CHICAGO - There are just about as many women as men in medical school, but...
Read more on AuntMinnie.com
Related Reading:
Video from RSNA 2016: How common is career burnout among radiologists?
Video from RSNA 2016: Can AI rescue radiologists from isolation?
Video from RSNA 2016: Is imaging moving away from outpatient centers?
Video from RSNA 2016: AI and radiology -- Separating hope from hype
Video from RSNA 2016: How will the 2016 election affect radiology?
Comments:
12/1/2016 5:22:00 PM
Jan the Third
I don't see this as a problem. Men and women likely go to medical school for reasons that differ sufficiently to lead them to different specialties. Many radiology attendings and residents have told me frankly that they like the fact that the field allows them to concentrate on the medicine and sidestep social work, pt families, and so on. This could well be a factor contributing to the disparity.
12/1/2016 6:18:22 PM
TradRads123
I agree. I know many excellent female radiologists, but that doesn't mean it has to be 50/50. I doubt that pediatrics is saying "OMG!! Why aren't more men choosing peds?" Different specialties attract different types of people, so what...
12/1/2016 6:38:00 PM
jd4540
Quote from TradRads123
I agree. I know many excellent female radiologists, but that doesn't mean it has to be 50/50. I doubt that pediatrics is saying "OMG!! Why aren't more men choosing peds?" Different specialties attract different types of people, so what...
yep, if women want/don't want to chose radiology as a career that is their decision...this 50/50 concept is just part of our ultra-pc culture, enough already...
12/1/2016 6:39:46 PM
rads4meplease
Because they're smarter than us.
12/1/2016 7:03:48 PM
jd4540
Quote from rads4meplease
Because they're smarter than us.
true dat[;)]
12/1/2016 7:23:07 PM
radi2012
Dermatology is close to 70% female. Female doctors are pretty damn smart about choosing specialties.
12/1/2016 7:29:43 PM
hey
But they also pick Peds, the lowest paying specialty.
12/1/2016 7:49:16 PM
IGotKids2Feed
Life isn't all about money. Someone who chooses peds because they want to will likely be more fulfilled than someone who chooses another specialty for the money.
12/1/2016 7:58:14 PM
Jan the Third
I did a one-month derm rotation in med school. After the third wrinkle-filler patient, I was ready to smack someone in the face. The field ain't all sunshine and roses.
12/1/2016 7:58:35 PM
jd4540
Quote from radi2012
Dermatology is close to 70% female. Female doctors are pretty damn smart about choosing specialties.
think thats a lifestyle choice...if you want to make money in private practice derm you are going to work
12/1/2016 8:49:49 PM
radi2012
Have you checked derm salaries? They are similar to radiology, with 2/3 the hours. That is a smart choice.
12/1/2016 8:52:22 PM
hey
Quote from radi2012
Have you checked derm salaries? They are similar to radiology, with 2/3 the hours. That is a smart choice.
Have you checked Peds salaries? They are 40% of radiology's with similar hours.
12/1/2016 9:00:46 PM
jd4540
Quote from radi2012
Have you checked derm salaries? They are similar to radiology, with 2/3 the hours. That is a smart choice.
my former co-resident's sister is a derm in kaiser, makes good money but has to see about 60 patients in a typical work day, there's no free lunch
12/1/2016 10:03:19 PM
fw
Quote from Jan the Third
I did a one-month derm rotation in med school. After the third wrinkle-filler patient, I was ready to smack someone in the face. The field ain't all sunshine and roses.
Had to see a derm the other day for a skin lesion. 'Sure, we can shave that off'. Didn't take all of 10 minutes, ka--ching $500 in the till.
And at the end of the day, the derm goes home and never works a weekend.
Oh yes, it is all sunshine roses and puppydogs.
12/1/2016 10:56:26 PM
IGotKids2Feed
Had to see a derm the other day for a skin lesion. 'Sure, we can shave that off'. Didn't take all of 10 minutes, ka--ching $500 in the till.
