|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose it's good that Prof. Black noticed that females comprising 60% of the medical graduates stresses the medical profession because they go into the softer, more time-friendly specialties, leaving the more demanding fields like cardiology and gastroentology depleted. But unfortunately instead of acknowledging the real root cause, the failure of schools to educate boys at levels K-12, she drags out the old chestnut:
To rebalance the sexes in medical schools, she favoured encouraging graduate entry. At age 18, women had an advantage because they matured earlier but if medical schools took in more graduates, men would have had three years to catch up.
Were the above true, women would dominate all fields they entered in appreciable numbers. No, professor, women do not mentally mature faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm...
From personal observation and from some of the stuff I've read on learning and gender, I might be willing to concede that women "mature" earlier. Consider this: the number of boys that appear to be doing poorly in high school and the early years at college, yet somehow manage to rise to the top of their classes (and their chosen fields of study afterward) compared to women. No, I don't have any sources at my fingertips, but I think Michael Gurian talks to this in one of his books.
Consider this, guys: she seems a bit sexist, but her underlying message seems to me to be that we need gender balance in medicine, and fundamentally, I have to agree with this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:43 AM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Consider this, guys: she seems a bit sexist, but her underlying message seems to me to be that we need gender balance in medicine, and fundamentally, I have to agree with this.
No Frank. There is nothing in the article that suggests gender balance. When Professor Black, a Socialist, claims that she wants gender balance it really means quotas, new laws to criminalize males, and reverse discrimination. It means legislating and regulating wages like the Socialist in Russia. Hell.
Professor Black's underlying message is about many more special priviledges for women. She even lists some of the specific special priviledges that she is demanding.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women doctors were equal to or better than their male colleagues in ability, but family commitments made it more difficult for them to rise to the top of the profession. "The women admitted to medical school do well, they work well and they graduate well. The distinctions go to the women."
Strange, this gender that is our equal or better, can only be so if they are 'not' subjected to the rigours and demands that are the basis of this and other professions ! ! !
Of course, if they compete on and equal footing, then perhaps their menfolk will be seen to be caring for the children more than their mother ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too think it's biased to generally declare that females mature faster than males. Girls are considered mature as soon as they develop breasts and learn basic social skills. Boys have to take on responsibility and demonstrate a success of some kind to be perceived as mature. Boys also have to be the aggressors when pursuing females, which can make them vulnerable to ridicule by the "more mature" females.
Professor Black seems to just mention in passing the "life choices" theme, which she claims causes female doctors to avoid certain areas of specialization, such as cardiology. She doesn't seem to grasp that a large percentage of women doctors completely abandon the profession for family life, leaving a shortage of experienced doctors. I remember reading about this before, and the figure was something like 40% for trained female doctors dropping out of the profession within ten years. But she's right that men cannot speak up about the situation due to PC retaliation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:46 AM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
But she's right that men cannot speak up about the situation due to PC retaliation.
True. We call this the lace curtain. Too bad her agenda is about more special priviledge for women, hatred of "white males", and the promotion of laws that permit women to be lazy.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:08 PM August 2nd, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It certainly seems to be the case , that when women take over a profession, then the status of that profession plummets as it becomes "womens work" and thus not fit work for men. She gives two good examples i.e. the collapse in the status of Russian doctors when women took over, and the similar collapse in the status of the Teaching profession. Coversely, when men take over a traditional female profession, then it's status is elevated. When men took over cooking, they became "chefs" and attained a status which female cooks never had.
Maybe, in years to come feminists will be moaning because woman are trapped in low paid , low status jobs like doctors, scientists, engineers etc.!
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:05 AM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever a woman does or takes over, lowers its stature in the economy. So in essence keep having women graduate at Medical School and McDonalds Short Order Cooks will soon be paid a comparable wage as us.
In my opinion Women today, have mastered two roles, The victimization role, and the mountain out of a molehill role. Anytime I listen to women talk it seems like they are always trying to get one up on their counterpart in outdoing their counterpart in the above two roles. For example F1, "I spent twelve hours in labor", F2. "I spent twelve hours without drugs and had a breached hiatul ruptured cervix" And it goes on and on and on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:37 AM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
AU notes: "It certainly seems to be the case , that when women take over a profession, then the status of that profession plummets as it becomes "womens work" and thus not fit work for men. She gives two good examples i.e. the collapse in the status of Russian doctors when women took over, and the similar collapse in the status of the Teaching profession. Coversely, when men take over a traditional female profession, then it's status is elevated."
