Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

The thing is that doctors will tend to blame problems on whatever the first likely visible cause is, and obesity is correlated with enough things that it's way, way too convenient to use for that.

[kaijyuu]

I'd read the comments in the thread.

Doctors telling people to lose weight to fix their damaged knee by running?  That is stupid.

Bah, comments?

Yes that example is one of a stupid doctor. Doctors blaming problems on obesity when that's obviously not the cause should be investigated like any other form of malpractice. The vibe I got from the article itself though is "doctors should stop treating obesity like it causes problems." Which is bupkis.

The thing is that doctors will tend to blame problems on whatever the first likely visible cause is, and obesity is correlated with enough things that it's way, way too convenient to use for that.

So you're saying they should ignore it and investigate less likely causes first?

Like any sort of treatment, communication between the doctor and patient is key. Switch to less likely causes if the initial treatments for the obvious problem do no show any improvements; assuming the problem isn't what's obvious is going to lead to more misdiagnosis than the other way around.

[G-Flex]

So you're saying they should ignore it and investigate less likely causes first?

That obviously depends on the situation. Having a convenient excuse for damn near any illness doesn't mean that excuse should be the sole informing factor of your diagnosis and there are other likely factors involved. Differential diagnosis exists for a reason; even if someone might be suffering from a set of symptoms due to obesity, if it's also a symptom set consistent with polycystic ovarian syndrome, you probably want to look into that too, since that's also a common enough thing.

[kaijyuu]

Fair enough; agreed.

[Vector]

Gonna throw this in, too.

This blog is interesting and has a good tone, I think, plus short and palatable articles.  Go check it out.

[Kay12]

Also, what would happen to people like me? I've studied for years to land a job in the development department of a respected medium-sized IT company, and you'd prefer hiring someone who can't program, but does have a vagina? That's discrimination. If you claim to oppose discrimination, you can't condone this without being a hypocrite.

I have never said that I oppose discrimination in general. What I oppose is the oppression of women in particularly and frankly I don't see a way to stop this without beating the attitude out of some people, but since physically beating an idea out of someone is apparently against Human Rights and oppressing women isn't, I'll have to settle for fighting these 'people' on their own level. Now I realize that in most people's eyes this makes me a bigot as well as a hypocrite, but that's something I'm willing to live with.


And to answer your first question, if a company would interview both me and a woman for, say, a research position and chose her over me even though I'm 'objectively' (as if...) the better researcher, then that's something I'll have to suck up for our society.

"Beating the attitude out of some people" is your justification for letting actually talented men be replaced with people whose only merit is being born with a vagina? That's a pretty flimsy justification for anything - Romans "beat the attitude" out of Christians, Ku Klux Klan "beats the attitude" out of black people etc. And in the unlikely and utterly depressing scenario where your plan is implemented, it will only worsen misogynist tendencies - do you realize that if companies are forced to prioritize women during hiring in the way you suggested, most workplaces will get women underqualified (or even completely unsuited) for the job resulting in women becoming a burden for their employers as well as other employees, only reinforcing the negative stereotypes some people have? I'm all fine with small gender biasing to balance the demographic, but forcing a 45% minimum female rate would fuck up countless workplaces (even more if you throw in an upper limit to avoid females from crowding certain jobs), not to mention the effects of pregnant women always getting the jobs they apply for. Millions of people, men and women, would lose their jobs and possibly have their lives ruined - simply because we're "beating the attitudes out of some people". Is it worth it?

And about qualifications, since you didn't answer... again, if you need a doctor to help you deal with your (or a relative's) dangerous disease, which doctor would you see - one who has studied medicine for years and has experience treating the disease, or one with hardly any medical training but who is pregnant? If you needed someone to do your accounting, would you hire an accountant who is a certified professional with years of experience, or a woman with considerably less experience and several embezzlement accusations in her past? In short, why do you think it always makes sense to hire a woman (preferably pregnant) even if she's horribly underqualified?

