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.
    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.
    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..


>
>  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.
> >
> 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?
>
> Indeed.  He's funny.


   Actually, it is not my problem. I really do not care.



>
> >But men can be doctors even if they want to have children?
>
> That's the kind of world bitter boys envision.

   None of this is my problem. I see no reason to agonize about the
costs involved in the personal choices of wealthy individuals.



>
> >If women doctors have children, then they should stick the kids
in>daycare 10
> hours a day or hire a team of nannies?
>
> He wants women to pay.

   A truly horrifying notion to feminists. Just invoking this
possibility is thus servicable as an example of evil intent.
    You guys are drunk with priviledge.




>
> >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} 2/6/05 10:31:00 PM ---