Scholarship – Prawn of the Patriarchy

Women in Engineering scholarship query

On Saturday 22 October 2022 I sent two emails to an Australian tertiary educational institution regarding financial assistance and support programs that they provided to female students. Here is the first one that I sent:

“Good morning

I have just come across your scholarship at https://www.qut.edu.au/study/fees-and-scholarships/scholarships/women-in-engineering-scholarship

Would you please confirm that there is no corresponding Men in Engineering scholarship. Assuming that there is not, would you kindly advise why a scholarship is maintained for women as it would seem to be inconsistent with current consensus regarding gender equality. I look forward to hearing back from you in due course.”

On 24 October 2022 they duly replied:

“Dear Mr. X,

QUT strives to create an equal, equitable and diverse teaching and research environment that is fully inclusive for all people. We are not a complete community until all individuals are included and afforded opportunity, regardless of their backgrounds, characteristics, beliefs and circumstances.

The Gender Equity and Diversity in STEMM Action Plan reflects QUT’s long-term commitment to addressing the under-representation of women, trans and gender-diverse people in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) disciplines.

Based on this action plan, women in engineering scholarship are committed to support people who identify as a woman, and increase the number of graduating female engineers, which at the moment is only 15% of all of the engineering students. This scholarship will help build a cohort of female future leaders in engineering professions.

However, there are other ongoing scholarships, that students who are not identifying as women are able to apply:

QUT – Find a scholarship

Kind regards

Engineering engagement team”

The second email I sent was similar, but was sent to the university’s ‘Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion Manager’ and focused on one particular page in their website.

(Postscript: 6 January 2023, and thankfully a further response has come to hand … )

“QUT does offer a number of scholarship that are not gender specific including academic, equity and industry-funded (currently being updated for 2023) and they can be found here. QUT – Scholarships

Engineering has a long history of being a male-dominated profession. In several disciplines and areas of practice such as biomedical engineering, much progress has been made on this front. However, in other disciplines such as mechanical engineering the number hasn’t moved much in 30 or more years. I graduated in mechanical engineering in 1993 with only a few other females in my cohort of around 120. And the numbers haven’t improved significantly since then and neither has the aggregate proportion of qualified professional engineers who are female, which is still low at 13% (and the proportion of female engineers who are working in an engineering role is at 11%). (cited Jane MacMaster, FIEAust EngExec CPEng MRAeS Chief Engineer, Engineers Australia Women in engineering | Engineers Australia pp4)

With women severely unrepresented in the engineering work force QUT sets out to increase and support the number of females studying engineering by building a strong support program for students including engineering scholarships.

The scholarship program includes mentoring, flagship Engineers Australia events such as the Women in Engineering Annual Dinner, Young Engineers Australia Executive Breakfasts, GEMS student club events, National Association of Women in Construction events and Alumni panel and industry workshops.

The ongoing women in engineering program connects and showcases the opportunities for women in the engineering industry to help solve local and global challenges. It also encourages young people to consider an engineering career, join and invest in engineering and become the future of engineering.

We offer many funding and engagement opportunities to all of our Engineering students at QUT however to address the gender imbalance in the engineering industry we seek to provide a program that not only supports women but also encourages new entrants into the field of engineering.

I hope this responds to your query and if you are seeking additional research on Women in Engineering please let me know and I will send it through.

Kind regards”

Other posts in this blog that are relevant to this subject:

Regarding the granting of gender-specific scholarships in Australia

We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’? (Scroll down to ‘education’)

Apparently there’s not enough “educated” men nowadays

Regarding the granting of gender-specific scholarships in Australia

The other day I noted the following tweet issued by UN Women Australia:

“Applications for our MBA scholarship with @Sydney_Business close this Monday 11 May. Don’t miss your chance. Apply today” (linked information)

Each of these scholarships is worth over $60,000 and is “to recognise outstanding leadership, with a commitment to enhancing women’s rights and opportunities”.

