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

Sydney university offer male only scholarship feminists are upset Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shadow Hunters)
    Men enjoy a free 20% higher pay than women for doing the same job.

    I hate this website sometimes...
    You're pulling information from nowhere, if you're referring to the lower average wage of women.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, there shouldn't be scholarships available to only men, or only women.

    We should seek fairness through equality and equal opportunity, not "fairness" through segregation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    On the other hand, if you decide to slow down your career to look after children etc, ultimately that is up to you, nothing much to do with anyone else, and certainly not a cause for anyone else's concern.
    Well put.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Nobody's choices are made in a vacuum. That doesn't make them invalid; if it did, you'd have to deny the validity of everyone's choices all the time. I am also not convinced that these choices are influenced purely by society, rather than in some part by biology.

    In either case, what most people say they want is a society in which everyone has the full range of opportunities available to them and can choose between them as they wish. I'm not particularly clear on what the rationale would be to go beyond this and try to change people's choices, or to change the framework within which they make their choices. All I can gather is that, ultimately, in this context, you have a higher proportion of women in certain jobs, e.g. in science. So what? Can you explain why this in itself should be anyone's objective?

    For what it's worth my own view is that this, like much of the left's thinking at the moment, shows far too great a level of preoccupation with vague concepts of the collective wellbeing of groups and identities, and not nearly enough concern for the individuals who make up those groups and identities. If the individuals who make up the class of women aren't being denied access to opportunities, and are living as they wish to, I, and I would venture most of the population along with me, don't really see it as a problem that more individuals within that group are making a given choice than those within another group (i.e. men).

    This applies whatever cultural norms form the background to women's career choices because the truth is, these days, you can perfectly well ignore them, if you want. As of right now, this is commonplace. Women who have decided to dedicate themselves entirely to their careers abound, and have as fair a crack at making it to the top of their chosen field as any given man -- given all the pressure at the moment for companies to show that they have women in senior positions, perhaps fairer. On the other hand, if you decide to slow down your career to look after children etc, ultimately that is up to you, nothing much to do with anyone else, and certainly not a cause for anyone else's concern.
    This is a great post, and a great advert for intersectionality.

    The absolute problem of the left at the moment (I consider myself to be on the left) is indeed that the most emotive of their causes are too vague. Requests for evidence are met with a "look it up, it's obvious". Much of my own content on TSR champions this cause. It's unproductive.

    I recommend Warren Farrell on the "pay gap", and Maajid Nawaz for general interesting discussion of the need for reform on the liberal left, from the point of view of a left-leaning liberal (as opposed to right-leaning thinkers such as Douglas Murray or Milo Yiannopoulos).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    This emphasises the need for men to stand up to this sexist, highly damaging ideology. This ideology's been actively working against men for almost 100 years now.
    The idea that women should be able to own property and vote, that they should have equal opportunities, is "immoral"?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shadow Hunters)
    https://fullfact.org/economy/UK_gender_pay_gap/
    My point was men get paid more than women which is true in most cases.
    1. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic being discussed in this thread.

    2. Time and time again people have explained to you that this gap exists as a result of difference in choices between the two genders (different choices in professions and number of hours worked as apposed to discrimination) and you failed to prove otherwise. I don't think you have the skills necessary to appreciate or understand what is being said here. The problem with most feminists like you is that they are extremely ill equipped to understand the basics in life. People with qualifications in worthless degrees, that focus on attracting failures in life and telling them they have failed not because of their ineptitude but because of dsicmrination and encouraging them to blame their faults on the opposite gender. Therefore, I do no doubt for a moment that most of what I am going to write in this comment is going to fly right over your head.

    3. The link you have provided is a great example of flawed statistics, deception and manipulation of gullible primitive minds.

    Firstly, it is based on Office for National Statistics data. Upon inspecting the data, i found it clearly stating that this data does not take into account the profession or the grade of the employees but rather takes all women and all men and compares their hourly median earnings to each other, not even the average but the median.

    "It should be noted that the figures do not show differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs,"

    (https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...ay-differences)

    So basically, what they have done here is take everyone from all professions and compare their median hourly rate to each other. Men choose different jobs to women. This study does not take this factor into account. This data does not take the pay grade of individuals into account. It just compares everyone to everyone else. It is like me comparing a doctors salary to a street sweep's salary and saying 'hey, the doctor's earning more this is unfair'. In statistics you cannot compare different groups within a population without controlling for their differences. This is all too much for you. I am willing to bet my life on it but this comment is not just for you but for anyone else that might want to entertain it.