Just like us, the dermatologist probably gets $35 out of that $500. Playing the RVU game against each other just like we are. While the administrators are doing the ka-ching dance.
12/1/2016 10:58:17 PM
IGotKids2Feed
Quote from fw
Had to see a derm the other day for a skin lesion. 'Sure, we can shave that off'. Didn't take all of 10 minutes, ka--ching $500 in the till.
Just like us, the dermatologist probably gets $35 out of that $500. Playing the RVU game against each other just like we are. While the administrators are doing the ka-ching dance.
12/1/2016 11:25:32 PM
fa la la
Derm managed to protect themselves much better than radiologists that sold each other out. At least they were smart enough to end MOHS fellowship for general surgeons or any other specialties. Radiologists decided to teach anyone with a heartbeat.
12/2/2016 11:28:27 AM
radi2012
Derm also graduates 400 trainees a year while we are approaching 1200.
12/2/2016 11:32:46 AM
Jan the Third
The challenge here is that there's a difficult balance to maintain: on the one hand, radiologists are becoming a mainstay of healthcare on par with internists and surgeons and quite unlike derm, so there's demand for lots of people to read studies; on the other, with the development of AI, it's likely that in 15-20 years, we'll need significantly fewer radiologists, so now really is the time to cut slots.
Leadership just doesn't care.
12/2/2016 11:34:26 AM
radi2012
At the AUR in 2014, I was told we need 3 times as many radiologists as now.
12/2/2016 4:19:21 PM
Dr. Fager
We've had this conversation before. Summary? Academics have nothing to do but re-hash stupid progressive themes, over and over and over.
Women aren't going into medicine? There must be some nefarious something out there, the world is going to implode if we don't get more women radiologists! What a waste of time.
12/2/2016 5:43:38 PM
Jan the Third
She seems nice (and may or not be brilliant... I've been too busy to follow RSNA this year), but when pressed for ways to make the field more attractive for women, she fell back to increasing exposure to medical students in general. Which is a great idea, of course, but the reason why there's no way to more specifically market the field to women is that there's no impediment to women entering the field as it is.
In other words, there's no problem that needs to be fixed. I doubt any female referrer is glancing at their radiology reports and saying, "Gosh darn it, another male radiologist?!"
12/2/2016 11:06:11 PM
IGotKids2Feed
All this talk of male, female... what about transgender? There should be required quotas for training programs.
12/3/2016 9:46:08 AM
Dr. Fager
^
The slippery slope is real. Just look at the (D) party. For them, identity crap never ends, no matter how small the new identity. Don't ever be fooled about where this crap goes once started ...
12/3/2016 11:27:41 AM
uncleduke
Not once in the interview does the subject say that the gender disparity in radiology is a problem. Not once is there any implication of it being problematic. The stated motivation of the study was "curiosity" regarding the origin of the known disparity. The reactions here are known as "trouble with the straw man". As a woman this interviewee thinks more women might be interested in the field if they knew more about it. Not really a societal disruption threat in my mind.
This is a nice little microcosm of unnecessarily contrarian (small r)eactionary rhetoric which belies its own inherent bias and absence of thoughtful listening, which by definition must degrade the quality of any discourse.
I was all set to opine in agreement with the fact that a gender disparity in a given field is not de facto evidence of a problem, then I listened to the short blurb. "Oh", I says to myself, "not what is being said." "Curiosity", I says, " I can get behind that."
Maybe the road to more productive less derisive discourse starts with the age old 'Two ears, one mouth' aphorism. As an aside, I first heard that saying sitting in the front booth of The Red Onion in Aspen, decades ago, drinking pitchers with an old grizzled long beard trout and ski bum, with my dad and two brothers. He was full of great earned wisdom. And beer.
12/3/2016 12:56:12 PM
Jan the Third
Your post smacks of undue condescension and a certain degree of imagined intellectual superiority. The fact that the topic was even discussed is an implication that the disparity is thought to be problematic - or, at least, a mildly pressing issue - because there's no other reason for there to have been a video interview at RSNA on the matter. Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, the interviewer explicitly asks how more women can be attracted to the field. Again, asking for a solution to a perceived problem. By the way, I'm not assigning blame to anybody, and certainly not Dr. Jumper.
12/3/2016 1:10:49 PM
uncleduke
At the risk of sounding condescending,
Q.E.D.
12/4/2016 4:11:58 PM
fa la la
Having pointless discussions why some things are some way over and over without a reason is getting to be enough. Eventually, it starts to obscure facts and stupid mantras of "we need more women/minorities/oompa-loompas/other demographic in "fill in the blank field"" take over. Case in point, numerous politicians repeat the nonsense that women make 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. They all either ignore or don't know that this compares the average woman's to the average man's income. No mention of the fact that women choose to go into lower earning fields. The top 9 paying fields are all engineering and men choose to go into them. The other 1 is pharma sales which more women do. The bottom 9 paying fields are all heavily dominated by women. We need to stop treating women as if they're too stupid to google starting salaries for engineers and social workers and make a decision on their own. Similarly, I think female medical students are smart enough to know pediatricians are poor and radiologists are rich, yet women still do not want to be radiologists.
12/4/2016 5:53:38 PM
RadJedi
Quote from IGotKids2Feed
Life isn't all about money.
Then you're not shopping in the right places.
12/4/2016 6:57:26 PM
Jan the Third
Quote from fa la la
Having pointless discussions why some things are some way over and over without a reason is getting to be enough. Eventually, it starts to obscure facts and stupid mantras of "we need more women/minorities/oompa-loompas/other demographic in "fill in the blank field"" take over. Case in point, numerous politicians repeat the nonsense that women make 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. They all either ignore or don't know that this compares the average woman's to the average man's income. No mention of the fact that women choose to go into lower earning fields. The top 9 paying fields are all engineering and men choose to go into them. The other 1 is pharma sales which more women do. The bottom 9 paying fields are all heavily dominated by women. We need to stop treating women as if they're too stupid to google starting salaries for engineers and social workers and make a decision on their own. Similarly, I think female medical students are smart enough to know pediatricians are poor and radiologists are rich, yet women still do not want to be radiologists.
A great example of a statistic for dummies and mediocrities - that is, a statistical figure that's childishly simplistic to the point of practical uselessness, yet serves as the basis for idiots and those with unimpressive intelligence (i.e., the majority of college students) to virtue-signal and agitate instead of doing real work.
12/4/2016 8:03:27 PM
wisdom
oddly, many medical students do not pay attention to average salaries. if you don't have a fam member in medicine or a good friend or sibling ahead of you -- it's not inherently obvious that money should be the deciding factor. i must say that radiology vacation got me interested in radiology...i had no idea about average salary and how it compared to other specialties.
12/5/2016 11:04:04 AM
dxaguru
Dermatology is lucrative, but our kid's orthodontist has a cabin cruiser AND and a sailboat at his summer home in the Keys.
12/5/2016 11:12:59 AM
dxaguru
Female and male brains are wired differently. Child development studies reveal that from a very early age, males generally outperform females in three-dimensional spatial reconstruction tasks and this continues as a general rule throughout life. This cannot possibly be any reason at all as to why women don't chose radiology over other specialties can it?
So they will chose a specialty more suited to their other skills. (Usually fields with lesser overall salaries, but better family working hours.) Then we can't reconcile the "seventy cents on a dollar" women physicians make compared to men as being anything other than misogyny?
12/5/2016 11:14:19 AM
Flounce
Quote from uncleduke
Not once in the interview does the subject say that the gender disparity in radiology is a problem. Not once is there any implication of it being problematic. The stated motivation of the study was "curiosity" regarding the origin of the known disparity. The reactions here are known as "trouble with the straw man". As a woman this interviewee thinks more women might be interested in the field if they knew more about it. Not really a societal disruption threat in my mind.
