TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

HSC 2022: UTS lowers ATAR bar, boosts female enrolments | Australian university lowers academic requirements for women students. What could go wrong?

EricAllonde

November 8, 2022
426 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/university-boosts-female-enrolments-in-male-dominated-subjects-after-lowering-atar-bar-20221010-p5bomw.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title HSC 2022: UTS lowers ATAR bar, boosts female enrolments | Australian university lowers academic requirements for women students. What could go wrong?
Author

EricAllonde

Upvotes 426
Comments 151
Date November 8, 2022 7:21 AM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ype93t/hsc_2022_uts_lowers_atar_bar_boosts_female/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/hsc-2022-uts-lowers-atar-bar-boosts-female.1139411
https://theredarchive.com/post/1139411
Top posts by EricAllonde

Kathy Griffin whines about her fee for hosting NYE telecast on CNN, tries to claim gender pay gap, is firmly slapped down.

26663 upvotes
January 1, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

I'm seeing more and more of this: feminists using "mansplaining" accusations to deal with being publicly proven wrong

11347 upvotes
September 7, 2017
/r/MensRights

Female BBC manager publicly declines promotion over pay inequality | After she threw a public tantrum, it's revealed that the male manager had several years more experience than her, justifying the difference in pay. The BBC is standing firm for once - good for them!

9152 upvotes
May 22, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Who Would Win? Vidcon edition: answered

9072 upvotes
June 29, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

College tells construction crew to take down "Men Working" sign deemed 'sexist', even though it was accurate as the crew included zero women | Though women don't want to do dirty, manual labor jobs themselves, they still want to control how men do them

7812 upvotes
January 23, 2017
/r/MensRights

Looks like a great campaign to help tackle male suicide

7265 upvotes
April 24, 2018
/r/MensRights

Imagine the outrage & hysteria if an article like this was written about women: "So thirsty I could drink the pool"

5808 upvotes
August 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...

5662 upvotes
April 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 164 points165 points166 points 3 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

I guess 60% female enrolment is not enough. Do we need 60% across all courses. Did they ever stop to think that perhaps women chose not to be engineers because they preferred other options? After all that seems to be the outcome of all research in this area.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 89 points90 points91 points 3 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

And? Maybe the women would, on average, rather be doctors? Or perhaps they want an arts degree because society doesn't expect them to fend for themselves financially. Either way, the reality is that girls do better in school so dropping the ATAR makes no sense - the whole idea is just bizarre.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 66 points67 points68 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

And lowering the ATAR would help how?

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 49 points50 points51 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Again, what does this have to do with ATAR bonuses? Your logic here is fine but it is a complete non sequitur from the contents of the article.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]gigabased_anon 57 points58 points59 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Aren’t they taking the spots for more deserving people possibly who have better scores than them, who just don’t go in just because of their gender?

[–]KitsuneCreativ 33 points34 points35 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's settled then. I think we all disagree with the clear feminist.

[–]Fast-Mongoose-4989 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Boys and men arnt encouraged at all for anything.

[–]_TheDarkArtist_ 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except sports, if you’re good.

[–]Angryasfk 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re making fairly big assumptions there. Like I said, my old friend at school was good at maths, but opted to not study the higher maths classes in the end of high school even though she was capable because the profession she wanted to pursue (Law) didn’t require it. Some of the girls I knew at university had taken those courses, but wanted to pursue law, or medicine rather than physical sciences or engineering anyway. Law and medicine pay better (certainly than science) anyway, and frankly have higher social standing.

And in any case, why would this NOT apply to getting more men to study female dominated courses? You claimed that a lower ATAR requirement wouldn’t work for any of those because it’s “about getting men to apply” but somehow lowering it for women in STEM is the magic bullet that will get women to apply!

And since you claim none of this has anything to do with feminism, why do you think there is such a focus on boosting the numbers of women, and no interest at all in boosting the numbers of men?

[–]Rob__T 30 points31 points32 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

which sometimes means they aren’t coming in with the same background

Irrelevant as to the quality of the work. People should not be getting extra points for their work for any reason that has nothing to do with the actual work. If people are gonna say "Women can do anything a man can do", then suck it up and prove it. Lowering the bar of entry does the exact opposite and shows that women can't do what men do and need special privileges and concessions in the quality of work to get there.

The hope is that by the time women have shaken the societal concepts and chosen a field like engineering, they will be as capable as their male counterparts

Making it so that women can perform worse than men on average to get the same degree is never going to result in women being as capable as men, it's going to result in women who apply for the same jobs men do, and when the jobs ask for even a basic test of skill, on average men will do better simply because they had to do more quality work to make the cut.

[–]Bascome 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their feelings focus are choice are why.

If you blame others for your faults you will never solve them.

[–]jerohi 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

But it is a problem with women that don't do engineering for that reason, so why does the ppl who don't have that problem have to suffer injustice?

