Sunday, February 12, 2017

Ever heard a feminist say she just wants equality? Read on...

When a feminist is on the back foot, there's an excellent chance she will defend herself by saying "But feminists just want equality between men and women". The reality is different.

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.


  1. When I was studying engineering there were three scholarships on offer, one being exclusive to women.
    The faculty decided that the other one should be gender balanced, so we ended up with two scholarships for women and only one for men.
    Now, we only had three women in our year to the 25 odd men. This meant two thirds of women in our year got scholarships vs 1 in 25 men.
    I NEVER bothered applying for that reason.

  2. Farm animal veterinary is an excellent illustration of the error that is so-called 'equalty'. In general terms, women are not physically strong enough for much of the work involved, at least with cattle. This inevitably leads to a shortage of veterinarians in these fields if there are insufficient male graduates. A shortage of veterinary input in agriculture presents considerable risks. Plagues such as foot-and-mouth disease could be, in the absense of prompt diagnosis, even more catastrophic, not to mention the increased death and debility of herds and flocks due to lack of veterinary expertise. There is also the increased risk of various zoonoses without sufficient veterinary diagnosis. All these consequences are seemingly of no account compared to these ludicrous ideological obsessions.

  3. But what they mean by equality is equality of outcome.

    YOu simply find a target of envy, something you want, from an identifiable group, and demand the same by state (or otherwise) force in order to obtain your 'equality' or 'social justice.

    It is pure parasitism. We need to call it what it is. The people promoting it never were benevolent or moral.

    The Political Correctness Game (SJW Game) - Jordan B. Peterson
    Pass it on.

    Equality is Envy: A man abler than his brothers insults them by implication. He must not aspire to any virtue which cannot be shared'

    When feminist or most women's groups protest or speak out on anything it tends to amount to one thing: ‘What will you do for me. What will you GIVE me for free??’

    Where you get it, how you get it, who you rob, steal and coerce to get it, is not relevant. Just get it. I’m not going to get it, (I can’t get it), therefore YOU MUST get it.

  4. The scholarship was established by a woman. She was married to a man in whose name she has funded it. The scholarship isn't restricted to males. This kerfuffle demonstrates a temperamental difference between these females and their male counterparts.
    The whole thing is absurd. All that these disordered females need to do is to check the box on their application indicating that they are male. Who has the courage to discriminate against that?

  5. My father was a veterinarian in the country. I can remember the issue of scarcity of vets wanting to do large animal work from the 90's. Dad was always paying for young, female vets to move to the country and helping them get set up only to find out that 6 months later "they didn't like it" and he had to do the whole thing over again. I suppose in the end he must have decided to hire based on gender out of necessity. I have never asked him but that's what I would have wanted to do.

    The good thing is, I'm not sure too many feminists will change the way they vote in their lifetime. But these are real issues for real small business owners will certainly affect the way they vote and more.

    1. Its a real issue in Medicine and engineering too when affirmative action artificially promotes women over more ambitious, skilled and motivated men.

      The woman are ultimately much less productive, and it costs society as well as justice to men who would really be more successful for themselves and society.

      I knew a female Doctor who liked to work 4-5 hour days because that was enough for her and she wanted time for other things.

      Meanwhile I was working 9 hour stressful days.