This is a nice little microcosm of unnecessarily contrarian (small r)eactionary rhetoric which belies its own inherent bias and absence of thoughtful listening, which by definition must degrade the quality of any discourse.
I was all set to opine in agreement with the fact that a gender disparity in a given field is not de facto evidence of a problem, then I listened to the short blurb. "Oh", I says to myself, "not what is being said." "Curiosity", I says, " I can get behind that."
Maybe the road to more productive less derisive discourse starts with the age old 'Two ears, one mouth' aphorism. As an aside, I first heard that saying sitting in the front booth of The Red Onion in Aspen, decades ago, drinking pitchers with an old grizzled long beard trout and ski bum, with my dad and two brothers. He was full of great earned wisdom. And beer.
Uncleduke - a very thoughtful post. A little out of place here.
12/5/2016 5:30:53 PM
Vindicatus
Quote from dxaguru
Female and male brains are wired differently. Child development studies reveal that from a very early age, males generally outperform females in three-dimensional spatial reconstruction tasks and this continues as a general rule throughout life. This cannot possibly be any reason at all as to why women don't chose radiology over other specialties can it?
So they will chose a specialty more suited to their other skills. (Usually fields with lesser overall salaries, but better family working hours.) Then we can't reconcile the "seventy cents on a dollar" women physicians make compared to men as being anything other than misogyny?
So in essence it's your opinion that there aren't more women in radiology because their brains lack sufficient spatial processing ability?
What's your theory on why there are equal numbers of men and women in many surgical fields? Are you tying to suggest that radiology requires better spatial reasoning than surgery?
And you think that your view--that women avoid radiology because they are genetically inferior to men--is free of misogyny?
I wonder what it's like to be so self absorbed and deluded. Simply fascinating.
12/5/2016 5:34:31 PM
Jan the Third
Quote from Vindicatus
@dxaguru
So in essence it's your opinion that there aren't more women in radiology because their brains lack sufficient spatial processing ability?
That's a misrepresentation of what (s)he wrote. You need to read better or stop lying.
Quote from
What's your theory on why there are equal numbers of men and women in many surgical fields? Are you tying to suggest that radiology requires better spatial reasoning than radiology?
The argument could very easily be made that radiology utilizes more abstract spatial reasoning than does surgery.
Quote from
And you think your view--that women genetically are inferior radiologists--is free of misogyny?
I wonder what it's like to be so self absorbed and deluded. Simply fascinating.
Again, (s)he never wrote that women are inferior radiologists.
12/5/2016 5:42:08 PM
Vindicatus
Quote from Jan the Third
Quote from Vindicatus
@dxaguru
So in essence it's your opinion that there aren't more women in radiology because their brains lack sufficient spatial processing ability?
That's a misrepresentation of what (s)he wrote. You need to read better or stop lying.
Quote from
What's your theory on why there are equal numbers of men and women in many surgical fields? Are you tying to suggest that radiology requires better spatial reasoning than radiology?
The argument could very easily be made that radiology utilizes more abstract spatial reasoning than does surgery.
Quote from
And you think your view--that women genetically are inferior radiologists--is free of misogyny?
I wonder what it's like to be so self absorbed and deluded. Simply fascinating.
Again, (s)he never wrote that women are inferior radiologists.
Yeah, I think someone here needs to work on their critical reading skills, but it's not me.
dxaguru referenced studies that claim that men have superior spatial skills, and then suggested that is the reason why women avoid radiology. The implicit claim is that inferior spatial reasoning ability makes one an inferior radiologist, else why would one avoid the field?
And I'm sorry, but to suggest that surgery is different because it may not require "abstract" spatial reasoning is laughable. Thanks for trying though.
12/5/2016 5:46:35 PM
Jan the Third
Quote from Vindicatus
Yeah, I think someone here needs to work on their critical reading skills, but it's not me.
dxaguru referenced studies that claim that men have superior spatial skills, and then suggested that is the reason why women avoid radiology. The implicit claim is that inferior spatial reasoning ability makes one an inferior radiologist, else why would one avoid the field?
What's implied is that because women *on average* are (presumably, for the sake of this discussion) less adept at spatial reasoning, fewer of them go into radiology. This doesn't mean that the women who enter radiology also have, on average, relatively poorer skills. Self-selection of specialty choice confounds these general statistics.
12/5/2016 6:54:31 PM
hey
It's probably fair to say women in general tend to be more social than men. The image that most med students have of radiologists is someone staring at a computer screen with only minimal periods of people interaction.
Of course there are exceptions like breast imaging, but most impressionable med students don't think of those exceptions when considering or discounting radiology.
12/5/2016 7:07:51 PM
hey
I would imagine pathology has same gender disparity for similar reasons
12/5/2016 8:10:25 PM
jd4540
Quote from hey
It's probably fair to say women in general tend to be more social than men.
So you're implicating saying that men would be inferior in more social fields such as psych or FP?![;)]
12/5/2016 8:16:21 PM
Jan the Third
He's clearly a misandrist!
12/5/2016 8:25:55 PM
Jan the Third
Quote from hey
I would imagine pathology has same gender disparity for similar reasons
Interestingly, the percentage of pathologists who were female in 2014 was higher than the percentage of female physicians across specialties (https://members.aamc.org/...0Databook%202014.pdf). But if you take a gander at the specialties with the highest representations of women, you'll notice that virtually all of them fall on the lifestyle-friendly end of the spectrum (excluding Ob/Gyn, but the appeal of that field to women is readily appreciable). And yes, Path is definitely more lifestyle-friendly than Rads is.
12/6/2016 7:33:42 AM
IR27
Quote from Vindicatus
Quote from dxaguru
Female and male brains are wired differently. Child development studies reveal that from a very early age, males generally outperform females in three-dimensional spatial reconstruction tasks and this continues as a general rule throughout life. This cannot possibly be any reason at all as to why women don't chose radiology over other specialties can it?
So they will chose a specialty more suited to their other skills. (Usually fields with lesser overall salaries, but better family working hours.) Then we can't reconcile the "seventy cents on a dollar" women physicians make compared to men as being anything other than misogyny?
So in essence it's your opinion that there aren't more women in radiology because their brains lack sufficient spatial processing ability?
What's your theory on why there are equal numbers of men and women in many surgical fields? Are you tying to suggest that radiology requires better spatial reasoning than surgery?
And you think that your view--that women avoid radiology because they are genetically inferior to men--is free of misogyny?
I wonder what it's like to be so self absorbed and deluded. Simply fascinating.
How in the world did you go from "one gender is superior at spatial reasoning" to " genetic inferiority"
I would say women are better with kids. Does that make men genetically inferior?
12/6/2016 10:16:30 AM
jd4540
Quote from IR27
How in the world did you go from "one gender is superior at spatial reasoning" to " genetic inferiority"
I would say women are better with kids. Does that make men genetically inferior?
seems to be a trend with some to view the world in a prism of sexism, racism etc so they are primed to react whenever they're perceive this to be the case
12/6/2016 12:32:09 PM
Dr. Fager
The same types think that the characteristics that shape the guys in the 100m dash are coincidental, mainly so they don't have to deal with other realities ... for example, IQ.
The absurd thing is that it's so blatantly obvious it makes their worldview, simply put, retarded. And I mean that in the literal way, not in the PC world way.
12/6/2016 12:35:52 PM
hey
Thanks for providing that info about pathology. I'm surprised there are so many female pathologists [I'll have to defer to you on that because I'm too lazy to verify]. I wonder whether the predominance of FMGs in that field could be a confounder?
