WomanWhoWouldCurie

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Also I think it goes both ways. There are certainly Plenty of men who choose safer, less income potential jobs in bigger cities because of family and wives when they may have otherwise been maybe apt to chase entrepreneurial BIG income potential opportunities in nowhere villle

ATTN Carbonionangle

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
The real issue is that jobs are “drying up” and offers withdrawn. . Adjusting expectations won’t change the obvious trend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
The real issue is that jobs are “drying up” and offers withdrawn. . Adjusting expectations won’t change the obvious trend.

Yes, this is the major issue. "Reasonable expectations" for recent and upcoming graduates have changed a lot since when they were applying to rad onc 5-7 years ago. Every year I was in residency, I felt like I needed to lower my expectations a little bit more.

Last year, my back up plan was to take a job in the boonies to start out and eventually try to make it to my geographic preference after 1-2 years? I think this was a lot of senior residents' back up plan. I suspect more seniors this year are going to resort to their back up plan this year. And now, once you are in your backup plan job, it will probably take longer to find a job in your desired area.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 2 users
Yes, this is the major issue. "Reasonable expectations" for recent and upcoming graduates have changed a lot since when they were applying to rad onc 5-7 years ago. Every year I was in residency, I felt like I needed to lower my expectations a little bit more.

Last year, my back up plan was to take a job in the boonies to start out and eventually try to make it to my geographic preference after 1-2 years? I think this was a lot of senior residents' back up plan. I suspect more seniors this year are going to resort to their back up plan this year. And now, once you are in your backup plan job, it will probably take longer to find a job in your desired area.

This was my backup plan last year as well. Unfortunately, I found that many of the well-paying boonies jobs had gone to people in the know or a few years out. Many of my "boonies" job options either did not pay as well as I had thought they would or required sweat equity for 2-3 years for partner to get to that point when I would be planning on leaving in 3-5 years. My geographic preference of choice was not available for a while and I knew that so I focused elsewhere. Ended up about an hour away though.

I wonder if this year's grads are finding that as well - "undesirable" location jobs are not paying as much as historically?
 
This is not a women's issue. Plenty of women are married to men who make less, and that doesn't change the geography problem. Radiation Oncologists can't work without multimillion dollar machines. True private practice is nearly dead. Everyone wants to live in a great city, which creates a lot of competition. These are just facts.

On a different note, sometimes the best jobs only appear with short notice- someone dies, gets sick or retires unexpectedly. November is too early to fret.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Radiation Oncologists can't work without multimillion dollar machines. True private practice is nearly dead. Everyone wants to live in a great city, which creates a lot of competition. These are just facts.
There is need for radiation oncologists in rural areas too. Not rural-rural in the meaning of towns with a couple hundred people, but there are radiation oncology clinics in cities in the range of 20k-50k inhabitants.
However, not everyone wants to live there, true.
 
Last edited:
I am a PGY-5 female at a top 15 (per Doximity) program. I can't say more than that because - as you may have heard - there aren't that many of us, and I don't want to out myself.

I've avoided this board since I started residency because I found the negativity distracting. Since I had committed to this field, I felt like it was only bringing me down to spend time on here reading all the doom and gloom. But now I have something to confess: I would not choose radonc again. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I think as many voices as possible need to be heard detailing the suffering that residency expansion has wrought on so many of us now and likely in years to come.

The last five years have been tough on my husband and me. Like most female doctors, I married someone similarly high-achieving who NEEDS to be in a major city to do his job. I was aware from the start that this might be difficult to guarantee in radiation oncology, but, like all of you, I love this field. I love the patients, the technology, and the work we do. I got into a very good residency and I was assured time and again (by other interviewees, upper level residents, attendings) that if I did well in our program I should not worry about finding a job. None of our residents ever had, they said. So I took a leap and committed five years of my life to this amazing field. I've done well in residency. I published on a variety of topics, and I'm well liked in our department, but there was always this specter of the job search haunting me.

I was optimistic when I started my job hunt earlier this year. I really just wanted to be in the same city as my husband without a huge commute for either of us. He was even willing to switch locations within his firm, if necessary, to accommodate my job (love him <3). But from the outset there was very little available in any city that would work for him.

I interviewed with a variety of academic places, and had a couple offers for low quality pseudo-academic satellite positions with private practice workload for academic pay. There were some opportunities with historically malignant churn-and-burn private practices. Then, a few weeks ago, one of the docs at our institution used one of his connections to help me find the kind of job I was looking for - the kind of job I went into medicine for. Nothing extravagant, but a mid-six figure salary that would allow me to pay off my loans and support our family. I had a phone interview and they seemed interested and invited me out for a site visit.

Yesterday, they called to cancel. The new general supervision change, they said, had caused them to hold off hiring this year. Maybe in the future. They were, of course, very sorry. And how can I blame them? They are doing what's best for themselves and their practice.