I then wrote to ‘Anti-Discrimination NSW‘ using the survey facility on this page of their web site. Their response, dated 12 May 2020, is provided below. Curiously this communication was marked ‘Private and Confidential’, the significance of which which I am now seeking clarification. I also sent a query to the Uni of Sydney Business School and others earlier via Twitter, to which I am yet to receive a response.

“I refer to you enquiry received via the community response survey on our website on the 11 May 2020 concerning the University of Sydney offering a scholarship to women only.

Exemptions under the Anti-Discrimination Act NSW 1977 (ADA)

Under the ADA there is no general special measures provision, which applies to all grounds under the Act. Rather, under the sex provisions of the ADA it provides:

Exception—genuine occupational qualification (in employment only) s.31and,
the Attorney General may grant exemptions (s.126 and s.126A).

Exemptions are granted where the purpose of a particular program or service is to achieve equality between a disadvantaged group and those who are not disadvantaged by addressing past or present disadvantage experienced by particular groups in our community.

In this sense such measures are non-discriminatory, in that they aim to redress disadvantage. That is, the purpose of such measures is achieving substantive equality, as opposed to formal equality, and these measures are critical to preventing and eliminating discrimination.

In July 2019 the University of Sydney was granted an exemption to offer, advertise, and facilitate scholarships for women only in the fields of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, and finance for a period of ten (10) years. Please refer to our website (under the tab ‘exemptions’) for more information.

Since an exemption has been granted, the program the University of Sydney is providing is exempt from all the provisions of the ADA, so that they cannot be the subject of a complaint because they are providing services or programs designed to achieve equality and redress disadvantage experienced by particular groups in our community.”

Their second last paragraph refers me to this section of the agency’s web site, where you can note that Sydney University has been granted exemptions to provide female-only scholarships in relation to science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, finance, and agriculture/environment. Looking through both this page (Section 126 exemptions) and the page for Section 126a exemptions, the most striking thing is that the overwhelming majority of exemptions granted have been in relation to female-only programs or services.

I wrote back to ‘Anti-Discrimination NSW’ to query aspects of their response:

“Thank you for your agency’s prompt and helpful response to my query to which I would now appreciate some further clarification.

1. Would you kindly advise, in relation to the exemptions granted to Sydney University, what factors you consider to confirm or verify proof of disadvantage for female students, relative to their male counterparts.

2. I have noted the pages in your web site in relation to Section 126 and Section 126a exemptions. My immediate reaction is concern regarding the overwhelming number of exemptions granted in relation to programs or services that cater only for women.

In drafting your response to these queries you may wish to consider the information presented in the following sources:

Women-only scholarships website produced by the South Australian Government Office for Women (December 2021) And another similar site produced by ‘Australian Graduate Women’

James Cook University, Queensland, Australia (JCU have nil male-only scholarships)

http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/growing-debate-whether-title-ix-should-help-male-students-excluded-by-female-only-programs/

http://www.saveservices.org/2019/05/pr-widespread-sex-discrimination-found-in-college-scholarship-programs/

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11853

https://quillette.com/2019/03/02/lies-damned-lies-and-stem-statistics/

https://www.twincities.com/2018/11/02/anti-male-discrimination-complaint-gets-umn-to-change-scholarship-rules/

Thank you in anticipation of your further assistance with this matter.”

With credit to them ‘Anti-discrimination NSW’ again responded promptly, and on 15 May 2020 they advised:

“In considering whether to grant an exemption under section 126, the President is required to consider the factors set out in the Anti-Discrimination Regulation 2014.

Section 126A certification is granted by the Attorney General. Section 126A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 provides that the Minister may certify a program or activity to be a special needs program or activity if satisfied that its purpose or primary purpose is the promotion of access, for members of a group of persons affected by any form of unlawful discrimination to which this Act applies in an area of discrimination to which this Act applies, to facilities, services or opportunities to meet their special needs or the promotion of equal or improved access for them to facilities, services and opportunities.

Under section 124A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 it is an offence for the President or staff of Anti-Discrimination NSW to disclose information obtained during the exercise of functions under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.”

Further links to background information relevant to this issue can be found in this earlier blog post (scroll down to ‘Cost of Education’), one example of which is this recent paper by John Murawski.

Finally, Mark J. Perry comments (25 February 2021) “The national obsession trying to coerce more girls to go into Computer Science isn’t working. Can we stop the failed social engineering costing hundreds of millions of dollars funding girls’ STEM camps, Girls Who Code, female STEM scholarships, etc.?“

See also:

Women on top, by Bettina Arndt (26 June 2024) Recommended reading

Queensland Women in STEM prize, by the Queensland Museum (June 2024)

Actuaries Institute Women Leaders in Data Science/AI Scholarship (8 May 2024)

Australia for ASEAN scholarships (January 2024) “Applications are strongly encouraged from women, people with disability and marginalised groups“

Women leaders in sport program (21 August 2023) Australia. Post Matilda’s campaign kerfuffle, with feminist virtue-signaling galore

Audrey Fagan Enrichment Grant (July 2023) Australia

Chemistry Australia CEW, Woman leader in STEM Scholarship (6 April 2023)

CEW & Roberta Sykes Indigenous Education Foundation Scholarships (December 2022)

Queensland University of Technology Women in Engineering Scholarship (October 2022) plus further support programs for female students at QUT is described here. I have written to QUT seeking their justification for running these programs.

Enhance your career with a leadership development scholarship (August 2022)

A scholarship for women working in Indonesian International Trade (2022)

@MediaDiverseAU is calling for expressions of interest from mid-career, women journalists of First Nations/CALD backgrounds to undertake a 12-month program to help pave a pathway for them into leadership roles (May 2022)

Resistance is rising to woke colleges’ race and sex discrimination (24 March 2022) And look what’s happening in America now. Bring it on.

Chief Executive Women scholarships for 2022

Women in STEM tackle barriers to senior management roles (theage.com.au) (13 August 2021)

CQC²T Women in STEM PhD and Honours Scholarships (2021)

Countering sex discrimination at UCF (8 February 2021) Meanwhile over in the USA

According this female MRA posting on Twitter, 92% of all sex-specific scholarships are reserved for women (December 2020) USA

Single-sex scholarships singled out (6 December 2020) USA

Australian government scholarships for women/girls available in November 2020 included: Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship Round 3 (GO4391), scholarships for women in finance & economics (GO4496), and Girls academies for indigenous secondary students. No grants were restricted to male applicants.

Eindhoven University loses sex discrimination case over women-only job ads (3 July 2020) Not scholarships here, but a related issue of university employment

145 universities under federal investigation for sex discrimination against male students (27 May 2020) USA

Women-only STEM college programs under attack for male discrimination (20 August 2019) USA

92 percent of sex-specific scholarships are reserved for women, study finds (21 May 2019) USA

Trigger warning! Female CEO deviates from the IT & Women script (2 April 2018) Video

“6 out of 10 college freshman are women, so there are more and more scholarship programs and grants available that cater exclusively to women needing funding for college.” Um, aren’t demographic based scholarships/grants supposed to help the underrepresented demographic group? (Tweet dated 4 February 2022)

We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?

In two other posts within this blog I explore the concept of the gender wage gap:

How feminists misrepresent the gender ‘income gap’, and
That tired old feminist chestnut that is the ‘gender wage gap’ resurrected in Australia

Those posts found that the ‘wage gap’ is an issue that is persistently misrepresented by the feminist lobby, and that differentials in salary are generally reflective of personal choice rather than gender discrimination in the workplace.

This post explores the notion that there is a flip-side to the ‘wage gap’, that I label the gender ‘expense gap’. This concept is borne from the premise that men/boys incur significant additional expense, in comparison to women, to access or obtain various goods or services and/or to perform the role that western society demands of them.