[G-Flex]

And about qualifications, since you didn't answer... again, if you need a doctor to help you deal with your (or a relative's) dangerous disease, which doctor would you see - one who has studied medicine for years and has experience treating the disease, or one with hardly any medical training but who is pregnant? If you needed someone to do your accounting, would you hire an accountant who is a certified professional with years of experience, or a woman with considerably less experience and several embezzlement accusations in her past? In short, why do you think it always makes sense to hire a woman (preferably pregnant) even if she's horribly underqualified?

It's a good thing this is never the actual choice in real-world affirmative action, wherein the choice is generally between two candidates of roughly similar qualifications. I don't think anyone would recommend that people be hired for jobs they aren't qualified to do.

[Kay12]

And about qualifications, since you didn't answer... again, if you need a doctor to help you deal with your (or a relative's) dangerous disease, which doctor would you see - one who has studied medicine for years and has experience treating the disease, or one with hardly any medical training but who is pregnant? If you needed someone to do your accounting, would you hire an accountant who is a certified professional with years of experience, or a woman with considerably less experience and several embezzlement accusations in her past? In short, why do you think it always makes sense to hire a woman (preferably pregnant) even if she's horribly underqualified?

It's a good thing this is never the actual choice in real-world affirmative action, wherein the choice is generally between two candidates of roughly similar qualifications. I don't think anyone would recommend that people be hired for jobs they aren't qualified to do.

At least by how I understood it, Virex does support it. I still have my doubts about how serious he is, though.

[Virex]

And about qualifications, since you didn't answer... again, if you need a doctor to help you deal with your (or a relative's) dangerous disease, which doctor would you see - one who has studied medicine for years and has experience treating the disease, or one with hardly any medical training but who is pregnant? If you needed someone to do your accounting, would you hire an accountant who is a certified professional with years of experience, or a woman with considerably less experience and several embezzlement accusations in her past? In short, why do you think it always makes sense to hire a woman (preferably pregnant) even if she's horribly underqualified?

It's a good thing this is never the actual choice in real-world affirmative action, wherein the choice is generally between two candidates of roughly similar qualifications. I don't think anyone would recommend that people be hired for jobs they aren't qualified to do.

At least by how I understood it, Virex does support it. I still have my doubts about how serious he is, though.

I have already addressed this point by saying that a minimum qualification should be necessary. I however cannot related to your reasoning all that well as you seem to assume that women in general and pregnant women in particular are somehow less qualified for most jobs.

[Kay12]

And about qualifications, since you didn't answer... again, if you need a doctor to help you deal with your (or a relative's) dangerous disease, which doctor would you see - one who has studied medicine for years and has experience treating the disease, or one with hardly any medical training but who is pregnant? If you needed someone to do your accounting, would you hire an accountant who is a certified professional with years of experience, or a woman with considerably less experience and several embezzlement accusations in her past? In short, why do you think it always makes sense to hire a woman (preferably pregnant) even if she's horribly underqualified?

It's a good thing this is never the actual choice in real-world affirmative action, wherein the choice is generally between two candidates of roughly similar qualifications. I don't think anyone would recommend that people be hired for jobs they aren't qualified to do.

At least by how I understood it, Virex does support it. I still have my doubts about how serious he is, though.

I have already addressed this point by saying that a minimum qualification should be necessary. I however cannot related to your reasoning all that well as you seem to assume that women in general and pregnant women in particular are somehow less qualified for most jobs.

Nowhere did I say that, nor do I think so.

[Siquo]

Oh hey I'm not really interested in the current discussion so just let me dump some links mmkay?

Fun in Teheran, until the police came along, but you can't blame islam...


Unrelated to water-wastage: Food riots expected.

[Reelyanoob]

To kay12, Virex "know thine enemy"

Women are not really lining up to get into the same courses as the average male, even though they outnumber males at universities. To get 50/50 in the male dominated courses, we'd have to force women currently studying law and medicine to change subjects. Do we really want to be forcing women to do courses which they state are not their first preference?

Or are we as the "enlightened ones" telling them we know better than they do what they should be aspiring to be?

Susan Pinker's ideas, general overview (the book is good, but this interview covers some of the basic themes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tq2gUQpJhA

Some studies cited of Oxytocin / Testosterone effects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNONWYorKtw

[Kay12]

To kay12, Virex "know thine enemy"

Women are not really lining up to get into the same courses as the average male, even though they outnumber males at universities. To get 50/50 in the male dominated courses, we'd have to force women currently studying law and medicine to change subjects. Do we really want to be forcing women to do courses which they state are not their first preference?

