> You aren't expected to diagnose the ever-growing list of infectious diseases.
The list isn't growing. If it is, it's growing much slower than the list of available drugs/

> You'll never be called on to give a colonoscopy.
Most doctors aren't Gastroenterologists, so neither will they.

Also, giving one is probably less unpleasant than receiving one.

>Many pharmacists go their entire careers without ever being stopped in the hallway because "that lump on the patient in 208 just burst and is oozing something purple."
And so will almost all doctors

>Less radiation exposure.
If you get radiation exposure as a doctor, you're either doing emergency relief at a nuclear plant, or you're not doing your job right.

>Rubbish. Women aren't as good at men in sports.
Assuming you have a decent TV service, look back at the winter Olympics. Snowboarding, bobsleigh, skeleton, skiing. Is the women's competition any worse than the mens? Look at the icedancing, speed skating, etc. Still not convinced?

Historically, men have watched sports, and - particularly in the team sports - it seems that men are more in need of that tribal identification with a group than women are.

Or maybe it's simply that many more men than will admit to it enjoy watching hot men get sweaty :)

If you discriminate based on race, you're cutting off a certain percentage (varying by country) of the talent pool. Stupid.
If you discriminate based on gender, you're cutting off ca. 50% of the talent pool. Really stupid.
You don't need to invoke lofty principles to argue against discrimination.

The supply/demand issue doesn't really have much to do with discrimination.

>Yea, there was a Ruby workshop I was interested in attending; but seems it was only open to women.

There are tons of Ruby workshops. Look at the gender distribution in most of them. 90% male? 95% male? 99?

> If they felt men as a gender would be disruptive then that should be handled on an individual basis regardless of gender,
I have no idea what you meant to say, but what you said does ont make any sense.

> even then I find it hard to believe that it'd be a widespread issue.
If you find the gender imbalance (and some of the nastier aspects of that) in IT not to be a widespread issue, you're either
* wilfully blind
* stupid beyond belief
* incredibly blessed to work in a balanced environment.

> As it stands, women probably have a far greater opportunity advantage from Diversity Quotas, Gendered Scholarships, and Classes
That's an opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it. But given that we don't have hordes of female junior programmers - it's probably wrong.

Did I say probably? I meant certainly.

> lsu many of the complaints can be attributed to the female dominated HR field;
Oh, yes, it's HR stopping people from hiring all these female programmers because they're too darn pretty! HR can't handle the competition!
Either that, or you don't actually get *any* CVs from women. Ever.

Have you ever been a hiring manager? I've spent 20+ years (*) in IT. I've worked with 4 female developers. Two of which I had to hire as mathematicians (they were, but they could also code).

> which has shown that women in HR will not hire other women they consider to be prettier then themselves.
Citation, please - or did you just make that up on the spot? Logically that would imply the HR department is populated by the ugliest people you can find that are still qualified to do the job. That's not even true in Dilbert/

(*) Look at my user id. And then get the HELL off MY lawn. (**)
(**) Before you get the hell of my lawn, please try and take the time to talk to someone of the female persuasion and ask how they feel in all male meetings, or if that's too tough, just google "programmers being dicks". THEN get the hell of my lanwn.

Nope. We wrote their Constitution.

Abusive spouses almost never change. Abusive corporations never change except for the worse.

Ditto. The Panda bullshit was their last chance. They failed. I jumped back to Warhammer Online for the last couple of months of its life (which turned into a horrid cluster fuck so I bailed on the last week), then finally fired up Rift. I'm enjoying it. I played it over a month before I finally decided they deserved some money, then bought a three month patron pack.

How about you read the book first, then you will be allowed to comment on it. It's obvious you have not read it.

It's has been pointed out numerous times, military service was not the only way to earn citizenship. Perhaps you should take some time to actually read the book instead of basing your opinion on the completely tainted source of that shit turd movie.

How is it undemocratic and fascist (ignoring the horrid movie)? No one could be denied the right to earn their citizenship. No exceptions (well, maybe criminals were an exception). Also, military service wasn't the only way to earn citizenship. But the book's protagonist chose that route so that's where the story centered.

Also, no where in the book is it even suggested that dissent was discouraged. Now if your entire view is based on the movie, I can see where you can be completely clueless since they got just about everything wrong in that stinking turd.

Except that he says he developed lung disease even after he quit smoking 30 years ago. RTFA and don't try to be too clever.