Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imiss-school)
    Imagine the outrage if there was an exclusively male only scholarship.
    I do agree with this as if there was a ‘male-only’ scholarship then feminists all would be publicly outraged.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Because I haven't seen what you said I see in the "natural world" for the human species. So I need an example. Otherwise your question can't be answered as it's presuming that I have an example to base it on.
    I was expecting something along the lines of "women only fit certain roles in human populations due to unjust and oppressive societal pressures". I certainly wasn't expecting you claiming to be unable to see something that I believe to witness on a daily basis and am able to make strong parallels between this and less complex examples in other species.

    Not quite sure how to argue against that :lol: Any attempt at putting forward examples is going to be shunned immediately if it hasn't already been accepted.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Calling someone illogical and then making some fascile analogy to an inferior species? Get out. I agree that there are clear natural differences between human males and females, but seriously get out.
    Inferior, What? Get your head out of your arse.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imiss-school)
    Why is this digusting sexism tolerated with no one batting an eye lid?



    I cannot apply for this scholarship simply because I am male.

    This is rather infuriating, I meet all the other criteria yet because of my gender I am being discriminated against.

    Imagine the outrage if there was an exclusively male only scholarship.

    Is there have a human rights case?
    Apply for it claiming you are a woman trapped in a man's body.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    because those subjects are lacking in the female department.

    we get free entry to clubs too
    So why don't you see scholarships for men wanting to get into nursing, psychology, or even university education as a whole? They're all areas in which men are under-represented.

    "Because there are less women" is not a justification, I think in most cases it's simply that not as many women are interested in the subject as men. In which case all that the scholarship is doing is giving extra money to women who would've likely made the same decision anyway, which means it isn't necessary.

    I'm completely against 'positive' discrimination like this, it's unfair and flies in the face of true equality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    Inferior, What? Get your head of of your arse.
    What? So you're claiming species in the natural world aren't inferior? Well, whatever. I change 'inferior' to 'different'. So my argument is now 'fascile analogy to a different species'. What now?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    I was expecting something along the lines of "women only fit certain roles in human populations due to unjust and oppressive societal pressures". I certainly wasn't expecting you claiming to be unable to see something that I believe to witness on a daily basis and am able to make strong parallels between this and less complex examples in other species.

    Not quite sure how to argue against that :lol: Any attempt at putting forward examples is going to be shunned immediately if it hasn't already been accepted.
    But that's the thing.
    There was a long long long period of time where women were told t stay at home, look after the children. If they tried to have a career, they well, couldn't.
    Women were said to be stupid, bad at maths etc.
    But now it's (shockingly :rolleyes: ) turned out that a lot of women are actually better at maths then a lot of men in education. And that you can't divide the sexes based on the mathematical merit of an individual.

    But there are women CEO's, there are MP women, we've had a female prime minister. Women in the armed forces.
    There are of course men in all of those areas as well. There are also male nurses, male midwives, male house wives etc.

    So again, give me a skill set that is exclusive to a sex.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedDevilThing)
    So why don't you see scholarships for men wanting to get into nursing, psychology, or even university education as a whole? They're all areas in which men are under-represented.

    "Because there are less women" is not a justification, I think in most cases it's simply that not as many women are interested in the subject as men. In which case all that the scholarship is doing is giving extra money to women who would've likely made the same decision anyway, which means it isn't necessary.

    I'm completely against 'positive' discrimination like this, it's unfair and flies in the face of true equality.
    because women are more intelligent than men and their input into the above fields would lead to great discoveries. women already do the things you mentioned like nursing well enough so we don't need men doing it too.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    because women are more intelligent than men

    Please can you justify the extraordinary claim that any one particular sex is intrinsically better at anything in particular (with the exceptions of for example, women having periods) than any other sex?

    Sexism kind of bores me and I have that lovely feeling that unless you're joking (I hope you are) you're going to use it to back up your claim.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    What? So you're claiming species in the natural world aren't inferior? Well, whatever. I change 'inferior' to 'different'. So my argument is now 'fascile analogy to a different species'. What now?
    If they show similar behavioural traits then they are clearly not as different as you are implying. Seriously, what are you attempting to get at?

    The Zebra fish shows capabilites in heart tissue regeneration to avoid and repair from cardiovascular diseases. Should we study it and apply the concept to humans or should we ignore it because it is 'inferior' or 'different'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing we can really do since (i assume) that the grants are privately funded. If i was wealthy enough i could equally offer special grants to men with mono-balls.

    They can do what they want, though i dont agree with it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    But that's the thing.
    There was a long long long period of time where women were told t stay at home, look after the children. If they tried to have a career, they well, couldn't.
    Women were said to be stupid, bad at maths etc.
    But now it's (shockingly :rolleyes: ) turned out that a lot of women are actually better at maths then a lot of men in education. And that you can't divide the sexes based on the mathematical merit of an individual.

