“I need feminism… so that I can stand up to the next guy who jokingly tells me to go make him a sandwich in the kitchen.”

I’ve just come home after meeting up with two of my male friends. At one point we were just bantering around when this happened:
Harry: “Fuck it, just get back in the kitchen where you belong”
Me: “Only if you mow the lawns when you get home from your 9 hour day at work, before buying me that dress I want and taking me out to dinner and paying for it”
Harry: Ah! Fuck you.
John: Ooooooh… burn, Harry! BURN!!

Did you see what I did there? Instead of internalizing a stereotype that was made as a joke against me, instead of feeling oppressed and belittled, instead of playing victim to everything that may have potentially offended me… I rose above it. Instead of playing dead, I played back. He used a stereotype against me and I had every right and privilege as a woman to use a stereotype against him. Guess what? It was funny. We laughed about it because we knew that they were stereotypes.

Being told to go back to the kitchen was an actual problem around, say the 1950s. It wasn’t a stereotype, it wasn’t a joke, it was a common held belief that women actually belonged in the kitchen. Women who did break the mold back then were often criticised and held with contempt by men and other women. They were ostracised by family and friends because they didn’t fit societies gender roles and were thus an embarrassment.

Fast forward to the 21st century and If you tried to belittle a woman for doing whatever she believe in, you will be pounced on and ripped to shreds. People will hold YOU with contempt for having such narrow minded and misogynistic views. Society doesn’t put up with that shit anymore.

So when you try to promote feminism by using antiquated stereotypes, you are failing to recognise the advancement society has made regarding gender roles… for both men AND women. You are also highlighting how many feminist followers have an inability to use logic or reasoning. 

- fraudulentfeminist

“I need feminism because… A sexy watermelon is not a Hallowe'en costume!”

One of feminism’s biggest critique is the sexualization and objectification of women in society. So if Feminism has such a problem with “sexy costumes”… Would calling it a “slutty costume” fix the problem? How about a slutty watermelon? As far as I’m concerned, dressing like a slut is totally condoned and encouraged by feminists! 



External image

External image
External image

Feminism: 10/10 for hypocrisy and double standards

“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…. 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?


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

fraudulentfeminist  asked:

Hey. Just saw your reblog of my firefighter post. If you were interested, I added commentary to further explain myself, as a lot of what I said was taken completely out of context. I didn't mean to offend anyone personally so I hope it clears it up. It sounds passive aggressive, since I wrote it when I was pretty pissed off, but don't take the tone personally. It is more the information I want to relay. Add [/firefighter] to the end of my URL or find the tab from my main page. All the best.

Good commentary! 

Very good explanation of what you meant and I agree.


“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

fraudulentfeminist  asked:

(1) Only just found your response to my message about my firefighter post just today. Completely agree with you 100% on your position. I’m not going to lie, my remarks about “The Australian Fire Brigade” was a huge misrepresentation and was incredibly misleading. I think I read one article and just made a huge sweeping generalization. I take full responsibility for that. Can I delete every trace of a 30,000+ note post and start again? Nope. I sure would love to though.

(2) I guess my biggest problem is that my arguments don’t encompass every element of a particular issue. I am aware of it, it is intentional, but I should work on clarifying it. I don’t have time to write 5,000 words, so I write 500 words and look at one tiny aspect to give one tiny different perspective. That firefighter post was meant to be a run of the mill >30 note post that I could receive critical feedback and other perspectives. Actions come with consequences though, and it’s my fault.

(3) Thanks for being the one sane person on this website who can pull me aside and correct me without resorting to throwing slurs, sending hate or acting like it is a competition. You deserve every ounce of respect for that. I’d really appreciate it if you had any more feedback to give me regarding my blog, you seem to be the one of the very few people out there who can dish out constructive criticism.

(response to this)

Um.  I continue to not be quite sure how to engage this post.  Like, I know that making public mistakes is unpleasant and that negative feedback can be overwhelming and can get unpleasantly personal and also my own reaction to those kinds of situations tends to be of the ‘oh god I must vanish forever’ non-ideal variety.  But I also still think there are some big, unaddressed issues going on here.

