• Message
  • Submit
  • About
  • FAQ
  • Theme
  • I need feminism because I shouldn’t have to worry that my gender will stop me from being successful in the male dominated games industry.

    Do we really have to keep doing this? I hate how we completely dehumanize the majority of people working within the games industry by labeling it as a “male dominated games industry”.  The way we use words can be so incredibly manipulative sometimes. When you use words such as “male dominated” it completely removes any sort of human context and replaces it with negative stereotypes because we are throwing around the word “dominated” which will always invoke negative connotations.

    When you say words like “male dominated” you are almost implying that all the men in that particular industry are women-hating bigoted sexists who want to dominate over all of the women. That is a shitty and hurtful generalization to make. I’m going to slightly re-word the above quote:

    “I need feminism because I shouldn’t have to worry that my gender will stop my from being successful in the games industry where 80% of the workforce happen to be really passionate and genuine men who are doing what they love.”

    Yes, I understand that there are still people out there who are still inherently sexist towards women, to the point where it could be considered bigotry. These people are the minorities. There really is only a handful of people who will look at mind blowingly awesome work and deny the applicant because all they saw was the female gender of the creator behind the design.

    Do you know what will actually stop you from being successful in the games industry (or any creative industry for that matter) 99% of the time? Lack of motivation, passion, talent, ambition, and creativity. You need all of this to succeed. We are all on tumblr, and we’ve all seen those amazing images, videos, music clips, or art… Yet the people who created them are absolute nobodies. It goes to show that just because you are insanely talented doesn’t mean you are going to make it if you don’t have the motivation and the passion to dedicate most of your life into getting your work out there and recognized. You can’t expect to have everything handed to you on a silver platter. 

    Saying things like “I can’t be successful because there are lots of men” is a really copout way of giving up. Don’t make excuses. Stop blaming others. 

    - fraudulentfeminist

    I still need feminism because all of my trophies from debate had MEN on top!

    So I have just been down into the basement after seeing this picture, and I found my old Speech and Drama trophies from high school. To my dismay, I found that the ones that did have figures on top were all male.

    Then I looked closer. There were no genitalia, there were no breasts, there wasn’t even any hair! Yes it had muscles, but since men and women both have the ability to train themselves to achieve visible strength, it still wasn’t a giveaway. It was a completely gender neutral figure standing top on of my trophies, yet here I was presuming it was male simply because it was bald and didn’t have breasts.

    Then I remember the hype surrounding the Oscars. I follow a fair amount of feminists myself (gotta keep updated) and there seemed to be a fair amount of disgruntlement surrounding the award figure because it was apparently male.
    Which is now apparently sexism.
    Which is now apparently oppression.
    Which is now apparently a legitimate need for feminism…
    Despite the Oscars award not having a single gender definitive characteristic in the figure!!

    For all we know, this may be a valid claim. Maybe there is an unusually large amount of trophies out there that have figures in suits and fedoras with slight bulges just below the belt that are silently oppressing the recipient of that award. I don’t know.

    My biggest concern is that matters as trivial as the shape of a figure on top of a trophy are being categorized as oppressive. It clearly isn’t sexism if the trophy is being award to the worthy winners, regardless of gender. So if it isn’t sexism and discrimination in the judging process, is this issue seriously solely about the shape of a trophy? Get right out of town.

    - fraudulentfeminist

    note: I would like to add that I don’t believe the women picture above is actually very big at all. She seems like a fairly healthy weight to me. The issue I am addressing here is the message written on her card, because it is something that is commonly circulated by many people. I am not attacking her personally at all, I am analysing the message that she is relaying.

    "I need feminism because me loving my fat body is apparently a radical concept. Smash patriarchal beauty standards!"

    I personally find weight issues a really delicate topic, so I am going to try tread lightly. Before I begin I would firstly like to say that I find it extremely important that people are able to accept their body regardless of their weight. Feeling guilty about yourself and wallowing in self hate is just as unhealthy mentally. Saying that, I also think people need to accept the reality of the dangers and issues their body weight can cause if it is too small or too large. There is nothing positive about ignoring health facts.

    You loving your fat body IS a radical concept, because loving something involves taking proper care of it. If you truly loved your body, you would nourish it with healthy, nutritious meals because that is what bodies thrive on. Likewise, for those who don’t eat enough, loving their bodies does not involve restricting their intake and running on low fuel constantly. You can accept your body the way it is, but loving it means so much more than that. I don’t believe you should feel guilty about the way you are built or the way you let yourself go, but I also don’t believe you should promote unhealthiness by parading it as loving yourself. Accept yourself the way you are, but don’t justify poor lifestyle choices. 

    [source] Fat doesn’t just lie under the skin (subcutaneous fat), it can also accumulate around the internal organs (visceral fat), creating a myriad of health problems. 

    The biggest problem I find with this issue is the fact that this body shaming issue is credited to patriarchal beauty standards. When you blame the patriarchy, you are essentially blaming men. When women struggle with weight, it is somehow acceptable to presume that it is because men hold them to such shallow standards. Yet when men face the exact same struggles it suddenly becomes unreasonable and almost offensive to suggest that women hold men to such shallow standards. It’s a disgusting double standard, it doesn’t address the real issue, and it doesn’t actually help anybody.

    I personally believe that the biggest problem is the huge stigma surrounding diets and dieting. It almost seems like unless you are naturally or effortlessly slim/healthy, than being on a diet or healthy eating plan is something to be ashamed of. Instead of encouraging people to eat well, we shame them because they are trying. They are trying to be healthy and people just sit there and think, “hah… look at that fatty eating a salad, they’re probably going to go home and raid their fatty fat collection of snickers bars from their cupboard." We raise our eyebrows at those who turn down slices of cake for the sake of health, and we give off such an air of superiority about it we’re basically mocking them because we believe they are destined for failure. Both genders are guilty of this. Not just men, not just the patriarchy.

    It is easy to simply brush off issues with ‘the patriarchy!’ but can you see how it doesn’t adequately address the underlying issues? Can you see how to ostracises an entire gender out of an issue that affects everyone? Can you see how it unfairly lays blame on one gender? 

    Simply put, this is one of the reasons why we don’t need feminism. We need a genderless movement that addresses the behaviour of both genders, because both genders are at fault for fat shaming, and both genders are affected by fat shaming. 

    - fraudulentfeminism


    Does my blog “fraudulentfeminist” come across as particularly feminist or anti feminist to you?

    I need feminism because… I haven’t been living under a F***king rock all my life.

    A lot of people presume that people who think they don’t need feminism or that feminism is irrelevant in modern society, are people who are blatantly ignorant towards the struggles women face in society.

    They’re wrong.

    Anti-Feminists are not ignorant. We haven’t been living under f***king rocks all our lives. We understand that there are issues that women face that may seem inconsequential, but they build up over time and pull you down emotionally. Here are a few of them:  

    • Having your opinion dismissed because your passion for a certain topic is blamed on PMS. To make it worse, you can’t even refute this claim because as soon as you try to do so it makes you look defensive which gives them even more reason to believe you are on your period. 
    • Having your authority undermined because a few people aren’t comfortable taking orders from females. Makes you feel like the bitch, even when you are being reasonable and fair in your decisions.
    • A males poor behaviour is dismissed as him just being a man, which is often a perfectly acceptable justification for everyone, as long as his actions do no actual harm to anyone or anything. A females poor behaviour is described as unladylike, and even if she isn’t harming anyone or anything, the behaviour is perceived as being unacceptable for a woman and she is more often judged and side eyed for it.
    • When men mention studying or working in any STEM fields, no one questions it. When females mention the same, people will often make offhand comments like ‘oh, that’s very difficult, you know?’ and it gets under your skin, because you know it would have never been said if you were a male. 
    • Having your career questioned because you earn more than your male partner who is currently a stay-at-home-father of your children. Some people just don’t understand that some women actually want to be the main bread winner of the family, and they will let you know it.  

    No one actually thinks that any of these issues are acceptable or good. The difference between feminism and anti-feminism ideologies in these situations, is that anti-feminists are more open to distinguishing between gendered stereotypes and actual oppression, while feminists will tend to lean more towards the victim complex aspect of all these issues. 

    • Gender based oppression is a legitimate need for feminism, because women are being legally denied the same rights men are entitled too. It is entirely based on their gender and is nothing more than undeniable legal discrimination. 
    • Gender stereotypes are not a legitimate need for feminism, because both genders are affected by them in different ways. When feminism only addresses the issues women face, and dismiss the male issues as male tears or patriarchy backfiring, it is blatant preferential treatment and can be considered discriminatory.

    Now, did you notice that all the points I mentioned above do not have anything to do with any laws or legal rights? That’s right, they were all issues based on gender stereotypes and I could list the same number of alternative issues men face, just as easily. 

    Anti-Feminists aren’t living under rocks, we are just more concerned about the wellbeing of everybody, not just women.

    - fraudulentfeminist







    "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

    ^Same reason why combat units in our military should not relax their standards just so women have an easier time getting into those units.

    What the FUCK

    Why do some people have the ridiculous, idiotic, misogynist notion that women are not as strong as men? What the fuck?

    That Fire Brigade Bullshit probably happened because the only women to apply weren’t physically fit.

    But lemme explain to you a thing. Lemme explain to you ALL a thing.





    Fucking hell.

    My dad is a deputy fire chief, and he would have some choice words for the first two responses. He has more than 35 years of experience. He first started in an entry-level position and rose through the ranks, with about eight years outside of a fire department when he was working as a senior investigator and policy analyst at the Office of the Fire Marshall. He also makes a huge effort to hire women, which unfortunately meets with a lot of resistance within the department—by the same people who are also extremely against hiring people of colour or people who aren’t heterosexual. It’s funny how easily bigotry fits into rhetoric of “safety,” isn’t it?

    Firstly, women firefighters have to pass the same physical exam as men. A lot men of don’t pass it. A lot of women don’t pass it. But any woman becoming a firefighter has necessarily fulfilled the safety requirements her fitness entails. A lot of women pass the test. Unfortunately, not a lot of women actually apply, because of shitty idiotic attitudes like this. And yes, women often do better on the tests than men. It isn’t the case at all that all men do better than all women who apply. Fuck you for suggesting that.

    Secondly, guess what, dipshit. There’s a lot more than goes into putting out fires and rescuing people than brute strength. That’s why there’s a lot of education as well as psychological exams that go into hiring firefighters. And it might stagger you to realize that when you’re talking about entering burning buildings and other hazardous environments, having only a bunch of people with the exact same build and physique is a huge safety risk. 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. My dad says the most effective partners have complementary builds. This often means pairing a woman with a man, as it did in this case. This particular pair often works like this: the man helps move the woman to a place he can’t fit (sometimes literally throwing her through a window). If there hadn’t been a woman, the casualties would have been much higher. And that’s just one example. It’s never a disadvantage to have people of different shapes and sizes, all fully trained and all meeting the same physical requirements of the job, who can contribute differently. 

    Thirdly, I’m assuming these idiots regard muscled young white men carrying women and children over each shoulder as the Platonic form of firefighter. But it may astonish you to know that in a fire, smoke kills first. You fucking asphyxiate. That’s one reason firefighters never carry people over their shoulder (the other being that it’s extremely dangerous to deadlift a limp body when you’re wearing 80 pounds of equipment—try doing that and you’re more than likely adding to the amount of victims who need to be rescued). If you hold people up to the ceiling, they fucking asphyxiate. Obviously. So you watch too much TV if you think that’s basically the job. How do firefighters evacuate victims from burning buildings? They drag them along the floor. This is so they don’t suffocate the victim, they lead the way first to safety, and they can fully fucking see and manoeuvre through the hazardous environment. I am not strong. I am not in good shape. I could never be a firefighter without some serious physical training (unlike a ton of other women I know, and like a lot of men). Guess what. Even I can drag my 200-pound, tall, male firefighter father across the floor.

    You’re not looking out for people’s safety. You’re upholding misogyny and assuming you know what you’re talking about. We do need feminism in firefighting, because it’s a fucking cesspool of white supremacist patriarchal homophobic cisphobic anti-immigrant privilege good old boys’ club bullshit. It’s based on nothing but prejudice, and emergency services should fairly represent the population they’re paid handsomely to defend. Thankfully, people are slowly steering away from this. There are more and more women becoming firefighters, and last month, a woman joined a neighbouring department to my dad’s as a deputy chief. She passed the tests. She has experience and a sterling record. She also has a Master in Gender Studies, and she’s not very big.

    Bolded the part that points out you don’t even want a group of people who all have the same characteristics and strengths and motivations involved in saving lives for both obvious and less obvious reasons (well, if you’re a cisgender, straight, white, able-bodied, and/or otherwise privileged.)

    Reblogged for the GOOD, TRUTHFUL comments after the incredibly sexist first two responses.

    I never reblog, so here we go…
    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.

    - fraudulentfeminist

    (via spn-kinda-saved-my-life)

    If you act like a victim, people will treat you like a victim.

    Women, sometimes you really don’t need feminism. You’re much stronger than what you give yourselves credit for.

    "I need feminism because… My little brother was crushed when mum and I had to tell him it was best not to wear his nail polish to school"

    I find this incredibly heartbreaking.

    Although his family had the right intentions, their response to the situation was poorly handled. This boy is going to grow up being ashamed of who he truly is. Not because he couldn’t wear nail polish to school, but because his family didn’t support or encourage his harmless self-expression. How can he truly be himself at home, knowing that his family doesn’t approve of him being truly himself outside of home.

    I can understand that his family were worried about how other kids would react, and I think it is a legitimate concern. I do think that they did it out of love, as they didn’t want to see him get hurt by other kids. Would he be bullied for it? Probably. Who knows what little primary school shits get up to these days. Never-the-less, I still think it is a poor excuse.

    The thing that gets me, is the fact they his sister and mother claimed that they needed feminism for their brother/son. That poor little boy didn’t need feminism, he needed encouragement and support from his family. When he comes home from a rough day at school, maybe someone made a derogatory remark about him, he needs to come home to an atmosphere where he is accepted. A safe haven. Not one that tells him “I told you so” after he gets teased for wearing nail polish.

    Instead of fighting for him, they wanted to wait until feminism fixed the problems of society first. They took the easy road out. One of the problems with feminism is that it is used as a scapegoat to avoid facing reality. That isn’t how change happens. Change doesn’t come about by waiting for someone else to solve life’s problems. Change happens when you do something about the problems you face.

    That boy could’ve gone to school and rocked his little nail polished fingers. It may have confused some other children, it may have made some react angrily because they didn’t understand it, but it would have shown all of them that it is okay to wear whatever you want. His classmates would have grown up with a little more perspective on the importance of being unashamedly yourself. All his classmates may have grown up with a little more sensitivity, acceptance and open mindedness.

    I suggest you all read this article about a young gender defiant student, who despite their terrible suffering and hardships, brought an entire school together and brought widespread recognition to an important issue. 

    - fraudulentfeminist

    “Even if my opinion, in your own opinion, is wrong… at least you were motivated into questioning what you believe is right.”


    12345Older   →