    But there are women CEO's, there are MP women, we've had a female prime minister. Women in the armed forces.
    There are of course men in all of those areas as well. There are also male nurses, male midwives, male house wives etc.

    So again, give me a skill set that is exclusive to a sex.
    I agree that that has largely been the case but it doesn't blanket all behavioural activities between the genders. But this is why it will be difficult for me to formulate an argument of todays behaviour that you'll actually be receptive of, since you'll happily say that it's due to the years of being taught how things should be done?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxxxLillyxxxx)
    It's an initiative for women to get into science; which even in this day and age is needed!

    Women have had to put up with that kind of discrimination for forever, so I’m sure men can cope with a course giving 10 women an opportunity to get into science.
    I agree! Women have been discriminated against in science for a long time so its good to see that it is being acknowledged and will hopefully change.

    However I do think that it is wrong for a scholarship to be purely for female applicants, as the whole problem is that women are treated like they are less competent in science. Surely a better solution is to take the best applicants for the scholarship regardless of sex.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    If they show similar behavioural traits then they are clearly not as different as you are implying. Seriously, what are you attempting to get at?

    The Zebra fish shows capabilites in heart tissue regeneration to avoid and repair from cardiovascular diseases. Should we study it and apply the concept to humans or should we ignore it because it is 'inferior' or 'different'.
    Look, the problem with your second paragraph is that you're talking about a situation where the species is clearly very different to humans, whereas you're trying to say we can look at natural behaviour of different species, and apply that to humans and expect it to work. What I'm trying to get at is this logically tenuous way of describing human gender differences is unnecessary in the face of studies of the average differences between men and woman.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    I agree that that has largely been the case but it doesn't blanket all behavioural activities between the genders. But this is why it will be difficult for me to formulate an argument of todays behaviour that you'll actually be receptive of, since you'll happily say that it's due to the years of being taught how things should be done?
    This won't get anywhere without examples.

    As long as one of each sex can do anything you posit is sex dependent then sex is not the reason for any individual to do such activities, think in a particular way etc. etc.

    I think that social constructions are the cause for the sex divide in skill sets and presume that is the case with most if not all of them until I see reason not to believe it, because I believe there are no skill sets that are intrinsic to any particular sex.

    You presume that they are the result of genetics, of dna, and that some skill sets, maybe all skill sets, are dependent on sex.

    So please show some examples of sex dependent skill sets.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan.G)
    I do agree with this as if there was a ‘male-only’ scholarship then feminists all would be publicly outraged.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Then why dont a load of men get outraged and actually do something about it?

    Men moan because feminists actually get off their arses and speak out for what they want whilst failing to do the same.

    There is a lot that is undesirable about many feminists but moaning at them because men have a lack of motivation to speak out when they dont like something is wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There's a scholarship at LJMU for law students.

    Black law students.

    I know, I almost laughed at the implicit racism as well. Not even arsed it's only for law students, it's ONLY for black students. So if you're a whitey, you are apparently rich enough to afford it but blacks are poor apparently.... hmm.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    16
    Welcome Squad
    I think it's nice. I think the idea of encouraging people from under-represented groups in a particular field, to study in that area, via scholarships are good. Individuals may not choose to study had it not been for those possible awards...

    Edit: Also, if we lived in world where there was no negative discrimination, and people weren't therefore disadvantaged for, whatever reason, and real equality existed universally, then I'd disagree with such schemes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    With thing like science, it isn't like public service, or office work etc, where women have been able to do those jobs for the past couple of decades.

    It's about overcoming the stigma that in this day and age still surround women in science

    It's not about discriminating against men, it's about overcoming the stigma woman face from narrow-minded comments such as: 'Not as clever as a man, how would she know etc.

    Allowing women an opportunity that they can't always get in a male environment.

    When the world is a woman’s world, I will take your comments about discrimination towards men seriously. Especially the comment of 'Imagine the outrage if there was an exclusively male only scholarship' hasn't that been the case for universities until the past few decades.

    Now women are getting women only scholarships, suddenly exclusivity is a problem?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kunoichi)
    Then why dont a load of men get outraged and actually do something about it?

    Men moan because feminists actually get off their arses and speak out for what they want whilst failing to do the same.

    There is a lot that is undesirable about many feminists but moaning at them because men have a lack of motivation to speak out when they dont like something is wrong.
    Presupposing that they will be heard.

    And also grouping men together as if they are intrinsically separate from women. And also presupposing that it is a male issue only. Many women should and probably do feel that positive discrimination in this way only leads to greater sexism. Because it says one rule for one sex and another for another sex. It can be seen to increase the identity politics. You know, men be with men and women be with women, don't mix, you're separate etc.
    Something many do fight against.

    There's a lot wrong with your post.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.