Sexism in Medicine

[AMEHigh]

I am comfortable criticizing someone’s behavior if they are dropping epithets aimed at coworkers....very comfortable

Well that is much appreciated!
It definitely seems easier for me to let things roll off my back when they’re directed towards me vs. directed to other people.
So I guess that also makes you problematic per vhawk

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

Well that is much appreciated!
It definitely seems easier for me to let things roll off my back when they’re directed towards me vs. directed to other people.
So I guess that also makes you problematic per vhawk

Some people aren’t worth the hassle, life is too short

 

[AMEHigh]

I mean, give me the scenario and im happy to delineate the power dynamics for you. Its very easy. If you are consenting them for something, your words are violence

I gave you a scenario above, I said patient walks in to office (scheduled new patient wellness visit), sees a black doctor and says don’t let the N-word doctor touch me because black people aren’t smart like us, I want a white doctor. Then proceeds on to see the white doctor.

That was just the first scenario that was more recent that popped in my head, but there are others.

You already answered my question. You consider that the definition of vulnerable. I got it.

 

[Apollyon]

I think he's being sarcastic/insincere in all of these posts. You are looking at these as if they are in good faith. I don't think so.

 

[vhawk]

I gave you a scenario above, I said patient walks in to office (scheduled new patient wellness visit), sees a black doctor and says don’t let the N-word doctor touch me because black people aren’t smart like us, I want a white doctor. Then proceeds on to see the white doctor.

That was just the first scenario that was more recent that popped in my head, but there are others.

You already answered my question. You consider that the definition of vulnerable. I got it.

Are they the one with the disease or are you?

 

[PickleRickelus]

Nope, impossible. Racism is about power, and patients are vulnerable and powerless and therefore cannot be racist or sexist. For real though you should check your privilege here because your comments are extremely problematic

Okay PC Principal... Excuse me vhawk... But I think you are being VERY insensitive to the OP's plight. Nevermind that physicians, from a position of privilege have the power to:

1. Kill or severely handicap patients both physically and emotionally through medication errors stemming from inattentiveness/carelessness, battery of unnecessary workups/tests/procedures, misinformation, etc.

2. Violate a patient's privacy by exposing sensitive health information.

3. Compromise a patient's ability to make autonomous decisions by withholding information.

4. On top of all this, sure patients are vulnerable from the stand point of having a disease


Nevermind all that because patients are not at all powerless as they do in fact have the power to... I guess... offend or frustrate physicians?? And I guess they could maybe write a bad yelp review?


Anyways, none of those things even matter because at the end of the day, the OP is offended and that trumps everything else. I think you need to check your microaggressions bro. Check and mate. End of discussion.

 

[deleted480308]

Okay PC Principal... Excuse me vhawk... But I think you are being VERY insensitive to the OP's plight. Nevermind that physicians, from a position of privilege have the power to:

1. Kill or severely handicap patients both physically and emotionally through medication errors stemming from inattentiveness/carelessness, battery of unnecessary workups/tests/procedures, misinformation, etc.

2. Violate a patient's privacy by exposing sensitive health information.

3. Compromise a patient's ability to make autonomous decisions by withholding information.

4. On top of all this, sure patients are vulnerable from the stand point of having a disease


Nevermind all that because patients are not at all powerless as they do in fact have the power to... I guess... offend or frustrate physicians?? And I guess they could maybe write a bad yelp review?


Anyways, none of those things even matter because at the end of the day, the OP is offended and that trumps everything else. I think you need to check your microaggressions bro. Check and mate. End of discussion.

It’s not a contest about power.

There is a principle here and autonomy has two edges. The patient, being an adult with capacity, has to carry the end burden of their decisions and their actions.

They can pursue and regularly take appropriate treatment for their medical conditions or they experience the physical impact of untreated disease. It is their right to pick either path.

As a human interacting with others in business (using the private practice example) they also get to pick their actions. Act appropriately and keep your appts and long term continuity. The other option is to drop epithets at staff, shove astaff member, or some other egregious step out of basic minimal civility and they just chose they prefer the hassle of seeking a new treatment team to the effort required to act appropriately. At that stage I would be choosing the hassle of finding a new patient over subjecting my staff to that treatment. We both have autonomy and get to choose our paths.

Discussion is not over

 

[AMEHigh]

I think he's being sarcastic/insincere in all of these posts. You are looking at these as if they are in good faith. I don't think so.

I have no clue. There are certainly people that have vhawks viewpoints. There are certainly doctor’s that are racist and/or sexist. There are certainly doctors who don’t sympathize with their colleagues who experience being called the N-word or being inappropriately touched by a patient. So maybe vhawk is being sarcastic, no skin off my back, but those viewpoints certainly do exist in the real world.

 

[NITRAS]

I’ve never bought that power is a requirement for racism/sexism

I would hazard a guess, it’s justification for policies that are discriminatory to the status quo (aka white or male).

Personally, sounds like mental backflips to me.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I have no clue. There are certainly people that have vhawks viewpoints. There are certainly doctor’s that are racist and/or sexist. There are certainly doctors who don’t sympathize with their colleagues who experience being called the N-word or being inappropriately touched by a patient. So maybe vhawk is being sarcastic, no skin off my back, but those viewpoints certainly do exist in the real world.