I also have to stick up for Vindicatus. Although I don't have anything to back it up, I have a hard time believing people don't choose Rads because they have poorer spatial reasoning. Growing up, I tested poorly on 3-D visualization tasks, and that never factored into my decision to go into Rads. That didn't even occur to me to be essential. Anecdote, sure.
I'm not a misandrist! haha. I just think females are by nature (or nuture) more social beings than men. Far more Schizoid/autistic/Asperger spectrum men than women in general, and I see them in our field all the time!
12/6/2016 12:47:55 PM
Dr. Fager
To say that particular classes of people are not genetically superior or inferior, regarding certain and particular characteristics, is profoundly ignorant of what every man knows, and what all men have tested and observed.
This of course has nothing to do with human dignity or any degree of "hate" or -ism.
Not understanding both of the above is severe mental delusion as well as lack of logic and critical thinking.
12/6/2016 3:24:02 PM
jd4540
Quote from Dr. ****er
To say that particular classes of people are not genetically superior or inferior, regarding certain and particular characteristics, is profoundly ignorant of what every man knows, and what all men have tested and observed.
To me acknowledging that a given race has typical strengths/weaknesses does not mean that as a whole they are superior or inferior to any other race...Maybe these topics are still just too emotionally charged/raw given the history of our country and given that present day racists/supremacists still believe that certain races are inherently inferior as a whole
12/6/2016 3:36:05 PM
Jan the Third
The history of *our* country? World history is replete woth examples of interracial mistreatment, and that includes the massacres of Whites by Blacks in Haiti as well as the trading of hundreds of European slaves by Arabs.
As far as I'm concerned, the whole business comes out a wash. Let the honest discussion (and triggering) commence.
12/6/2016 3:37:13 PM
Jan the Third
The history of *our* country? World history is replete woth examples of interracial mistreatment, and that includes the massacres of Whites by Blacks in Haiti as well as the trading of European slaves by Arabs.
As far as I'm concerned, the whole business comes out a wash. Let the honest discussion (and triggering) commence.
12/6/2016 4:36:04 PM
youngone
I call bulls**t. What are these particular things that ever an has seen and everyone knows. Race is a social construct. Check the genome, we are all homosapiens. And to equate the enslavement of Europeans by the Arabs to that of Africans in the Americas smacks of pure ignornace.
12/6/2016 4:37:54 PM
youngone
And the people who massacred whites in Haiti were slaves freeing themselves. Everyman has the right to do the same to those who would enslave him.
12/6/2016 4:52:55 PM
Jan the Third
Quote from youngone
I call bulls**t. What are these particular things that ever an has seen and everyone knows. Race is a social construct. Check the genome, we are all homosapiens.
Obvious non sequitur is obvious. But hey, sickle cell disease is probably also a social construct. "Check the genome, we are all homosapiens [sic]."
Quote from
And to equate the enslavement of Europeans by the Arabs to that of Africans in the Americas smacks of pure ignornace.
I'm not equating two very different historical processes; I'm illustrating the point that Whites are no more responsible for past misdeeds than are people of any other race. And if you do feel inclined to defend the Arab slave trade relative to that practiced by Africans/Europeans (after all, the trans-Atlantic slave trade relied upon Africans selling their own people to the traders), feel free.
12/6/2016 4:54:18 PM
Jan the Third
Quote from youngone
And the people who massacred whites in Haiti were slaves freeing themselves.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre
12/6/2016 5:03:41 PM
youngone
Different genetic disease in different populations has nothing to do with what the human mind is capable of. I guess sickle cell or tay Sachs makes some people dumber or smarter than others. Or maybe these diseases make someone have a bad temper.
12/6/2016 5:07:46 PM
youngone
And as far as Africans selling slaves, they had no idea what European slavery was like. They even enslaved neighboring tribes sometimes as a result of war but African slavery was substantially less cruel then that of Europeans and the scales are not comparable. It's a worn out argument and no historian would try to make that argument.
