Ads in New Scientist

ad5

The 1st October edition of New Scientist included, as usual, various job adverts or adverts for New Scientist itself. Where these ads included a picture of people I have reproduced these pictures below. All such pictures are included. I have left none out.  (Click to enlarge).

ad1

ad2

ad3

DoE Ad for physics teaching

The last one has been run almost every week for many months. The previous issue of New Scientist (24th September 2016) included some of the same ads. The totality of pictures of people from other ads were as follows,

ad4

and one which, shock horror, included a man – this one,

ad6

This concentration on girls, to the exclusion of boys, is, of course, justified because girls are under-represented in STEMM subjects.

Err…really?

But the 2015 Higher Education entrance data show that women outnumber men in STEMM by 8% (STEMM = science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine).

And, of course, in everything else, women outnumber men by a far greater percentage, women now gaining 35% more degrees per year than men.

So, what, exactly, is the excuse for the flagrant gender bias of these New Scientist ads? There isn’t one. In UK universities now…

  • There are four-and-a-half times as many women studying psychology as men.
  • In pre-clinical veterinary medicine, women outnumber men four-to-one.
  • In law, there are now twice as many female students as male students.
  • In languages and cultural studies there are approaching three times as many women students as men.
  • In Teaching & Education there are nearly six times as many women as men.
  • The most extreme case is nursing, where there are nearly ten times as many women as men.
  • But even excluding nursing, there are twice as many women as men studying medical and dental sciences.
  • Women even outnumber men in Agriculture (1.4 to 1).

So I leave you (or rather those responsible for placing these ads) with the following thought – taken again from the same edition of New Scientist,

ad5

17 thoughts on “Ads in New Scientist

  1. Joseph Driessen

    Great topic. The adverts in the New Scientist follow the same trend as the images associated with education: First the groundwork is laid down that girls were under achieving (they were not), then lobbying convinced the education gatekeepers to have lots of affirmative action for girls, with media campaigns making girls being associated with learning and achieving the norm, and then finally, making sure only girl photos are used in most education articles, thus establishing their social dominance.

    In the mean time boy’s learning was systematically undermined by introducing learning and assessment styles which favoured girls.

    It won’t be that long before the sciences will follow the same path. It is already in the biological sciences.

    Sad for our sons who are gradually being excluded from so many areas life, and disgraceful that they have so few adults who are willing to speak up against these injustices.

    However, it is probably evolution in action, and history tells us that there is no limit to the socially marginalisation of groups of people who get outcompeted by their competitors.

    Joseph

    Reply
  2. ShinobiYaka

    Hi William,

    I did a You Tube video based on this article, it can be found here: https://youtu.be/cElqJBX4X84

    I credited you in the introduction, I have misplaced your e-mail address, so if you could e-mail me I would be most grateful, the video based on this article has had 200 views in the first 24 hours, obviously not up there with the big boys, but 200 is better than nothing 🙂

    Thank you for all the hard work,

    Cheers

    Reply
  3. cheannaich

    Mr Collins,
    just the other day I was reading a university’s diversity guff. It quoted figures for their gender pay gap against national gender pay gap figures. A myth that, thanks to the dominant feminist narrative, will never die. There is seemingly yet another myth being promulgated by the feminists. The one where girls are told that girls cannot do science. Thus justifying yet more academic privilege and resouces being extended to them.
    From my experience of comprehensive school in the sixties, boys and girls were free to choose their study subjects. Girls were in maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology without hinderance.
    Through my college years they were again free to choose what courses they liked and, from my time as a mature university student, females seemed to be free to choose whatever they liked.
    Feminism does seem to be a cancer that is taking over society’s body.

    Reply
  4. Douglas Milnes

    It is ridiculous that it is even necessary to state STEMM. That final ‘M’ is only necessary because those who wish to follow an ideological dogma of claiming victimhood for women have removed medicine from science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

    Removing medicine from “science, technology, engineering, mathematics’ can only be justified if one believes that doctors have no connection with biology; that neither prosthetics nor false teeth have a connection with mechanical engineering; that the maintenance and operation of equipment from x-ray machines to brain scanners have nothing to do with technology; that research and development of drugs, medicines and even nano-bots have nothing to do with engineering. It is also necessary to admit that sociology, psychology, and even psychiatry have nothing to do with science. A modern nursing course covers not only science but technology & engineering. Almost any medical course at university requires an understanding of mathematics, as any search for ‘mathematics in medicine’ will show.

    It can be argued that women are well represented in STEMM. It can also be argued that STEM should include the medical field and therefore STEM is well represented by women.

    It is easy to forget that the agenda never was about helping women; the purpose is to demonise first one half, and then the other half, of the population to destabilise society.

