MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Women-only scholarships discriminate against men

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education — JohnPotter @ 10:12 pm Tue 22nd July 2008

Last weekend’s Sunday Star Times reported that Victoria University Institute of Policy Studies senior researcher Dr Paul Callister has asked the Human Rights Commission if women-only scholarships breach human rights laws: Women-only scholarships under spotlight

“Historically, women-only scholarships were justified, but now they aren’t disadvantaged in education. My view is these scholarships are discriminatory now because we’re past the point of needing special treatment for getting women into universities and degrees,” Callister told the Sunday Star-Times.

Instead, he believed women-only scholarships should be made gender- neutral so anyone in need could apply. “Gender is no longer the clear marker of disadvantage that it once was.”

On Monday, Analiese Jackson, National Women’s Rights Officer of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) claimed that women-only scholarships are still justified. She asks:

“How do you determine that equality has been achieved?”


  1. Well she would say that , wouldn’t she …….

    Comment by Perseus — Tue 22nd July 2008 @ 10:23 pm

  2. “How do you determine that equality has been achieved?”

    Well it’s pretty obvious that if women make up the majority of students and the majority of graduates, then equality has not only been achieved, but surpassed.

    This rather obvious conclusion is currently being obfuscated by American feminists who are now insisting on ‘equal’ representation in the hard sciences and at post-graduate level.

    It’s a tactic designed to draw attention away from the wider question of whether women-centric education, funding and scholarships should be allowed to continue as they are.

    If one is an adherent to the belief that government policy has been useful in ‘equalising the sexes’, one would now be compelled to argue a case for men-only scholarships right across the board, except for those very few areas where men still make up a majority.

    But I’m not that sort of person, so I’ll leave it to those who really believe.

    Comment by Rob Case — Thu 24th July 2008 @ 4:43 pm

  3. Excellent post.

    It really brings the reality into the open.

    You can never tell when you have equality when 2 things are so different.

    I am sure that societies have screwed up things since societies started but this was and is something that can never end until everything is destroyed.

    Comment by julie — Sun 3rd August 2008 @ 11:45 am

  4. The Poverty of Feminism
    I have three main objections to feminism.

    1 The political territory which feminism claims to occupy is already covered by classical liberalism. We already have perfectly good theories about human rights and civil rights and political equality, and we just don’t need another one. Under a liberal reading, women are no different from anybody else: there isn’t really any such thing as ‘women’s rights’, any more than ‘left-handed people’s rights’.

    2 The intellectual quality of the analysis offered by feminists is desperately poor. Feminists have appropriated the domain of sexual politics for themselves. ‘We are the authority on this matter’, they claim, ‘if you want to know about sexual politics, come to us, and we will tell you what to think. Your opinions are not welcome’. Not only is this a deeply authoritarian attitude, which should arouse our hostility in itself, but having seized power in this area, they have, from society’s point of view, done a spectacularly poor job. Surely the first task of any such organisation would be to produce an analysis, a model of the task domain. Yet not only is feminism’s analysis of sexual relations pathetically inadequate, it is, even worse, dangerously misleading, dogmatic, self-serving and divisive.

    3 They are not fulfilling their responsibilities to society. Surely, the role of any organisation which claims to address problems in sexual politics should be, first and foremost, to act as an honest broker. Feminists should be the UN peacekeepers of the sexual landscape, the impartial police who arbitrate in disputes, who identify potential sources of conflict and pour oil on troubled waters. The primary role of any such organisation should surely be to promote harmony, good relations and communication between the sexes. Yet feminists do precisely the opposite. Far from impartial, they act only in their own narrow interests, they regard men as an enemy to be defeated, they stir up hatred and moral panic at every opportunity. They are not police but vigilantes.

    Forever married to the outdated Marxist and Psychoanalytic dogmas of the late 1960s, their analysis of issues can never improve. The 1960s counter-culture produced an outlook on life which is deeply anti-social and maladjusted to say the least.