So here I am, in the winter of my PGY-5 year, without any job, and dwindling hope of finding one that isn't exploitative. My husband is, as always, super supportive, and fortunately makes enough that - at least temporarily - we can both survive on his salary. I know I still have six months left, but my stress level is through the roof. It feels like the walls are closing in and I really might end up unemployed. One of my co-residents had a offer pulled as well.

This is an employment crisis for me and for many others. But more importantly, it's a women's issue. And what I came on here to rant about is that NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH PROFILE RADONC WOMAN has said anything about this. Not Reshma Jagsi, Malika Siker, Fumiko Chino... none of the twitter celebs have touched this with a ten foot pole. When they have, they have largely supported getting more women and minorities into the field. REALLY?! MORE?! So they can end up jobless and desperate like me five years from now?!

So what I really came on here to say, in addition to sharing this story, is to say that the #womenwhocurie thing is a farce. THERE IS ONLY ONE "WOMEN'S ISSUE" IN THIS FIELD, and it is RESIDENCY EXPANSION. Women are more likely than men to have geographically-restricted spouses. This is not controversial. I can see this in my own program: several of the male residents I've known were married to NPs or PAs, one stay-at-home mom, one to another doc. They could pretty much move anywhere they wanted and cast a job search net across the whole country. But ALL of the female residents I know (in radonc or elsewhere) are married either to other doctors (they are probably the most flexible) or to lawyers/consultants/financiers. These people, as does my husband, need to be in big cities to do their work. AS THE JOB MARKET TIGHTENS IT WILL CONTINUE TO DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT WOMEN. And minorities too, because I don't know many POCs who want to go work in rural appalachia.

So here I am - a living embodiment of why radonc is a terrible field for many women (or men with geographically restricted spouses - I know there are plenty of you out there too :)). But when I go to some of these women's meetings I don't hear a peep about it. All we talk about is things that don't matter. I've never met anyone in power in this field who was the least bit sexist to me, or who didn't go above and beyond to mentor me (male or female). People call me Dr. X - and when they don't, it doesn't harm me in the least, and I'm not at all offended by it. BUT I WANT A JOB. And the idea that all I need is a good pep talk and a hashtag is, to be frank, demeaning and a bit sexist.

When I almost decided not to enter this field, I didn't do it because of some implicit bias or whatever unprovable gobbledygook people are attributing it to these days, I did it because I am a rational human being making choices about what's best for me and my family. And now, five years, as an almost-equally rational human being, I would advise anyone reading this not to choose it. Please do not make the same mistake I did. Please listen. If you are a student applying, or a PGY-1 in a prelim-IM program (really if you are in any position to feasibly bail out of radiation oncology) I would advise that you do it. The sky really is falling.

I just want a job near my husband. I want to be able to have a family and a decent income and a fulfilling job helping cancer patients. I don't care about all the academic politics and power moves and heaping blame on men. These people went on and on expanding their residencies in a way that knew was unsustainable and now we will all pay the price for it. And instead of acknowledging this or trying to fix it, they are silent. I wish they would stand up and use their voices to help women in this field in the best way they can: cut residency spots, drastically and immediately. Frankly, if you want to show you are an advocate for women... #heforshe or #sheforshe.... this is the only meaningful thing you can do.

Without getting too far into this, I will just say that I am very sorry for you OP, and I feel for you.

You are correct that the prominent female figureheads in this field are ignoring your specific plight and those of your other female colleagues. They are singularly obsessed with this ridiculous notion that simply because a perfect 50:50 male:female ratio in radiation oncology does not exist, that it must be due to systematic oppression of women by male leaders or some vaguely patriarchal system that's trying to tell them they're not allowed. Not that there's any other reason that woman aren't choosing, of their own free will, not to go into this field, for reasons you have suggested. As I have commented on multiple times, these people don't care to understand the difference in value between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. They are incorrectly trying to force the former rather than ensuring the later. As you aptly note, this ironically harms many women.

I would also caution you with the stereotypes. Not all women will restrict themselves to only "high achieving" male partners. Sure, life is easier if you fall in love with an auto mechanic I suppose. And I guess it happens more often with male doctors marrying secretaries and nurses. But I don't think it's quite right to say that all female rad oncs are going to be in this same predicament married to bankers and lawyers. Or even perhaps they are married to a man who is a stay at home dad!

If you're a single white male with no kids who loves living in the country, rad onc is all yours! But how many people are really like that in our field? I'd say well in the minority! Dr. Jasgi should be encouraging people like that to go into this field, not people like you are going to be extremely unhappy because of geographic limitations. Of course, we all know why she is not. Because optics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Am I missing something here or this a silly way to frame the job market issue? Yes, geographic flexibility is extremely limited in this field but that is the case for EVERYONE. Why are we acting like it's somehow more of an issue for women than it is for men?