[+]sane_asylum -22 points-21 points-20 points 3 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Idk why you’re getting downvoted. This is an accurate representation of reality. Women don’t go into engineering because engineering is full of men who don’t understand how to play nice.

[–]Zepherite 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The field of medicine was dominated by men in the past however there are now more female doctors being trained in universities. No woman ever needed the academic requirements to be lowered. How did they manage here? Do you really believe medicine was filled with nice guys? No. It had the same predjudices inherent in any field. The only difference is women want to do it.

The only reason there are fewer women in STEM is not because it's a boys club. It''s because they don't want to do it.

Stop treating women like they're dumb and can't make their own decisions. It's incredibly sexist. Women are quite capable of succeeding academically and taking part in STEM fields if they want to.

[+]sane_asylum -18 points-17 points-16 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. Plenty of women want to be engineers but after spending time with men who are engineers decide it’s better for their long-term health and well-being to do something else because the toll it takes on a woman to be in a room full of male engineers is unreasonable. I think it is getting much better with time and slowly more women will be a part of those spaces. It’s not about capacity to do engineering, it’s about the capacity to deal with constant bullying from colleagues.

[–]kireol 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

if it's like you think it is, then women should just go make their own country if they can't handle being around men. leave.

[–]sane_asylum -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it’s pretty obvious that this is a silly argument.

[–]kireol 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So women need men, like men need women, and women need to get past their own entitlements on their own

[–]Fearless-File-3625 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I believe none of that.

[–]sane_asylum 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s fair, you are entitled to believe whatever you want.

[–]Zepherite 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No. Please don't make shit up.

There just isn't wide scale bullying of women in STEM. I have been in STEM. My family work in STEM. People bend over backwards to have women. There is no widespread sexism.

They just never turn up on the first place. They don't engage with STEM at school, or at university, or in work. They just aren't interested currently. This is across the whole western world and it gets MORE prevalent the more feminist a country is.

You have also conveniently ignored how women had no problem in medicine. Until you address that, your narrative about bullying is mute.

[–]sane_asylum -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am not making shit up. I have a different experience than you do. We can both have different experiences of reality that are accurate. I.E just because you have never seen or heard of something that I have does not mean that thing is made up. It means you haven’t heard of or seen it.

The conversation about medicine is a red herring. Medicine is one field encompassed in STEM. We can use female recruiting in medicine to help inform us about female recruiting but that does not mean all female recruiting in STEM will or can function the same as female recruiting in medicine.

[–]Zepherite 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am not making shit up.

You are. Your experiences are not the average experience. They are yours alone and represent an exception to the norm. Do not inflate your singular experience to be representative of the many. It's misguided at best and self-indulgent at worst.

The conversation about medicine is a red herring.

No. It is not. It was dominated by men, now it is not. It's a science and requires academic rigour, just like the rest of STEM. It is the perfect comparison as so much is similar between the two. Other than the fact that one holds less interest for women than the other of women's own volition.

Stop being so sexist. Allow women their agency. They are not objects acted on by men, without the backbone to go against the grain if they wanted to (and this is what you condemn women to with your low expectations). They are people who make choices, choices that may not align with your, or anyone elses, political bent.

[–]Angryasfk 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It’s because DJRhymnlight is a) supporting anti-male discrimination on a sub that opposes it, and b) claims that there is no point taking an action like this for many courses that are female dominated to boost male numbers because “men don’t apply, so this wouldn’t work”. A direct contradiction don’t you think?

[+]sane_asylum -7 points-6 points-5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Im not sure how they are supporting anti-male discrimination. They didn’t even reference the article in the post. They’re talking about social factors that contribute to why there are less women in engineering.

[–]Angryasfk 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She (only assuming Rhyme is a she) was supporting the policy. She had, in other posts, claimed that the “lowering the entrance requirement” for males in female dominated causes wouldn’t work as the issue was “getting men to apply”, but apparently lowering the entrance requirement for STEM for women will encourage more women to apply (presumably women who would have got in without the special measure). A contradictory statement, don’t you think?

Having a lower entrance requirement for women IS discrimination against male candidates. I don’t see how else you can frame it. And the article says they had to apply to the government to get a waiver from their equal opportunity law to institute it. She not only justifies this in STEM she actually opposes for men it in fields that are female dominated on the spurious grounds that it “will not work”, but gives no compelling reason why it will work in one but not the other. Have a look at the totality of the comments this person has made, and it paints a very clear picture of where they’re coming from, and it’s one that supports this policy so long as it is applied to those few remaining university degrees that still have a male majority and is not applied to men in female dominated degrees.

[–]sane_asylum 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I will absolutely take your word and assessment on what DJRhymLight has said beyond the comment I responded to. I haven’t seen anything else and won’t comment on DJRhymLight’s other posts or comments because I have not seen them.