    The society in which we grew up, the safest, wealthiest, healthiest and most liberal society in history, is regarded as the root of all evil in the world. The whole society in which we live, our own culture, must be completely razed to the ground. Only then can we rebuild a New Jerusalem from the ashes. To say that this is an irrational belief is putting it mildly. Revolutionary politics is misleading and pessimistic, because it teaches us that social reform is impossible. We cannot change anything unless we change everything. Yet that is the political outlook, derived from the most unsavoury role models, Marx, Lenin and Mao, that the hippies of the 1960s adopted.

    Feminism is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of that totalitarian thinking. Feminists have concentrated their efforts on attacking marriage, the family, heterosexuality and men in general. The fact that they think women’s interests will be served by this indicates just how deeply deluded they are.

    Coupled with this destructive and irrational hatred of one’s own culture was a peculiar narcissism. Experimentation with ‘alternative lifestyles’ was probably inevitable once a sufficiently wealthy and liberal society appeared. The data is now in, and the results are deeply unedifying. What the 1968 generation — the last surviving remnant of which is the feminist movement – gave us was widespread social collapse. Divorce, fatherlessness, family breakdown, abortion, crime, drug abuse, child neglect, sexually transmitted infections, personal heartbreak, educational failure. Single-parent households living off public funds, leading to an increase in traffic, pollution, housing shortage, taxation and the intrusive power of the State.

    The feminist movement has served the short-term selfish interests of middle-class white women, but its effects on the wider society have been catastrophic. They are under the delusion that they are trying to save a misguided world from its own folly. The arrogance of this position is stunning.

    There are several reasons why feminist theory is so intellectually bankrupt. One cause is an inherent left-wing distrust of the establishment. Any theorizing done by the male establishment must be rejected. Thus, science and logic cannot be pursued in any honest way. Aspects of mainstream science and philosophy will be appropriated (and then arbitrarily dropped) if they happen to suit short-term political convenience, but that is all.

    The second factor is that women are very socially-focused creatures. I know from my own experience that men will discuss science, economics, history and philosophy, but women only ever talk about themselves and other people. They find men’s conversation on these subjects boring and geeky. They concern themselves with the minutiae of personal relationships, almost to the exclusion of all else. This tends to militate against any kind of large-scale theorizing, which the feminist project requires.

    A second outcome from this preoccupation with social issues is a desire to fit in and be accepted. This tends to mean that women will latch onto any passing fad or trend. Most of the feminists I have known in my life are interested in every kind of mysticism from astrology to reiki to homeopathy. It’s easier and more fun than reading evolutionary psychology. With a lack of intellectual rigour and a desire to be trendy and popular, every kind of nonsense is actively embraced. This tends to make for very poor theory. Post-modernism comes to the rescue by claiming that every theory is just as good as every other, a notion as intellectually bankrupt as it is possible to get.

    Thirdly, there is the dogmatic moral arrogance of feminism. Anyone who dares to ask questions is pilloried as a misogynist. This is a deliberate tactic used to suppress debate and silence criticism. Naomi Wolf recommends that dissenters should be subjected to female psycho-social violence around the middle-class dinner table. At every social gathering, the unfortunate victim will be subjected to scorn, filthy looks and verbal abuse until they cave in and stop disagreeing with feminists. This is an openly totalitarian mindset. It is the middle-class equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. This behaviour can have real and very severe consequences, including the breakup of relationships and damage to people’s mental health. For some reason, feminists seem to think that they are immune from scrutiny or criticism. Such attitudes simply cannot be accepted in a democracy.

    Lastly, feminism is a modern-day religion, and its adherents act like any other religious believers. They dare not question the Holy Writ for fear of excommunication. They hold established religious ideas in sacred reverence. Anyone who does not do so is a heretic or an infidel. They create cults of personality around significant past leaders, whose wisdom cannot be questioned. This religious mindset is anathema to free intellectual enquiry, which, again, makes for very poor theory. Once a bad idea has become established, it is very difficult to displace it.