    Additionally, they have also excluded a large proportion of the male population from this data. They have excluded men who work over time from the study. This is laughably flawed statistics. it is selectively bias and not representative of the population. It is unreliable and not valid.

    Now to the most important part of this comment. The data does not show causation!!!!!!! it does not prove that the gap is caused by discrimination. Using unreliable, invalid methods it shows that there is a gap. That is all it does. It does not show that this gap is caused by discrimination...In research statistics, the first thing that you are taught is that correlation does not prove causation. A stastical correlation (pay gap) between two variables (pay and gender in this study) does not imply that one causes the other. So this should be called a pay gap not a gender gap as the data does not prove that the gap is caused by gender.

    I have a study conducted by the government in 2015 that aimed to try and prove that the pay gap is caused by discrimination and wound up proving that it is not....A seminal piece of work that was distorted by the media and went underreported...I might make a thread about it soon.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    These choices aren't made in a vacuum though; more women work part time to look after children etc. because society tells them that's their role.

    I haven't done enough research on the pay gap in particular to have a proper debate about it, but I don't think the "Women make different choices" argument is flawed.
    You say that, but I literally don't know a single couple with kids where the wife stays home with the kids because society tells her too. It's always because that's what she wants to do.

    We get told that women are pressured by society to make decisions, yet no one ever actually observes this irl.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    You say that, but I literally don't know a single couple with kids where the wife stays home with the kids because society tells her too. It's always because that's what she wants to do.

    We get told that women are pressured by society to make decisions, yet no one ever actually observes this irl.
    You do realise that it's not "society has said I must do this" but much more subtle - the general attitudes of mum does this while dad works, saying fathers are 'babysitting' when they're looking after their own children. It's not an order, because then you would choose to ignore it, it's the pressure caused by tutting at working mums and asking if they'll bond as well with their children etc.

    Which isn't to say some people don't choose it, just that there is a flaw in this "choice" way of thinking - like there are more women in primary teaching than men because that's how we grow up to see society represented in a subtle way. There are more men than women in science (I don't have any stats here, it's just one of those things that is assumed, I'm happy to be corrected) because it's chemistry sets being deemed to be boys toys and while a girl can choose to go against that is told that she should play with girls toys - hence the let toys be toys campaign.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    there are more women in primary teaching than men because that's how we grow up to see society represented in a subtle way. .
    Well, no. There is has been a continuous decline in the number of male primary school teachers (and childcare generally) because men are treated as potential perverts and seen as not safe to be left in charge of children. That is not subtle. That is an attack on men by social scientists and social workers. There would be far more if that were not the case.

    Whether you like it or not women are programmed to want to bond with their children and to want to care for them; men aren't. It is a natural difference between the sexes that no amount of education can change and most partnerships will reflect those differences. My wife actually resented going back to work after the birth of our children as she wanted to spend more time with them.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    You do realise that it's not "society has said I must do this" but much more subtle - the general attitudes of mum does this while dad works, saying fathers are 'babysitting' when they're looking after their own children. It's not an order, because then you would choose to ignore it, it's the pressure caused by tutting at working mums and asking if they'll bond as well with their children etc.

    Which isn't to say some people don't choose it, just that there is a flaw in this "choice" way of thinking - like there are more women in primary teaching than men because that's how we grow up to see society represented in a subtle way. There are more men than women in science (I don't have any stats here, it's just one of those things that is assumed, I'm happy to be corrected) because it's chemistry sets being deemed to be boys toys and while a girl can choose to go against that is told that she should play with girls toys - hence the let toys be toys campaign.
    The only people forcing women to stay at home and be mums are feminists.

    Feminists have for decades campaigned that mothers are the better parents and that they should be given preferential treatment in custody over men.

    Under Labour's 'reign' over this country, feminist politician Harriet Harman (then Cabinet Minister), together with her feminist compatriots Anna Coote (then advisor to Minister of Women) and Patricia Hewitt (Secretary of State for Health under the Labour party) put together a social policy paper called "The Family Way", in which they recommended to the government that fathers are not a necessary component of the family unit and that mothers should be given preferential treatment over men in custody cases as men "Cannot be assumed to be an asset to the family".

    There is a feminist principle called separatism that preaches that for women to become free they need to be separated from men. that includes separating care in families such that women have total control over children and men are separated from their children and the women allowing the women to care for children without the discrimination imposed on them by the men in their life.

    The only power in society forcing women to be stay at home mums is feminism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The idea that women should be able to own property and vote, that they should have equal opportunities, is "immoral"?
    If the 'idea' is based on lies and deception, manipulation, hate, discrimination and terrorism, then yes sir/madam without question it is immoral!!! Nazism was an ideology formed to address the victimisation of Germany at the hands of global capitalism, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Ideologies are not judged based on what they stand against but rather what they are in themselves; their theory, teachings and interpretations of life.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Before anyone lays into me, I will say this:

    I am a feminist and I am proud to call myself one.

    Now that the disclaimer is out there, I will get into my point. The problems facing women at the moment vary from woman to woman, the problems facing men today vary from men to men. Me calling myself a feminist isn't me disregarding the problems facing men all over the world, it's me using the word that means that I believe in equality of the genders.

    I am in a commited relationship at the moment, we are very traditional, if we had it our way I'd be working and she'd be a house-wife. However, tradition values aren't really compatible with the modern economy. Now, unless you're rich enough, both partners will probably find themselves working.

    From an early age we're shown that men are builders, bankers, doctors and lawyers whereas women are home-makers, mothers and nurses. I don't think for a second that there is anything wrong with being a home-maker or a nurse, I just think that traditional societal values are no longer compatible with the modern economy. So when I call myself a feminist, it's because I believe that men and women should be equal, which means boys can play with dolls without fear of prejudice and girls can play with a chemistry set.

    The issues that men face, including a higher suicide rate, more mental health problems and a lower life expentancy are also down to this. Families are less and less able to survive with a single bread winner, and whilst it is expected of men, or even normal for men to be the bread winner, things won't improve.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well, no. There is has been a continuous decline in the number of male primary school teachers (and childcare generally) because men are treated as potential perverts and seen as not safe to be left in charge of children. That is not subtle. That is an attack on men by social scientists and social workers. There would be far more if that were not the case.

    Whether you like it or not women are programmed to want to bond with their children and to want to care for them; men aren't. It is a natural difference between the sexes that no amount of education can change and most partnerships will reflect those differences. My wife actually resented going back to work after the birth of our children as she wanted to spend more time with them.
    I didn't think of it that way, but that could be a part of it, although it does lead back to the same patriarchial values that make us think women are inherently better at childcare.

    Do you have any evidence of this preprogramming? It is to do with anatomy, or hormones or something? I think it may have skipped me...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    The only people forcing women to stay at home and be mums are feminists.

    Feminists have for decades campaigned that mothers are the better parents and that they should be given preferential treatment in custody over men.

    Under Labour's 'reign' over this country, feminist politician Harriet Harman (then Cabinet Minister), together with her feminist compatriots Anna Coote (then advisor to Minister of Women) and Patricia Hewitt (Secretary of State for Health under the Labour party) put together a social policy paper called "The Family Way", in which they recommended to the government that fathers are not a necessary component of the family unit and that mothers should be given preferential treatment over men in custody cases as men "Cannot be assumed to be an asset to the family".

    There is a feminist principle called separatism that preaches that for women to become free they need to be separated from men. that includes separating care in families such that women have total control over children and men are separated from their children and the women allowing the women to care for children without the discrimination imposed on them by the men in their life.

    The only power in society forcing women to be stay at home mums is feminism.
    I understand you have issues with some definitions of feminism and some historical feminists, but the way I am interpreting feminism and the way that 4th wave intersectional and patriarchy busting feminism goes about is very different to the kinds of things you're arguing against. Please don't assume my position and tell me what it is - in the interests of equality of all genders, it makes no sense for anyone to be forced to do anything, much less be forced to be stay at home mums - that literally flies in the face of war-time feminism when women wanted to be allowed to continue to work when their husbands returned from the war.

    The reason mums are more often given custody is 1. because they generally settle out of court and the dad doesn't fight for it and 2. because *PATRIARCHY KLAXON* apparently they're better with kids because they have a vagina or something...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Before anyone lays into me, I will say this:

    I am a feminist and I am proud to call myself one.

    Now that the disclaimer is out there, I will get into my point. The problems facing women at the moment vary from woman to woman, the problems facing men today vary from men to men. Me calling myself a feminist isn't me disregarding the problems facing men all over the world, it's me using the word that means that I believe in equality of the genders.