I don’t really want head-pats for being specially special good at tone and constructiveness because while I’m sure you’ve gotten some nasty feedback I also know you’ve gotten lots of thoughtful, thorough responses, including a good deal of commentary in the original post I reblogged.  And I don’t see any signs that you’re doing anything about any of this.

I know you want the 30,000 reblogs about your self-admitted “huge misrepresentation” and “sweeping generalization” to go away, but just being like ‘whoops, my bad’ to ME in MY askbox isn’t really “taking full responsibility” by any definition.  The post is still out there, and your blog still prominently features a response that consists of calling your critics whiners and insisting that all the problems are coming from the other side.

Here are some constructive things you could do:

-You can add commentary (or a link to commentary) to the bottom of the original post, correcting what you feel to be mistakes or linking to critiques that you agree with.

-You can edit your current response post, acknowledging and correcting errors, and moderating your tone to the same tone you expect from people interacting with you, taking advantage of the fact that this is the internet and you have as much time to collect your temper and adjust your words as you want.

-You could post something constructive based on…whatever it is you’ve figured out from this incident (I’m not clear from anything you’ve said if your viewpoint has even shifted or if you’re somehow acknowledging bad info and still standing by your point.).

The precursors for all these steps are 1) Listen; 2) Learn.  (Or, if you don’t like those you can try B) Educate yourself.)

On the less constructive side you could try my ‘vanish everything in utter mortification and assume a new, wiser identity and try to never ever make that mistake again’ route.  Wherein at least you learned something!  Actually, looking at it from this side of the issue I’m not sure why that route ever appeals; the first one seems easier and more productive.

As to constructive commentary on your blog… that’s… a really… large, open-ended, giant-investment kind of request.  I’ve glanced through your blog and, like, wow giant mixed bag of stuff I agree with and disagree with and agree but only in very different contexts and etc.  It mostly seems to be you explaining why other feminists’ posts are, in your opinion, Wrong.  And (brace for irony) that stresses me right the fuck out.

There’s some weird complexity because you’re making some sort of division that escapes me between “3rd wave feminism” and “traditional feminism” and there’s lots of sweeping statements about what all “those” feminists say and a lot of it becomes this issue where I wind up agreeing that, for example, hating men is bad and gender stereotypes hurt everyone but also having no flipping clue why you think some massive feminist “They” doesn’t also agree with this point.  And you’ve coupled almost everything to mostly-innocuous, valid, only-tangentially related feminist pictures, like in the firefighter post, which doesn’t really give a clear picture of who it is you think you’re opposing.  It’s this weird, false dichotomy, forced-teaming kind of experience and I don’t even know what to do with it.

So I think it might be easier to just respond to your about page because, much like the firefighter post, I think any conversation we try to have is going to break down at this very ground level.

You went to a 3rd world country, saw some big important issues, and decided that non “traditional feminism” (I still don’t know what that means) is wasting time complaining about “shallow and pitiful things“ that don’t measure up to these other issues, and needs to shut up.  So, okay, just comparing two examples you gave it’s true that feeling pressured to wear make up isn’t on the same life-or-death level as legalized domestic abuse.  But one thing being a problem issue doesn’t stop another thing from also being a problem issue.  There’s not some sort of cap on the threshold of pain we’re allowed to care about.  And I could write you an essay on how that little, shallow, pitiful issue contributes to and fosters that bigger issue.  (I won’t, because lots of other people already have.) I really, really, fundamentally and completely disagree that “little” issues are a distraction.

But let’s leave all that aside.

You’ve got bigger more important issues you think need to be addressed.  So maybe target your activism at those issues.  I am absolutely helpless to understand why you think your time is more constructively spent telling other people to hush up and stop complaining and policing the threshold of what is and isn’t deemed a sufficiently important issue to care about or how to care about it in The Right Way.  Just go do your thing.

“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 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… too many of my friends believe in equality but don’t think they are feminists”

This is probably because too many of your friends have a better understanding of what real equality is. I will say it again, in developed societies we already have equal rights and opportunities and are protected by law, and if either gender feels like they are being discriminated against they have equal right to take action by law. But feminism isn’t content with just equality and is actually spreading some really damaging propaganda…

I will start from the beginning: Every single early human society that has been documented or observed has followed the same pattern: Men hunt and protect, women care and nurture. That isn’t a coincidence. That is human nature. Those are our hardwired instincts. Those instincts (and other biological reason) are what give men and women their own physical and emotional differences. There are certain traits, behaviours, thoughts and actions that are typical of the male gender (typical, but not exclusive). Likewise, there are certain traits, behaviours, thoughts and actions that are typical of the female gender (again typical, but not exclusive). These all came from our instincts that helped us survive through the early stages of the human race.

Obviously the human race has progressed far enough to no longer need or rely on such a system of gender roles to survive, but that doesn’t mean we have evolved out of that instinctive set of behaviours. The majority of men are still going to want to be bread winners and protectors to support the family. The majority of women will still have that maternal instinct to care and nurture for their family. It isn’t because either party are oppressed or oppressors, it’s just how female and male genders have been hardwired.  

The thing I dislike about new wave feminism is that it demonizes these typical male and female dichotomies and calls them evil. The only evil is in the individuals who choose to judge each other based on gender stereotypes (For example, those who laugh at men who bake, or those who undermine women in the construction industry). 

Feminism is going so far as to pressure women into feeling that they need to be in male dominated areas of study, work and politics otherwise they are somehow being oppressed. It also guilt trips those who want to be stay at home mothers and tells them that their desires are the result of male oppression. It then shames men for simply being the gender majority in certain areas of study, work and politics. Feminism is spreading the ideology that being a woman in a male dominated area is feat deserving of more respect than an equally competent man in the very same situation.

My view on gender is much like the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang: “Yin and Yang are actually complementary, not opposing, forces, interacting to form a whole greater than either separate part.” Yes we are equal, but for beautifully different reasons. Stop telling me I have to be more like a man to be more of a woman.

*Please don’t misinterpret this and presume that my argument excuses males who abuse females because of their “instincts” (I know someone is going to try bring it up).  That is taking my argument out of context and twisting it to fit your own agenda. 

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… Every single human being deserves respect”

No. They don’t. Nobody deserves respect for simply being human. Respect is something that is earned and unfortunately feminism is spreading the idea that all women are deserving of respect for no reason other than being female. 

Any decent human being is going to treat everyone they come across with respect, because that is how they earn their own respect. It’s what decent human beings do. That doesn’t mean that the people being respected deserved that respect in the first place. You treat people with respect up until the point when they prove that they don’t deserve it. 

As much as I agree that there are relevant issues that western/third wave feminism tries to address (stereotypes, beauty standards, treatment in the industry e.g. not real oppression but issues none the less), I cannot for the life of me respect it as a movement. It does not deserve respect. Feminism uses hypocrisy, manipulation of statistics, defamatory and derogatory statements, double standards and male blaming for every single problem women face.

For example: You see hundreds of girls on Tumblr proclaiming that their use of makeup, beauty products and clothes are for their own personal empowerment. They wear it for themselves, so they say, and not for men. With the same breath they will turn around and blame the patriarchy (aka male privilege) for pressuring them to conform to beauty standards.

They hold up signs that say, “every human being deserves respect” yet in the same breath they turn around and declare, “our problems are the fault of the patriarchy. If you are a man you are part of the problem by default. We won’t judge you on your merits, we will judge you according to our own stereotypes regarding the male gender”

I am not an MRA and in no way do I believe that blaming the patriarchy causes male suffrage, but I relate this all back to the way they regard men to show the hypocrisy in feminist arguments and reasoning. It highlights their inability to show respect to anyone other than themselves. It is easy to blame someone else for your problems, but you can’t resolve an issue if you refuse to acknowledge the other half of the problem.

“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.