    Feminists are not fulfilling their responsibilities towards the wider society because they simply do not believe that they have any; they believe only that society has responsibilities towards them. I don’t have to do anything, I’m already perfect. It is a cult mindset which strokes the ego of insecure and dysfunctional women.

    It is long past the time when this bizarre cult must be openly challenged.

    Comment by KARMA — Mon 4th August 2008 @ 3:53 pm

  5. Great post thanks Karma. I agree with much that you say. Except that I don’t think it’s valid to dictate what feminist groups “should” be and do; that’s up to them. We know plenty about what they are and do, and you very eloquently summarise a some of it.

    Also, the hippie culture had some strengths such as a commitment to peace, liberty and not automatically accepting orthodoxy or authoritarian control. Its extreme version was perhaps overly revolutionary and destructive, but in practice it was a movement that encouraged western understanding in many important areas including conservation, pacificism, respect for viewpoints from other cultures and perspectives.

    Feminism also brought many desirable developments in enabling women to contribute as possible rather than only according to tradition. Its original aim of equality between the genders seemed benign, but of course it has moved far beyond that now.

    Feminism may be a cult but it has also captured the belief system of much of the western world. Even most men automatically accept the validity of male-blaming and male-demeaning propaganda. Yes, it’s long past time for challenge and good on you for being one of those lifting the veil from people’s eyes. We need to work fast; political developments are already making it increasingly dangerous to speak up against the feminist machine. Anti-terrorism laws, rapidly increasing powers for police and all manner of other state agents, the Electoral Finance Act, protection order legislation and its legitimizing the radical abandonment of basic principles of justice, can all be used against men and groups who dare to challenge the new power base.

    I greatly look forward to hearing more from you.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 11th August 2008 @ 12:30 am

  6. Hi guys, sorry but i just have to say i watched a bit ot that nanny programme today and the mother had a pig living in the house, the children were eating pig food, drinking out of the toilet and things i dont even want to think about, i cant see a woman getting a scholarship when it comes to being a mother, and i know of other woman not much better unfortunatly

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Mon 11th August 2008 @ 3:24 pm

  7. I am with National, once your children start school you get up in the morning and go to work, none of this sitting around on the benefit shit, i myself think a lot of people will die as they wouldnt know how to work and if you dont work you cant pay rent or bills, bring it on national, you have my vote

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Mon 11th August 2008 @ 5:59 pm

  8. Hadi,
    There is a place for benifits – However I agree if one can work – One should – There are many one the DPB that can work – My Sons Mother has managed to get the DPB from his birth till now and he is very near 13 – She is so sick she can walk from Beach Haven to Highbury and back most days – While I work 3 hours a day – Come home stuffed most days due to Heart and reflux hassles and have Equal Parented my Son most of that time with NO help from WINZ

    Many a benefit is about supporting Women not Children and certainly NOT Men

    Men are so arrogant as a bunch they have not the forsight or guts to stand for those needing help and apposing those who don’t

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 11th August 2008 @ 7:47 pm

  9. Hi Jim, thats right, and i dont want to sound judgemental but it is mainly woman that are at home on the dpb and once their youngest starts school they will go out and fuck some other poor mans life and drag another poor little baby into the world just so they can lie around and get paid for it

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Mon 11th August 2008 @ 7:56 pm

  10. Hi Hadi
    You said you’re with National.
    Do you really believe everything that John Key says?
    He said his family had it tough after his father died but what he didn’t say was that his parents were seperated when his father died.His mother was a solo parent who would have been on the DPB too had it been around in those days.
    Now our John likes to think that he is somewhat superior to other ‘kids’ who were raised on benefits.

    Comment by rosie — Mon 11th August 2008 @ 8:14 pm

  11. He knows too that he is one of the lucky New Zealanders who has hoards of money put aside for a rainy day.If he is unfortunate enough to suffer an illness like cancer,he won’t need to apply for a sickness or a disability benefit to survive.
    ‘To hell with the rest of them’ is his motto.
    I think he expects people who are unwell to work until the day they die.

    Comment by rosie — Mon 11th August 2008 @ 8:40 pm

  12. Hi Rosie, i will be honest i hate every one of those mutha f-ckas but i prefer John to Helen and i am not sure about Winston, who else is there Don Brash, Michael Cullen, Ruth Dyson, Benson Pope, i mean really, unless you or one of these other decent people on this blog run for prime minister i have no choice, i must say whoever does run this country has to take a little power from cypfs, caregivers and many woman

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Mon 11th August 2008 @ 8:57 pm

  13. Yeah, bring it on National. They have made it clear they will sock it to deadbeat dads and have no intention of making the dishonest child support (read spousal support) system fairer or better for father-child relationships. They supported the looney Bradford Bill and have no interest in repealing it. They promise to spend tens of millions on unnecessarily prolonged Herceptin treatment allowing many other people to die because their drugs were not funded, simply because this will court the women’s vote. They have not yet announced a single male-friendly policy and have shown no awareness or interest in men’s issues or welfare. While National might come up with the odd policy that deserves support, you can be sure men won’t be in the slightest bit relieved from their distress and enslavement under this self-interested National lineup if it becomes government.

    Beneficiary bashing policies will do nothing to keep families together, it will simply make life more difficult for the current victims of the unfortunate family-destroying fashion promoted by government policy. National have not announced any policy that will reduce the easy availability of the DPB in the first place. This entices people to become pregnant in the absence of any secure relationship or nest and to trash their children’s family units when the going gets tough rather than to maintain loyalty and commitment. National’s recourse to tired old “make life harder for beneficiaries” policies shows it has no understanding of the ways government has been damaging our society.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 12th August 2008 @ 12:48 am

  14. Hi Hans, you just put me off this country, if National are as bad as you guys say and Labour are just complete scum then what do we do? I would vote for Brian Tamaki if he was going up for election otherwise i wont vote at all and just hope and pray you people do the right thing, Kevin Rudd sounds promising

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Tue 12th August 2008 @ 9:51 am

  15. Hadi – Haven’t you heard about the Republic of NZ Party, the only party with policies recognizing men’s issues?

    Comment by blamemenforall — Tue 12th August 2008 @ 2:01 pm

  16. Hi blamemenforall, No sorry i havent heard of them but if they recognize mens issues then of course i will vote for them, and i hope all of you do too, thanks for that

    Comment by Hadi Akbari — Tue 12th August 2008 @ 2:20 pm

  17. True, when I was in my teens I thought feminism was a great idea, later in life I noticed their words and actions often did not match, this seems to happen in most ISM’S, I guess that is the problem when people are blind to reality.I would suggest that if people knew that Hitler or Stalin where going to murder millions that people might have looked passed the empty promises and thought twice.

    Feminism is not all bad, but they talk about equality but at best only pay lip service to men’s issues.Often when you bring up women behaving badly they go berserk, call names and insults, or start a pissing contest about who is worse men or women.Bad women does not fit in with the
    “all men bad all women good model” having said that not all of them are like this. How can
    any group claim to be about equality then ignore half the population, or at the least only see the bad and ignore the good?How?

    Why has feminism happened? One word – technology – not just the efforts of feminists, take away the power grid, cars, telecommunications, mains gas, mains water, birth control, etc feminism would not have a hope in hell, if technology did not progress at such a rate things would still be the same as they where thousands of years ago.Hence it did not happen thousands of years ago.

    Feminists only see what they want to see.

    If they are serious about equality they would canvass all issues regardless of, gender, age, race
    etc etc.

    It is a shame but oh well. Them’s the breaks…

    Comment by KARMA — Thu 26th March 2009 @ 11:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar