Why listen to feminist whining about training female medical students when 60% stop work in 10 years?

Question

Here's how listening to the feminist hate movements whinging about training as many female doctors as male in the UK is working out:

GP SHORTAGE TO WORSEN AS FEMALE DOCTORS SWITCH TO PART-TIME WORK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,625264,00.html

STOP HELPING ONE GROUP OF WOMEN AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/06/27/do2702.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/06/27/ixopinion.html
"Ms Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, goes further. Her department believes that the stay-at-homes are a drain on the economy, by failing to pay for the cost of their education through taxation. It's true, to a certain extent. More than half of all students taking up scarce places at medical school are women - yet, after 10 years, 60 per cent of them have given up, leaving a huge hole in the NHS."

60% leave within 10 years, COSTING money and increasing the scarcity of GPs.

Is preventing help for sick people a beneficial social program?

What? Disregard a report from the trade and industry department? ... LOL.

Babayaga, trollboy. OR.. we could just not train female doctors and forego all that hassle. You have no point as usual.

Answer 1

Because else they will stay home having too many children. We need feminism to keep womens wombs in check. Imagine what the world would be like if USA and EU summed up to 3 bill+

Answer 2

assorted the cases listening is the two importent to speaking. yet u ought to consult with make your element (After listening and information) Following are few circumstances - a million. Marketting 2. merchandising 3. legal experts 4. coaching and so on are occupation the place you have totalk better than u hear

Answer 3

What you failed to mention is when, and how many of these women come back to work. Children grow up, and during that process, need to be brought up well, so that oneday they will be suitable for the workforce and maybe even follow in thier mothers' footsteps. It has been proven that educated parents lead to educated children. Women must not be punished for thier ability and choice to have children - after all, who else would do it for them?

Answer 4

anyone can make up statistics, 45% of all people know that.

In other words, there are variables that should be considered like women have babies not men, if men had babies then they would be the source of the issue. So when you look at the reasons rather then statistics you will see that some statistics are just that, statistics.

Have a great day.

Answer 5

Of course. Why should anybody waste one's time to enlighten you when you simply need to hate and judge, rather than to understand. Start reading some books for change.

Answer 6

1). If more men were to become house-husbands (including taking care of small children) this would be less of a problem.

2). Women have a limited number of 'good' fertilty years: the older the woman is when she becomes pregnant, the higher the chances for birth defects, premature delivery, down syndrome...in short, a host of medical problems associated with delay in childbearing. You would be willing to pay for the exorbitant ONGOING medical and social costs (for example institutionalisation when there is no option left: such as when the primary caregiver(s) are themselves too elderly and infirm, or they die). You are willing to bear the costs of this, I presume?

3). If there were better accessibility to quality, affordable daycare this would be less of a problem. Parents with young children and no access have no alternative but to stay at home. Go out and lobby your elected representatives for more affordable daycare spaces instead of whining here.

4). All things being equal, men STILL earn more than women - even for the same work. Statistically, more female doctors are general practitioners. Proportionally, more male doctors are specialists. Specialists earn more than "generalists". Men earn more than women. The rule of thumb generally is that the parent who earns more money - to bring home to bacon - remains in the workforce and the parent earning less money takes up the reins of primary care provider to the children. Raising a family is VERY expensive: this logic is so clear that I think even you could follow it.

5). The developed world needs more children: who do you expect will pay YOUR old-age pension, young "Happy"? It will be paid by those in the workforce of tomorrow is the answer. Haven't you noticed that governments are becoming increasingly anxious about this looming problem? Many are taking concrete steps to deal with the issue: this includeds relaxing immigration laws for those deemed the 'most desirable' immigrants; on The Home Front it means things such as extending maternity leave benefits to BOTH sexes. These sort of reforms are only NOW being gradually introduced. It takes alot to motivate governments to enact changes to policy: the threat of too many old people LIVING LONGER than at any point in history and too few younger people in the work force and paying the taxes to support them has got goverments around the world really worried. Again I ask: who do you expect to pay your pension when you live to be 100 and are long past your own "sellby date"? Your own contributions will only cover a tiny portion of the expense of keeping you up and running...who do you expect to pay the balance?

6). You neglected to mention that once children have reached school age, the female doctors who did take time off to provide your country with its next generation of taxpayers RETURN to 'active service' in their chosen profession.

7). This one really backfired on you, young Happy.

"Babayaga, trollboy. OR.. we could just not train female doctors and forego all that hassle. You have no point as usual."
SOUNDS LIKE SOUR GRAPES TO ME HEEHEEHEE!!!
I apologize for my outburst above, but this really IS like combat with an UNARMED man. ToooooooEasy...............

Answer 7

Stop being an a**. One biased report does not define a case. I suppose there are no male doctors who choose to work part time? I suppose that the 40% who continue to work (and hard!) until returement age don't count? This kind of arguement is infuriating.