Not so much sarcastic and taking intersectionalism to its logical conclusion.

 

[mvenus929]

They are sick.

You are a wealthy doctor.

This isnt really that hard.

I had a parent of a patient aggressively hit on me during a clinic visit, to the point of comparing his infant son’s penis (which he felt was big for his age) to his own and stopping just short of touching me. Even though by your standards, I’m the one with the “power” in the relationship, I would absolutely consider that sexual harassment.

Power dynamics are nuanced, and can’t be completely explained by the physician-patient relationship.

 

[Raryn]

Nope, impossible. Racism is about power, and patients are vulnerable and powerless and therefore cannot be racist or sexist. For real though you should check your privilege here because your comments are extremely problematic

I think this whole argument is people using two different definitions of racist/sexist.

If we define sexist (racist) as someone who, subconsciously or not, attributes some differences amongst people to the basis of perceived sex (race), well... then everyone is sexist. Almost every interaction between two people of different sex (and probably a good number of the interactions between people of the same sex) would be sexist. Implicit bias trials show that subconscious sexism/racism is universal and we're all probably subtly taking it into account all the time.

If we define sexist as above but exclude subconscious bias, that is include only having any belief that attributes qualities or behaviors to people of certain races, then the interactions listed in this thread are certainly sexist - they involve people making assumptions about someone on the basis of sex. Folks have to be very in tune with their own conscious biases to overcome them and completely take consideration of sex out of the picture - and clearly those patients are not doing so.

On the other hand, if we define sexist in the traditional fashion, the definition that the a significant proportion of society uses - having a belief that sex determines certain qualities AND these qualities inherently make some people better than others, we're getting into a smaller subset of people. Grandpa who calls his doctor a nurse is wrong - but he probably has no malice to his belief. Only if he expresses things like "blacks/women/whatever are too dumb to be doctors - I want a white man" would he count as racist/sexist with this definition. Some people think "well, men and women have clearly different capabilities, but neither is better" and would be included in the first two groups but (depending on how they applied their beliefs) potentially not in this one.

On the last hand... if we define sexist in a modern sociological way that requires you to have conscious or subconscious beliefs about race AND be coming from a position of privilege (the "prejudice plus power" definition), well, then by "definition" only certain people can be sexist (those who are privileged). This is the definition you're using - but you have to understand that while it may be the definition de jure in academia, this is NOT what most people consider when they hear the words racism, sexism, or whatever else.

Oh, and the last bit - intersectionality gets complicated here if we're using your definitions. Based on societal standing in this discourse, men have power over women (hence why some thinkers, unironically, say that women can't be sexist). And as you aptly point out, physicians have power over patients. So if it's a female physician and a male patient, who has the "ability" to be prejudiced? Both? Neither? Your posts imply just the physician - but that's ignoring the whole point of intersecting prejudices.

Words can have many different meanings - and using two different ones for the same word in an argument just means you're talking past each other. Neither you nor the people you're arguing with are "wrong" except in a specific context (colloquial speech vs specific academic discourse).

Given this discussion is on a message board for medical professionals, and not a discussion group for gender (race) studies PhDs, I think using the dictionary/traditional definitions of sexism/racism are probably reasonable. You can of course stay that "the dictionary is wrong" and that "no one here is using the word sexism correctly" - which is fine. But understand that we disagree with you.

 

[PickleRickelus]

It’s not a contest about power.

There is a principle here and autonomy has two edges. The patient, being an adult with capacity, has to carry the end burden of their decisions and their actions.

They can pursue and regularly take appropriate treatment for their medical conditions or they experience the physical impact of untreated disease. It is their right to pick either path.

As a human interacting with others in business (using the private practice example) they also get to pick their actions. Act appropriately and keep your appts and long term continuity. The other option is to drop epithets at staff, shove astaff member, or some other egregious step out of basic minimal civility and they just chose they prefer the hassle of seeking a new treatment team to the effort required to act appropriately. At that stage I would be choosing the hassle of finding a new patient over subjecting my staff to that treatment. We both have autonomy and get to choose our paths.

Discussion is not over

Right, I agree with you that this so called notion of "power dynamics" is irrelevant to the discussion.

First of all, we need to leave vhawk's pseudointellectual theories at the door and disregard the ridiculous notion that patients are powerless. Sure, unlike physicians, they may not be able to disseminate their bias / prejudicial attitudes at the institutional level and compromise health outcomes for vulnerable populations -> Implicit Racial/Ethnic Bias Among Health Care Professionals and Its Influence on Health Care Outcomes: A Systematic Review


However, they do have the capacity to offend the OP when they mistake her for a nurse and should thus be rightfully criticized for it, especially because nurses are so beneath her in every conceivable way. Someone else on this thread mentioned throwing jello in their face at such an instance. This is a course of action that will suffice but does not go far enough in my opinion. Well done!

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

Lmao. Vhawk is making fun of y’all with the silly “words are violence” and “privilege” argument and you’re taking him seriously. He’s trying to point out how ridiculous those statements are, and you’re engaging him in actual debate. I can’t

Anyway, OP, who cares? Correct them and do your job. If they don’t listen, correct them again. And again. Your hurt pride will recover. And if you’re seriously saying you shouldn’t have gone into medicine if you knew it was gonna be like this, maybe you’re right, you shouldn’t have gone.

