Women 1 idiots 0

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. That quote’s actually from Jesus. 

No, it's attributed to Jesus, but it's a quote from Matthew. Chapter 4i

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

If we could all kindly return / stick to the topic of this thread, it would be appreciated.

 

[MigL]

Darn it.
Although we may be off-topic, this is one of the best threads going, at this time.

[John Cuthber]

OK, let's try again.

On 6/20/2019 at 9:39 PM, John Cuthber said:

Slightly OT but re. "Confucius says: "Man with watch always knows the time. Man with two watches is never sure.""
When was the watch invented and when was Confucius writing?

Anyway, it's not "practical" to choose bad doctors over good ones- regardless of the likely lengths of their carers.

Apart from anything else, the students are (generally) the ones picking up the cost of tuition.
The government picks up the cost of poor doctors.

 

Now,  given that StringJunky's comment "Confucius says: "Man with watch always knows the time. Man with two watches is never sure." wasn't made because he lacks the intellect to recognise that Confucius didn't have a watch, it can't be intellect shaming to comment on it.

SJ's intellect was never in dispute here.

So, perhaps, Allthechemist could ignore the bit that's explicitly OT, and  address the other point which Swansont and I raised.

It's not an issue of practicality.

Edited June 29, 2019 by John Cuthber

[Althechemist]

like I said (before someone deleted it) I'm done arguing... it's pointless.

how can one be sure whether it's or isn't and issue of practicality or discrimination or even both without being there with the ones who made the choice?

so outright saying one side is wrong or right (referring to the forum users) is ignorant within it's self... not everything is as it seems right off the start.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Althechemist

[swansont]

There’s no “or” here. These aren’t mutually exclusive justifications. One can make a case for or against practically, and I don’t see the case in favor of it. 

But how is it not discrimination? Saying “practicality” is an attempt to justify the discrimination, not a denial of it.

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Althechemist said:

like I said (before someone deleted it)

What did anyone delete?
It's extraordinary for this site to delete stuff.

[Althechemist]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

There’s no “or” here. These aren’t mutually exclusive justifications. One can make a case for or against practically, and I don’t see the case in favor of it. 

But how is it not discrimination? Saying “practicality” is an attempt to justify the discrimination, not a denial of it.

I'm not saying it's not but I'm not saying it's the sole reason either, because I don't know because I wasn't there.

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

What did anyone delete?
It's extraordinary for this site to delete stuff.

well I made a post and it's no longer there, so the logical conclusion for me to make is that is was deleted, back to topic please.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Althechemist

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Althechemist said:

well I made a post and it's no longer there, so the logical conclusion for me to make is that is was deleted, back to topic please.

I'm trying to get back to the topic; specifically the bit that you posted and which is missing.
What did it say?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Althechemist said:

I'm not saying it's not but I'm not saying it's the sole reason either, because I don't know because I wasn't there.

Why does this matter? It’s discriminatory. Are there loopholes where it’s permitted if you can come up with a good reason?

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

There’s no “or” here. These aren’t mutually exclusive justifications. One can make a case for or against practically, and I don’t see the case in favor of it. 

But how is it not discrimination? Saying “practicality” is an attempt to justify the discrimination, not a denial of it.

it was based on their reasons which were deemed practical at the time... they didn't want to waste money on people that were more likely  to have a short career. They wanted more return on their investment. It's not justifying it, it's observing without colouring what one is seeing with ones moral compass. 

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

it was based on their reasons which were deemed practical at the time... they didn't want to waste money on people that were more likely  to have a short career. They wanted more return on their investment. It's not justifying it, it's observing without colouring what one is seeing with ones moral compass. 

That wasn’t the question. Just because you have a reason does not mean it’s not discrimination. And it is justifying it.

[John Cuthber]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

it was based on their reasons which were deemed practical at the time

Slavery was practical...

 

 

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

. they didn't want to waste money on people that were more likely  to have a short career. They wanted more return on their investment.

As far as I can tell, the students pay the university.

[StringJunky]

49 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Slavery was practical...

Yes... at the time.

With respect to your quote of my quote:

Quote

So why is a country that is battling a shortage of doctors to support its aging population trying to bar qualified candidates from getting training?

According to an unnamed source who spoke to the Yomiuri Shimbun, the school thought female students would eventually leave the medical profession to give birth and raise their children. “There was a silent understanding [to accept more male students] as one way to resolve the doctor shortage,” the source said, adding that the policy was a “necessary evil.”

It is true that female physicians tend to leave the profession at much higher rates than their male counterparts (particularly when they become mothers), but many disagree that keeping them out of medical school is an appropriate or effective response.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/08/02/a-medical-school-in-japan-didnt-want-too-many-women-so-it-lowered-their-grades/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d1c36d8a8232

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That wasn’t the question. Just because you have a reason does not mean it’s not discrimination. And it is justifying it.

If you want to see through a biased lens , that's up to you..

[MigL]

Are you saying, Stringy, that while the choices made were discriminatory ( and ultimately wrong ), there may have been no bias against women, just practical ( but again, wrong ) concerns ?
And does it make any difference to the women involved ?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

If you want to see through a biased lens , that's up to you..

Lens? Biased lens? AYFKM? 

Discrimination based on gender is pretty objectively defined. There’s no biased here. Women were treated one way, men were treated another way. That’s not a subjective assessment.

 

[John Cuthber]

What might be considered "practical" would be the idea that, if we could work out which young people were going to continue in their medical careers for longest, we  could focus training on them.

But choosing sex as a proxy for that "career length" is discriminatory.

Also, as has been pointed out, there's an aging population. That gives people longer careers.

So the "time out" raising a family becomes less significant as a fraction of  the whole career. Parents can return to medical practice after raising kids.

So, the given "reason" for the biassed choice doesn't actually make sense.

The only way that  prejudicing the system against women  can  be made to look "sensible" is to distort the effects of an aging population.

 

12 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If you want to see through a biased lens , that's up to you..

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Discrimination is discrimination. But that doesn't mean justifiable discrimination can't exist.

Discriminating against those who may drop out, permanently or temporarily, to bear children would have the similar statistical justification as discriminating based on advanced age, where a shorter career could be expected.

The difference is political, based on what people will accept as fair.

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Discrimination is discrimination. But that doesn't mean justifiable discrimination can't exist.

Yes it does...

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Discriminating against those who may drop out, permanently or temporarily, to bear children would have the similar statistical justification as discriminating based on advanced age, where a shorter career could be expected.

Who decides?

You can't know how short a career will be, even in your straw man age example.

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The difference is political, based on what people will accept as fair.

Discrimination is never fair (in this context); value can't be quantifiable in advance.

Edited July 4, 2019 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yes it does...

 

So you believe discrimination is never justified?

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yes it does...

Who decides?

You can't know how short a career will be, even in your straw man age example.

Discrimination is never fair (in this context); value can't be quantifiable in advance.

Hardly a straw man. I'm not making an argument for or against anything.

Reread what I wrote more objectively. Nothing I stated was untrue. What's missing, for you, is a clear statement of bias that you would agree with.

 

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you believe discrimination is never justified?

Did you miss this?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

(in this context)

You do know, it's OK (better) to sometimes not reply?

Edited July 4, 2019 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Did you miss this?

You do know, it's OK to sometimes not reply?

You literally claimed justifiable discrimination can't exist. An ambiguous statement with regard to whether it can be fair doesn't qualify that claim, regardless of context.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You literally claimed justifiable discrimination can't exist. An ambiguous statement with regard to whether it can be fair doesn't qualify that claim, regardless of context.

If you win a debate you learn nothing.