What if women are better?

[Terrell]

One set of rules for everyone. No preferential treatment based on inborn characteristics; don't expect equal outcomes. Outcomes may also vary by region, as some places have different options than others, for better or worse.

 

[RVonse]

I think women are better at nurturing, so better care for psychological ailments.

But men are better with coordination and strength so better care for surgury.

So it all depends what kind of doctoring you need.

 

[Toni]

I think women are better at nurturing, so better care for psychological ailments.

But men are better with coordination and strength so better care for surgury.

So it all depends what kind of doctoring you need.

Actually, it seems that women surgeons tend to provide better patient outcomes compared with male surgeons:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...s/do-women-make-better-surgeons-than-men.html

For the study, researchers included all 104,630 people living in Ontario, Canada, who underwent at least one of 25 surgical procedures between 2007 and 2015, and the 3,314 surgeons who conducted the operations. Of those surgeons, 774 were female, while 2,540 were male. Researchers proceeded to match patients who underwent surgeries performed by female surgeons to those who underwent the same operation performed by a male surgeon, accounting for various characteristics such as a patient's age, sex and comorbidity, and surgeon volume, age and hospital.

Study authors concluded fewer patients died, were readmitted to the hospital or had complications one month after surgery when treated by a female surgeon than a male surgeon.

(note: there are multiple articles out there about this Ontario study

And there's this as well:

https://www.goodcall.com/news/women-surgeons-011198

The subjects of the study, conducted by researchers in Shanghai, China, were 317 male medical students and 25 women students. They were rated on their ability to perform 10 surgical skills: preoperative preparation, sterile technique, knot tying, basic suture I, basic suture II, debridement, cecectomy, phlebotomy, laparotomy, and small bowel resection with hand-sewn anastomosis.

Overall, women medical students scored higher – and they scored significantly higher in some areas.

This is behind a paywall but we can read the conclusion summary:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28742695

This suggests the gender differences may be age related--I assume implying that surgeons with training that includes the most up to date surgical techniques have an edge. When matched for age, male and female surgeons had equivalent outcomes.

RESULTS:
Overall practice patterns differed between the 663 FS and 3219 MS. We identified 2462 surgeons (19% FS, 81% MS) at 429 hospitals who met inclusion criteria for outcomes analysis. FS were younger (mean age ± SD FS: 48.5 ± 8.4 years, MS: 54.3 ± 9.4y; P < 0.001) with less clinical experience (mean years ± SD FS: 11.6 ± 8.3 y, MS: 17.6 ± 10.0 years; P < 0.001) than MS before matching. FS had lower rates of inpatient mortality (FS: 1.51%, MS: 2.30%; P < 0.001), any postoperative complication (FS: 12.6%, MS: 16.1%; P < 0.001), and pLOS (FS: 18.4%, MS: 20.7%; P < 0.001) before matching. After matching, FS and MS outcomes were equivalent.

Overall body strength might be an advantage (as noted elsewhere) in orthopedic surgery but elsewhere, there is not really a male advantage in terms of physical stamina:ability to stand for hours, concentrate closely, etc.

In general, women have better fine motor skills than do men. Since surgery generally requires more fine motor skills than say, football (either kind), it seems women may have the advantage here. Just think of all those hours sewing our foremothers did! Think of Betsy Ross! Think of all the women cutting up chickens for Sunday dinner (anatomy lesson!).

 

[Elixir]

Actually, it seems that women surgeons tend to provide better patient outcomes compared with male surgeons:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...s/do-women-make-better-surgeons-than-men.html

That's interesting, and consistent with what I've been told by Stateside surgeons - male and female.
My intuition is that it has to do with the fact that in all respects, the barriers to entry are much higher for women. So those who "make it" tend to be better than the average male. Not sure if that dynamic is as pronounced in Asia...

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it can be measured. Psychologists have measured mental abilities for over a century.

Anyone can come with a measurement. The issue is whether the measurement is representative, meaningful and/or accurate.

 

[ruby sparks]

Funny how the same people always seem to react to these things with the equivalent of "I'm not a racist, but..."

Oh you noticed that too?

 

[ruby sparks]

If this thread is sexist, why haven't you called out Metaphor's thread as sexist? That thread was much broader.

You have to understand. With certain controversial pov's ('ones my own views more closely align to') the correct response is, 'you're not giving this poster a fair chance'.

With other controversial pov's, it's straight to 'this is sexist'. Even whey they're clearly not even meant entirely seriously by the OP.

It's the trigger you see. It's sensitive to different stimuli.

 

[ruby sparks]

If women are better at some jobs, the world may never know because of the extant culture that denies the possibility of that coming to the top.

At any rate, I don't think prejudiced pigeon-holeing is good for everyone. Thus my answer is the same: blind the eye that evaluates the application to all information not germane to the role (such as gender) so that everyone can be seen as individuals, and randomly drop some fraction of the applicants in pools that we are culturally biased towards.

