Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Women's contribution to the medical crisis in Canada
> >From: rdubose{at}pdq.net
> >Date: 2/6/2005 4:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >
> >Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: Women's contribution to the medical crisis in Canada
> >> >From: "laurann{at}sprintmail.com" laurann{at}sprintmail.com
> >> >Date: 1/14/2005 8:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id:

> >> >
> >> >
> >> >rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:
> >>
> >>  Maybe if these female MDs were paid more money they could afford
to>
> >hire more
> >> day-care/housekeeper help with these things.
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting that they should get paid more than their male
> >counterparts?
> >> I wouldn't go for that.
> >>
> >>  I do not want to seem churlish on this point but the fact is that
> >Medical> Services as provided by women in Canada already cost
society more
> >(per hour)> than those provided by men- because the same
> >> resources are needed to train and equip a female who then does far
> >less actual
> >>  work.
> >>
>  Since medical schools have to be paid for by the same
sources,>personal,
>  tuition aid, etc. both women and men have the same right to
use>those,>
> regardless of the time they spend practicing medicine.   No one
asks>male
> > medical students their office hours prior to medical school entry,
> >after all.
> >
> >    My point is that women Docs are in a position of power
and>priviledge and
> they proceed in large percentage numbers to make a>choice that is
very costly
> to society. Even so, I see this as less a moral issue than as high
grade
> >evidence that women simply never wanted much to practice medicine in
> >the first place.
>
> Again, you can't really measure how much women or men want to
practice
> medicine; there are way too many variables.  For example, I know of
several men
> and one woman who all want to practice law in order to make money.
They have
> no particular love of law, but do love money.
> Ones burning in the belly is hard to measure, and we don't give
education money
> only to men because 'men's way of knowing' pigeon holes women into a
corner.


>


    "Mens way of knowing" about an issue like this comes by opening
ones eyes and observing what people actually do. Hyerdahls way of
knowing is to bring out some antecdotes, which are probably made up
anyway, and then make a logic-defying assertion like " You cannot tell
how much a Doctor wants to practice medicine by whether or not he or
she chooses to practice it."


> >    Therefore, the claim that they were really "prevented" from
doing>so in
> the past is bogus. The so-called barriers to them were actually>just
excuses
> for not pressing on against resistance.
>
> So you're A-ok with idea that women should have to fight harder for
their
> eduation than men do for theirs.



   The educational establishment is overwhelmingly female. They make
nearly all the policies and rules.

  Good to know.  Fortunately most women are up
> to the job.  :-)
>
>  Nearly every guy gets more in-his-face put downs and
nasty>resistance in the
> rough and tumble of real life outside the home than most women have a
clue
> about. So it is irritating when some>over-priviledged women look for
sympathy
> because not everyone likes >them or fails to hold the door open..
>
> Having doors slammed in ones face is not the same as requesting them
being
> opened for you.  All women seem to want NOW is for assholes to keep
out of
> their way.


   As they flee from actually doing the roles they said they wanted to
perform.


 AND, that...will be that.
> >
> From the tone of your answer, it seems that the solution that  seems
> >right to>> you is for even more resources to be put for free in her
hands.
> Then,
> >maybe, if> she feels like it, she might work a little harder.
> >> >
> Actually, how equal is too equal.  I'm ok with women and men seeking
funds on
> the exact same level, and not based on how many hours someone guesses
their
> going to work or whether or not they're in it for love or money.


    Most people pay for what only you can do for them. Only a self
centered, over privledged, spoiled child would ask for any other
arrangement.



>
> >> It's really not up to either of you how many hours she works, any
> >more than it>> is up to you as to his time.  Likely as not both of
them will
> >determine that based on their home life and the choices they make
there.
> >>
> So women should not become doctors if they want to have children?
>
> More women are entering medical school than at any other time in
history;  if
> men need jobs I suggest they look into the nursing shortage.  :-)
> (edit)


   Feministic changes in professional education have allowed the fewer
remaining full time working men to raise their fees. It is called the
law of supply and demand.. It has also placed them in much greater
sexual demand from all of those unfullfilled, under-loved ,
only-wants-to-sleep-with-an-"equal" female colleages.


>
> >> >Women have no right to try to balance work and family?>Men have
no>right to
> >> balance work and family? >How many hours are these doctors
required to work
> in the first>place.>If it's like the US, then it could be up to 80
hours a
> week. >Perhaps more men should work parttime and become stay at home
dads.
> >> >
> >> It would be healthier and perhaps then they could stop complaining
> >about why>> they die 7 years sooner.
> >>
> >>
-



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/7/05 2:33:40 PM ---