My comment was in agreement and support of the comment this thread is attached to. Nothing more.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds like a woman problem

[–]sane_asylum 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously.

[–]rabel111 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Like women play nice? What kind of sexist pig makes broad sweeping atatements about people based only on their sex?

[–]sane_asylum 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We all know engineering is a field dominated by men. I was talking about engineering. The majority of people in engineering, who we all know are men because engineering is a male-dominated field, don’t know how to play nice.

[–]Beneficial-Tomato-99 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are two sides to this, and neither side fits w this equality of outcomes ideology. In Sweden where they have a high level of equality, so barriers are reduced, women do not choose engineering in high numbers. On the flip side, in any profession dominated by particular groups there often is bias. In tech, women sadly face a lot of harassment and abuse. There have been some sensational cases, such as Susan Fowler at Uber, but there are also many others whose accounts are not well known.

I recall at college in Silicon Valley in 1990s, which has many international students, American women were underrepresented in tech, but for Chinese, Indian, and Eastern European (slavic), there was much higher representation. In start of computers, the industry was dominated by women.

What this tells me is that there may be cultural factors that drives women's interest toward the profession. Women tend to gravitate toward professions that are people oriented if they live in a society with high level of equality. And that generally discrimination (bias) does exist in any industry dominated by one group. Also, with consideration for having family, women tend to be more practical, don't live for work. Which is ok, many of us are like that.

In any even equality of outcomes, aka equity, or affirmative action doesn't solve the problem (and it may not be a problem in the first place). Looking at a single variable, gender, is a prejudicial, as there are other variables involved in a career, promotions, and compensation.

[–]Angryasfk 106 points107 points108 points 3 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

As I’ve said time and again: feminism is lobbying for the institution of permanent discrimination against men - ALL men.

And affirmative action isn’t just “helping to get women established” in the workforce, or showing that women can do these jobs. If so it would have served it’s purpose decades ago, and certainly should have ended by 2000.

With higher education we can see the end game. Women are now the large majority overall, and the overwhelming majority in many courses. Yet not only are the “affirmative action” type programs meant to boost their numbers still in place, new ones are being put in place.

It’s only until it’s 100% women that they will say “job done”, and even then the programmes will obviously be kept.

This shows what feminism really means when it claims to be about “equality”.

(Edit: added the missing “then”)

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Angryasfk 34 points35 points36 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So feminism has nothing to do with demands for affirmative action and quotas for women in courses, employment and political representation?

Which surely means that feminism has nothing to do with women getting the vote, with the equal pay law, with women being in the workforce. Presumably it also has “nothing to do” with stuff like “no fault divorce”, with current child support laws, with the changing definition of rape, the Duluth Model and DV laws either.

Since feminism has apparently “nothing to do” with any of this, can you please explain to me what the point of feminism actually is then????

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 35 points36 points37 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Just about every institution is a feminist institution in Australia. From the article we can deduce that the anti-descrimination tribunal is as well!

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Angryasfk 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the sub-Dean (a woman, and the one in charge of admissions and student affairs) is a feminist, you do realise the “drive for more women” is very much driven by feminist activism don’t you? And feminists are very prominent in virtually all Australian universities, especially in the administration side of things.

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 32 points33 points34 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Except that there is no demonstrable evidence of a patriarchy. There is overwhelming evidence of feminist bias

[–]DJRhymeLight1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

Is the re any evidence that feminism controls every major institution? No. Obviously not.

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 32 points33 points34 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

This article provides decent evidence that it controls UTS and the anti-descrimination tribunal. So that is 2 from 2 on the institutions involved 🤔

[–]DJRhymeLight1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

there’s exactly 0 evidence that feminism controls either one. You’re just saying that because you don’t like their decisions.

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their decisions are contrived and blatantly sexist. However, beyond that, I don't give two hoots about them because I don't see why this discrimination will make any difference (because the logic behind it is so flawed). Hence I am offended by the blatant sexism and nothing else.

[–]Angryasfk 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So you don’t think that feminist lobbying has anything to do with this focus on boosting female numbers?

What do you think feminist groups actually do?

[–]DJRhymeLight1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Nothing. I think they are unable to achieve even the most basic results.

[–]_BlueShark87 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No shit, it’s why we’re all here.

[–]EricAllonde[S] 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unlike the patriarchy, feminists actually exist today.

[–]_BlueShark87 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because who else would?

[–]ohisama 29 points30 points31 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

“But the bigger problem is not getting them into undergraduate degrees but keeping them in the profession, and that is a harder challenge to tackle,”

Wonder why that is...

Based on this, now they will have further reservations and discounts in the course too.

[–]apollyoneum1 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Discounted pay. Simple. /s

[–]ThrowAway29307845034 56 points57 points58 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sexism against men? GOOD!

Sexism against women? BAD!

This is equality. You will actively support this blatantly oppressive state of affairs. Failure to do so makes you a misogynist. Pointing it out and criticizing it makes you a pedo who needs to get raped to death in prison.

#MostWesternWomen

[–]Whateverhappens001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

In a sane world, it would not be possible to lower the academic requirements, for a certain field. We really living in a moronic illogical world

[–]byteuser 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They already do it for firefighters

[–]silly_little_jingle 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep- why have standards of physical strength and athleticism. That's sexist.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Sadder_Burrito 27 points28 points29 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And you will be called bigot for pointing the fucking obvious

[–]byteuser 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah... Transwomen to the rescue... men showing women that they can be better at everything... even being a woman... some irony

[–]PubicFigure 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought the one fucking area they "dominated " was tertiary since a lot of young me opted for apprenticeship or outright not getting a tertiary.

[+]noonespecial_2022 -50 points-49 points-48 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I worked at a university in the UK, and amongst about 300 students of courses such as Software Engineering, Cybersecurity or Computer Science, the majority of high achieving students (top 40) were females. And of course there were way more men studying these subjects.

What are you going to say now? They were getting better grades because of their gender/looks/out of pity? All assignments were obviously anonymous.

Honestly - I get it - you might be upset about double standards in some places, but your comment is nothing but a hate speech. You clearly hate women and find them inferior, meaning you never had any serious relationships. It takes maturity.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

How do you know those top 40 females are got their ranks fairly? All we know they might have got preferential treatment.

[–]noonespecial_2022 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know because I was taking part in it. And again, all assignments are assessed blindly, so how they could get it unfairly?

[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're so full of shit, buddy.

[–]Angryasfk 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And? I don’t believe the “majority of the top 40 students who were women” needed to have the entrance marks lowered to enter the course.

This is the topic of the thread. Not that women shouldn’t do engineering, but there is something perverse about lowering the entrance requirement for women for engineering when they do NOTHING about the fact that universities have a large and growing female majority, with some courses even more female dominated than engineering is male dominated, and yet nothing is going to be don’t about that.

Clearly it’s only an “equality issue” if women are the minority.

[–]noonespecial_2022 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was replying to the comment made by another redditor, I wasn't saying lowering ranks is good. I actually think it does more harm than good, and 'the problem' should be tackled more organically in secondary education, so no one is advantageous over others.

[–]tiger_woods_is_goat 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I worked at a university in the UK, and amongst about 300 students of courses such as Software Engineering, Cybersecurity or Computer Science, the majority of high achieving students (top 40) were females. And of course there were way more men studying these subjects.

What are you going to say now?

You're a liar. That's what I'll say.

[–]noonespecial_2022 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It may surprise you, but I'm not - I'm not sure what makes you think that? Is what I said so impossible?

[–]tiger_woods_is_goat 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Impossible? No. Incredibly unlikely? Yes.

It just doesn't happen.

[–]noonespecial_2022 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What exactly doesn't happen? That the majority of top achieving in certain disciplines are of the same gender?

[–]throwawaygoodvibess 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Wow…

“But the bigger problem is not getting them into undergraduate degrees but keeping them in the profession, and that is a harder challenge to tackle,” she said.

Wow…… so after literally lowering the standard, and doing everything in your power to push women into a field, some/many literally don’t even want to stay in said field -.-

These people’s stupidity knows no bounds

[–]Angryasfk 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh don’t worry, female engineers are favoured in hiring and are less likely to be laid off when work dries up. So industry is “doing its bit” to keep women in the profession.

[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, they're brilliant. And they've got diplomas to prove it.

[–]sgt_oddball_17 27 points28 points29 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Remember that bridge collapse in Florida a few years back?

That's one thing that could go wrong.

[–]RoMaNuL_23 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i just have one question, why different standard, they are basicaly saying that women are not inteligent beings and are stupid.

[–]Jazzeater 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Great. Fellas if you want to get into a program declare yourself a woman. All it takes is saying you're a woman and you are.

Once you're in start identifying as a man again. If they try to kick you out, raise hell for discrimination against a non binary person.

[–]_TheDarkArtist_ 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Chad move.

[–]C0sm1cB3ar 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is this even legal? Wtf

[–]EricAllonde[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is this even legal? Wtf

The article notes they got an exemption from the anti-discrimination board before starting. So that makes it legal, yes.

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It means it conforms to policy, but it does not mean it conforms to the law.

[–]ForgotOldAcc-_- 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In Europe university applications have to be anonym for equality reason

Dunno seems to work better

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]gigabased_anon 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are more female doctors in training than men. Also, the field of nursing is dominated by females. So do you propose special reserved spots for men? Say 50-50

[–]EricAllonde[S] 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women managed to enter and become the majority in many other previously male-dominated professions, such as law and medicine.

The only reason they haven't also done so in engineering is due to simple lack of interest in the field. All the pandering in the world won't increase the number of competent, capable women in the field.

Padding the numbers with diversity hires who can't cut it without reduced entrance standards will only teach employers and male engineers to expect incompetence from women engineers. Meritocracy is always better than affirmative action for many reasons, including this one.

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What women? This statement is total bullshit.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Fearless-File-3625 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that's just wrong, there are more women in majority of STEM subjects and more overall.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Klutzy_Pride_5644 19 points20 points21 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As an engineer who employs engineers I can tell you that a tendency towards the Asperger end of the personality spectrum is prevalent in great engineers. What percentage of Asperger's are men. Plus, if you don't think there is a difference between what bits and girls tend to like you clearly don't have kids.

[–]DJRhymeLight1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Kids that are influenced by parents, tv, friends, colors of toys, and social media?

[–]Angryasfk 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And you think this is the sole determinant?

You also don’t seem to care about women dominating most other university courses. So it seems you have the feminist idea of “equality”: boosting women in any and every case.

[–]EricAllonde[S] 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is the biggest obstacle to achieving gender equality today. Her attitude is entirely typical.

[–]p3ngwin 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Interest in building things is unlikely to be woven into a chromosome.

and yet there ARE differences in the brains of males and females that lead men to be better at spatial reasoning, etc:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm

​

The results indicated that the reason why females performed not so well in large-scale spatial ability was that they were more susceptible to emotions and their parahippocampal gyrus worked less efficiently than males; females performed not so well in small-scale spatial ability because they mostly adopted the egocentric strategy and their sub-gyral also worked less efficiently than males.

The two different reasons have made for gender differences in favor of males in terms of spatial ability and such gender differences have different manifestations in large-scale and small-scale spatial ability.

Possible implications of the results for understanding the issue of gender differences in spatial ability are discussed.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00128/full

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/male-female/201910/men-s-advantages-in-spatial-cognition-mechanical-reasoning

[–]duhhhh 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. If you give dolls and wheeled vehicles to baby monkeys, most of the girls will gravitate towards playing with the dolls and most of the boys will gravitate towards playing with the vehicles.

[–]Angryasfk 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What “social barriers” do you think women have with engineering? You seem to have a lot of preconceptions.

[+]Marty-the-monkey -27 points-26 points-25 points 3 years ago (108 children) | Copy Link

To have a fair argument about this, it's necessary to first lay and agree on the axioms at play.

That is: Would and will bias towards any group occur naturally within the real (not ideal) world, if we remove any and all efforts to combat it? - Is the presumption that a pure meritocracy will naturally happen if we leave the world and society to it's own devices?

I personally don't believe it will, as all of history has show that we naturally gravitate to make presumptions about people within different demographics, almost unconsciously

This leaves a conundrum, as we can acknowledge that a meritocracy won't just happen unless we take active steps to reach it, however every step in one direction is perceived as subtracting from another.

The problem, as I see it, is that we havnt found any solution which combat the natural bias, presumptions and prejudices without it seeming to subtract from others.

The core concept of wanting to level the playing field in order to get to the meritocracy is in itself not bad. The question is how do we get there?

To then circle back to the article in question, I think it's an interesting attempt. Instead of straight up removing spots for some, there is just a larger incentive for others to try and get them. Compared with quotas, this seems to have attempted to reach a compromise much closer to the aforementioned action without subtraction.

[–]Angryasfk 28 points29 points30 points 3 years ago (78 children) | Copy Link

It does remove spots for males. It gives an artificial boost to women. AND note that they do not do this to seek to boost male numbers in the greater number of female dominated courses. As is always the case with feminism, it’s “semi-conductor equality” it only ever flows one way!

[+]Marty-the-monkey -17 points-16 points-15 points 3 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link

I would argue it only indirectly removed spots from men. It does give the artificial boost, but as implied in my first comment: what other action can be done to get to the meritocracy?

The golden way of getting to the point of bias, presumptions and prejudices not being an issue hasn't been found, without the perceived subtraction.

I'm certain that if you had a model to get to that point all institutions and organizations would be all ears as to how they should do it.

As it is, the initiatives implemented (flawed as they are) are the best way which have been found so far. It's not ideal, but with no other alternative it falls back on the ones existing.

For the other point: I don't think the grade point average is an incentive for men to attend female dominated courses. It is an issue that we see too few men represented within the fields of education, pedagogy and care taking careers, but here the issue is to get men to apply in the first place, not that they are rejected by the door.

Furthermore, I've seen very few men's rights advocate for men to attend said female dominated fields. One can criticism that feminists aren't attempting to get men into those fields, but when men themselves seems to negate, ignore and reject those options as well, the problem is much larger than attending.

[–]Angryasfk 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

You’ve offered no evidence to support your theory that “issue is to get men to apply rather than them get rejected by the door”!

There are women who would certainly get the grade to enter so-called STEM fields that do not apply. A friend of mine from high school was good at maths. At that time the first 3 years of high school were called “lower school” and the last 2 years “upper school” - that was because you could finish your education at the end of the 3rd year, which the majority did before the mid-80’s apparently. Upper school was really for university preparation. Now although she was good at maths she took the lessor of the upper school maths classes, and skipped calculus. You see she was looking to study law, and didn’t need that level of maths, so she didn’t do it.

And there’s plenty of girls I know at university who had the maths to do STEM, but instead chose to law, or medicine, some did psychology. But they could have done science or engineering, they just chose not too.

Why is getting more women into STEM also a matter of “encouraging” actually qualified girls to give it a go rather than study law or medicine? And frankly are these girls actually making a poor choice to go to law or medicine rather than engineering? Our society gives those professions far more status.

And in any case there is little done to encourage men to take up teaching or psychology. No great recruitment drives; no “affirmative action” in hiring, not even the promise of fast tracked promotions because in the past women tended to be neglected for these and so “affirmative action” prioritises female candidates for this.

It’s purely one sided “equality” these days.

[+]Marty-the-monkey -7 points-6 points-5 points 3 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

I agree that there is little done to encourage men to go into education, and that's an issue.

But why is that the responsibility of the groups who try to get girls into stem? Those groups have their demographic they serve to get into a specific field. I don't see how it's an argument that one group with one goal isn't focusing on the group and goal you want them to.

Seems like there should be a different group attempting to get men into education, but there isn't, and I agree it's an issue. But does the fact it's an issue make anyone take action? Evidently not.

I've seen no (but they could exists) groups trying to get any agenda, push or affirmation for men to get into education, and the attitude I see of people just pointing to it as an issue and then not doing something rather underline a much bigger initial issue.

Where are the men or activist groups pushing men into teaching? The men who want persue that line of work are always taken in and almost celebrated, basically being able to write their own career because its such a scarce ressource (hell I've been able to profit from that attitude as well).

[–]keine7891 points 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Where are the men or activist groups pushing men into teaching? The men who want persue that line of work are always taken in and almost celebrated, basically being able to write their own career because its such a scarce ressource (hell I've been able to profit from that attitude as well).

Not true hard to get a job on these sectors as men.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That seems to be geografically determined then.

All the places I've seen and had to look into within education in Scandinavia and Texas it has always been easy for men to get a job within teaching, because it's simply just such a scarce ressourcer they more or less gets hired on the spot.

[–]keine7891 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you have some proof? All the general knowledge and research as far i saw indicated that its harder for men to get a job in female dominated fields, including teaching also the work environment is rather hostile so not a great experience.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which research have you found?

I'll admit that my statement is based on having been part of the educational field and research to an extend where I (despite it not being done systemically) have observed that men have little issue finding jobs within teaching.

The OECD doesn't divide their data of unemployment based on specific vocation, so I'm curious as to which research you've found. I was unable to find anyone having methodically looked into whether men have a harder time finding a job within the educational and pedagogical field.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really? You could say the same about female engineers, but that isn’t enough apparently. In any case teachers collages don’t seem to turn out a surplus of teachers these days. How many graduate teachers don’t placements? I know that all nursing graduates get jobs. Only those who fail the course aren’t working as nurses.

[–]keine7891 points 3 years ago [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

Stop trolling pls.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

What part of what I write do you see as trolling?

[–]keine7891 points 3 years ago [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

Where are the men or activist groups pushing men into teaching? The men who want persue that line of work are always taken in and almost celebrated, basically being able to write their own career because its such a scarce ressource (hell I've been able to profit from that attitude as well).

This particularly the media the university the state etc won't give them a chance, and the laws also might prohibit them to do anything.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Which laws prohibits an NGO to form to help get men into the educational field?

Which NGOs exists wanting to attempt to do this?

Nobody is stopping anybody from starting a group who tries to get men into education programs, the same way that groups wanting to push women into STEM.

The problem is that Noone is doing it, and whether there's a demographic to help (that is men being rejected from attending).

We can even go softer: which groups exists who just try to convince men to apply to begin with?

You can't throw a rock without hitting an association of people trying to push women into stem, or make it easier for them to apply.

I have yet to see the attempt of a similar association for men in education. I truly hope they exists, but it seems the motivation to make one is very low, which is the actual problem.

[–]keine7891 points 3 years ago [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

Well but that NGO will achieve nothing in the. U.S. its members might will be "interviewed" by the FBI etc so it's pointless, and dangerous.

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps feminists and other SJWs should stop trying to shutdown various MRA events then? Because that really does look like they’re trying to stop any progress on these issues doesn’t it!!!

But why are universities so enthralled to feminism anyway that they would keep boosting women and neglecting men? Do you think that should be an issue?

As to your talk about “responsibility” and all that. Feminists love to claim they’re about “equality”. But clearly they are not. They are really about boosting women. So opposing them isn’t opposing equality, merely their women boosting.

And this ignores the university’s responsibility. They have a majority female student body. In Australia about 80% of psychologists are women, so it’s likely that 80% or more of psychology students are women - but there’s no attempt to boost male numbers through “special measures” like this. And then there’s the question of feminist influence in university administration. They’re heavily represented in such positions, but surely university administrators do have a responsibility to not simply push their own female boosting ideology don’t you think?

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

So if they are not, why do you then insists that it should be their responsibility to lift men?

I genuinely get so confused about this argument which keeps popping up where people seem to demand that irs everyone else's job to organize and reach the goal they want to.

Which association do you know which try to boost men's pressence within education degrees? Why is it associations who focus on a different field and genders job to all of the sudden encompass different areas and demographics?

These initiatives to push women into STEM have come from associations working hard as their mission - but for some reason they now have to cater to a different mission because your read of feminism?

I can't throw a rock without hitting an association about girls in STEM, but where are the men's associations? Why are there non of those? Someone has to take the initiative and the continously saying it's the other people's job seems kind of lazy.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They should stop pretending that they are anything other than a female boosting group, don’t you think? Feminism works to boost women, not to achieve equality between the sexes.

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And evidently listening to your argument neither do you, so I'm failing to see how that's any different.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So pointing out the clear discrimination against men (they had to get a waiver from the government it’s so blatant) and the contrast to the the utter lack of interest in boosting male participation in female dominated subjects or the university as a whole, and seeing this as evidence that affirmative action in employment is likely to become entrenched anti-male discrimination and not the “temperory measure” it’s claimed to be is the same as instituting these discriminatory policies?

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

I’d also point out it is not specifically organisations within engineering or science which seek to get these changes. Rather they are generic ones like “university women” who are often Gender Studies academics or students. They seek to boost women all round, and only focusing now on STEM because these are the sole remaining fields in universities that do not have a female majority.

But, and this is where DJRhymn had a bit of a point, these lobbyist groups themselves do not make the policy. The university administration had to, specifically the sub-Dean in this case. She actually had to get the government to give her a waiver to discriminate! Yet the same institution does SFA about the growing gender imbalance in the student body as a whole much less in the various courses that are dominated by women.

And this, in turn, raises the question as to how much of this is driven by the feminists in the university administration? It is surely an abuse of position for them to deliberately favour women over men and apply the concept of equality so unequally simply because of their personal ideology don’t you think?

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

So because lobbying for your cause works, it's somehow unfair?

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

How does this absolve the university (or the State Government for that matter)?

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As for the “almost celebrated and basically being able to write their own career” for men in teaching: that’s a bit of an exaggeration surely! But these claims fit women in engineering, particularly since companies are so keen to show how many women they have employed. Women are favoured in hiring, and as I’ve said, I have not once seen a female engineer made redundant in the unstable economy we’ve had over the last decade. I’ve seen plenty of male engineers made redundant though.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]Marty-the-monkey -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Indeed they are, meaning they don't apply to these fields.

It is also a great example of the inherent biases and prejudices which inhabit our thinking, from which we need to do what we can to move away from.

As mentioned, the solution here isn't a matter of incentive towards boosting grades, but a much different action.

incidentally, I see a lot of posts here about the issue of women getting into programs, but have yet to see any posts addressing or having any attempt of solving the issue of men in women's fields, so the argument that men aren't represented in women's fields seems a bit lopsided, given Noone seem to care to solve the issue

[–]MGTOW_Theory 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This is straw man argument. There is objective criteria by which candidate's selected. This has very very little to do with natural bias, unless its bias to give woman MORE!

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I think you missed my point.

The models and actions to get to the ideal meritocracy are, at the moment, not ideal. However it's the "best" we have come up with at the moment.

If you or anyone can come up with a way to make progress towards the meritocracy, which is the goal, without making it seem like any group has something subtracted from them, I'm certain any organization would listen to it intensively.

The unfortunate reality is that we havnt found proper way to reach the point where merit alone is the singular proponent for gain. So we have to fall back onto the only suggestion which has been presented.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

An excellent point.

Is it ever possible to reach the ideal meritocracy? Or what would be a close enough aproximation?

Your comment also addresses the inherent issue of the perceived subtraction. I specifically used perceived, since it doesn't matter how objective or well meaning the actual initiative is, if it's perceived as removing something from another group.

Even if we made an objective metric to see whether an action is effective, the subjective percievement would supercede that, and make people angry regardless. for an analogous example: The US election of 2020 was determined by many sources as one of the safest ever, yet it was perceived as not, making that perspective the 'true one' in the eye of the public

However that leads to the question of: Should we then not bother trying to reach the ideal, even if it's unobtainable?

Is justice and fairness finite entities, so when given to one group it defacto mean it's removed from another?

[–]MGTOW_Theory 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is just words without a lot of practical meaning behind them.

Define intelligence, define scores that measure it, define exams for measurement of intelligence, define education itself, define what education gives you based on your intelligence and knowledge.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Aha a postmodernist/post structualist I see.

You are right that the inherent understandings of the terms and metrics indeed need to be clarified to map out the landscape intented to be shown, which in itself have an issue of disagreement within their respective fields when discussing a interdisciplinary exploration.

Psychology would have one perspective, education and pedagogy another and sociology a third with anthropology an entire forth one.

All of it leading back to how the perceived subtraction will supercede any attempt of clarification.

However it leads me back to my initial question: Should we then just not bother and hope for the best?

[–]MGTOW_Theory 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

NO, when they change existing system to benefit them, i would rather destroy it all and build new, than "for the best".

It will lead to genocide of men. Im not going to hide my head in sand.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But how would that system work then?

We can't pretend the existing reality and history all of the sudden disappears, so whatever new structure you suggest needs to conform to the system we already have.

Also, who is the "They" in this version? And how do we account for, that whatever system you come up with will potentially disagree with whatever the "They" you are talking about are interested in?

If the aim is meritocracy, then you need to find a model which cater equally to all groups perceived reality.

[–]MGTOW_Theory 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are the most meritocratic group on earth. We don't have in group bias. Lowering scores for one group have nothing to do with meritocracy.

Scores are results of education and exams. So if you want to find discrimination look at education and exams.

[–]Marty-the-monkey -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you disagree with the axiom that presumptions about other people occur naturally?

[–]Fearless-File-3625 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Meritocracy only ever not happens when idiots try to make it happen with fucking stupid programs like this one.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Is that to be understood as you believing meritocracy occurs naturally in society, if nothing is done?

[–]Fearless-File-3625 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

obviously

[–]Marty-the-monkey -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

And that's why I prefaced my initial comment with the notion that such axioms needs to be addressed firstly before any argument can be had.

I very much disagree that meritocracy occur naturally in any society, given there are too many circumstantial factors to account for, to believe anyone gets anywhere on merit alone.

If merit was truly the only metric, we wouldn't need job interviews or applications at all. The CV itself would be enough.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Job interviews are meritocratic.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Which merits do you think are being measured during an interview?

[–]Fearless-File-3625 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the type of the interview, in technical interviews they ask technical questions.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So questions which can be answered by just looking at your CV?

I'll ask you again, what do you think they measure when having an interview?

[–]Fearless-File-3625 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What???? I don't think you have ever given a single interview in your life, no wonder you talk so much shit about merit.

CV and resume doesn't tell the whole story, eg: if someone writes they worked at X company that doesn't tell us what actually that guy did there. Even if resume contains all the projects/assignments of that guy, it is still difficult to tell. Interviewers can dig deeper and ask specific questions that help to judge the competence of the applicant.

It also depends on the profession and experience of the candidate, in some professions job interviews are much more important than others. CVs are much better at filtering out from a group of candidates with experience compared to a group of new college graduates, because college graduates would generally have similar resumes.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Oh come on. Job interviews are in part to verify that the CV is an accurate representation of what the candidate has done and is capable of.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So they are to verify trust. That's not merit then.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Verify trust? Verify the CV more like. They ask questions about name a time you’ve dealt with “x problem” and how you’ve overcome it. You don’t think that candidates showing how they’ve overcome such issues is showing they are the best candidate?

[+]cjgager -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Gardner said there was only a fairly loose correlation between performance at university and ATAR, and all students had to meet the same requirements once accepted.
visited Australia back in the 80's and it's a truly lovely country & beautiful people but even back then a visiting American could see that Australian males' treatment & acceptance of females throughout their society was approximately 10yrs behind the times. thank goodness they are finally stepping up - it's been long enough.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah american women, like you, have become entitled to privileged treatment. Sad that women, around the world, are catching up on the entitlement. I guess it is the result of toxic femininity.

[–]Angryasfk 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Finally stepping up? You mean anti-male discrimination? Something which is clearly intended to be a permanent bias?

You do realise that women are a large majority in university overall these days, in part because of other initiatives to boost females. In Australia, some 80% of current psychologists are women (see here: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mental-health-services/mental-health-services-in-australia/report-contents/mental-health-workforce). And if anything, they make up more of the student body in psychology. Why is there no effort at all made to boost men taking up psychology? Given the mental health issues men have, which feminists blame on men not seeking “help” surely there is a pressing need for more men in the profession? But instead, it’s all about pushing more women into engineering.

[–]C0sm1cB3ar 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I recommend leaving a review on Google map, or any relevant places for feedback.

This is just discrimination, absolute bs

[–]Cosmic_cowgirl_rhi 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you are an Australian university student, please do the below survey to help me gain insight for a research project on wellbeing!

https://forms.office.com/r/EiVNwDDYiz

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter