Women only scholarships.

They are replicable to a limited extent. The confusion arises from the fact that they are actually looking at relative enrolment rates onto STEM university courses, rather than the share overall. The authors continue to defend their analysis, and the paper has not been retracted by the journal as the editors do not believe that their analysis has been shown to be fundamentally in error.

I'm happy to consider the evidence you mention.

And you're not being disadvantaged as a man because you're not eligible for a certain scholarship, you are the baseline.

This is a fair point. However, arguably the highest-ranking, most well-paid jobs are already in men's favour. Sure, a man might find it harder to be a nanny, or a PE teacher at a girl's school. But there's no denying that the real inequalities lie in the best paid jobs - CEO's are around 90% men*.

It's hardly comparable, and the male claim for oppression seems to be far more reaching than women's.


*source - https://www.statista.com/statistics/685208/number-of-female-ceo-positions-in-ftse-companies-uk/

Then you should look further into it.

Your point is that equality should not be achieved via a certain kind of encouragement.

People are trying to fix those institutional failures, that's what organisations like Women in Engineering are for, that's why organisations can prefer equally qualified minority candidates, to introduce role models and their experiences into those institutions. You're basically just talking down science as a whole in your next sentence, if you understand how scientific method works then you would understand that it is inherently impossible for one science to be less valid than another. The gendered outcome isn't the only evidence of foul play, but it is a part of the evidence as we see from cultural differences in gender outcome. And you're not being disadvantaged as a man because you're not eligible for a certain scholarship, you are the baseline. Gendered scholarships are an encouragement for those who are typically below the baseline to achieve higher than they normally do. You would be disadvantaged if you were below the baseline as a result of not getting the scholarship.

CEO's are such a tiny percentage of society of any gender, tend be filled by workaholic, egomaniac people of high sociopathic tendencies who sacrifice traditional personal enjoyments for personal recognition & combine that with high intelligence and high risk tolerance. These are a very unique type of personality.

There isn't much evidence that long-term affirmative action has any significant impact on structure and indeed can even be counter-productive. If your goal is to 'force' equity then such policies do 'work', of course (although quotas would be more effective), but IMHO, the goal should be to allow all individuals a chance to earn resources such as scholarships (meritocracy).

If one takes your view that identity matters and that frequentists statistics tell us something meaningful by quantifying the 'chances' of a given individual, dividing people by gender alone is reductive and crude given intersectionality; it's quite possible that a working-class male whose parents didn't go to university is much less equipped to get ahead in STEM than a private-school educated female with degree-holding parents, for example.

It's widely accepted that the humanities have a crisis of reproducibility. The possibility of a science of man has been doubted since Aristotle, for example. I know it's fashionable to vilify sociology, and I don't go that far, but a great deal of the research that is produced is just a product of the ideological lense adopted and it can all be very subjective. Many of the 'scholars' are also activists so one should be immediately suspicious of their claims.

And what if those individuals are already advantaged towards earning those scholarships? It's been well demonstrated that academic achievement correlates most strongly with socioeconomic background so if you are assessing students based on merit that becomes inherently discriminatory, that's why systems for encouraging people from worse socioeconomic backgrounds already exist, which you seem to have ignored. Universities provide outreach programmes and bursaries which target students who are less likely to attend university. The majority of my friends at university came from working class backgrounds and received about £10k worth of bursaries across their time at uni as a result, that's roughly equivalent if not more than typical women's scholarships.

Awarding a private schooled woman a scholarship doesn't stop a working class man getting one, and equally the working class woman who is doubly underrepresented will get both.

Lots of fields have a crisis of reproducibility, engineering does too. That's more to do with poor ethical standards for submitting research in earlier years than the subjects themselves. Going back before 2000 for any subject is a bit of a minefield and even pre-2015 can be risky.