessed with opposing every single gender stereotype, to the point where you cannot create for yourself a healthy and nutritious meal, because you believe it is patriarchal oppression? Does this make you feel more empowered? 

Yeah, some people are going to say, “You can’t cook..? But you’re a girl!” or “You’ll make a great wife some day”… But is that truly oppression? Does it emotionally hold you back from following your dreams? Does being expected to make a semi-decent sandwich stop you from applying for an engineering course? Are you physically chained to your kitchen? 

Who cares if a few people expect you to cook just because you are a female? At least you can cook, right? Apparently not. Apparently providing yourself with wholesome meals isn’t worth the minuscule amount of social pressure of being expected to provide yourself with wholesome meals. If you are so easily affected by such trivial expectations then maybe you aren’t ready for a college degree, or any sort of responsibility for that matter, if you are so incapable of thinking for yourself. 

Meanwhile, I hope feminism continues to feed your victim complex, unhealthy lifestyle and your dependancy on fast food chains for food. At least that way people will eventually see what a sham it is.

“I need feminism because… My choice of attire is not invitation for you to stare.”

C'mon, really? Don’t act like you aren’t guilty of the very same thing.

When you see those dapper looking gentlemen sitting in backstreet cafés, with their cold pressed coffee in one hand while simultaneously writing poetry with the other. Everything about them is perfect. From their antique leather case to the tiny infinity tattoo on their finger. Don’t pretend like you don’t swoon as they periodically fix their Ray Ban glasses into place every time it slides to the tip of their nose, causing their tweed plaited bracelets to fall back down to their pale forearms. Don’t act like you aren’t currently imagining what it would be like to have this fine specimen of a man start a conversation with you, and all of a sudden that very same evening he is making slow, sweet love to you in his wood cabin on the edge of the woods. Before you know it, your lady parts are getting a little wet before your coffee even arrives. You can’t help your bodies natural response to stimulants. But of course, you couldn’t stop staring because this guy was clearly dressing to impress, right?

Again, don’t act like you don’t get turned on by men with hot bodies while they are simply trying to enjoy their day at the beach without being the target of your lustful stare. Their chiselled chests, all smooth and golden brown. Don’t pretend that you’ve never looked at a man like that and fantasised about him literally sweeping you off your feet with his strong muscular arms, and suddenly you are in a private, secluded beach where he is slowly kissing every inch of your body as you lie in the soft sand. Before you know it, your lady parts are getting a little wet and you aren’t even in the ocean yet. But of course, he should have worn a swim vest because his bare chest was basically an invitation to stare, right?

Tom Hiddleston, Benedict Cumberbatch, Misha Collins. Don’t act like you don’t google image these guys obsessively and memorise every single detail of their bodies. Don’t pretend like you haven’t used their public images to help yourself get off when you need a little private lady-time. But of course, they shouldn’t have been actors who are constantly in the spotlight if they didn’t want people to notice them and lust over them, right?

Unfortunately, everyone has the right to stare. At anything.  You cannot police somebodies right to look at whatever is in their field of vision. Especially when you abuse this very same right, for the exact same reasons. Don’t be a hypocrite. 

- fraudulentfeminist

Watch on
  • Women can’t assault men 
  • Women are physically oppressed by all men 
  • Women aren’t strong enough to hurt men 
  • Women NEVER make false assault claims

If your first response to this video is #notallwomen, then you are missing the point. This is exactly the sort of hypocritical logic fallacy that feminists will use to shame, guilt, and dehumanise the entire male gender. Remember the #yesallwomen craze that swept twitter up in a storm? Did you see the outrage from feminists when men dared to defend themselves by saying #notallmenas a response to being hastily generalised as women-hating demons? How dare men defend themselves against the experiences of women who had been hurt by other men.

Take a good look at this video. If it is unreasonable to use the actions of one female to generalise the entire female gender, why do feminists insist on using this same logic against men? 

Do you know what is scary? Knowing that as a man, any woman can collapse beside you and cry assault, and if you don’t have any video footage to defend yourself with then you can safety assume that police will systematically side with the female and arrest you as a first response. Men are guilty until proven innocent, while females are innocent until proven guilty. Imagine calling the cops because you are being physically or sexually assaulted by a female, and they turn up and arrest you while they console the guilty female who is suddenly playing victim. At least they didn’t ask you what you were wearing as you get carted off to prison in the back of a paddy-wagon. Right?

But… but #notallwomen are like that! Well obviously it is a callous, cold hearted and hurtful generalisation to assume that all women are manipulative man-hating monsters. Isn’t it?

Do you get it? Does the #notallmen begin to make more sense now that it also applies to #notallwomen? Or are we still going to use double standards so we can play the victim?