    Reply
    1. William Collins Post author

      I trust that by “incredible” you mean “very striking” as opposed to “not believable”. I agree. So much so that I find myself constantly re-checking the data. The links were provided in the post “Women Dominate in STEMM”, http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=731. For completeness the source is the UCAS university entrance data for 2015, here https://www.ucas.com/sites/default/files/eoc_data_resource_2015-dr3_019_01.pdf. I converted this pdf file into an Excel file so I could more easily calculate sub-totals. I have also linked previously to my working Excel file, namely this http://redpilluk.co.uk/UCASacceptancedata2015.xls (see the Sheet “rationalisation” – the blue text are my additions, providing relevant sub-totals). You can use this to reproduce my statements. I’ve just checked it again for about the 6th time.

      Reply
  5. Joseph Driessen

    Yes, indeed this is the latest wave of affirmative action for our daughters at the expense of our sons. In Education this has been going on since the 1970’s and it is still the default setting.

    Perhaps the best way of understanding this cultural phenomenon is to compare it with the systematic pressure by various other groups to asset strip and oppress their target groups: Whites versus Blacks in the USA; The Indian Caste system; The English class system. One could go on and on.

    These sustained oppressive systems have been, and still are, highly effective.

    It is sad, but inevitable that our sons will be driven out of many, if not most societal niches in our society, and that all of us will see as completely normal that our daughters will monopolise the assets and power structures of our society.

    Mental illness, drug addictions, prisons, graveyards will be the destinies of many of our sons, but this will be carefully hidden.

    Perhaps our sons will become aware and politically galvanised. Perhaps they will accept their marginalisation mutely.

    Who can tell ?

    Reply
    1. William Gruff

      A point that seems to have escaped the prophets of doom is that men have created and built everything, and that isn’t going to change. As the corporate economy becomes an anti-male place so the men who built it and are increasingly excluded from it will build alternatives, which is what we are doing. I would offer as just one tiny example of a developing male economic activity, the growth of micro-breweries and micro-pubs. It would be interesting to discover how many women operate in that area, and I don’t mean as pretty partners who leave all the heavy lifting and drain cleaning to the men; I mean women who do it all themselves or in partnership with other women, without any help from men.

      There are other male dominated or exclusively male areas, small at present although growing, which, while insignificant in terms of their contribution to the national piggy bank, provide those who employ themselves in them with an income and their autonomy.

      Reply
      1. William Collins Post author

        I do sometimes muse on whether the answer for men is simply to build a separate, parallel society – but, of course, one is frustrated by the obligations of currency and tax. Is Bitcoin, or similar, the answer? Discuss! Re: the micro-pub thing – good illustration. I am tempted to carry out extensive visits to said establishments, nationwide, to check your theory – in the interests of research, of course.

        Reply
      2. William Gruff

        I’ve only just noticed that I’ve misspelled prophets. Such are the pitfalls of restricted access on a library computer. Apologies to all.

        Reply
        1. William Collins Post author

          By virtual of my shamefully totalitarian control over this blog (if nothing else in life) have corrected both your typos.

          Reply
  6. Clay

    “Men’s rights activists must wake up and realize that the time for trying to counter the hypocrisy with rationality – with essentially male arguments, using facts and truth, in the hope that sense will prevail – is not going to make any difference to the relentless feminist long march on men” -Herbert Purdy ICMI-16

    “Let us be clear, the removal of fathers from the lives of their children is … public … policy“. -Robert Franklin ICMI-14

    Reply
    1. AJ

      It is frustrating that even in areas with very obvious disadvantages for men and boys such as education the narrative and accepted wisdom is of female disadvantage but I think logic and facts are the only weapons we have. If we appeal to emotions then we will lose, the reality is that far far more attention is paid to womens suffering than mens. If we have a campaign of disruption or even fear we lose again. It will just reinforce existing negative stereotypes. Logic and facts will persuade some, and if the right people are influenced then over time the narrative can change.

      Reply
      1. Groan

        I think you sum up the “catch 22” well. The truth is that females are protected by men. Thus men as much as women will rush to aid females if they perceive an attack. So yes relentless calm pushing and support to women who are more able to “attack” because they aren’t perceived as a threat to women, by men. Feminists are both devious in taking advantage of this while pretending the reverse is true, that men are misogynists when their success rests on the reverse being the case.

        Reply
      2. William Gruff

        Another man who thinks that upsetting those who despise us is detrimental to our interests. Gaining the ‘moral high ground’ with logic and facts may console us that we are in every way superior, and comfort us when we reflect that we leave action to others, however, nice friendly discussions with ‘people’ who hate us can avail us nothing. They didn’t work for Chamberlain and they won’t work for us.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *