@ShamashAran Oh, I agree completely. I’m just saying I think you should *also* be able to carry a Swiss Army knife into those places, and that the response of “a bunch of terrorists used box cutters to take down the Towers, therefore restrict [household items]” is magical thinking.
@CathyYoung63@wil_da_beast630 Much of this is defensible, of course. But it’s simply the case that the most common beneficiaries of “diversity” initiatives in healthcare are women. Don’t know about white women specifically.
@CathyYoung63@wil_da_beast630 I don’t know if you count it as STEM, but there are substantial overt pressures to hire more women as physicians, including one specialty in which men are all but unemployable , and approximately zero pressure to hire more men as nurses or NPs.
@MediaPolitics6@CyborgPeds I’m an electrophysiologist. Which means there are *lots* of things that could happen that would prevent me from practicing as an electrophysiologist but have no impact at all on my ability to practice as a cardiologist.
@MediaPolitics6@CyborgPeds That actually depends on what policy you buy. Docs are routinely advised to buy “own-occupation” policies, and for us specialists that definition of “occupation” can be very fiddly.
I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.
As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.
But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.
After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?
Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?
Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).
Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?
The editors said it was too much, they explained.
The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.
It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.
And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.
Still fawning after all these years.
@AviWoolf I will note that I too am in a service profession, and there are circumstances where patients complain and it’s appropriate to have a similar response regardless of what that does to Press-Ganey scores.
@AviWoolf It depends on what you mean by “workable”. The OP suggests giving a quiz, for credit, on the reading, and the objection is “few would do it, and parents would complain”. The only possible answer is “Go pound sand.”
@kerpen I mean yes, this is obvious? It was also the explicit intent of the law, because the Feds find a few large healthcare providers more legible than lots of small ones.