The existence of a gender expense/cost gap is addressed in the media from time to time, but such discussions are limited to the gynocentric meme of a ‘pink tax’. Such articles, examples of which are provided below, focus on women paying more for retail products such as shavers, fashion, haircuts and sanitary products. The reality that men pay more than women for other goods/services is overlooked.

Tesco cuts price of women’s razors so they cost the same as men’s (2 January 2017) UK
NYC pharmacy introduces ‘man tax’ provoking protests which it labels ‘hate’ (14 October 2016) USA
The Pink Tax (25 August 2016) A video by ‘ShoeOnHead’ (a female MRA)
The ‘tampon tax’ is not a marginal issue – it’s the force of structural sexism at work (25 July 2016) USA
This Is How Much More It Costs To Be A Woman (2 April 2016)
Price discrimination isn’t only about pink razors (6 February 2016) UK
‘Pink tax’ angers women from New York to London (3 February 2016)
CBS News goes undercover to reveal gender price discrimination (25 January 2016)
Pink premium? There are greater problems (24 January 2016)
Britain’s ‘sexist’ high streets: How women are being charged TWICE as much as men for almost identical items (19 January 2016)
Ever heard of the ‘pink tax’? It’s real and cutting into women’s finances in a big way (30 December 2015)
Why you should always buy the men’s version of almost anything (22 December 2015)
So Who Is Responsible For The Gender Cost Gap? (23 December 2015)
Women Pay More for Everything From Birth to Death, Report Finds (23 December 2015)

‘Girl tax’: women call out being charged more by tradies, mechanics (23 March 2024)

The Gender Expense Gap is broader and more pervasive than simply retail pricing differentials, encompassing for example:

Men being required to pay more for a particular product or service than a woman for the same or similar product or service (i.e. gender discriminatory pricing). A broad range of examples can be identified including nightclub entry, membership of online dating sites, and insurance (health, life, auto, etc). Here is one such example.
Men being expected (via social convention) to meet the full cost of a given expense, e.g. a restaurant meal or a holiday, rather than the relevant expense/s being split 50/50 with their female companion
Men being forced, by law, to incur certain expenses that would either not be incurred by women, or would only rarely be incurred by them, e.g. payment of alimony or spousal support
Men being unable to avoid particular expenses (without a penalty being applied), that women in the same circumstances would or could avoid (e.g. in the US, women are less likely to meet their commitments to pay child support, and less likely to be penalised for doing so)
Men being denied compensation or financial support that would, in the case of women, offset costs incurred by them. Consider for example discounts or financial incentives or external funding support denied to men but available to women, e.g. scholarships and educational grants (example), sanitary products, superannuation top-up payments (here and here), maternity leave, and rebates or tax reductions for female-owned business start-ups.

How might we also, for example, assign a financial cost to factors such as workplace deaths (overwhelming affecting men), and the health impacts of reduced medical research/treatment (whereby the government spends a pittance on men/boys relative to women/girls).

This is a most challenging task as far as economic analysis goes, but nevertheless ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’. A related reddit discussion thread can be found here.

Let’s look now at some of the specific factors that might be considered:

Courtship expenses and celebratory days

Men are still expected to subsidise most of the costs associated with courtship. The issue of who pays for dates is addressed in another blog post. One of the articles listed there is ‘Why women should never go halves on a date’ (27 November 2014).

Men are also expected to spend more on celebratory days, for e.g. birthdays, Mothers Day and Valentines Day, than are women.

‘I told my husband not to buy me a Christmas present – I’m fuming that he actually isn’t’ (21 December 2022)

Men, if you’re guilty of this, your wife will probably leave you (4 December 2023) Gee, wouldn’t it be interesting to read the husband’s version of events? But you never will, of course.

The Fathers Day spending deficit is addressed here, but some related articles include:

The Father’s Day spending gap: Why does mom always win? (10 May 2015)

Less spent of Father’s Day gifts than Mother’s Day gifts (6 September 2014)

Valentine’s Day spend twice as high for men: bank research (13 February 2017)

Valentine’s Day spending driven by single men in search for love (12 February 2015)

Valentines Day, by the numbers (14 February 2013)

Why Are Some Men Such Awkward Gift Givers? Let Them Explain (5 December 2016) USA. Talk about ‘look a gift horse in the mouth’! On that note see also “Men are also pretty useless at buying gifts in general”

Older men charged more for using Tinder’s premium service, Choice mystery shoppers find (12 August 2020) Five times more!

And on a lighter note, see If girls proposed to guys (Video)

Marriage and co-habitation

Although times are certainly changing, men typically remain the primary breadwinner in the family and are responsible for supporting most/all of the living expenses of their spouse and children. Men are also likely to bring considerably more assets into the marriage than are women. Woman however still typically remain in charge of making most of the decisions regarding the expenditure of household income.

WA de facto couples will be able to split super if relationship breaks down (25 October 2018) Men typically bring significantly more assets into a relationship, but the fact that they might take out more is “fundamentally unfair” … gynocentric much?

Is this the new normal? Women who live on a weekly ‘allowance’ from their husbands (7 May 2017)

New research reveals females control the household budget (27 November 2015)

‘I get a wife bonus — and I deserve it’ (29 May 2015)

Women who out-earn their husbands are also more likely to make money decisions for the family (17 March 2015)

New fathers must have same pay rights as mothers, says Nick Clegg, who vows to smash ‘Edwardian’ view on raising children (20 October 2014)

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/diversity/17spending.pdf

Men make more, women decide how to spend it (11 May 2012)

I declare the gender pay gap to be a truly dead and gone issue (27 April 2014)

The following quote addresses the average differential between earning and spending in male/female households:

“Men earn 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of domestic spending. Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In contrast women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending, women on average spend 90% more money that they earn. Men are exploited as cash machines and even with spending on children accounted for women still spend more money on themselves than the combined spending for men and children.” (Source)

Divorce/Separation, incl. spousal/partner/child support and alimony

Sources addressing the issue of spousal maintenance/alimony can be found in this other blog post, but some examples are provided below.

Paying child-support for a non-biological child (5 March 2018)

Rosenblum: As times change, should alimony change, too? (25 March 2016)

Afeni Shakur And Whether Or Not Men Deserve Alimony (18 March 2016) USA

Group pushes male-dominated S.C. Legislature to change permanent alimony law (1 March 2016) USA

Report: NJ woman sued for writing ‘bum’ and ‘loser’ on ex-spouse’s alimony checks (19 December 2015) More on this case in this discussion thread and linked article

Breadwinning Women Are Driving Alimony Reform (18 November 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Even though 37% of women earn more money than their husbands, only 3% of divorced men receive alimony (30 June 2015) Reddit discussion thread

Retired farmer must pay more in alimony than monthly income, Nebraska Supreme Court rules (27 June 2015)

Are Moms Less Likely Than Dads To Pay Child Support? (26 February 2015)

Divorced wife told to get a job and stop living off her ex-husband (23 February 2015)

Deadbeat moms? Should mothers be required to pay child support? (20 April 2014) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Jail Becomes Home for Husband Stuck With Lifetime Alimony (27 August 2013)

Woman sues ex-husband for a share of wealth he made years after they divorced (9 December 2014)

Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony? (20 November 2014) USA

Working woman in /r/legaladvice divorcing and is horrified that she has to give part-time-working ex-husband half her assets (15 November 2014)

Ex-wife of US oil baron to appeal $1 billion divorce award (13 November 2014)

Halle Berry’s Child-Support Fight: Female Breadwinners Can’t Have It Both Ways (20 October 2014)

Businessman is ordered to pay £28,500 to ex-girlfriend in landmark court ruling because he led her to believe he would look after her for life (17 October 2014)

Veteran chooses jail over giving his disability money to ex-wife (17 September 2014)

Alimony is broken – But let’s not fix it (1 September 2014)

Cost of education (esp. regarding the availability of financial support via government or university grants or discounts for example)

