Tuesday, December 13, 2011
'Whining women surgeons who complain about their sexist industry are just making excuses,' says top British female consultant
A top female surgeon has rejected claims the profession is sexist, saying women surgeons who claim it is should stop whining and that many are using the allegation to hide they fact they are not good enough.
Helen Fernandes, who chairs the Women in Surgery group at the Royal College of Surgeons, dismissed claims that sexism was the cause for only eight per cent of consultant surgeons being female.
The number is even lower in neurosurgery, which is Ms Fernandes' area of specialism. Ms Fernandes works as a consultant at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge.
In an interview with The Times, she said: 'I don't think true sexism or harassment along those lines really exists. In my opinion, a lot of girls who say that they've experienced sexism are, generally speaking, not up to the mark surgically. 'Sexism' almost becomes an excuse.'
One of the reasons put forward for the low number of female surgeons is the unpredictable nature of shifts, which could interfere with domestic issues. Ms Fernandes, who has three children, told young women wanting to build a career in medicine to stop moaning about having kids and to invest in home help.
'Don't whine for hours about childcare issues or the fact that you're a mother. Domesticity is a dirge.'
Ms Fernandes has hired the equivalent of one and half full-time employees to help her run her daily life. 'That's very difficult in your training years, because costs are so high. But you've got to take a long-term view.' She said her childcare and domestic bills now only take up 10 per cent of her salary, but that the figure was as high as 80 per cent previously.
Ministers won't back cross-ban Christians: Ex-archbishop condemns 'illiberal' assault on faith
The [British] Government was slammed last night for refusing to support a group of Christians fighting for their rights in the European courts. Four individuals who have been disciplined at work or lost their jobs after refusing to remove crosses or to conform to gay rights laws are attempting to overturn the decisions of British courts and tribunal.
They had hoped for support from Ministers after a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, appealed to Prime Minister David Cameron on their behalf.
But the Government told the European Court of Human Rights that it backed the British judges and does not accept that the Christians have suffered discrimination.
To the dismay of Lord Carey, the Government even said that wearing a cross or a crucifix was not a ‘generally recognised’ Christian practice – even though Church leaders say it is a hugely significant symbol. ‘Such is the result of a liberal establishment that has become deeply illiberal.’
In landmark hearings, the court in Strasbourg is to consider the cases of Shirley Chaplin, a Devon nurse banned from working on the wards after she failed to hide a cross she had worn since the age of 16, and Nadia Eweida, a check-in clerk for British Airways who was told to remove her small crucifix at work.
The European judges will also examine the cases of Relate counsellor Gary MacFarlane, who was sacked after suggesting he would refuse to provide sexual therapy to gay couples, and registrar Lilian Ladele, who was disciplined by Islington council in North London after refusing to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies.
Their cases are among a series in which Christians have clashed with their employers over the equality legislation introduced by the last Government, prompting widespread dismay from Church leaders.
A cross-party group of MPs, led by Tory Gary Streeter, is now holding an inquiry into the issue of religious discrimination.
Even the Government’s own watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has told the European Court that the British courts have failed to protect the rights of some believers.
Christian lawyers say the rights of the four to express their beliefs at work should be protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows individuals to ‘manifest’ their faith in public.
But the Government, in 40 pages of legal arguments drawn up by the Foreign Office, said they were not protected because neither wearing a cross nor following their conscience at work was a core requirement of their faith. Echoing British court or tribunal judgments, the Government said wearing a cross was not ‘a practice of a religion in a generally recognised form’.
It said that even if the European Court did decide that Ms Eweida and Mrs Chaplin could wear crosses, employers could overrule this because of health and safety rules banning jewellery at work. It also denied that the rights of Ms Lidele and Mr MacFarlane had been breached, arguing that they could have resigned rather than stay in jobs where they had to carry out tasks that were against their beliefs.
The Government added: ‘The UK is entitled to conclude ..... that other than in limited prescribed circumstances, religious belief does not justify discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation.’
But the Christian Legal Centre, backed by Lord Carey and former Anglican Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, says the visible wearing of the cross or crucifix is ‘clearly an aspect’ of the practice of the Christian religion. The centre’s head Andrea Williams said: ‘Sharing faith in the public square goes to the centre, the heart, of a Christian’s life and belief – it’s who they are.
The Government’s interpretation is not backed by the overwhelming majority of people who want to live in a country where people are free to disagree.’
Muslim Cleric Allegedly Bans Women From Touching Bananas & Cucumbers…Because They’re Too Sexual
An Islamic cleric in Europe has reportedly ruled women should be forbidden from touching — or even being near — bananas and cucumbers because their oblong shapes can make women think of sex.
Egyptian news site Bikya Masr:
The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Senousa news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve.
He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.”
He also added carrots and zucchini to the list of forbidden foods for women.
According to Bikya Masr, the sheik was asked how to “control” women when they are out grocery shopping, and whether even holding the fruits and vegetables at the store would be bad. The cleric said the matter is between them and God.
Another question dealt with what to do if women in the family actually like to eat the forbidden foods: The sheik said they should be cut up in a hidden place where women cannot see them.
The cleric’s opinion prompted a wave of online mockery, the news site reported, with hundreds of comments denouncing him. One commenter reportedly said such religious “leaders” give Islam “a bad name,“ while another said the sheik is ”retarded” and must quit his post immediately. Still others accused him of simply trying to make headlines.
The report comes just days after Saudi Arabian academics claimed there would be no more virgins if women in the country were allowed to drive.
Australia: Muslim extremist shoots cop but still walks free
Police and prosecutors complain of a trend of inexplicable leniency in sentencing, and a recent survey by Victoria's Sentencing Advisory Council found the public also thinks judges are out of touch and too soft on violent crime.
This indicates a crisis of public confidence in our judiciary.
Take, for example, a recent case in the NSW District Court in which Justice Leonie Flannery acquitted a terror suspect who shot a police officer while being arrested.
The man, who was under ASIO surveillance, was carrying two loaded guns, had acquired chemicals in preparation for a terrorist act, and had possession of jihadi extremist material and 11 mobile phones he had purchased on eBay. But Judge Flannery claimed an environment of anti-Muslim feeling, which engendered in the Muslim community a high sense of paranoia, had made the man panic when police came to arrest him near a western Sydney mosque in 2005.
"He was concerned for his safety, and (in) the climate of anti-Muslim feeling in the community at the time, he believed that he might be harmed by the police."
She concluded the suspect had not intended to shoot the policeman and therefore found him not guilty.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.