It may seem that way, but then look at what Professor Black admits the following:
"The women admitted to medical school do well, they work well and they graduate well. The distinctions go to the women. But then, as the years go on, they start to make choices to balance their family and their lifestyle."
"In medicine, they choose to go into the specialties of dermatology, geriatrics and palliative care - not cardiology and gastroenterology where they are going to be required to work long hours. What worries me is who is going to be the professor of cardiology in the future? Where are we going to find the leaders of British medicine in 20 years time?"
Now consider medicine in Russia which is dominated by women. Does anybody really want to make a special trip to Russia, with their Socialist medicine, to get special medical care that cannot be obtained in America? Do we really want American medican to decline in quality such that it is on the low level of the Russian female dominated medical profesion? NOT ME!
And there we have it. Women put in less work over the long term, because by Professor Black's own admission, women stop towing the line. They get lazy and want time out. Clearly, they could have their husbands do the family work, but they don't because women are less professional.
So, what is the expected result of female laziness? Less professionalism. Professor Black calls it a balancing of work and family. Notice how men are not permitted the same privilege. More is expected and demanded of men by Professor Black. She clearly has no interest in men being able to "...balance their family and their lifestyle." Only women should get that privilege, but doing so does what? It downgrades the profession.
But wait a minute....think about what Black is really saying. What is Professor Black's real agenda here? Is she recommending that the husbands of these women take over family responsibilities and that men be given the same family privileges as women?
HELL NO! That would be fair, and feminists are not fair. What are feminist really about? They are about special rights and privileges for women because women have a vagina.
Now one must ask, can we affirm this "evil male's" assertions? One only needs to read on where we find Professor Black whining with the following:
"For the profession to continue to wield influence, senior doctors had to serve on government committees and regulatory bodies as well as cope with their clinical work. For women, that was harder and they needed extra support with child care, flexible rotas and mentoring. Even then, part of medicine would still require a 24-hour commitment, she said."
In other words the state needs to provide free child care, pass laws that permit women special working hours, pass laws that permit women special mentoring and more. Then she still whines that .... oh damn!....that "... would still require a 24-hour commitment..."!!!!!
Next Professor Black whines, "If you can't make it possible for women to participate in everything - doing research, attending committees, influencing the Department of Health -the profession will lose its influence."
Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! Well of course the medical profession will loose professionalism and influence if women slack off! That's why I don't go to women doctors. They may earn honors in school, but when they are in the work place they are nothing by slackers by Professor Black's own admission.
Thus we find that Professor Black's false alarm is really more about more special privileges for women (per force of law), and the destruction of “white males” then it is about women and their medical professionalism.
Warble
P.S. What is voiced is my personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:15 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, when women dominate a profession, thats when its quality is declining, Men are chefs and women are cooks for a reason. Once we have a field developed and up in status, thats when they want a piece of the pie.
apetr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All we require of teachers is warehousing of kids while the parents are working, and a bit of indoctrination to make the kids into pliable citizens. There was plenty of leeway in the profession of teaching to give up on actual instruction in academic disciplines and replace that instruction with well, whatever the teachers felt like doing.
Doctors have to be competant to solve real problems. If Johnny can't read, he'll just get passed on to the next grade. If Johnny can't stop bleeding, he'll pass on permenantly.
I'm not saying that women aren't or can't be capable doctors, I'm just saying that the demands of professional medicine are such that there isn't time or energy left it to be derailed the way teaching has been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:11 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
All we require of teachers is warehousing of kids while the parents are working, and a bit of indoctrination to make the kids into pliable citizens. There was plenty of leeway in the profession of teaching to give up on actual instruction in academic disciplines and replace that instruction with well, whatever the teachers felt like doing.
When speaking of people like Professor Black we must realize that they are Socialist. When we realize that fact then we find that the American public education system is a major realization of the Marxist Feminists, childrens rights advocates, and Communist Manifesto in America. Here is the tenth tenet of the Communists:
These measures will of course be different in different countries.
Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
To fully understand the significance of this proclamation one must understand another significant part of the manifesto. It reads:
....Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
....But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social....
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class....
...The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common....
Thus we find that from a communist perspective, like Professor Black's, women and children who are in a marriage are simply the property of men. That is why she fails to argue that men should take over the child rearing responsibilities. If men were to do then en-masse then they would have privilege and another form of power over women; according to feminists.
Communists and feminists argue that men see women only as a means of production. Men are in power (AKA the Patriarcy), and women (and their children) are a medium of production for men. From the perspective of communism, this is an evil. All relationships are defined in terms of power. Those that have power are defined as evil except when it is the lowest class of a civilization.
This explains why Professor Black wants more special privileges for women. If women are able to seize the money of men and use it to care for children then the family is destroyed. That is a professed ideal of feminism; the destruction of the family. Hence we find Professor Black going to the state and demanding money for childcare. She is in effect demanding that money be seized from men so that women can have more privileges.
Clearly, Professor Black wants the power relationships between men and women to be altered in the medical profession. This is done by providing free childcare as a matter of law, requiring less of women, and by enacting laws that permit women to get equal pay with more benefits for less work. This is what Russia did and the result was the loss of professionalism of the Russian medical profession.
This fact of Russian loss of professionalism was even noted and lied about in the manifesto were we find the claim, “It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology:that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.”
There is no stronger proof of the lies of communism then the fact that in the Russian medical world that there is a major loss of professionalism. If men cannot get paid for their work, own their work as personal property, and get over taxed then they get out of the profession.
This is also a fact that is proven in the field of education as stated by Professor Black. However, I would also argue that men have been chased out of the profession of education by massive false allegations of child molestation and etc. Yet Black continues to argue in favor or more socialism and oppression of men.
Finally, we see why the communist want control of education turned over to the state. When parents have no control then the state controls the indoctrination of children. In this way they are able to further their agenda of family destruction, teaching evil white male dogmas, and seek more laws that grant special privilege and power to women. That is why there is a complete absence of the teaching of the evil of communism in American public schools; their dogma is straight out of the Marxist Feminist manifesto.
Warble
P.S. What is expressed is my personal opinion and beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:05 AM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
While most observers have seen this as a positive trend, leading to a more caring, humane style of medicine, Professor Black is the first female leader of any profession to suggest that the increased involvement of women may be damaging. "We are feminising medicine. It has been a profession dominated by white males.
Imagine if men had said that by having females in medicine would create a less caring "...style of medicine..." The feminist would be all up in arms and claiming that evil white males should be exterminated.
.....Oh. I forgot. Professor Black is stating that "white males" are to be exterminated from the practice of medicine.
No offence to Professor Black, but I'll stick with my male doctors any day over some part time doctor with kids. Women just cannot put in the same level of dedication as men, and they cannot appreciate male medical issues.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women just cannot put in the same level of dedication as men, and they cannot appreciate male medical issues.
I have always thought that the problem with female doctors is that they became doctors to say to the world, "Oh look at me in my white lab coat. I am a doctor who is just as good as or even better than any man." This is just tacky self aggrandizement not dedication to the service of humanity and the promotion of the *art* of medicine.
It stinks! But is typical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:23 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed in the article as many of you have, that the women doctors ar equal or better, so what is that saying is that the male counterparts are not as good, I find this common. What this is, is a warning. Now that we women dominate the field, unless we get special privledges, the field will suffer, here is our list. Probably paid day care, flexibility etc.
The more they have, the more they want. They are using scare tactics.
apetr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:21 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"I noticed in the article as many of you have, that the women doctors ar equal or better,"
Important distinction needs to be made. Women are more successful than men in medical colleges and in getting jobs; however, this is not to say that they are better doctors. Viva exams play a major role in UK medical colleges and ,needless to say, the mini skirted female candidate is guaranteed an honours mark. This effect is even more marked in job interviews . When a mini skirted female applicant turns up for interview, the male candidates know it's time to go home.
Thus females may be more successful medical students and doctors, but not necessarily BETTER medical students and doctors.
Hotspur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:03 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
When a mini skirted female applicant turns up for interview, the male candidates know it's time to go home.
True. I see the skirts in my own profession. It really pisses off male professionals to see women get an free ride from their use of sex. When males in my profession see skirts getting a free ride we immediately black ball these females and will not even talk to them (if possible).
When possible, we leave the workplace where that is taking place and leave the mini-skirt feminist to flounder. We will even change careers if necessary to get away from these skirts.
You'd be surprised at how many females have used their sexuality to get ahead. They are seen as whores and their reputation preceeds them. Males simply will not work with them on a professional basis.
I won't. Nor will my male collegues work with them. They are a plague to us. Such skirts are a disease. They are a lawsuit waiting to happen. We will not risk anything over these skirts/whores.
Note: Women who compete on a level playing field and behave as professionals are respected, but if they flash their boobs for the boss they are excommunicated without a second chance.
Finally, to avoid having false claims of sexual harrassment or false clams of a creating a hostile environment we DO NOT TALK TO ANY FEMALE about this issue. Period. Any male mentioning this to a female will be black balled also.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
