Institutional Sexism In Veterinary Medicine

[scombrid]

I have never known a single medical school reject who then applied to vet school.

I have not either.

Can somebody find me one? I know a lot of DVMs and if they are med school rejects they hide it well. Maybe I should double check with Mrs. when she gets home tonight.

 

[J842P]

I have never known a single medical school reject who then applied to vet school.

I have not either.

Can somebody find me one? I know a lot of DVMs and if they are med school rejects they hide it well. Maybe I should double check with Mrs. when she gets home tonight.

Same. I have never heard of it.

I knew a girl who really wanted to be a vet, but her parents wanted her to be a doctor, so she applied to medical school instead. That is probably the most common story, I was in the biological sciences, and there were a lot of premeds in all my classes. So I had a pretty good sense of the people applying to medical school

 

[Derec]

Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children

Rhesus monkeys are stooges of the patriarchy.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can't help but think about a long running gag in the popular Netflix cartoon "F is For Family", and the entirety of "Ron Burgundy". In the timescale of that stupid fucking graph from the OP, there was a significant bias against women in medicine and science. Women were steered away from those occupations heavily in favor of men, despite the fact that the majority of interest in veterinary science that has been expressed to me over the course of my life has come from women (with the exception of my husband, who was, ironically enough, thought to be a woman at the time he expressed an interest in veterinary science.)

So, given the population differences in interest, and the accompanying reduction in bias against women in those fields which closely matches the timeline of that dumb fucking graph from the OP, I don't see why it would have turned out any other way.

This isn't a sign of institutional sexism, but rather a sign of the end or reduction of an institutional sexism. That the OP doesn't take into account the historical context, particularly in the late 70's and early 80's, is, I think, a pretty big flaw in their argument.

Right. It's not. It's an example that 5 million years of evolution have made humans - like nearly every other animal - sexually dimorphic. Men and women, generally, are interested in different things. The purpose of the OP is to contrast the gender disparity in veterinary medicine with gender disparities in other areas. As you point out, the disparities are often not due to sexism or discrimination.

And where you seem to be failing yo use your brainpan, then, is the part where *I have seen you frequently assume individual preference, capability, and desert based on population differences*. Knowing what a population is generally like says nothing about what an individual wants, likes, or is capable of.

Looking at the graph, it is indeed clear that sexism *did* create a rather extreme discrepancy, and one for which there are still social and cultural reinforcing factors in play.

Would you, for instance, be willing to agree to the following statement: "that people who are born with vaginas TEND to pick toys of a particular character *does not* mean that a specific person with a vagina should be limited or corralled, outside of their own self-selection of those toys, to play with such toys; that regardless of population preferences, the only preferences that matter in any particular instance are those of the child"?.

 

[Trausti]

I can't help but think about a long running gag in the popular Netflix cartoon "F is For Family", and the entirety of "Ron Burgundy". In the timescale of that stupid fucking graph from the OP, there was a significant bias against women in medicine and science. Women were steered away from those occupations heavily in favor of men, despite the fact that the majority of interest in veterinary science that has been expressed to me over the course of my life has come from women (with the exception of my husband, who was, ironically enough, thought to be a woman at the time he expressed an interest in veterinary science.)

So, given the population differences in interest, and the accompanying reduction in bias against women in those fields which closely matches the timeline of that dumb fucking graph from the OP, I don't see why it would have turned out any other way.

This isn't a sign of institutional sexism, but rather a sign of the end or reduction of an institutional sexism. That the OP doesn't take into account the historical context, particularly in the late 70's and early 80's, is, I think, a pretty big flaw in their argument.

Right. It's not. It's an example that 5 million years of evolution have made humans - like nearly every other animal - sexually dimorphic. Men and women, generally, are interested in different things. The purpose of the OP is to contrast the gender disparity in veterinary medicine with gender disparities in other areas. As you point out, the disparities are often not due to sexism or discrimination.

And where you seem to be failing yo use your brainpan, then, is the part where *I have seen you frequently assume individual preference, capability, and desert based on population differences*. Knowing what a population is generally like says nothing about what an individual wants, likes, or is capable of.

Looking at the graph, it is indeed clear that sexism *did* create a rather extreme discrepancy, and one for which there are still social and cultural reinforcing factors in play.

Would you, for instance, be willing to agree to the following statement: "that people who are born with vaginas TEND to pick toys of a particular character *does not* mean that a specific person with a vagina should be limited or corralled, outside of their own self-selection of those toys, to play with such toys; that regardless of population preferences, the only preferences that matter in any particular instance are those of the child"?.

Are you using an alternative definition of the word “generally” than the common usage?

 

[Trausti]

 

[untermensche]

Biological characteristics are distributed in bell curves.

There is no such thing as a "normal" male behavior.

There are behaviors that males perform that are distributed in a bell curve distribution.

Behaviors that a lot of males perform.

But with any biological system there are also some behaviors that very few males perform.

 

[Trausti]

Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children

Rhesus monkeys are stooges of the patriarchy.

The odious hetronormative patriarchy also got the Chimps!

Chimp "Girls" Play With "Dolls" Too—First Wild Evidence

 

[Trausti]

View attachment 19413

Biological characteristics are distributed in bell curves.

There is no such thing as a "normal" male behavior.

There are behaviors that males perform that are distributed in a bell curve distribution.

Behaviors that a lot of males perform.

But with any biological system there are also some behaviors that very few males perform.

So you're proposing there are outliers? Well, that's revolutionary. And also, this

 

[untermensche]

What is the point?

Many men are unimaginative and follow other male behaviors like sheep?

 

[Trausti]

What is the point?

Many men are unimaginative and follow other male behaviors like sheep?

Yeah. Any many women are unimaginative and follow other female behaviors like sheep.

Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality

Assessing gender differences
What contributes to gender-associated differences in preferences such as the willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust? Falk and Hermle studied 80,000 individuals in 76 countries who participated in a Global Preference Survey and compared the data with country-level variables such as gross domestic product and indices of gender inequality. They observed that the more that women have equal opportunities, the more they differ from men in their preferences.

 

[untermensche]

The question was; What is the point?

What do we make of it?

50 years ago about 8% of pharmacists were women.

Now there are slightly more female than male pharmacists working.

Is it a male or female job?

Is every job a male or female job? How is being a physician or a vet a male or female job?

How many jobs are like pharmacy 50 years ago?

 

[lpetrich]

... And also, this

Trausti, you're complaining about that?

The right wing often seems to think that concern about job safety is nothing but wimpiness and government nannying. But it's very convenient when one wants to call oneself a victim.

 

[Jarhyn]

And where you seem to be failing yo use your brainpan, then, is the part where *I have seen you frequently assume individual preference, capability, and desert based on population differences*. Knowing what a population is generally like says nothing about what an individual wants, likes, or is capable of.

Looking at the graph, it is indeed clear that sexism *did* create a rather extreme discrepancy, and one for which there are still social and cultural reinforcing factors in play.

Would you, for instance, be willing to agree to the following statement: "that people who are born with vaginas TEND to pick toys of a particular character *does not* mean that a specific person with a vagina should be limited or corralled, outside of their own self-selection of those toys, to play with such toys; that regardless of population preferences, the only preferences that matter in any particular instance are those of the child"?.

Are you using an alternative definition of the word “generally” than the common usage?

So, your failure of reading comprehension and vocabulary aside, would you agree with the statement, or not?

 

[Trausti]

And where you seem to be failing yo use your brainpan, then, is the part where *I have seen you frequently assume individual preference, capability, and desert based on population differences*. Knowing what a population is generally like says nothing about what an individual wants, likes, or is capable of.

Looking at the graph, it is indeed clear that sexism *did* create a rather extreme discrepancy, and one for which there are still social and cultural reinforcing factors in play.

Would you, for instance, be willing to agree to the following statement: "that people who are born with vaginas TEND to pick toys of a particular character *does not* mean that a specific person with a vagina should be limited or corralled, outside of their own self-selection of those toys, to play with such toys; that regardless of population preferences, the only preferences that matter in any particular instance are those of the child"?.

Are you using an alternative definition of the word “generally” than the common usage?

So, your failure of reading comprehension and vocabulary aside, would you agree with the statement, or not?

Did you not read my earlier post. I wrote generally. There are nearly always outliers.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, your failure of reading comprehension and vocabulary aside, would you agree with the statement, or not?

Did you not read my earlier post. I wrote generally. There are nearly always outliers.

So let me ask again since you appear to be dodging my question: do you agree with the following statement: that people who are born with vaginas TEND to pick toys of a particular character *does not* mean that a specific person with a vagina should be limited or corralled, outside of their own self-selection of those toys, to play with such toys; that regardless of population preferences, the only preferences that matter in any particular instance are those of the child

 

[Trausti]

So, your failure of reading comprehension and vocabulary aside, would you agree with the statement, or not?

Did you not read my earlier post. I wrote generally. There are nearly always outliers.

So let me ask again since you appear to be dodging my question: do you agree with the following statement: that people who are born with vaginas TEND to pick toys of a particular character *does not* mean that a specific person with a vagina should be limited or corralled, outside of their own self-selection of those toys, to play with such toys; that regardless of population preferences, the only preferences that matter in any particular instance are those of the child

Well, yeah. Duh. You can give a boy a barbie, but don't be surprise if he turns her into a gun. Or if the little girl sits the G.I. Joes for a round of tea. Nature will show itself.

 

[Toni]

So let me ask again since you appear to be dodging my question: do you agree with the following statement: that people who are born with vaginas TEND to pick toys of a particular character *does not* mean that a specific person with a vagina should be limited or corralled, outside of their own self-selection of those toys, to play with such toys; that regardless of population preferences, the only preferences that matter in any particular instance are those of the child

Well, yeah. Duh. You can give a boy a barbie, but don't be surprise if he turns her into a gun. Or if the little girl sits the G.I. Joes for a round of tea. Nature will show itself.

It’s really sweet that you think that little girls play tea party with their dolls.

My dolls were part of my pirate crew. And by pirates, I mean the kind that flew flying ships and had wings and horns like unicorns and fought the bad guys and used all the pirate booty to feed the poor. Unless we were exploring space. Or swinging on grapevines. Or collecting rocks and bugs. Or building forts.

I actually played dolls a lot more most other girls that I knew.