tax – Prawn of the Patriarchy

On taxation and the ‘Female Economy’

It would appear that women are, on average, net beneficiaries of the tax system in most western countries – and by a large margin.

Firstly the contribution to the government’s tax revenue paid by women is dwarfed by that amount contributed by men. This is a reflection, in part, of the gender pay (earnings) gap that feminists are forever banging on about. And for the uninitiated, that gap primarily reflects personal choices rather than active gender discrimination by employers.

Secondly, of that government expenditure that can be seen to benefit one gender over the other, women/girls do extremely well in comparison to government allocations to men/boys.

The discrepancy between the amount of tax revenue contributed by men in Australia, and the extent to which the government invests in agencies/programs supporting men & boys is addressed in another blog post.

This is the result of, and is reflected in, the level of utter difference or even contempt demonstrated by most politicians towards men and their issues.

I anticipate readers asking ‘well, ok then, point me to definitive statistics to support your assertion’. But, alas, that’s not as easy as it should be. Some statistics for other countries are referenced in the articles below (example), but in Australia one would have to compile such statistics from scratch. This would constitute an onerous task for anyone as I state in a post mentioned earlier. This data gap is no accident, for most politicians and bureaucrats either don’t care or would prefer such information to not be made available. Groups like the Australian Research Council should do something about it. I mean something positive. For a change.

The same situation applies in relation to exploring the gender divide for many other issues. If you seek data that supports a position of male culpability or female disadvantage, information abounds. With regards to examining alternative perspectives, however, the reverse applies. It was once a case of the relevant information being available but well-hidden. Now, more and more, researchers simply elect not to ask the relevant questions.

One indicator of the gender expenditure gap however is the large number of government and non-government organisations formulating policy and/or providing services to women and girls (in contrast to few/none for men/boys). See also these two posts in relation to funding for feminist advocacy groups (post #1 / post #2). The gender expenditure gap is now even reflected in Australia’s allocation towards foreign aid.

And yet despite this gender tax/support gap, this feminist scholar is probably not alone in proposing that women shouldn’t be taxed at all.

A selection of related articles/papers:

Aussie women have revealed how much money they really have saved (22 November 2023)

The Malicious Lie of Women’s “Economic Inequality” (1 August 2022)

Inconvenient truths about impoverished women and privileged men, by Bettina Arndt (11 April 2021)

Coronavirus Australia: Blokes big winners under tax cut plan but women get screwed (16 September 2020) Oh, but let’s overlook a few issues that would undermine the feminist narrative …

Interesting and informative Twitter discussion thread regarding the male/female economy (9 April 2020) Contributors include @lesliejmarshall, @ABinning, and @AlastairHaines

Young women are turning their back on sharing wealth with their partner, survey reveals (22 July 2019) UK

Marriage is still the main way for women to get rich: study (21 February 2019)

Right-wing trolls report online sex workers to tax authorities in #ThotAudit (26 November 2018) Be sure to read all manner of initial outraged comments on Twitter, and then check out (for example) related threads by Roosh (@rooshv)

There are more female billionaires in the world, mostly thanks to inheritance (18 May 2018)

It’s true: Only men pay tax (27 April 2018)

The relationship between taxation and the Gender Pay Gap (17 November 2017)

India considers introducing a lower rate of tax for single women – and many other financial benefits (7 May 2017)

Jordan Holbrook: Men pay £75 billion more tax than women every year (28 March 2017)

2014/15 – the income tax gender gap increased again… to £75.5 BILLION (24 March 2017) UK

Men use retirement money 3x less but pay the same retirement taxes (5 March 2017) Reddit discussion thread

“The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs” B. Alemayehu and KE Warner. Health Serv. Res. (2004) A March 2017 Reddit discussion thread and linked paper

Will You Pay The Bill For The Coming Spinster Bubble? (10 January 2017)

“Income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: some evidence from New Zealand” O. Aziz, N. Gemmell, and A. Laws, Review of Income and Wealth (2015) A November 2016 Reddit discussion thread and linked paper

Only men pay taxes (8 October 2016) Video

Reblog: Research find that as a group, only men pay tax (16 August 2016)

Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax (10 August 2016)

2012/13 – the income tax gender gap increased AGAIN… to £69,000,000,000 (20 June 2015)

The ‘Pole Tax’ on men is why I’m not voting tomorrow (6 May 2015) U.K

The ‘benefits gap’ — a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI) An October 2014 Reddit discussion thread with links to relevant Social Security Administration data sources

Women’s share of income tax payments declines (2011/12 v 2010/11) (20 August 2014)

Divorce helps fuel rise in female multi-millionaires (19 May 2014)

More than 100 women now on Rich List – but just TWO have made their own fortunes and most have inherited or won millions from divorce (19 May 2014)

British men pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK, women only 28%. So why does the state relentlessly assault men and boys, whilst advantaging women and girls? (1 April 2014)

The distribution of income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: Some evidence from New Zealand (7 January 2014)

Are women paying 60% less income tax than men? (8 February 2013)

It’s true: only men pay tax (undated) by Janet Bloomfield

The Female Economy

Feminists rage about the desperate personal privations that women suffer a result of the gender wage gap, whilst demanding all manner of financial support. At the same time, however, others gloat (without a hint of irony) about the financial strength of women collectively. Go figure.

Charlotte Ree on ‘two conditions’ her husband set before marriage (10 June 2023) Now swap the genders – she wouldn’t be controlling. She would be brave and fair and responsible.

The female economy: Untapped market worth $28 trillion (29 November 2017)

Women in the Economy II – How Implementing a Women’s Economic Empowerment Agenda Can Shape the Global Economy (2017) A report by Citi

The next economic boom could come from women (12 September 2017)

Men or Women: Who Has the Most Buying Power and Why? (13 March 2014)

Marketing to Women: Surprising Stats Show Purchasing Power & Influence (27 July 2012)

The Female Economy (September 2009) and She-conomy (April 2010)

Women want more: How to capture your share of the world’s largest, fastest growing market (September 2009)

Re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement in Australia? Bring it on, but consider men too

In an earlier blog post I briefly examined a number of pro-feminist organisations in Australia, noting (in part) the extent of public funding received by each. My post on the Domestic Violence Industry also identified another substantial sump for both government funding and private donations.

Despite the fact that I only scratched the surface in relation to identifying such organisations, the extent of state and federal funding involved already amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone could tally up all the public funds that are directed towards the welfare of women/girls? And then go through a similar exercise in relation to funding for men/boys. To what extent do you think the two amounts would be comparable?

Well, until 2013 the Australian federal government did something a little similar. It was called the Women’s Budget Statement. I’m not sure why it was terminated, but perhaps it was found that the data it provided was unreliable and/or otherwise unhelpful in comparison to the annual cost of compiling the Statement. Another possibility was that it identified so much expenditure directed towards women that it’s value as a sop to the feminist lobby was eclipsed by the potential it posed for an angry voter backlash.

(Newsflash: It’s back … Women’s Budget Statement 2021-22), Budget Statement 2022-23 and 2023-24)

In Wales (U.K) someone did the maths and found that women’s groups/causes were handed 77 times as much funding as were men’s groups/causes.

By way of background here are some links to historical information concerning the previous version/s of the Women’s Budget Statement:

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/grb_sharpbroomhill_australia_updf_final_copy_copy.pdf

http://www.gender-budgets.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=112

http://apo.org.au/research/budget-2014-15-gender-lens

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2013/dfh035_13_budget_tagged.pdf (Women’s Budget Highlights as mentioned in this article)

What prompted me to write this post today was the publication of ‘Gender neutral policies are a myth: why we need a women’s budget‘, by academic Miranda Stewart. I would recommend taking a moment now to read that article and the readers comments that follow it (or at least those that were not removed by the moderator).

Miranda thinks that the community would benefit from the re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement. The author justifies this gynocentric bias, at least in part, on the existence of the much-discredited gender pay gap. I believe it would be far more equitable and effective (as a policy development tool) if there was one combined document that considered the impact of federal expenditure on both men and women.

Another point of difference between what Miranda has in mind, and what I envisage, relates to the nature of the information provided. Miranda wants to see an assessment of the economic impact, on women, of a wide range of government policies. I am not convinced how accurately such impacts could be assessed, nor to the extent it could be kept free of the gender bias and ideological tweaking that is now rampant across the Australia public service.

I would be satisfied with something simpler, merely a listing of specific programs or allocations that were directed towards (or could be determined to benefit) alternately either boys/men or girls/women. This in itself would be a difficult task, as many such allocations are hidden, for example, deep within departmental budgets.

In other cases, allocations which would appear to be gender-neutral could be determined on closer analysis to strongly favor one gender in relation to the other. An example of this would be funding for the Australian Human Rights Commission.

This suggestion is noted in another article (refer point 5), although I think Claire Moore, Shadow Minister for Women, probably has different priorities in mind.

So where would one make a start on creating such a spreadsheet? Well I’ve already mentioned the various organisations listed in my blog post about misandric agencies. We could expand that initial list by considering each of the members of the Equality Rights Alliance, Australia’s largest network of organisations with an interest in advancing women’s equality. From then on it would be a matter of relentless burrowing through budget papers seeking relevant allocations.

The intention would be to combine the total funding received by each organisation and compare that figure with total annual funding for boys/men’s groups and issues. Although larger in magnitude I imagine that the women’s budget would be somewhat easier to compile given that there are specific ministries and sections with agencies that deal with women’s issues.

I would wager that there is absolutely no chance that the expenditure ratio would match the ratio of males/females in the Australian population, with an overwhelming bias towards the welfare of girls/women.

As an aside bear in mind that men, both individually and through the corporate entities they own, contribute far more than 50% of the government’s income. Click across to this blog post and scroll down to ‘taxation’ to see some relevant sources. Would it not be more equitable if the default setting was that half of government expenditure was subsequently utilised to support the interests/welfare of men and boys?

I believe that such a process of financial analysis would not only identify a massive and inequitable gendered imbalance in government funding, but it would also identify enormous waste and duplication. I wonder just how many indulgences like this are out there waiting to be uncovered?

If I am correct and there is a substantial favouring of females over males, how can this be justified? Barring the absence of incontrovertible evidence of overwhelmingly greater need, across the board, this would be indicative of neither gender equality nor prudent governance.

Certainly priority should be given to the area/s of greatest genuine need. And of course there will be areas where women’s needs are greater than mens (and vice versa). Thus note that I am not suggesting for a moment that one would seek to religiously apply a 50% split to every government program in Australia.

But humor me and suppose that a detailed and objective analysis did find that vastly more support was accorded to women/girls across all of government? And that meanwhile funding was urgently required to meet the demonstrated needs of men/boys?

Let’s find out. Otherwise, sorry, not good enough. Not by a long shot.

See also:

‘Gender responsive budgeting‘. Latest material from the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (November 2023)

The Australian Government’s Women’s Budget Statement 2023-24 intentionally erased the one third of victims of intimate partner violence who are male (May 2023) Tweet issued by the One in Three group.

$2.1 Billion Budget Package for Women and Girls (30 March 2022)

Federal budget: Katy Gallagher announces abolition of ‘pretty punitive’ ParentsNext program (5 May 2023) “What Katy Gallagher has declared as the best federal budget for women in more than 40 years“. And for men/boys? The sound of crickets.

Is it time Australia had a Men’s Budget? (28 October 2022)

The women’s budget is headed in the right direction. But the policies still need work and The women’s budget statement signals a massive shift in how federal budgets are formulated and framed (26 October 2022)

Budget details released on 25 October 2022, with a plethora of programs for women. The word ‘men’ does not appear once in this statement, but #GenderEquality! … blow whistle and wave streamers, blah blah.

Women’s Budget Statement 2022/23 (29 March 2022) and Creating opportunities for women to fulfill their potential

Grants and Funding – Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet – An example of one of almost countless sources of public funding for feminists and other women (November 2021)

2021-labor-womens-budget-statement.pdf (alp.org.au)

Dear Josh, here’s what women really want from the budget (3 May 2021) “Last year’s budget was widely criticised for leaving women behind“. Really? Not by anyone I know, that’s for darn sure.

Now even the budget is a tool of the Coalition’s evil oppression of women. Apparently … (23 April 2021)

‘Gender ignorant’ treasurers leave Australia lagging behind in women’s equality, equity advocate says | Gender | The Guardian (29 January 2021) Read about the feminist version of reality

Backing Aussie startups owned and led by women (7 December 2020)

ICMI20: Eccentrik Hat – “Why Men Need Help And Why Feminism Won’t Help Them” – YouTube (18 November 2020) Hello!

Payne defends budget measures as gender neutral (19 October 2020)

Some information posted on Twitter about provision for women in the 2020 budget

Treasurer, a tiny $240 million for ‘women’s economic security’ is insulting (6 October 2020) Another typical feminist article that makes no effort to provide context for the claims made based on a comparative analysis of benefits solely for men & boys.

Each budget used to have a gender impact statement. We need it back, especially now (30 September 2020)

Who’ll most benefit from tax cuts? Rich men. We need gender-responsive budgeting, now (16 September 2020) And once again, ‘applying the gender lens’ means exclusively focusing on real & imagined budgetary impacts on women

Women, older Australians were most likely to receive the Morrison government’s $750 stimulus payments (16 September 2020)

Calls for female-focused budget as women face financial ‘gender disaster’ (16 August 2020)

How the Australian Budget process is failing women (2 April 2019). Apparently we need “Gender responsive budgeting” and “women’s economic needs demand more frequent and intense intervention”. Yes, and for men/boys … well, oh, let’s not go there, right?

Women’s Economic Security Statement (19 November 2018)

“A priority for the Australian Government is to create the right economic settings for women to help them participate in work, increase their economic security and give them meaningful choices about their lives.”

The Queensland government produced a Women’s Budget Statement (6 July 2017)

Women’s group call for gender aware budget (22 May 2017) Australia. They are not calling for a “gender aware budget”, they are calling for a female-aware budget … no mention whatsoever is made of looking at the impact of the budget on men. More of the same here and here.

Gender Lens on the Budget 2017/18 (undated) Australia. We need something like this to look at the impact of the budget on men (shame this one didn’t address both genders)

Interview with Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop (24 January 2017) The financial analysis I spoke of earlier would need to encompass foreign aid, which is increasingly gender-focused towards women/girls.

Only men pay taxes (8 October 2016) Video. On the issue of the gendered impact of the current taxation regime see also this blog post

Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax (8 September 2016) Wouldn’t it be interesting to run a rigorous financial analysis here in Australia to see if the same pattern was evident?

Despite the rhetoric, this election fails the feminist test (28 June 2016), by Eva Cox

Women left behind by a budget that does little to redress inequality, by Eva Cox (5 May 2016) Well if women were left behind in the Budget Eva, what say you about men and their issues?

The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand (2013)

womensagenda.com.au/…/each-budget-used-to-have-a-gender-impact-statement-we-need-it-back-especially-now

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)