- fraudulentfeminist

I want to post this to counteract out the sickening amount of posts that blame the patriarchy/male privilege/men for this tragic event. For those who use the suffering of others to promote their own agenda. To those who use this massacre to insist that our society pre-conditions men to believe that they have the right to sex:

Assuming that our society has a system that teaches men from birth that they have the right to have sex with women is assuming that all men have been conditioned to think this way, and therefore currently DO think this way. The only people who actually think they have the right to sex… are rapists, not simply the entire male gender. Elliot was a psychopath, and to parallel his motives with innocent men who are also saddened by the massacre is very misguided. 

I have a brother, father, uncle, boyfriend, more male friends than female, and to see so many women on my dash this morning making unfounded statements about men, absolutely sickens me. Everyday men do not display the same sentiments that Elliot expressed. 

Here are two quotes from Elliot Rodger’s manifesto:
“I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering.”
“On the morning before, I will drive down to my father’s house to kill my little brother, denying him of the chance to grow up to surpass me, along with my stepmother … as she will be in the way. ”   

Four men and two women are in an early grave because a psychotic man had a jealous rampage fuelled by sexual frustration. I don’t understand the amount of mental gymnastics people have to jump through to come to the conclusion that his actions weren’t spurred by any mental illness from those quotes alone. Just because one murderer/potential rapist/psycho made some inherently sexist comments about women to justify his actions, does that give people the right to presume that all men think like this? 

Can we stop stereotyping and generalizing the entire male gender over the actions of one mentally-unstable human? Can we just get back to supporting the victims families. 

“I need feminism because… no one debates whether men can "have it all”“

No one debates whether men can have it all because it is overwhelmingly presumed that a man has one role in life and that is to spend the rest of his life working to the bone to support the family. What use is a man unless he goes to work? That is what our society teaches. Men don’t have it all because from the moment they are born they are reared to be put to work. Society views their worth on how much money they bring in at the end of the day. That’s it. Their suitability as a potential partner is heavily based on what job they have and how able they are to support a future family…

… And when it comes to family, more often than not, a man will give up his precious time, that could’ve otherwise been spent with his wife and children, to work long hours to provide an income. Meanwhile, the wife is on maternity leave, or staying home with the kids, or working flexible hours to suit daycare, or working full time with a nanny for the kids. There is so much support for women with children out there. It is socially acceptable for them to stay at home and rear the children since it is an age old stereotype, and our culture has shifted (for the better) to make it more acceptable and respectable for a woman to go back to work after having kids. 

Men have been left out of this change in acceptability regarding family roles, yet they are still being blamed and accused of ‘having it all’ when the only option they really have is to get back to work? (Unless they want to face ridicule, of course). No, men don’t have it all because they are pressured into the only thing society thinks they are good for, earning money.

God, as a woman I cannot imagine the pressure they must grow up with and deal with. I mean, I face daily pressures set by expectations of how women should behave, or what women should do. But I don’t live under a rock, I know for a fact that men struggle with other issues that don’t affect me. Just because they don’t affect me, doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and I am not going to spend my life supporting a movement that is hell bent on removing any sort male support system because it believes women have it worse.

Feminist quotes like the ones above destroy what little credibility feminism has left. It shows just how one sided all their concerns are. They only ever think about how a particular issue affects women, but they could care less if that same issue affected men in an alternative way. Feminists caring about men? I don’t think so.

- fraudulentfeminist

“I need feminism because… I want to see more women in power.”

As a female myself, I wholeheartedly disagree. I do not want to see women come to power if their only redeeming quality is being female. I want to see passionate, dedicated, honest and humble human beings come to power because of their own individual merit based on their personality, morals, ethics and philosophy rather than the gender they identify as.

I understand that there isn’t a huge representation of women within the political realm, but I personally don’t see that as an inherently good or bad thing. I would rather see one highly acclaimed female in a position of power go down in history as a highly respected and renowned leader, than to see one hundred standard females in positions of power simply because we thought it was a woman’s turn. We desperately need to focus on quality, not quantity.

In regards to the apparent lack of high profile political female role models that is supposedly hurting our daughters… I think gendered role models are irrelevant. Why do we insist that little girls need to look up to bigger girls? Is it because the only thing they have in common is their gender? Why do we insist that girls and boys need to look up to their respective adult equivalances? That just further perpetuates gender stereotypes and divisions and encourages biased preferences. Can’t young girls look up to men like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther, and aren’t boys allowed to have Rosa Parks and Margaret Thatcher as role models? Yes, these people may have had their flaws, but they did some incredible good in the world and I think it is sad that we are still looking at their genders and not their merits.

We don’t need feminism simply because there is an imbalanced ratio of men:women in politics. We already know that it is possible for women to achieve high political positions in America (Thanks Hilary) but we need to look past peoples genders and support the individuals who truly deserve it.


“I need feminism because… I definitely deserve to get PAID as much as (or more than) anyone else.”

- If you are a casual worker, you do not deserve to get paid as much as the store manager. 
- If you are a high school teacher, you do not deserve to get paid as much as a university professor.
- If you are a nurse, you do not deserve to get paid as much as a doctor.
- If you are an apprentice chef, you do not deserve to get paid as much as the head chef.
- Just because you are a woman, doesn’t mean you deserve to get paid as much, or more than a man (and vice versa).

No one deserves anything, especially if the only factor contributing to that entitlement is your gender. You earn your pay. Simple as that. If you choose a lower income job, then you need to realise that you will earn a lower income than someone else who has chosen a higher income job. 

How about an example to make this more clear:

Now, is it reasonable to call that discrimination towards children? Should we stage protests and demand an intervention to ensure that parents are forced to pay their kids $11.45 for every hour that they stand at their shitty homemade lemonade stall? No, because in the situation involving the children/adults wage gap, it is so blatantly obvious that the statistic involved doesn’t disclose some really crucial information such as:
- How often do children work, compared to adults?
- How much time off do children take, compared to adults?
- How labour intensive is the work children do, compared to adults?
- Do the majority of children actively choose lower income jobs to accommodate their lifestyles, compared to adults?
- Do the majority of adults sacrifice a larger portion of their time and lifestyle to take these higher income jobs, compared to children?

So when we spew around this statistic about women earning 77c for every dollar a man makes… Why isn’t it is so blatantly obvious that the statistic involved doesn’t disclose some really crucial information such as:
- How often do women work, compared to men?
- How much time off do women take, compared to men?
- How labour intensive is the work women do, compared to men?
- Do the majority of women actively choose lower income jobs to accommodate their lifestyles, compared to the majority of men?
- Do the majority of men sacrifice a larger portion of their time and lifestyle to take these higher income jobs, compared to women?

Is this really so hard to comprehend, or are we going to blame the patriarchy again?

- fraudulentfeminist

(PS. Most modern countries have some sort of legal watchdog that prevents and punishes discrimination in the workforce. In Australia we have what is called the Fair Work Ombudsman that gives out information and advice and informs you of your legal rights for those who find themselves in situations that involve discrimination. If you are being discriminated against in the workforce, including payment issues, these institutions will help you out. You don’t have an excuse not to ask.

“I need feminism because… I want to live in a society where this: <insert riddle> is not a riddle.”

Do you know why this riddle works so well? Notice how every single gendered pronoun and noun in this entire riddle is male-based? In order of appearance:
- Father
- His
- Son
- Father
- Son
- Boy
- Boy
- He
- Son

This entire riddle is diverting you away from any words, pronouns or nouns that may remind you of any female character. Even the way they used the word ‘surgeon’ is diverting you away from thinking about genders (either female or male) because it is so arbitrary. Take for example these few words:
- Physiotherapist
- Physiatrist
- Surgeon
- Dentist

None of these words have any gender stereotypical connotations surrounding them. When you hear these words you don’t picture a person with a specific gender so it becomes background information. Just because the riddle is purposely excluding any words that may have female connotations doesn’t mean it is sexist and is perpetuating stereotypes. 

Besides, what if the father was gay and his husband was the surgeon? Does that mean anyone who didn’t come to this alternative conclusion is a bigoted homophobe? Of course not! There is nothing wrong with presuming that a doctor is a male. It is only when that presumption turns into bigotry and prejudice against doctors who aren’t male that it become a problem. There is no harmful anti-female doctor propaganda behind this riddle at all. Make the distinction before labelling such a riddle as sexist.

As a woman, I would like to confess that this riddle stumped me when I first heard it, and it did not offend me in the least. It is a very good riddle and very cleverly executed. 

- Fraudulentfeminist

“I need feminism because… There are more MPs called Dave than female MPs”

Yeah. Fuck you, Dave. 

How dare you study politics and take an interest in leadership roles. What a selfish bastard you are, for pursuing a career that supports your country and keeps it from descending into anarchy. Fuck you, Dave, because it is entirely your fault that women aren’t as inclined to pursue leadership roles like being a Member of Parliament.

Women want more representation in politics, but none of them actually want to take on the responsibility of representation themselves; they want someone else to do it for them. 

“Too many men,” they say. “There are just too many Daves. This isn’t fair.”

Newsflash, Dave, you are a man. You are solely responsible for women avoiding politics. There are too many of you. Whatever you do, Dave, it means shit. No one is going to look up to you. Who gives a damn about your leadership skills, your integrity or honesty? You won’t ever be an inspiration or motivation for women pursuing politics, simply because you don’t have a vagina between your legs. As we all know, women only respect and admire other women.  

Holy shit, Dave, you didn’t think about that, did you?