Taxpayers to give extra £15,000 per year to engineering postgraduates… but only if they have vaginas

Yet more lunacy, part of a scheme costing the taxpayer £25 million:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25300669

From the article:

“Only around a quarter of students on engineering master’s courses are women,” said Brunel engineering lecturer, Petra Gratton. “Bluntly speaking, that has to change if UK engineering is going to continue to compete as successfully as it currently does… While some may see this as positive discrimination the stark reality is that UK plc can no longer afford not to exploit fully this enormous potential talent pool.”

Some may see this as positive discrimination? Who wouldn’t? Four out of seven unemployed people in the UK are men, unemployment is a major driver of suicide among men – more so than among women – three times more men than women in the UK commit suicide every year… and here we have one of the few remaining male-dominated professions discriminating against men. It’s time to join up the dots. In this and many other ways, the state is leading men to kill themselves in large numbers – suicide is the leading cause of death among young men – although men collectively pay 72% of the income tax which largely finances the state.

The £15,000 p.a. additional grant will be paid to female postgraduates solely on account of their gender. So a female student from a rich family will get the grant, while a male student from a poor family won’t. From the piece:

A spokesman for Brunel added that the university was trying to dispel the myth that engineers spend most of their time on site, wearing hard hats.

“At advanced level, engineering is very much an office-based profession, where the emphasis is working with teams on a collaborative basis. These skills are areas where women have traditionally excelled.”

I’ve yet to see any evidence that women have ‘traditionally excelled’ at teamwork in a way that leads to improved economic performance. If there were any truth in this fantasy, the senior reaches of our major companies would have long been dominated by women.

Would female engineering graduates not understand by the end of their engineering courses, what being an engineer was about? Are they really that stupid? Give me strength. Let’s read between the lines in that extract, shall we? Women clearly prefer to be in nice cosy offices than ‘on site, wearing hard hats’, which presumably mess up their hair?

The reality is surely that by the time these women graduate, they understand perfectly well what the life of an engineer entails, and that’s why they’re quitting the profession they were suckered into entering in the first place – suckered by taxpayer-funded initiatives aimed at getting more women to study STEMM subjects. Now it seems the only way to persuade these women to undertake postgraduate engineering studies is for long-suffering taxpayers to bribe them with an additional £15,000 pa because they have vaginas, rather than penises. They must be so proud of their genital achievements.

It’s not just the state that’s relentlessly pursuing this direction of travel. Professional bodies in engineering and other male-dominated professions are discriminating again men, although men surely represent the majority of their existing membership. Our public challenge of Nick Baveystock, the director general of the Institution of Civil Engineers, remains unanswered to this day:

http://j4mb.org.uk/2013/09/04/our-public-challenge-to-nick-baveystock-director-general-of-the-institution-of-civil-engineers/

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Didn’t they fucking learn from the doctor fiasco????

  • Incredible! I note the NUS officer wants to make this ‘Business As Usual’ and that there is more to be done!

    • Indeed. These people’s appetite for special treatment is insatiable. Taxpayer-funded parasites, one and all.

  • As you point out the most insulting bit, to women, is that they need to be persuaded by a bribe and the promise they won’t have to get dirty! If anything is patronising it is such initiatives which so blatantly start from a position that women can’t do the job! Do we really want engineers without any on the job experience of actual engineering?

    • Thanks. Women in general are utterly shameless at being advantaged at the expense of men. Where are the feminists complaining about gender inequality here, or indeed in countless other areas where they receive special treatment?

  • Jericho One

    I did a craft engineering apprenticeship (the one where you get your hands dirty) in the late 80s. Out of about 300 trainees, only 2 were female. They spent most of their time trying to get the lads to help them… Seems like this new initiative will be promoting the admin side of engineering – just to get the quotas up.

    Going slightly off topic, here’s something that caught my eye from the Plenty of Fish dating website. Women’s Top Ten favourite Conversation Topics were:
    1. Hopes and aspirations
    2. Hobbies/interests in general
    3. Music
    4. Dreams
    5. Romance
    6. Friends
    7. Travel
    8. Vacations
    9. Movies
    10. Entertainment
    Women’s Top Ten Least favourite Conversation Topics were:
    1. Politics
    2. Other dates
    3. Past relationships
    4. Science fiction
    5. Religion
    6. Celebrities
    7. Science
    8. Antiques
    9. Money
    10. History

    I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions from this survey 😉

  • If the government has money to waste on STEMM students than it should be targeting the high grade achievers coming out of engineering degrees for post-grad studies. This would be maximum benefit for the students and for the country’s economy. Gender should play no part in the criteria for who gets the money. In my real world experience of women in mixed teams in technical roles, they excel at doing rote tasks very well, with well defined documentation. However most women, there are exceptions, are also very good at asking male colleagues to solve a problem for them when a non-standard or new issue arises that is not written down anywhere.

  • Pingback: Problem. You don’t have a vagina, but you’d still like the additional £15,000 p.a. income that having a vagina would give you. What to do? |()