Sydney university offer male only scholarship feminists are upset
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Twinpeaks
The question is why do men dominate higher earning fields, why do men progress more within a career, demand a higher salary etc.
Yeah, which we've answered over and over again: it's because women make different choices.
Nobody has yet given a clear explanation as to why that is a problem.
Original post by Twinpeaks
I'd really appreciate it if you could point out all those female only scholarships you claim to exist? Might be just the thing I'm looking for 
You don't need to try very hard to find them:
http://scholarship-positions.com/category/scholarships-for-women/
http://www.thescholarshiphub.org.uk/blog/scholarships-girls
http://www.scholars4dev.com/tag/scholarships-for-women/
https://www.unigo.com/scholarships/by-type/scholarships-for-women
http://www.afterschoolafrica.com/255/international-scholarship-for-women-in/
https://www.unesco-ihe.org/news/call-applications-fellowships-2016-2017-women
Original post by Twinpeaks
The question is why do men dominate higher earning fields, why do men progress more within a career, demand a higher salary etc.
I'm sure there are many explanations. Most successful men are older, and it is true that older women were held back in days gone by.
In more egalitarian times, though, men, by and large, are more aggressive, for hormonal reasons partly, which will explain some success. A lack of gaps in a career for child-rearing purposes is an obvious factor. This can easily be obviated by women choosing to let their husbands fulfil this role and maintaining their own careers. That is a matter of choice.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Yeah, which we've answered over and over again: it's because women make different choices.
Nobody has yet given a clear explanation as to why that is a problem.
Nobody has yet given a clear explanation as to why that is a problem.
There's a lot more to it than that my friend. 'Choices' are determined by a variety of factors, mostly psychological.
And dare I say, mostly social.
Original post by Good bloke
I'm sure there are many explanations. Most successful men are older, and it is true that older women were held back in days gone by.
In more egalitarian times, though, men, by and large, are more aggressive, for hormonal reasons partly, which will explain some success. A lack of gaps in a career for child-rearing purposes is an obvious factor. This can easily be obviated by women choosing to let their husbands fulfil this role and maintaining their own careers. That is a matter of choice.
In more egalitarian times, though, men, by and large, are more aggressive, for hormonal reasons partly, which will explain some success. A lack of gaps in a career for child-rearing purposes is an obvious factor. This can easily be obviated by women choosing to let their husbands fulfil this role and maintaining their own careers. That is a matter of choice.
What makes you so firmly believe that a higher percentage of human behaviour is explained on an evolutionary level? Because you're wrong, our social environment provides much higher explanatory power.
Original post by Twinpeaks
And dare I say, mostly social.
And dare I say, mostly social.
Why is that so important to you? Whether the causes are physical, hormonal, mental or social, none of them prevents a woman from choosing to prioritise her career over child-rearing. This has been proved by countless high-achieving women and by far more working class women who have achieved just as much as their husbands in humble circumstance.
Your thesis appears to be that society tells women to stay at home for long periods and to sacrifice future earnings, and that women are powerless to resist this pressure. Yet society, only fifty years ago very firmly told women to get married, stay at home and give up work. Did they? No, they did not.
Why are you so much less able to asset your will over the views of others than your mother and grandmother were?
Does this pressure still even exist in the early twenty-first century? That is highly doubtful in the secular western democracies.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Yeah, which we've answered over and over again: it's because women make different choices.
Nobody has yet given a clear explanation as to why that is a problem.
Nobody has yet given a clear explanation as to why that is a problem.
Because choices don't exist in a vacuum and are subject to influence from societal expectations of men and women.
I'm sure I already said that.
Original post by bex.anne
Nope, in job sectors like banking (I believe) the employer can legally pay a woman several thousands less than a man. It is only illegal in professions such as teaching, nursing ect.
That is completely and utterly wrong, both the equal pay act and equality act would forbid paying men more than women without good reason such as experience/qualification or performance based salary.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Didn't realise the link wasn't working, I'm not at my own computer, I'm sure I have some links at home, I'll have a look later. I wasn't being specific to the UK. I don't see any way in which that is making women victims? It's just explaining the patriarchal idea that feminists are against.
Well if we're talking about child custody, unless specified otherwise, surely it's only logical to assume we're talking about the UK? Because rather than acknowledging that men are routinely not given custody of their children you flip it round and make out as though women are discriminated against.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Because choices don't exist in a vacuum and are subject to influence from societal expectations of men and women.
I'm sure I already said that.
I'm sure I already said that.
If we're getting onto things we've already said I could point you to the four paragraphs I gave on page 2 of this thread, in which I broke down that point and invited you to comment.
There is some level of irony here in that it appears that you are looking at this one '''''''''insightful observation'''''''' in a vacuum, without any clear idea of how it relates to any other point, justification, objective, or anything else really.
Original post by Twinpeaks
There's a lot more to it than that my friend. 'Choices' are determined by a variety of factors, mostly psychological.
True, as with every choice anyone has ever made, but we don't generally hold people's life choices to be invalid for that reason.
It still appears to be taken for granted by you and others that making average outcomes equal between men and women is something not only desirable but required by justice, and I'm not clear on why that is (and to be honest I don't think anyone else is, either).
The fact that this is making feminists upset is mind-boggling. In identifying that a structural problem exists, we have people vying for the top victim position and unfortunately the result of that is the development of this perverse pseudo-neuroticism. The assumption is that if you're male you could not possibly be in a financially dire condition, because you're male and therefore you must be privileged. Conversely, if you're a female or a PoC you must've automatically faced some form of discrimination, and be compensated for that. This is a ******** generalisation and makes no sense. There's also the belief that this scholarship somehow diverts from the responsibility to encourage females to enter STEM careers, and again that's complete nonsense. Just because a (single) scholarship exists annually for a male-only recipient, it doesn't mean there is a lack of funding for females.
Original post by Underscore__
Well if we're talking about child custody, unless specified otherwise, surely it's only logical to assume we're talking about the UK? Because rather than acknowledging that men are routinely not given custody of their children you flip it round and make out as though women are discriminated against.
Why is it logical to assume that? The thread is about Sydney, so maybe we should be talking about Australia. The US is usually where the stats are in the most abundance and where I remember seeing a lot of the stats but I'll see what I can find for the UK if you insist - but that wasn't my point.
I am acknowledging it. I'm giving a reason for it, and showing you that feminism is trying to combat that discrimination against men by wanting to dismantle patriarchy.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
If we're getting onto things we've already said I could point you to the four paragraphs I gave on page 2 of this thread, in which I broke down that point and invited you to comment.
There is some level of irony here in that it appears that you are looking at this one '''''''''insightful observation'''''''' in a vacuum, without any clear idea of how it relates to any other point, justification, objective, or anything else really.
There is some level of irony here in that it appears that you are looking at this one '''''''''insightful observation'''''''' in a vacuum, without any clear idea of how it relates to any other point, justification, objective, or anything else really.
Must have gotten lost in my notifications, I'll take a look at it later as I'm in work and break is almost over.
Original post by Twinpeaks
As a psychology graduate, I am physically cringing right now.
When I see people make posts like this, it's no wonder that people think psychology is a bull-**** subject, because it's principles are abused all the time by people who want to push an agenda. If I see one more man make a pseudo evo-psych driven justification for gender differences and disparity, I'll lose all hope.
The entirety of your posts, are basically rubbish. That's all I can be bothered to say, right now.
When I see people make posts like this, it's no wonder that people think psychology is a bull-**** subject, because it's principles are abused all the time by people who want to push an agenda. If I see one more man make a pseudo evo-psych driven justification for gender differences and disparity, I'll lose all hope.
The entirety of your posts, are basically rubbish. That's all I can be bothered to say, right now.
Well, with such an incisive rebuttle, I just have to respond. Funny enough hormones are indeed believed to key factors here, oxytocin, vasopressin and prolactin all being elevated around birth and believed to contribute to maternal bonding. Fluctuating progesterone levels are being considered as possible causes of the diffferent strengths of paternal bond. Opioids seemingly play a role too.
These patterns are very well conserved from primates, who did indeed do what I've stated. Since the role of mothers didn't really change much, in terms of caring for children, until the 1980s, I find it highly unlikely that humans have evolved significantly since then.
But no, please tell me psychology graduate, in detail, about your views on this. Shockingly enough you will find people who disagree with you, many of whom have less experience than you, a natural response to this is to convince them, not cringe.
Original post by minimarshmallow
No, I have ‘issues’ with feminism in ALL its forms from the day of its inception to its current status.
Original post by minimarshmallow
The way you interpret feminism does not concern me. You are not an authority. My issue is with feminist ideology as it is defined by feminist 'theologians' and 'philosophers' and feminists in positions of power and control. Feminists who are destroying our society and imposing their sexism on us through their flawed, hate filled ways.
Original post by minimarshmallow
You claim to be different yet here you are accusing father's of not fighting for their children. This is a good example of sexism. Your 'brand of feminism' is not that different to that of any other feminist sexist.
Also, You clearly have no clue as to how the family courts system works in this country.
The family court system is based on The Children Act 1991 (which has seen some modifications since it came to be but remains mostly the same).
The children's act dictates that shared custody is not healthy for a child and that the child should live with a single parent. The other parent is called the ‘absent parent’. This ‘absent parent’, who is made absent not by choice but by the courts, has no parental right to their child. The policies of this act, its guidance notes and its implementation have been hugely influenced by feminism through feminist politicians such as Harriet Harman, Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt who’s policy papers advise that women should be given priority custody of children, that men cannot be trusted around children and that men are inferior parents:
"It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion.”
(The Family Way - Social Policy Paper written by feminist politicians to guide the government with its implementation of The Children Act 1991).
Thanks to institutionalised feminism and its policies, 80% of Father's are denied their right to see their children. Thanks to feminism, women are forced to become stay at home mums.
Fathers commit suicide in this country because they are denied the right to see their children by a system controlled by feminists. Fathers are deprived their children by a system that is rigged in favour of mothers. A system put together by feminists, one that separates fathers from their children and forces mothers to be stay at home mums. A system that views fathers as a disposable source of income whose sole purpose for existence is to benefit and empower women at their expense.
“If we want fathers to play a role in their children’s lives, then we need to bring men into the playgroups and nurseries and schools. And here, of course, we hit the immediate difficulty of whether we can trust men with children”
Feminist and Cabinet minister under the Labour Party, Patricia Hewitt, 1998.
Interesting side note: In 2014 Patricia Hewitt took responsibility and apologised for helping and receiving funds from a child pedophile network in the 70s.
Original post by minimarshmallow
"It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion.”
If you weren't blind and sexist you would realise that feminism is the very same things that you claim to be fighting against.
Original post by minimarshmallow
In the interest of equality for both genders, it makes no sense for anyone to be forced into anything. I agree. This is why I encourage you to stand with me against institutionalised feminism and the damage that it has done to our society as apposed to try to justify or dismiss the sexism or blame it on men, which typical of sexists, is what you have done so far.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Twinpeaks
I am physically cringing right now.
Original post by That Bearded Man
you will find people who disagree with you, many of whom have less experience than you, a natural response to this is to convince them, not cringe.
This is precisely what happens when you lock people up in a safe space for too long. They lose the ability to react reasonably to something they disagree with, become more susceptible to brainwashing and develop physical tics, sometimes as extreme as cringing, when faced with opposition.
I still haven't heard any rebuttal to the primary point, originally made by TimmonaPortella, that any remaining gap in pay between men and women is primarily caused by individuals' career and lifestyle choices, freely made.
Original post by Good bloke
This is precisely what happens when you lock people up in a safe space for too long. They lose the ability to react reasonably to something they disagree with, become more susceptible to brainwashing and develop physical tics, sometimes as extreme as cringing, when faced with opposition.
I still haven't heard any rebuttal to the primary point, originally made by TimmonaPortella, that any remaining gap in pay between men and women is primarily caused by individuals' career and lifestyle choices, freely made.
I still haven't heard any rebuttal to the primary point, originally made by TimmonaPortella, that any remaining gap in pay between men and women is primarily caused by individuals' career and lifestyle choices, freely made.
Technically not true, she acknowledged that in some jobs men on average earn more than woman, can't argue there.
Original post by Shadow Hunters
Are you implying that I don't have the intellect or mental capacity to understand what you're saying.
Yes ma’am and your replies are testament to this.
Original post by Shadow Hunters
And you choose now to say this is completely off topic as the post was about bursaries?
aha….and how is the issue of feminists protesting a male scholarship related to the pay gap?
Original post by Shadow Hunters
Quite a lot of men choose criminal justice degrees. Don't know if it was you who said lots of women choose that as a degree therefore are going to earn less. http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-leeds-l23/criminal-justice-and-criminology-3-years-9000-mm29
I didn’t make this claim and I am not sure that anyone else did either.
Original post by Shadow Hunters
In some ways it is up to choice of profession which I get but there is evidence that within specific professions there is still a pay gap between women and men. Quite outdated but it's unlikely to have changed much. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/nov/10/pay-gap-salary-doctors-nhs
I went through great pains to find the study on which this article is based (attached at the end of this comment below the diagram).
I found it to be suffering from the same problem as your other example. It is written by two feminists. It suffers from a great deal of researcher bias and it sets out to prove a forgone conclusion. It is research of laughable quality.
The aim of the study was to prove causation (that the pay gap in medicine is caused by sexism against women) but it failed to do that. In fact it proved the opposite. It proved that the majority of the pay gap in medicine IS NOT CAUSED BY DISCRIMINATION. A small portion of the pay gap could not be explained by the study and they conclude that this unexplained portion could be caused by discrimination, which is a laughable conclusion since they could not provide evidence in their study to that affect. Furthermore, the study uses an extremely unreliable research method…i.e. surveys. It asks doctors their opinions about their salaries and their experience and whether or not they are discriminated against. The entire study is based on opinions. Opinions are the lowest form of research/evidence (refer to the digram attached below for the hierarchy of research).
Attachment not found
Original post by Shadow Hunters
The ONS study says- "The gender pay gap also varies by occupation. For full-time employees the gap is "positive" for all the main occupation groups, ranging from 4.3% for sales and customer service, to 24.6% for skilled trades occupations in April 2015." Oh yay only 4.3% pay gap! 
This study by the ONS does not prove causation. It shows that there is a gap using unreliable methods but does not prove that this gap is caused by discrimination. All the study shows is that there is a pay gap. That is all. The pay gap that they have shown could be caused by anything. You cannot use it as evidence for your claim that women are being discriminated against in pay.
Original post by Shadow Hunters
If you quote me in that new thread I will be unhappy as I do not want more Meninist La-di-da's calling me "feminist scum".  Had quite enough of that.
I will tag you when and if I make that thread. I won’t mention you but you might find it interesting.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Twinpeaks
By eliminating those factors you are taking away the explanatory factor. The question is why do men dominate higher earning fields, why do men progress more within a career, demand a higher salary etc.
But that's besides the point.
Most importantly, @Dandaman1 I'd really appreciate it if you could point out all those female only scholarships you claim to exist? Might be just the thing I'm looking for
But that's besides the point.
Most importantly, @Dandaman1 I'd really appreciate it if you could point out all those female only scholarships you claim to exist? Might be just the thing I'm looking for
The higher earning fields are dominated by the older generation which still reflects the more segregated gender roles of the 20th century. However, to reach these positions it also takes a lot of hours, continuous years of experience and hard work. Women tend to have these things called babies which take them away from their work, often for years (consequently their partners take on more hours to compensate). Women opt to work less hours on average, are more likely to switch careers, and spend more time at home. But they are not forced to do this.
There's also the fact fewer women enter STEM and business fields in higher education. This disparity still exists in countries like Sweden which make efforts to avoid 'gendering' the subjects for children.
There's the so-called "boys' club" argument, but that didn't stop women taking over once male-dominated subjects like biology, veterinary science and psychology. Women are obviously capable of doing what they want.
As for the women's scholarships, see post #86. Good bloke beat me to it. And there are plenty more where that came from. Google is your friend.
Original post by CookieButter
Yes ma’am and your replies are testament to this.
aha….and how is the issue of feminists protesting a male scholarship related to the pay gap?
I didn’t make this claim and I am not sure that anyone else did either.
I went through great pains to find the study on which this article is based (attached at the end of this comment below the diagram).
I found it to be suffering from the same problem as your other example. It is written by two feminists. It suffers from a great deal of researcher bias and it sets out to prove a forgone conclusion. It is research of laughable quality.
The aim of the study was to prove causation (that the pay gap in medicine is caused by sexism against women) but it failed to do that. In fact it proved the opposite. It proved that the majority of the pay gap in medicine IS NOT CAUSED BY DISCRIMINATION. A small portion of the pay gap could not be explained by the study and they conclude that this unexplained portion could be caused by discrimination, which is a laughable conclusion since they could not provide evidence in their study to that affect. Furthermore, the study uses an extremely unreliable research method…i.e. surveys. It asks doctors their opinions about their salaries and their experience and whether or not they are discriminated against. The entire study is based on opinions. Opinions are the lowest form of research/evidence (refer to the digram attached below for the hierarchy of research).
This study by the ONS does not prove causation. It shows that there is a gap using unreliable methods but does not prove that this gap is caused by discrimination. All the study shows is that there is a pay gap. That is all. The pay gap that they have shown could be caused by anything. You cannot use it as evidence for your claim that women are being discriminated against in pay.
I will tag you when and if I make that thread. I won’t mention you but you might find it interesting.
aha….and how is the issue of feminists protesting a male scholarship related to the pay gap?
I didn’t make this claim and I am not sure that anyone else did either.
I went through great pains to find the study on which this article is based (attached at the end of this comment below the diagram).
I found it to be suffering from the same problem as your other example. It is written by two feminists. It suffers from a great deal of researcher bias and it sets out to prove a forgone conclusion. It is research of laughable quality.
The aim of the study was to prove causation (that the pay gap in medicine is caused by sexism against women) but it failed to do that. In fact it proved the opposite. It proved that the majority of the pay gap in medicine IS NOT CAUSED BY DISCRIMINATION. A small portion of the pay gap could not be explained by the study and they conclude that this unexplained portion could be caused by discrimination, which is a laughable conclusion since they could not provide evidence in their study to that affect. Furthermore, the study uses an extremely unreliable research method…i.e. surveys. It asks doctors their opinions about their salaries and their experience and whether or not they are discriminated against. The entire study is based on opinions. Opinions are the lowest form of research/evidence (refer to the digram attached below for the hierarchy of research).
Attachment not found
This study by the ONS does not prove causation. It shows that there is a gap using unreliable methods but does not prove that this gap is caused by discrimination. All the study shows is that there is a pay gap. That is all. The pay gap that they have shown could be caused by anything. You cannot use it as evidence for your claim that women are being discriminated against in pay.
I will tag you when and if I make that thread. I won’t mention you but you might find it interesting.
I thought my replies were good. If you want to debate properly you shouldn't personally insult people's intelligence.
I'll have you know I am going to university this year to study criminal just- I mean history.
Everyone attacked me for saying that men were paid more than women implying that scholarships for women made sense. They continued the conversation and then complained when I didn't reply to everybody.
They used it as an example in saying women do pointless degrees.
But many people don't do jobs in their university degree area even with degrees in law ( example of a well regarded degree in many people's eyes ). Yeah I appreciated the work you put into finding statistics that's why I reply.
Can you tell me how to prove discrimination? As if a company will say "yeah we discriminated" they'll give any other excuse to say it isn't. That's why there is a struggle to find the truth or to improve the outcome gap because amy people lie.
It's why the equality act doesn't always work because how do you prove discrimination? It's almost impossible unless someone doesn't let you in somewhere because you're in a wheelchair or something like that. So the debate will never end.
They asked other people questions, the authors didn't answer them so it shouldn't be so biased.
And that's okay then.
Original post by Shadow Hunters
Can you tell me how to prove discrimination? As if a company will say "yeah we discriminated" they'll give any other excuse to say it isn't. That's why there is a struggle to find the truth or to improve the outcome gap because amy people lie.
It's why the equality act doesn't always work because how do you prove discrimination? It's almost impossible unless someone doesn't let you in somewhere because you're in a wheelchair or something like that. So the debate will never end.
Can you tell me how to prove discrimination? As if a company will say "yeah we discriminated" they'll give any other excuse to say it isn't. That's why there is a struggle to find the truth or to improve the outcome gap because amy people lie.
It's why the equality act doesn't always work because how do you prove discrimination? It's almost impossible unless someone doesn't let you in somewhere because you're in a wheelchair or something like that. So the debate will never end.
That is a ridiculous assertion. Countless cases of discrimination have been and continue to be proved in courts and tribunals. You prove discrimination on the facts of any particular case, with reference to what the law says.
Original post by Good bloke
That is a ridiculous assertion. Countless cases of discrimination have been and continue to be proved in courts and tribunals. You prove discrimination on the facts of any particular case, with reference to what the law says.
No, proving discrimination in this particular case is not because many people don't like to tell people their pay and don't ask other people about theirs either so nobody finds out if they're being discriminated against.
If someone thinks "this is a good salary" they probably don't ask if others are being paid more.
Then people get away with it, especially in the private sector.Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Immerse Education
- Immerse Education Essay Competition (for 2024 Summer School)
- PLS HELP: Should I turn down my uni place to focus on my career?
- Durham v KCL for Literature
- Studying abroad for the BA in International Relations at King's college
- UCL PhD applicants
- 🍭🌺Sleepy's University Application Blog!!🌺🍭
- UCAS uni choices
- Durham Colleges
- External Scholarships
- Choosing College for Music: Oxford
- UK Universities for a Masters in Public Health on Scholarship (Int Students)
- Distance learning options for Masters in Creative Writing or Writing for Performance
- (A Level Politics / Feminism) Help with 2 questions
- UNSW VS The University Of Birmingham (Mechanical Engineering)
- University of Huddersfield scholarship
- Scholarships for intl students
- MSc Software Engineering Oxford University
- MPH at Melbourne or masters at Sydney university
- tuition fees over the age of 60 for a Master's or PhD
Latest
Last reply 13 minutes ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 17 minutes ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 19 minutes ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsLast reply 20 minutes ago
Why does he act different with me do I make him shy or what ?Posted 24 minutes ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 hour ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 1 hour ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