Then let the evaluator lick the most qualified applications he or she sees for interview or even just pick a random applicant from that pool as interviews have in several studies been shown to have no benefit to getting qualified workers.

There is merit in that, Jahryn, imo. I'm not against going 'blind' to as many characteristics that shouldn't, in theory, be relevant. I'm just not in favour of it as the only measure.

As to randomly dropping some fraction of the applicants in pools that we are culturally biased towards, that will of course be slightly controversial, as it's effectively a sort of quota.

I think the UK has it about right. AA measures up to but excluding quotas and the like. Personally, I don't have a big issue with quotas, as a temporary measure, if there genuinely is a serious issue to be addressed by them, but I can understand why some do. The fact that there's an adverse reaction to them is one big factor, imo, as to why they are not used more. I think the adverse reaction is a bit overblown myself.

 

[Toni]

Seriously though, yes, the other thread was absolutely sexist in the content with an attempt to be veiled. We just saw through it.

What was sexist about my thread? Is it sexist to point to evidence that shows men have a higher average ability in a particular trait? If that's "sexist", then why is it wrong to be sexist? Why is it wrong to acknowledge facts?

Of course, you could have written something in the thread title like What If Men are Better at Math? instead of What If Men are Better. Narrowed the title to more closely reflect what you meant.

Unless that wasn't really what you wanted to discuss but instead the more broad, not qualified What If Men are Better which could imply that men are better at a lot of things, including being better people.

Reading the thread, it's not that clear which you meant.

 

[Elixir]

Of course it can be measured. Psychologists have measured mental abilities for over a century.

Anyone can come with a measurement. The issue is whether the measurement is representative, meaningful and/or accurate.

I think the way most go astray with measurements is representing them as proxies for things to which they don't really correspond. IQ tests for instance, do NOT measure what we would casually refer to as "intelligence", at least not to any predictable degree. They are, however extremely accurate for measuring and comparing individuals' proficiency at taking an IQ test.

 

[Elixir]

Then let the evaluator lick the most qualified applications he or she sees for interview

On a less serious note I am wondering what exactly the job is, and how licking them helps with the selection process.

 

[Toni]

Except that it didn't.

I don't agree.

Can you see where it changed?

This thread is much more focussed than the other thread.

That's the false motive and strawman this thread is all about.

I don't see that at all. Also, since you are so careful about not 'seeing through things' you maybe should watch what you call a false motive.

Nobody said women shouldn't do any job in that thread.

Oh, I think some posters were hinting VERY strongly at just that. The OP statement

What if women make better doctors than men? Does that mean that only women should be allowed to be physicians, NPs, PAs or even RNs?

was a kind of riff on just those implications in the other thread.

FWIW, the OP in this thread simply asked a question. It was pretty clear that SoHy was not suggesting that men should not be doctors nor do I think anyone else was, either.

This one asks if men should be excluded from particular jobs (it is actually sexist). I get that the writer thought she/he/it/zer was being funny by falsely insinuating sexism. Didn't get a laugh out of me, sorry.

Not really. This thread asked if X (women are better doctors) were true, then should Y (men be excluded from medical practices) follow.

It's a pretty logical step from the other thread. It doesn't say, nor does any poster that I've found say that men should NOT be doctors or RNs or PAs, etc. It asked if it followed that if X is better than Y, should Y be excluded.

That thread's title is sexist. I just said that above. The actual content of it? Not so much.

I don't agree. The other thread certainly was pretty sexist.

It didn't say women shouldn't be allowed to do X or Y. It just said men on average are better at some things.

There was more to some posts than just that, imo.

And I did write in that thread that them being generally better at some things says nothing about any particular woman or any particular man. You should probably read the thread before you sling such accusations.

I DID read that thread and your response. But I'm writing in this thread about your responses here.

Seriously though, yes, the other thread was absolutely sexist in the content with an attempt to be veiled. We just saw through it.

"Seeing through" things, and proclaiming people to hold views they haven't stated (and likely don't hold) isn't going to get you anywhere, and I've been told it is a violation of this board's rules.

I interpreted things the same way that Playball did. I saw this thread as being initiated in a tongue in cheek kind of way-a little humor was intended. I also don't think this thread is sexist and indeed, is much less sexist than the other thread. Perhaps we just have different perspectives and different triggers.

 

[laughing dog]

I interpreted things the same way that Playball did. I saw this thread as being initiated in a tongue in cheek kind of way-a little humor was intended. I also don't think this thread is sexist and indeed, is much less sexist than the other thread. Perhaps we just have different perspectives and different triggers.

This thread is no more sexist than Metaphor's to anyone with a sense of perspective. It was clearly a parody (hell, it even has the smiley's in the right places).