    I am in a commited relationship at the moment, we are very traditional, if we had it our way I'd be working and she'd be a house-wife. However, tradition values aren't really compatible with the modern economy. Now, unless you're rich enough, both partners will probably find themselves working.

    From an early age we're shown that men are builders, bankers, doctors and lawyers whereas women are home-makers, mothers and nurses. I don't think for a second that there is anything wrong with being a home-maker or a nurse, I just think that traditional societal values are no longer compatible with the modern economy. So when I call myself a feminist, it's because I believe that men and women should be equal, which means boys can play with dolls without fear of prejudice and girls can play with a chemistry set.

    The issues that men face, including a higher suicide rate, more mental health problems and a lower life expentancy are also down to this. Families are less and less able to survive with a single bread winner, and whilst it is expected of men, or even normal for men to be the bread winner, things won't improve.
    I generally dispense with the disclaimers and just yell *PATRIARCHY KLAXON*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    I understand you have issues with some definitions of feminism and some historical feminists, but the way I am interpreting feminism and the way that 4th wave intersectional and patriarchy busting feminism goes about is very different to the kinds of things you're arguing against. Please don't assume my position and tell me what it is - in the interests of equality of all genders, it makes no sense for anyone to be forced to do anything, much less be forced to be stay at home mums - that literally flies in the face of war-time feminism when women wanted to be allowed to continue to work when their husbands returned from the war.

    The reason mums are more often given custody is 1. because they generally settle out of court and the dad doesn't fight for it and 2. because *PATRIARCHY KLAXON* apparently they're better with kids because they have a vagina or something...
    Yes the terrible court system allowing women to see there children.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As a girl, I hate hearing about the 'gender pay gap' because it's inaccurate. Please ladies, use something that exists to back your points up. It does not take the following into consideration:

    1. Job role - of course a Dr will earn more than a waitress?

    2. Hours - if a female lawyer and a male lawyer have the same position in a company then they'll be paid the same, however the female will earn less than the male if she works less hours.

    3. Maternity leave - males obviously get paternity leave but it is much much shorter. That and maternity leave last in certain jobs (such as teaching) for up to a year. That's a whole year not working?

    Lastly, if women were 'cheaper' to employ then all jobs would predominantly have women in them because they'd be a less pricey way to pay for labour. It doesn't add up.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Yes the terrible court system allowing women to see there children.
    I don't understand your point. If the mother is a fit parent then of course she should be able to see her children, but it shouldn't be assumed that she's the better parent because she's the one with the lady parts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    You say that, but I literally don't know a single couple with kids where the wife stays home with the kids because society tells her too. It's always because that's what she wants to do.

    We get told that women are pressured by society to make decisions, yet no one ever actually observes this irl.
    Society is such a bad guy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Nobody's choices are made in a vacuum. That doesn't make them invalid; if it did, you'd have to deny the validity of everyone's choices all the time. I am also not convinced that these choices are influenced purely by society, rather than in some part by biology.

    In either case, what most people say they want is a society in which everyone has the full range of opportunities available to them and can choose between them as they wish. I'm not particularly clear on what the rationale would be to go beyond this and try to change people's choices, or to change the framework within which they make their choices. All I can gather is that, ultimately, in this context, you have a higher proportion of women in certain jobs, e.g. in science. So what? Can you explain why this in itself should be anyone's objective?

    For what it's worth my own view is that this, like much of the left's thinking at the moment, shows far too great a level of preoccupation with vague concepts of the collective wellbeing of groups and identities, and not nearly enough concern for the individuals who make up those groups and identities. If the individuals who make up the class of women aren't being denied access to opportunities, and are living as they wish to, I, and I would venture most of the population along with me, don't really see it as a problem that more individuals within that group are making a given choice than those within another group (i.e. men).

    This applies whatever cultural norms form the background to women's career choices because the truth is, these days, you can perfectly well ignore them, if you want. As of right now, this is commonplace. Women who have decided to dedicate themselves entirely to their careers abound, and have as fair a crack at making it to the top of their chosen field as any given man -- given all the pressure at the moment for companies to show that they have women in senior positions, perhaps fairer. On the other hand, if you decide to slow down your career to look after children etc, ultimately that is up to you, nothing much to do with anyone else, and certainly not a cause for anyone else's concern.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.