I’m a board certified surgeon, and the chief of the ortho trauma service at my hospital. I routinely get mistaken for a nurse, nursing assistant, etc. I get the age thing nearly every day. “Too young,” “too pretty,” etc. Who the f cares! I know who I am. The only person I need to be square with at the end of the day about my competence is me. Sometimes I transport patients to preop when I don’t think the transporters are moving fast enough for me (I want to finish at some point before midnight and go home). Sometimes I bring people ice chips. Sometimes I help move boxes in the OR. I’ve been at times an impromptu door greeter, volunteer (help a lost person in a hallway find their way outside), food service worker, and janitor. The staff that know who I am sometimes laugh at me (I brought back a wheelchair to outpatient and the nurses were cracking up), but more often than not, they appreciate the extra hand.

My point is this: When your ego is out of the picture, you just do what needs to be done, and things fall into place. Your original post is your pride talking... and pride is a deadly sin for a reason.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[AMEHigh]

I agree with mostly everything that has been said in this post, especially in regards to the comments about being a nurse.

However I do wish people in general would understand the broader problems with sexism in the work place. Inappropriate touching and/or comments by patients, inappropriate touching and/or comments by staff, unequal pay, and the list goes on. Compound that with intersectionality for those that are women of color in medicine, it can be an even more difficult and emotionally and physically exhausting path to navigate.

So while I don’t generally let it bother me when a patient thinks I’m a nurse or transportor, I do think it’s important for people to look at the bigger picture and take sexism (and racism) in medicine seriously.

 

[deleted480308]

I agree with mostly everything that has been said in this post, especially in regards to the comments about being a nurse.

However I do wish people in general would understand the broader problems with sexism in the work place. Inappropriate touching and/or comments by patients, inappropriate touching and/or comments by staff, unequal pay, and the list goes on. Compound that with intersectionality for those that are women of color in medicine, it can be an even more difficult and emotionally and physically exhausting path to navigate.

So while I don’t generally let it bother me when a patient thinks I’m a nurse or transportor, I do think it’s important for people to look at the bigger picture and take sexism (and racism) in medicine seriously.

Except there isn’t unequal pay.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

Except there isn’t unequal pay.

Yep. It’s an earnings gap, not a wage gap. The “equal pay” myth has been disproven by every serious economist who has ever examined it. When taking other factors into account (such as time off) it narrows to about 98 cent (2 cent gap) for every dollar rather than the 77 cent that’s thrown about in the news.

To anyone who wants to read the economics instead of listening to propaganda:

The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap - Freakonomics


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Dejavu]

Lmao. Vhawk is making fun of y’all with the silly “words are violence” and “privilege” argument and you’re taking him seriously. He’s trying to point out how ridiculous those statements are, and you’re engaging him in actual debate. I can’t

Anyway, OP, who cares? Correct them and do your job. If they don’t listen, correct them again. And again. Your hurt pride will recover. And if you’re seriously saying you shouldn’t have gone into medicine if you knew it was gonna be like this, maybe you’re right, you shouldn’t have gone.

I’m a board certified surgeon, and the chief of the ortho trauma service at my hospital. I routinely get mistaken for a nurse, nursing assistant, etc. I get the age thing nearly every day. “Too young,” “too pretty,” etc. Who the f cares! I know who I am. The only person I need to be square with at the end of the day about my competence is me. Sometimes I transport patients to preop when I don’t think the transporters are moving fast enough for me (I want to finish at some point before midnight and go home). Sometimes I bring people ice chips. Sometimes I help move boxes in the OR. I’ve been at times an impromptu door greeter, volunteer (help a lost person in a hallway find their way outside), food service worker, and janitor. The staff that know who I am sometimes laugh at me (I brought back a wheelchair to outpatient and the nurses were cracking up), but more often than not, they appreciate the extra hand.

My point is this: When your ego is out of the picture, you just do what needs to be done, and things fall into place. Your original post is your pride talking... and pride is a deadly sin for a reason.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

And believe me, as a person who has been a nurse and a physician, everyone who sees you help with the menial tasks, thinks more of you. Much more. Every time.

They think way less of some doctor who considers it “beneath their dignity” to help out with everyday tasks.

After 40 yrs observing this, trust me on this.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

And believe me, as a person who has been a nurse and a physician, everyone who sees you help with the menial tasks, thinks more of you. Much more. Every time.

They think way less of some doctor who considers it “beneath their dignity” to help out with everyday tasks.

After 40 yrs observing this, trust me on this.

I haven’t cared what anyone thinks of me since high school. (Well except my family and my patients because I am obligated to them.) I just do what I think needs to be done. Mostly the staff nurses just chuckle at me, lol. They make jokes that I’m not making enough money, so i moonlight as a transporter.

By the way, just this morning I was writing in a chart and a rehab nurse who had never seen me before (we have an in-house rehab that they occasionally send my patients to) told me “hey kiddo can you move?” cause she needed to get into a drawer. I didn’t even look up from my chart and just wheeled out of her way. Lol. If I bristled every time someone mistook me for something else, I’d be pissed off all day long. Oh, and that rehab patient is old and didn’t recognize me either. I fixed his pelvis. When I came in, he asked if I could get him his denture brush. Water off a duck’s back, baby.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[LucidSplash]

Lmao. Vhawk is making fun of y’all with the silly “words are violence” and “privilege” argument and you’re taking him seriously. He’s trying to point out how ridiculous those statements are, and you’re engaging him in actual debate. I can’t

Anyway, OP, who cares? Correct them and do your job. If they don’t listen, correct them again. And again. Your hurt pride will recover. And if you’re seriously saying you shouldn’t have gone into medicine if you knew it was gonna be like this, maybe you’re right, you shouldn’t have gone.

I’m a board certified surgeon, and the chief of the ortho trauma service at my hospital. I routinely get mistaken for a nurse, nursing assistant, etc. I get the age thing nearly every day. “Too young,” “too pretty,” etc. Who the f cares! I know who I am. The only person I need to be square with at the end of the day about my competence is me. Sometimes I transport patients to preop when I don’t think the transporters are moving fast enough for me (I want to finish at some point before midnight and go home). Sometimes I bring people ice chips. Sometimes I help move boxes in the OR. I’ve been at times an impromptu door greeter, volunteer (help a lost person in a hallway find their way outside), food service worker, and janitor. The staff that know who I am sometimes laugh at me (I brought back a wheelchair to outpatient and the nurses were cracking up), but more often than not, they appreciate the extra hand.

My point is this: When your ego is out of the picture, you just do what needs to be done, and things fall into place. Your original post is your pride talking... and pride is a deadly sin for a reason.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Agree with all of this (and the earnings gap vs pay gap, thank you for taking this on!).

For a lot of people, it is definitely way easier to let issues like being mistaken for other than a doctor, or having to remind patients multiple times that you are their doctor, roll off you when you’re out of training and established. I came into residency with a decently developed sense of self so this stuff only twinged occasionally when I was a junior resident. By the time senior years rolled around, I didn’t care ever. Once your internal confidence is there, you really shouldn’t care about these issues to the point where they make you question your profession. But in those early years I saw a lot of people struggle with how it affected them because while they were trying to prove themselves to the nursing staff and the bosses and the senior residents, it can be one more punch to have a patient make this mistake when you’re already feeling under pressure and anxious about performance.

The best remedy is to focus on doing the best job you can to take care of patients and take an all encompassing perspective on what that means. It can mean ice chips just as much as operating.

 

[NicMouse64]

Yep. It’s an earnings gap, not a wage gap. The “equal pay” myth has been disproven by every serious economist who has ever examined it. When taking other factors into account (such as time off) it narrows to about 98 cent (2 cent gap) for every dollar rather than the 77 cent that’s thrown about in the news.

To anyone who wants to read the economics instead of listening to propaganda:

The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap - Freakonomics


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

3rd wave feminism is such a joke. There's a medical school nearby that brags of a 67% female class and touts it as being "super diverse" and "progressive".

 

[LucidSplash]

3rd wave feminism is such a joke. There's a medical school nearby that brags of a 67% female class and touts it as being "super diverse" and "progressive".

The problem with statistics with no granularity is that you really don’t know what these numbers mean. How you interpret the diversity of a 2/3 female majority in a matriculated class depends on: number of male vs female applicants in the total applicant pool, number of male/female applicants accepted, relative strength of the various applications by gender, socio-economic background, etc. Some of this info is available in a nationwide basis from the AAMC. Some schools release some of this data. But without the total dataset (applicants, acceptances AND matriculates) you don’t really know what the story is.

Broad percentages were easier to interpret in the 70s when there were clear quotas/bias as official policy (smoking guns if you will, to reference the podcast posted above). Today you need a lot more data and nuance to find if something like a 2/3 majority is actually a result of bias.

 

[deleted480308]

The problem with statistics with no granularity is that you really don’t know what these numbers mean. How you interpret the diversity of a 2/3 female majority in a matriculated class depends on: number of male vs female applicants in the total applicant pool, number of male/female applicants accepted, relative strength of the various applications by gender, socio-economic background, etc. Some of this info is available in a nationwide basis from the AAMC. Some schools release some of this data. But without the total dataset (applicants, acceptances AND matriculates) you don’t really know what the story is.

Broad percentages were easier to interpret in the 70s when there were clear quotas/bias as official policy (smoking guns if you will, to reference the podcast posted above). Today you need a lot more data and nuance to find if something like a 2/3 majority is actually a result of bias.

What’s dumb is listing that number as an achievement as though the percentage should matter at all

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

What’s dumb is listing that number as an achievement as though the percentage should matter at all

The funny part is 2/3 female is less diverse than 50-50. Assuming everything else is equal and they didn’t just take minority females or something.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[NicMouse64]

The problem with statistics with no granularity is that you really don’t know what these numbers mean. How you interpret the diversity of a 2/3 female majority in a matriculated class depends on: number of male vs female applicants in the total applicant pool, number of male/female applicants accepted, relative strength of the various applications by gender, socio-economic background, etc. Some of this info is available in a nationwide basis from the AAMC. Some schools release some of this data. But without the total dataset (applicants, acceptances AND matriculates) you don’t really know what the story is.

Broad percentages were easier to interpret in the 70s when there were clear quotas/bias as official policy (smoking guns if you will, to reference the podcast posted above). Today you need a lot more data and nuance to find if something like a 2/3 majority is actually a result of bias.

You are really gonna argue that....fine. Look the point isn't the majority at this one school, fine. I know that in medical school they are looking for more "soft" qualities now more than ever before. You now see an over-representation of women in medicine compared to the population....which isn't bad in and of itself.

The problem I see isn't simple...But basically you have this assumption that female characteristics are universally better for medicine and our patients. I just don't buy it. I am on a little primary care rotation (M1) and this one physician absolutely berated me and then my two female medical students in the office for sucking at our H+P and SOAP. You know what I did when I went home? I thought about how much it sucked and came back the next day and freaking killed my H+P and SOAP notes. She pulled me aside and said she has hope for the next generation of doctors. Do you know what my female classmates did? they cried and went to a our dean and complained about a malignant preceptor.

Also....AMA wants to spout crap about the physician shortage. I bet mommy tracks won't help.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You are really gonna argue that....fine. Look the point isn't the majority at this one school, fine. I know that in medical school they are looking for more "soft" qualities now more than ever before. You now see an over-representation of women in medicine compared to the population....which isn't bad in and of itself.

The problem I see isn't simple...But basically you have this assumption that female characteristics are universally better for medicine and our patients. I just don't buy it. I am on a little primary care rotation (M1) and this one physician absolutely berated me and then my two female medical students in the office for sucking at our H+P and SOAP. You know what I did when I went home? I thought about how much it sucked and came back the next day and freaking killed my H+P and SOAP notes. She pulled me aside and said she has hope for the next generation of doctors. Do you know what my female classmates did? they cried and went to a our dean and complained about a malignant preceptor.

Also....AMA wants to spout crap about the physician shortage. I bet mommy tracks won't help.

I think what's she saying is that lacking data on MCAT scores, GPA, and so on you can't say that 2/3rds female means anything. Now as the school is touting this number as an achievement, I have my suspicions. But it is possible that this number is a result of better female applicants.

 

[deleted480308]

I think what's she saying is that lacking data on MCAT scores, GPA, and so on you can't say that 2/3rds female means anything. Now as the school is touting this number as an achievement, I have my suspicions. But it is possible that this number is a result of better female applicants.

And should they just be that much better, I’m all for it

 

[Raryn]

I think what's she saying is that lacking data on MCAT scores, GPA, and so on you can't say that 2/3rds female means anything. Now as the school is touting this number as an achievement, I have my suspicions. But it is possible that this number is a result of better female applicants.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321506/data/factstablea22.pdf for AAMC data by MCAT/GPA gender based looking at matriculants. Without running statistics on it, there's not really a significant difference - the mean is about a tenth of a standard deviation, with men having slightly higher MCAT scores and slightly lower GPAs. Unsurprisingly, the women getting into medical school in the US in 2018 are pretty much identically qualified to the men. As a man with a physician for a wife, mother, and (late) grandmother - color me not surprised.

Women make up 49-51% of matriculants depending on the year we look at, but I think have only cracked the 50% mark overall a couple times in the history of the country (and both within the last 5 years). Given the overall trends in higher education (with women being more likely to go to college overall than men), I'm honestly surprised that it isn't even higher.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf has a simialr table based on self-reported race/ethnicity. It's a lot more different (at the extremes, Asian vs AA is about >1 SD difference in both MCAT and GPA depending on which measure and which SD we're looking at) but there's a lot of reasons for that to be the case, and probably not a discussion we should get into on SDN lest we get this thread locked.

Interestingly, they used to have grids for every MCAT/GPA combination and your odds of getting in split up by race, but it looks like they've only reported the aggregate for the last few years.

 

[LucidSplash]

https://www.aamc.org/download/321506/data/factstablea22.pdf for AAMC data by MCAT/GPA gender based looking at matriculants. Without running statistics on it, there's not really a significant difference - the mean is about a tenth of a standard deviation, with men having slightly higher MCAT scores and slightly lower GPAs. Unsurprisingly, the women getting into medical school in the US in 2018 are pretty much identically qualified to the men. As a man with a physician for a wife, mother, and (late) grandmother - color me not surprised.

Women make up 49-51% of matriculants depending on the year we look at, but I think have only cracked the 50% mark overall a couple times in the history of the country (and both within the last 5 years). Given the overall trends in higher education (with women being more likely to go to college overall than men), I'm honestly surprised that it isn't even higher.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf has a simialr table based on self-reported race/ethnicity. It's a lot more different (at the extremes, Asian vs AA is about >1 SD difference in both MCAT and GPA depending on which measure and which SD we're looking at) but there's a lot of reasons for that to be the case, and probably not a discussion we should get into on SDN lest we get this thread locked.

Interestingly, they used to have grids for every MCAT/GPA combination and your odds of getting in split up by race, but it looks like they've only reported the aggregate for the last few years.

Yes and similar to the data I linked to, none of it shows acceptances. Matriculates just shows who decided to attend where, not the breakdown of who was offered admission.

 

[LucidSplash]

You are really gonna argue that....fine. Look the point isn't the majority at this one school, fine. I know that in medical school they are looking for more "soft" qualities now more than ever before. You now see an over-representation of women in medicine compared to the population....which isn't bad in and of itself.

The problem I see isn't simple...But basically you have this assumption that female characteristics are universally better for medicine and our patients. I just don't buy it. I am on a little primary care rotation (M1) and this one physician absolutely berated me and then my two female medical students in the office for sucking at our H+P and SOAP. You know what I did when I went home? I thought about how much it sucked and came back the next day and freaking killed my H+P and SOAP notes. She pulled me aside and said she has hope for the next generation of doctors. Do you know what my female classmates did? they cried and went to a our dean and complained about a malignant preceptor.

Also....AMA wants to spout crap about the physician shortage. I bet mommy tracks won't help.

As medical school spots are surpassing residency spots, the issue with a physician shortage/bottleneck is at the postgrad training level, not medical school attendance. This data is also easy to find. The overall number of residency spot is set by congress and hasn’t changed in a decade or so. Regardless of the perjoratively-named “mommy track.”

 

[deleted480308]

As medical school spots are surpassing residency spots, the issue with a physician shortage/bottleneck is at the postgrad training level, not medical school attendance. This data is also easy to find. The overall number of residency spot is set by congress and hasn’t changed in a decade or so. Regardless of the perjoratively-named “mommy track.”

It is slowly increasing all the time (total spots)

 

[NicMouse64]

As medical school spots are surpassing residency spots, the issue with a physician shortage/bottleneck is at the postgrad training level, not medical school attendance. This data is also easy to find. The overall number of residency spot is set by congress and hasn’t changed in a decade or so. Regardless of the perjoratively-named “mommy track.”

It's not perjorative....More females will be moms than males. That's a fact. They will work less than their male counterparts. that's been proven. less work=more need for physicians. Am I missing something?

 

[Raryn]

Yes and similar to the data I linked to, none of it shows acceptances. Matriculates just shows who decided to attend where, not the breakdown of who was offered admission.

If the average GPA and MCAT for male and female applicants is the same (more or less), and for matriculants is the same, I can't imagine that the acceptance rate with any given MCAT or GPA is significantly different for men and women. Men do (overall, slightly) have a lower acceptance rate - but the difference is like 1% (~40% for men and ~41% for women), which I wouldn't call significant.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

As medical school spots are surpassing residency spots, the issue with a physician shortage/bottleneck is at the postgrad training level, not medical school attendance. This data is also easy to find. The overall number of residency spot is set by congress and hasn’t changed in a decade or so. Regardless of the perjoratively-named “mommy track.”

Yeah that's just not at all true: Ten Year Projections for US Residency Positions: Will There be Enough Positions to Accommodate the Growing Number of U.S. Medical School Graduates? - PubMed - NCBI

"The growth rate of all categorical positions available in U.S. residency programs [between 2005 and 2014] was 2.55 percent annually,"

Lots of places are funding their own spots as you are correct that Congress hasn't increased residency funding in quite some time.

 

[LucidSplash]

If the average GPA and MCAT for male and female applicants is the same (more or less), and for matriculants is the same, I can't imagine that the acceptance rate with any given MCAT or GPA is significantly different for men and women. Men do (overall, slightly) have a lower acceptance rate - but the difference is like 1% (~40% for men and ~41% for women), which I wouldn't call significant.

I’m talking for a given school. If you don’t know the breakdown of who they are accepting male vs female, you have no idea if there is bias. They could be accepting 50/50 and then getting 35/65 based on who decided to attend the school, or there could be an inequality in who is getting offered admission from a gender perspective (inequality is not the same as bias - bias has a negative connotation whereas imbalance just means not the same.) And then you’d have to go back and compare the relative hard and soft data for each applicant pool.

I’m just saying that without direct comparisons you can’t tell what the difference is and why it exists.

And we could probably go further back in educational time to look at who is getting into college and then actually graduating with a bachelors degree.

 

[LucidSplash]

Yeah that's just not at all true: Ten Year Projections for US Residency Positions: Will There be Enough Positions to Accommodate the Growing Number of U.S. Medical School Graduates? - PubMed - NCBI

"The growth rate of all categorical positions available in U.S. residency programs [between 2005 and 2014] was 2.55 percent annually,"

Lots of places are funding their own spots as you are correct that Congress hasn't increased residency funding in quite some time.

Ok fair enough my statement conflated two variables and my data was old. I withdraw that portion of my argument.

I do find the “mommy track” to be a perjorative term. It implies that women who become mothers are inherently less useful professionally than women who are not. Not all women who become mothers are going to want to decrease their professional workload. Some undoubtedly are, but I object to the phrase on the basis that it assumes an action by an entire subgroup of people.

 

[deleted480308]

Ok fair enough my statement conflated two variables and my data was old. I withdraw that portion of my argument.

I do find the “mommy track” to be a perjorative term. It implies that women who become mothers are inherently less useful professionally than women who are not. Not all women who become mothers are going to want to decrease their professional workload. Some undoubtedly are, but I object to the phrase on the basis that it assumes an action by an entire subgroup of people.

It doesn’t at all assume all moms do it but it does describe those moms who choose to dramatically decrease their workload due to parenthood.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Ok fair enough my statement conflated two variables and my data was old. I withdraw that portion of my argument.

I do find the “mommy track” to be a perjorative term. It implies that women who become mothers are inherently less useful professionally than women who are not. Not all women who become mothers are going to want to decrease their professional workload. Some undoubtedly are, but I object to the phrase on the basis that it assumes an action by an entire subgroup of people.

My wife who went on the mommy track in June calls it that. You're certainly free to call it perjorative but its not always meant that way. To my usage its a easier way to say "a female physician who goes part time to spend more time with her children".

 

[NicMouse64]

Ok fair enough my statement conflated two variables and my data was old. I withdraw that portion of my argument.

I do find the “mommy track” to be a perjorative term. It implies that women who become mothers are inherently less useful professionally than women who are not. Not all women who become mothers are going to want to decrease their professional workload. Some undoubtedly are, but I object to the phrase on the basis that it assumes an action by an entire subgroup of people.

You're doing that feminist thing where you try to control and change what words mean. People know that mommy track doesn't mean every mom does it. yes there are men who go on mommy tracks too. That doesn't take away from the fact that women have been proven to work less hours on average than their male counterparts. It's not a problem in and of itself, but when you take into account there being a shortage of physicians it can exacerbate the issue.

 

[LucidSplash]

You're doing that feminist thing where you try to control and change what words mean. People know that mommy track doesn't mean every mom does it. yes there are men who go on mommy tracks too. That doesn't take away from the fact that women have been proven to work less hours on average than their male counterparts. It's not a problem in and of itself, but when you take into account there being a shortage of physicians it can exacerbate the issue.

No, I’m pointing out that some women work less than some men. I work a lot more than some of my male counterparts. And even if someone’s wife decides to use the term, it doesn’t change the fact that term is used mostly by old men (not necessarily here) arguing that women shouldn’t be in medicine because they later choose to go part time after becoming parents. Kinda like black people can can use some words that white peoples shouldn’t. If a mother herself wants to use it whatever but I’m saying I find the term perjorative coming from someone else. I’m not saying I’m offended/I’m reporting you/I’m getting all SJW (because if you read the sum total of my post history that isn’t me at all). I’m saying the word was coined with a perjorative connotation.

For the record, this kind of labeling thing also happens to women disproportionately if they choose NOT to reduce their work hours and get help from family or a nanny. Then we call them “absentee mothers.” Dads get called “workaholics” but are only “deadbeats” if they don’t provide financial support. Perjorative labeling sucks for all genders.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

Lmao. Vhawk is making fun of y’all with the silly “words are violence” and “privilege” argument and you’re taking him seriously. He’s trying to point out how ridiculous those statements are, and you’re engaging him in actual debate. I can’t

Anyway, OP, who cares? Correct them and do your job. If they don’t listen, correct them again. And again. Your hurt pride will recover. And if you’re seriously saying you shouldn’t have gone into medicine if you knew it was gonna be like this, maybe you’re right, you shouldn’t have gone.

I’m a board certified surgeon, and the chief of the ortho trauma service at my hospital. I routinely get mistaken for a nurse, nursing assistant, etc. I get the age thing nearly every day. “Too young,” “too pretty,” etc. Who the f cares! I know who I am. The only person I need to be square with at the end of the day about my competence is me. Sometimes I transport patients to preop when I don’t think the transporters are moving fast enough for me (I want to finish at some point before midnight and go home). Sometimes I bring people ice chips. Sometimes I help move boxes in the OR. I’ve been at times an impromptu door greeter, volunteer (help a lost person in a hallway find their way outside), food service worker, and janitor. The staff that know who I am sometimes laugh at me (I brought back a wheelchair to outpatient and the nurses were cracking up), but more often than not, they appreciate the extra hand.

My point is this: When your ego is out of the picture, you just do what needs to be done, and things fall into place. Your original post is your pride talking... and pride is a deadly sin for a reason.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Watch out, snowflakes can't handle this truth... it's part of why the SPF was hidden.

 

[Apollyon]

To my usage its a easier way to say "a female physician who goes part time to spend more time with her children".

That reminds me of something that I saw, transiently, on Wikipedia: the term "bum", which is "a derogatory term for a homeless person with a poor work ethic".

 

[deleted480308]

No, I’m pointing out that some women work less than some men. I work a lot more than some of my male counterparts. And even if someone’s wife decides to use the term, it doesn’t change the fact that term is used mostly by old men (not necessarily here) arguing that women shouldn’t be in medicine because they later choose to go part time after becoming parents. Kinda like black people can can use some words that white peoples shouldn’t. If a mother herself wants to use it whatever but I’m saying I find the term perjorative coming from someone else. I’m not saying I’m offended/I’m reporting you/I’m getting all SJW (because if you read the sum total of my post history that isn’t me at all). I’m saying the word was coined with a perjorative connotation.

For the record, this kind of labeling thing also happens to women disproportionately if they choose NOT to reduce their work hours and get help from family or a nanny. Then we call them “absentee mothers.” Dads get called “workaholics” but are only “deadbeats” if they don’t provide financial support. Perjorative labeling sucks for all genders.

Except when it literally isn’t perjorative because there is nothing wrong with working less if you want more time with your kids

 

[Raryn]

Watch out, snowflakes can't handle this truth... it's part of why the SPF was hidden.

Oh, it was hidden. I thought it was just deleted. Thanks for the update, now I added it back to my list.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

As medical school spots are surpassing residency spots, the issue with a physician shortage/bottleneck is at the postgrad training level, not medical school attendance. This data is also easy to find. The overall number of residency spot is set by congress and hasn’t changed in a decade or so. Regardless of the perjoratively-named “mommy track.”

I wish it weren’t true, but I know so many people who left either during or after residency to become stay at home moms. And it’s not like they were unmarried with no other options and no way to care for their kids. I’ve never heard of a man doing that.. I mean what’s the point? Why did you waste the money, waste the efforts of those who trained you, and take someone else’s medical school spot, just to leave it all behind anyway? It makes me angry. Useless degree. One person I know left surgery residency the moment she found a surgeon to marry. Why the f did you even bother then, lady? Ugh. It doesn’t do the rest of us women any favors because people will assume the same thing about us.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I wish it weren’t true, but I know so many people who left either during or after residency to become stay at home moms. And it’s not like they were unmarried with no other options and no way to care for their kids. I’ve never heard of a man doing that.. I mean what’s the point? Why did you waste the money, waste the efforts of those who trained you, and take someone else’s medical school spot, just to leave it all behind anyway? It makes me angry. Useless degree. One person I know left surgery residency the moment she found a surgeon to marry. Why the f did you even bother then, lady? Ugh. It doesn’t do the rest of us women any favors because people will assume the same thing about us.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Yeah, I know it's not right but I have always judged people who leave medicine completely. Part time doesn't bother me (even before my wife did it), but giving it up completely does.

 

[LucidSplash]

I wish it weren’t true, but I know so many people who left either during or after residency to become stay at home moms. And it’s not like they were unmarried with no other options and no way to care for their kids. I’ve never heard of a man doing that.. I mean what’s the point? Why did you waste the money, waste the efforts of those who trained you, and take someone else’s medical school spot, just to leave it all behind anyway? It makes me angry. Useless degree. One person I know left surgery residency the moment she found a surgeon to marry. Why the f did you even bother then, lady? Ugh. It doesn’t do the rest of us women any favors because people will assume the same thing about us.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I’m not arguing that it never happens. If you look above you will see that I quite clearly say some women do it. But it is simply my point that you shouldn’t look at any individual female applicant going into medical school and say that they are less worthy of a spot than others because they have a uterus and might use it someday and then might also decide to seek out a flexible schedule in lieu of higher pay.

On the other hand, it is hard for me to condemn women who take advantage of available options. If an employer offers a part-time track and a person is willing to take less money, I don’t see anything wrong with that. We could get rid of part-time tracks as a profession if the consensus was that they were a drain on physician resources. But if we get rid of part-time tracks, I think our physician shortage will get worse not better.

I agree with you on the score that it is frustrating to see a fully trained MD leave clinical medicine. But my life has been full of twists and unexpected turns and it’s hard for me to judge someone for making a choice to do something other than what they planned when they applied to medical school. It’s hard to know the future when you’re making big decisions at 21.

 

[NicMouse64]

I’m not arguing that it never happens. If you look above you will see that I quite clearly say some women do it. But it is simply my point that you shouldn’t look at any individual female applicant going into medical school and say that they are less worthy of a spot than others because they have a uterus and might use it someday and then might also decide to seek out a flexible schedule in lieu of higher pay.

On the other hand, it is hard for me to condemn women who take advantage of available options. If an employer offers a part-time track and a person is willing to take less money, I don’t see anything wrong with that. We could get rid of part-time tracks as a profession if the consensus was that they were a drain on physician resources. But if we get rid of part-time tracks, I think our physician shortage will get worse not better.

I agree with you on the score that it is frustrating to see a fully trained MD leave clinical medicine. But my life has been full of twists and unexpected turns and it’s hard for me to judge someone for making a choice to do something other than what they planned when they applied to medical school. It’s hard to know the future when you’re making big decisions at 21.

I'm just arguing that having a uterus and certain soft traits shouldn't be an advantage. Obviously the data already says it isn't a disadvantage.

 

[NicMouse64]

Part time I don’t mind so much. It’s those who in my mind waste their degree when people are willing to give their right arm for a med school spot. Especially if they get in on the gender diversity card, which is happening a lot in my field.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

It happens in engineering too. Women study it then end up doing politics/business/fashion/etc. What a waste of a spot (at my alma mater which is an incredible engineering school). There's a huge shortage of chemE Software engineers, etc. Not many women wanna do it. It's a shame and bad for the economy

 

[Raryn]

*shrug*

My job is 36 patient-facing hours/week with 6 weeks of vacation a year and I'm fairly certain I don't have a uterus. Take any of these arguments to their extreme and we should all be working 13 hour days 6 days a week so as to not decrease access to care.