12/6/2016 5:11:44 PM
youngone
And I read that wiki article on the Hatian massacre. It seems like revenge to me.
Have they not hung up men with heads downward, drowned them in sacks, crucified them on planks, buried them alive, crushed them in mortars? Have they not forced them to consume faeces? And, having flayed them with the lash, have they not cast them alive to be devoured by worms, or onto anthills, or lashed them to stakes in the swamp to be devoured by mosquitoes? Have they not thrown them into boiling cauldrons of cane syrup? Have they not put men and women inside barrels studded with spikes and rolled them down mountainsides into the abyss? Have they not consigned these miserable blacks to man eating-dogs until the latter, sated by human flesh, left the mangled victims to be finished off with bayonet and poniard?[9]
Some people say turn the other cheek. Others say an eye for an eye.
12/6/2016 5:16:51 PM
youngone
From wiki on Hatian slavery:
The French, like the Spanish, imported slaves from Africa. In 1681 there were 2,000 African slaves in the future Saint Domingue; by 1789 there were almost half a million.[24]
The Code Noir regulated behavior and treatment of slaves in the French colonies
French plantation-owners worked their African slaves so hard that half died within a few years; it was cheaper to import new slaves than to improve working conditions enough to increase survival.[25] The rate of death of slaves on Saint Domingue's plantations was higher than anywhere else in the western hemisphere.[26] Over the French colony's hundred-year course, slavery killed about a million Africans, and thousands more chose suicide.[27] Slaves newly arrived from Africa, particularly women, were especially likely to kill themselves; some thought that in death they could return home to Africa.[28] Pregnant slaves usually did not survive long enough or have healthy enough pregnancies to have live babies, but if they did the children often died young.[25] Food was insufficient, and slaves were expected to grow and prepare it for themselves on top of their already crushing, 12-hour workdays.[29] It was legal for a slaveholder to kill a slave who hit a white person, according to the 1685 Code Noir, a decree by the French king Louis XIV regulating practices of slaves and slavers.[30] Torture of slaves was routine; they were whipped, burned, buried alive, restrained and allowed to be bitten by swarms of insects, mutilated, raped, and had limbs amputated.[25] Slaves caught eating the sugar cane would be forced to wear tin muzzles in the fields.[31]
12/6/2016 5:28:48 PM
Jan the Third
Quote from youngone
And as far as Africans selling slaves, they had no idea what European slavery was like. They even enslaved neighboring tribes sometimes as a result of war but African slavery was substantially less cruel then that of Europeans and the scales are not comparable. It's a worn out argument and no historian would try to make that argument.
This is the worst defense of slave-trading I've ever seen. The scales are perfectly comparable.
And regarding the Haitian massacres, let the record note that you're defending the slaughtering of women and children in revenge.
12/6/2016 5:29:13 PM
youngone
Sarcasm man
12/6/2016 5:29:56 PM
Jan the Third
LOL
12/6/2016 5:31:51 PM
youngone
Nobody is defending it man. But you have to look at why it happened. These people were absolutely brutalized and that creates monsters.
And you were the one sayings it's all a wash.
12/6/2016 5:33:27 PM
Jan the Third
Quote from youngone
Nobody is defending it man. But you have to look at why it happened. These people were absolutely brutalized and that creates monsters.
And you were the one sayings it's all a wash.
I stand by that statement.
12/6/2016 5:37:45 PM
youngone
Bet.
12/6/2016 6:36:36 PM
howdoesishotweb
Every once in awhile I open AM and think to myself "This is the worst discussion between educated professionals I've ever read". This thread was reaching on page 1, but now it easily takes the cake.
12/6/2016 7:53:00 PM
Vindicatus
Quote from IR27
Quote from Vindicatus
Quote from dxaguru
Female and male brains are wired differently. Child development studies reveal that from a very early age, males generally outperform females in three-dimensional spatial reconstruction tasks and this continues as a general rule throughout life. This cannot possibly be any reason at all as to why women don't chose radiology over other specialties can it?