But in this new age of identity politics, hypersensitive snowflakes through their complaints and outrage signal their virtue. It is best to ignore such outbursts, since reason cannot breach "virtue".

 

[Metaphor]

Seriously though, yes, the other thread was absolutely sexist in the content with an attempt to be veiled. We just saw through it.

What was sexist about my thread? Is it sexist to point to evidence that shows men have a higher average ability in a particular trait? If that's "sexist", then why is it wrong to be sexist? Why is it wrong to acknowledge facts?

Of course, you could have written something in the thread title like What If Men are Better at Math? instead of What If Men are Better. Narrowed the title to more closely reflect what you meant.

Unless that wasn't really what you wanted to discuss but instead the more broad, not qualified What If Men are Better which could imply that men are better at a lot of things, including being better people.

Reading the thread, it's not that clear which you meant.

Men could be better at a lot of things. The thread posed the question: what if men are just better at certain things, and it provided a particular example. It asked what implications would follow.

Notably, in my thread, I didn't make a statement anything like "it follows that women should not be in occupation X". This thread posed the question not because the original poster believed it, but just as a "lampoon" of my thread. The original post in this thread doesn't say anything meaningful. It poses a question that nobody would agree to.

 

[Toni]

Of course, you could have written something in the thread title like What If Men are Better at Math? instead of What If Men are Better. Narrowed the title to more closely reflect what you meant.

Unless that wasn't really what you wanted to discuss but instead the more broad, not qualified What If Men are Better which could imply that men are better at a lot of things, including being better people.

Reading the thread, it's not that clear which you meant.

Men could be better at a lot of things.

There is more than one way to read this statement and I agree with them all.

AND the same could be said of women.

The thread posed the question: what if men are just better at certain things, and it provided a particular example. It asked what implications would follow.

Yes, and the implications clearly steered into some pretty predictable and pretty sexist directions.

I don't know if you were expecting those kinds of responses but to me, they were quite predictable.

Notably, in my thread, I didn't make a statement anything like "it follows that women should not be in occupation X".

No, you did not. But imo, it was quite predictable that responses would infer just that. And they did.

This thread posed the question not because the original poster believed it, but just as a "lampoon" of my thread.

It was 'just a lampoon' of your post? You don't think that SoHy is capable of thinking for herself?

Or maybe she was just responding to your invitation (I believe to World Traveler)? Post 54 in your thread.

There's nothing mysterious about it. If you want to start a thread about the human pursuits that women are better at, feel free.

YOU opened the can of worms. You should not be so surprised if it's being served up to you now.

The original post in this thread doesn't say anything meaningful.

Of course it's meaningful. It's just not terribly convenient or comfortable to have your own tactics used by others in ways that are perhaps distressing to you.

It poses a question that nobody would agree to.

One does not agree to questions. One may agree or disagree with a premise. The discussion in this thread has been about whether the stated premise has any merits, with a large side of discussion about your thread, so congrats?

 

[Metaphor]

No, you did not. But imo, it was quite predictable that responses would infer just that. And they did.

Who did that?

It was 'just a lampoon' of your post? You don't think that SoHy is capable of thinking for herself?

They said as much.

There's nothing mysterious about it. If you want to start a thread about the human pursuits that women are better at, feel free.

Well, yes, I did make the suggestion. But the original post in this thread asked if it means we should ban men from being doctors. The question was rather a stupid one because neither the original poster nor anyone else was going to agree to it. The original poster wasn't being sincere.

Of course it's meaningful. It's just not terribly convenient or comfortable to have your own tactics used by others in ways that are perhaps distressing to you.

dIsTrEsSiNg

The discussion in this thread has been about whether the stated premise has any merits, with a large side of discussion about your thread, so congrats?

Neither the original poster, nor anybody else, thought that it followed that men should be banned from being doctors. The original poster made a troll statement. A troll statement is something that the poster doesn't actually believe but is posted merely as a shitpost.

 

[Toni]

Who did that?



They said as much.

There's nothing mysterious about it. If you want to start a thread about the human pursuits that women are better at, feel free.

Well, yes, I did make the suggestion. But the original post in this thread asked if it means we should ban men from being doctors. The question was rather a stupid one because neither the original poster nor anyone else was going to agree to it. The original poster wasn't being sincere.

Of course it's meaningful. It's just not terribly convenient or comfortable to have your own tactics used by others in ways that are perhaps distressing to you.

dIsTrEsSiNg

The discussion in this thread has been about whether the stated premise has any merits, with a large side of discussion about your thread, so congrats?

Neither the original poster, nor anybody else, thought that it followed that men should be banned from being doctors. The original poster made a troll statement. A troll statement is something that the poster doesn't actually believe but is posted merely as a shitpost.

It was certainly no more of a shit post than yours. In fact, I don’t see it as a ‘shit post.’ I think the OP very nicely made a good point, and very nicely, too.