Take recent events at the University of Sydney. It turns out that over 90% of the intake into the veterinary science course at that university is now female. Over 90%.
The university has therefore accepted a scholarship for the course which favours male applicants who are willing to work in rural areas (there already exist scholarships to support women undertaking the course).
What do you think was the response of feminists at the University of Sydney? Do you think they said "Yes, fair enough, after all we complain when engineering courses are mostly male, so it would be hypocritical of us to object to a scholarship for men in a course absolutely dominated by women."
Well, you probably guessed that campus feminists did not take this line. Here is their response:
Imogen Grant, women’s officer for the university’s students’ representative council, described the reaction of female students as “horrified.”
“To have male-only scholarships is to continue male privilege within society,” explained Grant.
“I was really surprised,” said one unnamed, female veterinary medicine student. “I really thought that it was a mistake – some sort of clerical error. Sexism exists in our society but I thought the uni held itself to a higher standard."
More from the women's officer Ms Grant:
Ms Grant said while the gender specification might be within the law it did "not mean that is how the law should be implemented".
"It is no excuse for the university to be complacent about discrimination," she said.
"Funding issues are a big part of many people’s decision about whether or not to pursue study. This scholarship would force many women to self-exclude."
“Making gender a deciding factor between applicants illustrates that a woman’s right to an education is not as important as her male counterparts.
"The fact that the university has no problem with offering a scholarship that excludes women calls into question whether they are truly committed to combatting sexism on campus.”
And more from the female vet student:
“It’s poorly thought out, their reasoning. They’re not addressing gender inequality in an intelligent way, and I think the university should be held to a higher standard.…It seems they care more about money than they do about my being a woman and getting equal opportunities.”
The female student went so far as to claim of her male counterparts: "their low numbers are a byproduct of privilege and not oppression."
These feminist women are using patriarchy theory and leftist identity politics to justify the idea that despite being in the 90% majority in veterinary courses that they are still victims of sexism whilst men are privileged oppressors.
Patriarchy theory claims that everything in society is set up for a group of people classed as "men" to get an unearned privilege at the expense of those "othered" as "women". Therefore, women are necessarily eternal victims, because that's what the system does. And in leftist identity politics, men are tagged as privileged oppressors which means that it is thought right that they lose moral and material status in society.
You can see in the University of Sydney story what this kind of political ideology is used to justify. Even when women make up over 90% of veterinary science students, feminists still insist that these female students are struggling for equal opportunity and inclusion, and that the lack of men in the course is evidence of male privilege.