Critics Tell Young Men that Their Penises are NOT Golden (But They Are) (15 September 2022) by Janice Fiamengo. Recommended reading

Biden touts freeze on collections of $1.14m student loans (30 March 2021) USA. But let’s not say what percentage of those loans were to women, because that might seem like more #GenderEqualityWhenItSuits

According this female MRA posting on Twitter, 92% of all sex-specific scholarships are reserved for women (December 2020) USA

145 universities under federal investigation for sex discrimination against male students (27 May 2020) USA

Growing debate whether Title IX should help male students excluded by female-only programs (7 May 2020) USA

UN Women Australia MBA scholarship (May 2020) Each scholarship is worth $60,000 – available at the University of Sydney Business School. I have since written to relevant agencies about this matter, details regarding which can be found in this post.

Pell’s 6-Billion Dollar Gender Gap (1 March 2020)

Male Title IX activist expelled after “feminist witch-hunt” (12 November 2019) USA

Veteran of anti-male discrimination lawsuits SOUNDS OFF after study shows disproportionate female-only scholarships (26 August 2019)

ICRAR Visiting Fellowship for senior women in Astronomy (July 2019) Some previous fellowship recipients here.

Widespread sex discrimination found in college scholarship programs (18 May 2019) USA

Among 1,161 sex-specific scholarships, 91.6% were reserved for female students, with only 8.4% designated for male students.

Sydney University partners with UN Women Australia to offer women-only scholarships (March 2019)

Jordan Peterson, dozens of academics attack Ivy League anti-male bias (8 February 2019)

New data shows women now surpassing men in STEM fields (3 December 2018) USA. And then read this paper (2 March 2019)

The Science Ambassador Scholarship (December 2018) USA

Anti-male discrimination complaint gets UMN to change scholarship rules (2 November 2018)

Scholarship funding available for women working in the horticulture sector (28 September 2018)

Scholarships for Women in Male-Dominated Industries (12 September 2018)

Scholarships for ‘Board Ready’ Women in the Disability Sector (30 June 2017)

Sydney University defends new scholarship that favours men as ‘consistent with diversity’ (8 February 2017) Feminists lose it when a university faculty applies the same logic to attract more male students, and cry ‘sexism!’

Storm over Shami’s £500,000 to help girls get degrees … (4 January 2017) UK

Women in MBA Scholarship: 30 full rides. There are no men in biology or men in elementary education scholarships (23 September 2016) Australia

VCAT green light will let Ivanhoe Grammar School offer more places to girls (11 August 2016) Australia

“The decision [to escape provisions of sex discrimination legislation] will allow Ivanhoe Grammar to target female students in its advertising and to offer sweeteners to attract girls, including “scholarship and bursary assistance”.”

UN Women National Committee Australia MBA Scholarship (April 2016) Just one example – how many more like this?

There are four times as many scholarships for females as there are for males (28 February 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

“It would be bad enough that men are continuously shamed for earning more than women, and told that because women get better grades in easier subjects, that women are more intelligent (SourceFed, 2014) or motivated (Lewin, 2006). However, women are also given disproportionate financial aid to attend college, even though they are now a sizeable majority of college students compared to men. While data is difficult to find, using the University of Oklahoma as an anecdotal example, in 2007 women received 78% of scholarships, and between the years of 2008 -2013 women received 89%, 77%, 68%, 94%, 92%, and 100% respectively (OU SLIS, 2013).

Government grants are another major source of funding for women wishing to attend college. There are numerous resources available created specifically for women (Scholarships for Women), but none specifically for men, unless you count athletic scholarships, which are a sticking point with Feminist activists who resent that female athletics lose money while male athletics make money for colleges (Bloomberg News, 2011). It seems fans aren’t interested in paying to watch female athletes perform at the level of a male high school junior varsity team. However, if you put athletics aside, and focus only on the resources available to help men obtain college degrees, those resources are sorely lacking, while money is being thrown at women who are wasting it on Liberal Arts degrees instead of STEM.” (Source)