Indeed, that's one of the reasons the 45% mandatory female rate wouldn't work. I work in a medium-sized software company - we have very little women, so they'd have to fire most of us men or start desperately scavenging for women regardless of their qualifications while almost every other software company was doing the same. And this would happen everywhere where the gender division is not equal at the moment, regardless of the reason. Again, Virex, do you seriously think that's a good idea?

[Virex]

To kay12, Virex "know thine enemy"

Women are not really lining up to get into the same courses as the average male, even though they outnumber males at universities. To get 50/50 in the male dominated courses, we'd have to force women currently studying law and medicine to change subjects. Do we really want to be forcing women to do courses which they state are not their first preference?

Or are we as the "enlightened ones" telling them we know better than they do what they should be aspiring to be?

Susan Pinker's ideas, general overview (the book is good, but this interview covers some of the basic themes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tq2gUQpJhA

Some studies cited of Oxytocin / Testosterone effects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNONWYorKtw

Well what do you expect of a society that wastes no chances telling women they don't belong in mathematics or engineering disciplines? To solve this, it's not women that have to change.

To kay12, Virex "know thine enemy"

Women are not really lining up to get into the same courses as the average male, even though they outnumber males at universities. To get 50/50 in the male dominated courses, we'd have to force women currently studying law and medicine to change subjects. Do we really want to be forcing women to do courses which they state are not their first preference?

Indeed, that's one of the reasons the 45% mandatory female rate wouldn't work. I work in a medium-sized software company - we have very little women, so they'd have to fire most of us men or start desperately scavenging for women regardless of their qualifications while almost every other software company was doing the same. And this would happen everywhere where the gender division is off currently, regardless of the reason. Again, Virex, do you seriously think that's a good idea?

Again, if a company realy cannot find enough competent women, then there is little that can be done about that and the company shouldn't have to bleed for that. Nobody can make people out of thin air. But if in such a case a female applicant is turned down, said company will have to justify that.

[Kay12]

To kay12, Virex "know thine enemy"

Women are not really lining up to get into the same courses as the average male, even though they outnumber males at universities. To get 50/50 in the male dominated courses, we'd have to force women currently studying law and medicine to change subjects. Do we really want to be forcing women to do courses which they state are not their first preference?

Or are we as the "enlightened ones" telling them we know better than they do what they should be aspiring to be?

Susan Pinker's ideas, general overview (the book is good, but this interview covers some of the basic themes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tq2gUQpJhA

Some studies cited of Oxytocin / Testosterone effects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNONWYorKtw

Well what do you expect of a society that wastes no chances telling women they don't belong in mathematics or engineering disciplines? To solve this, it's not women that have to change.

Does society tell them that? I haven't heard it did. We had about ten males for each female in our business college despite women even gaining extra points in the entrance tests because of the current gender distribution. The same applies in reverse (=men gain extra points) for nurses, hairdressers and other female-dominated careers. If anything, society is telling both women and men that they should seriously consider careers that aren't traditionally "meant" for their gender - otherwise they would penalize, not reward the "untraditional" choice.

To kay12, Virex "know thine enemy"

Women are not really lining up to get into the same courses as the average male, even though they outnumber males at universities. To get 50/50 in the male dominated courses, we'd have to force women currently studying law and medicine to change subjects. Do we really want to be forcing women to do courses which they state are not their first preference?

Indeed, that's one of the reasons the 45% mandatory female rate wouldn't work. I work in a medium-sized software company - we have very little women, so they'd have to fire most of us men or start desperately scavenging for women regardless of their qualifications while almost every other software company was doing the same. And this would happen everywhere where the gender division is off currently, regardless of the reason. Again, Virex, do you seriously think that's a good idea?

Again, if a company realy cannot find enough competent women, then there is little that can be done about that and the company shouldn't have to bleed for that. Nobody can make people out of thin air. But if in such a case a female applicant is turned down, said company will have to justify that.

Discrimination in recruiting is already criminal. Companies are already subject to discrimination inquiries.