So they will chose a specialty more suited to their other skills. (Usually fields with lesser overall salaries, but better family working hours.) Then we can't reconcile the "seventy cents on a dollar" women physicians make compared to men as being anything other than misogyny?
So in essence it's your opinion that there aren't more women in radiology because their brains lack sufficient spatial processing ability?
What's your theory on why there are equal numbers of men and women in many surgical fields? Are you tying to suggest that radiology requires better spatial reasoning than surgery?
And you think that your view--that women avoid radiology because they are genetically inferior to men--is free of misogyny?
I wonder what it's like to be so self absorbed and deluded. Simply fascinating.
How in the world did you go from "one gender is superior at spatial reasoning" to " genetic inferiority"
I would say women are better with kids. Does that make men genetically inferior?
Not sure what's so hard for you to understand. If you claim that one is superior, the other is, by definition, inferior.
If you want to make the claim that women avoid radiology because you believe that "males generally outperform females in three-dimensional spatial reconstruction tasks and this continues as a general rule throughout life," then--and I'm sorry if this is somehow triggering you--you're being sexist. You are generalizing average population statistics (that may or may not even be true) to explain individual decisions.
I don't even agree with this whole push to recruit more women into radiology. Honestly, who cares? We have more important things to worry about as a field. But I have to call a spade a spade.
Maybe the following hypothetical scenario will put this in better perspective:
Let's suppose that you were of a race that, on average, was equipped with a smaller than average penis. If I then I make a supposition that, perhaps, your lack of endowment might be a potential driver in your decision, as an individual, to troll on Aunt Minnie, I would be stereotyping, and that would be wrong.
12/7/2016 7:32:39 PM
radmaybe
Quote from Vindicatus
Quote from IR27
Quote from Vindicatus
Quote from dxaguru
Female and male brains are wired differently. Child development studies reveal that from a very early age, males generally outperform females in three-dimensional spatial reconstruction tasks and this continues as a general rule throughout life. This cannot possibly be any reason at all as to why women don't chose radiology over other specialties can it?
So they will chose a specialty more suited to their other skills. (Usually fields with lesser overall salaries, but better family working hours.) Then we can't reconcile the "seventy cents on a dollar" women physicians make compared to men as being anything other than misogyny?
So in essence it's your opinion that there aren't more women in radiology because their brains lack sufficient spatial processing ability?
What's your theory on why there are equal numbers of men and women in many surgical fields? Are you tying to suggest that radiology requires better spatial reasoning than surgery?
And you think that your view--that women avoid radiology because they are genetically inferior to men--is free of misogyny?
I wonder what it's like to be so self absorbed and deluded. Simply fascinating.
How in the world did you go from "one gender is superior at spatial reasoning" to " genetic inferiority"
I would say women are better with kids. Does that make men genetically inferior?
Not sure what's so hard for you to understand. If you claim that one is superior, the other is, by definition, inferior.
If you want to make the claim that women avoid radiology because you believe that "males generally outperform females in three-dimensional spatial reconstruction tasks and this continues as a general rule throughout life," then--and I'm sorry if this is somehow triggering you--you're being sexist. You are generalizing average population statistics (that may or may not even be true) to explain individual decisions.
I don't even agree with this whole push to recruit more women into radiology. Honestly, who cares? We have more important things to worry about as a field. But I have to call a spade a spade.
Maybe the following hypothetical scenario will put this in better perspective:
Let's suppose that you were of a race that, on average, was equipped with a smaller than average penis. If I then I make a supposition that, perhaps, your lack of endowment might be a potential driver in your decision, as an individual, to troll on Aunt Minnie, I would be stereotyping, and that would be wrong.
Is this real life? Yes, everyone and everything is exactly the same. I don't know the research on this specific comment but do you honestly think that the bell curves in every given skill are identical for men and women? This is just absurd.
Also, its clear you're the triggered one for having a temper tantrum...