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

Sydney university offer male only scholarship feminists are upset Watch

    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Might this be because of performance pay where everyone has set pay but there's variation between people of the same level because of targets?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    No, they don't.

    Men earn more on average before taking into account things like different jobs and hours worked. When these factors are taken into account, there is little to no pay disparity to speak of. It is illegal to pay men and women differently for the same job.
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Its the primordial bond between mothers protecting their child and breastfeeding. It harks back to when males sought to impregnate multiple females, ensuring at least one of them would survive, while women locked down to protect their own. Its hormonal. Its also why men naturally lean towards more competitive, aggressive, selfish careers while women as a rule lean towards caring roles. Hormones I think.
    I struggle with evolutionary explanations, there are always more than one explanation and no way to say which one is correct - men would also want to protect their offspring if they could, they may impregnate many women, but with living not being the cushy thing it is now back in the times of our evolution, would the pregnant woman left on her own be safe during birth etc.?

    Hormones, you think. Which hormones? Doing what?

    It may well be hormones have an effect on career choice (although I'm struggling to see exactly how), but unless we can show how each of these hormones works like that, and also divorce that from the societal pressure for men and women to behave in certain ways, I remain unconvinced.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Perhaps you missed the first paragraph and a key word in the first sentence of the second, which read:

    The process of bonding with a new baby is natural for most mothers. Left alone, new mothers will hold their baby next to their bodies, rock them gently, strive for eye contact, sing or talk to the baby and begin to nurse. Often within just hours of birth, mothers report feelings of overwhelming love and attachment for their new baby.

    A normal, full-term baby is also [i.e. like the mother, as described in para 1]programmed to initiate and enter into a bonding relationship.
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Its the primordial bond between mothers protecting their child and breastfeeding. It harks back to when males sought to impregnate multiple females, ensuring at least one of them would survive, while women locked down to protect their own. Its hormonal. Its also why men naturally lean towards more competitive, aggressive, selfish careers while women as a rule lean towards caring roles. Hormones I think.
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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/cat...ips-for-women/

    http://www.thescholarshiphub.org.uk/...larships-girls

    http://www.scholars4dev.com/tag/scholarships-for-women/

    https://www.unigo.com/scholarships/b...hips-for-women

    http://www.afterschoolafrica.com/255...-for-women-in/

    https://www.unesco-ihe.org/news/call...016-2017-women
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    I understand you have issues with some definitions of feminism and some historical feminists
    No, I have ‘issues’ with feminism in ALL its forms from the day of its inception to its current status.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    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.
    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)
    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
    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)
    2. because *PATRIARCHY KLAXON* apparently they're better with kids because they have a vagina or something...

    "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 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
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Technically not true, she acknowledged that in some jobs men on average earn more than woman, can't argue there.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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/univer...ears-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/...ry-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 619804619806

    (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.
    Attached Images
     
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdfgenderpaygapwomenacademicmedicine.pdf (422.3 KB, 30 views)
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.