This is what I don't understand. "All the gals I know chose to marry people with geographic limitations while the guys married people with more flexibility, so unfair!"

You made a decision to marry someone knowing full well they had a job that restricted where they could live. And then you made a decision to enter a field that has been known to be very geographically limiting, It's not like this issue came about all of the sudden. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices and, assuming you're not looking to replace your husband with a more geopraphically friendly one, that means you need to accept the reality that your job prospects will be limited because that's the path you chose.

I am a huge critic of this job market and how bad leadership has let things get, but it is equally limiting for everyone irrespective of gender.
Yes, she's responsible for her choices--as are we all. But if we're serious about encouraging women to enter the field, we also need to acknowledge that statistically they're going to have priorities and situations that are differentiable from their male counterparts. These should be taken into account--especially by those who anoint themselves as the champions of women radiation oncologists.

It's no kindness to lure folks (of whatever demographic) into the field if they're unlikely to be successful and pleased in it. To point out that their dissatisfaction is consequent to their own choices is disingenuous, unkind, and irrelevant. It's nearly equivalent to saying, "Well, you wouldn't have this employment problem if you didn't make decisions like a woman."

Have some sympathy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Warnings to KHE88 and Palex. No insulting drive-bys on political issues. I'm just culling the thread of this entire line of discussion. No politics, and keep it at least tangentially on topic. Discussion of European politics does not meet that threshold. I'm moving discussion of European supervision rules to its own thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Looks like the WWC reading this thread carefully...

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm confused - is she thankful for places like SDN or Safe Spaces such as Twitter?

Positive Vibes Only.

That might be my new signature.

lol both? Happy there is a place like SDN where safe to talk shiz, but not happy if it is against queen bee jagsi and WWC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Looks like the WWC reading this thread carefully...



lol both? Happy there is a place like SDN where safe to talk shiz, but not happy if it is against queen bee jagsi and WWC?

Has Dr. Jagsi received any true criticism outside of Dare You to Reply? I agree it is tough criticism, but definitely warranted.

Oh to dream if Dr. Woodward or Jagsi would come on here to debate.
 
I am Reshma

Come at me bro
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
That dare you to reply thread did turn into a cesspool at times. Overall, I think that this board has been highly successful at presenting issues and criticizing where criticism is warranted. It calls out some of these "thought leaders" out on the BS they shovel. It allows an outlet for this to happen without fear of reprisal and we are indeed a small field with a smaller group of largely vindictive individuals in charge. However, the board can often veer to the fringe, or at least be sickeningly redundant. I'm as guilty as anyone.

It wasn't always like this, and it won't always be like this. We used to help reassure worried students that they'd match or make suggestions to improve applications. We used to discuss cases frequently. The Shah article and reaction to what turned out to be prescient, kind of started turning the tides here. There are many challenges in this field currently. Anyone who suggests otherwise is straight up lying to you. And yes, unfortunately, those graduating in the next 10 years will likely bear the brunt of those challenges. If you're interested in that, it is still a satisfying work that we do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Also, if this is largely framed as a private practice (SDN) vs academic (Twitter) beef, it's because it is, for all the reasons SimulD broke down in his twitter thread.

Academic centers have abused their power and influence. There is no doubt about this. It used to be the bad guy was the private practice guy treating bone mets in 20 fractions of IMRT. Times change. Now the bad guy is the academic chairman charging 5x the rates and training 2x too many residents so he can have a ready supply of cheap labor for the newest satellite that also charges 5x the rates, while putting the private guy "choosing wisely" out on the street.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Also, if this is largely framed as a private practice (SDN) vs academic (Twitter) beef, it's because it is, for all the reasons SimulD broke down in his twitter thread.

Academic centers have abused their power and influence. There is no doubt about this. It used to be the bad guy was the private practice guy treating bone mets in 20 fractions of IMRT. Times change. Now the bad guy is the academic chairman charging 5x the rates and training 2x too many residents so he can have a ready supply of cheap labor for the newest satellite that also charges 5x the rates, while putting the private guy "choosing wisely" out on the street.


no the bad guy is the Hospital Admin and the Corporate Culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users


Not saying I'm surprised, but at least they admit that they won't read the stuff here.

Seems to me the onus, then, would be on Dr. Jagsi to participate to correct the misinformation she says is here. After all, if we're misleading medical students, shouldn't she want to make sure falsehoods are corrected?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Seems to me the onus, then, would be on Dr. Jagsi to participate to correct the misinformation she says is here. After all, if we're misleading medical students, shouldn't she want to make sure falsehoods are corrected?


meh I disagree with that premise.

I don't go to Breitbart.com to argue either.
 
meh I disagree with that premise.

I don't go to Breitbart.com to argue either.
This ain't brietbart, we actually do deal in facts here and plenty of us aren't voting for 45 next year.

Unfortunately the RadOnc academic Twitterati have gotten caught up in groupspeak and can't handle the cognitive dissonance created by reading things on SDN like payment reform, overutilization of medical care, screwing URMs with residency expansion etc.

much easier to write us all off as miscreants
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
This ain't brietbart, we actually do deal in facts here and plenty of us aren't voting for 45 next year.

Unfortunately the RadOnc academic Twitterati have gotten caught up in groupspeak and can't handle the cognitive dissonance created by reading things on SDN like payment reform, overutilization of medical care, screwing URMs with residency expansion etc.

much easier to write us all off as miscreants
Miscreants, misanthropes..anyone wanna go with deplorables? bitter clingers?
 
No quid pro quo! No quid pro quo! No quid pro quo!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
This ain't brietbart, we actually do deal in facts here and plenty of us aren't voting for 45 next year.

Unfortunately the RadOnc academic Twitterati have gotten caught up in groupspeak and can't handle the cognitive dissonance created by reading things on SDN like payment reform, overutilization of medical care, screwing URMs with residency expansion etc.

much easier to write us all off as miscreants

Plenty of rad oncs on trump train, mostly BOOMERS or white men
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lack of empathy rivaled only by how out of touch she is with the current demand for specialties like uro, ent and pcps/hospitalists. She still thinks folks are walking into $500k jobs



Disappointing, but not surprised to see her response. She is not really an advocate for anyone but for herself. I remember sitting on one of her ASTRO sessions for residents for career development, etc a few years back. It was basically a brag show about how well connected she was, and how that helped her getting the dream job. What else. She also wrote an article in nejm about sexual harassment during the #metoo era, posing as some sort of expert in that subject. What credential does she have to be the voice on the subject, other than being a woman? None. Yet she is still the 'leader' of this field.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Here's how this works:

First of all, the idea there's no outright sexism or discrimination in the rad onc community is wrong. I'm happy for you if that's been your experience. My experience includes being told that the reason there aren't so many women in rad onc is that it requires being good at math and comfortable with computers; that my presence as the only female resident in the program really put a damper on the jokes they could tell in didactics; and witnessed textbook sexual harassment of clinic staff even younger & more vulnerable than me but didn't feel safe enough in my own status to call it out. These 3 examples are from 3 different individuals in leadership positions across multiple institutions, so not a solitary "bad apple." My biggest frustration with the #womenwhocurie "movement" is that they're still too beholden to the same power structure, too concerned with not themselves getting on the wrong side of these same people, to stand up and say, "This is the 21st century, girls are not bad at math or computers & saying otherwise to female med students interested in the field is bad leadership that's hurting this field." I'm too afraid of retaliation for being "not collegial" to even write out the equivalent for the other categories of offenses, lest I be quoted & someday doxxed. I guarantee I am not the only one with these experiences & others probably have worse. The reason you've never heard these stories is that we are afraid for our livelihoods if we do anything other than smile and nod when you say, "Well, I've never experienced any overt sexism." The paucity of tales being told is not for a good reason, it's because things are even worse than if this stuff were happening but we felt safe enough to complain about it.

But even for women who didn't run into such charming characters, there's a legitimate connection between gender issues and other problems like the current job market:

The whole idea of diversity, inclusion, historically advantaged & disadvantaged groups is that there are some things everyone needs or concerns everyone has in common - because we're all people - but to whatever extent things aren't perfect or there are problems, minority or disadvantaged groups consistently get hit worse than others. And when things improve, these same groups often don't benefit proportionately (or are sometimes systematically excluded from the improvement). So it can be and is the case BOTH that the job market is globally bad and this is bad for everyone, and that women are being hit especially hard and attention should be paid to making sure any "fixes" are helpful to them as well as the majority group.

How and why do women (or whatever minority/disadvantaged group) get hit harder by problems relevant to everyone? It's a combination of two things. First is whatever degree there may be of conscious or unconscious discrimination among people/parties directly involved in the problem. As above, I hope we can dispense with the idea that none of this exists in rad onc. And there are plenty of more subtle versions that nevertheless result in training programs or mentors being less invested in female residents' career development, practices & hiring committees feeling more comfortable with male job applicants when sitting down for an interview, etc.

The second mechanism is that the same group (women) is disadvantaged in various ways in the larger culture, outside rad onc, so even if rad onc were a perfect haven of gender equality, the women have to deal with its issues as an addition to the problems of being a woman in a wider sexist culture, whereas the men aren't carrying that burden. (This is why the dynamics don't flip to a perfect mirror image when a medical specialty becomes heavily female-dominated, like pediatrics or ob/gyn. Internally the balance might, but what ppl are living with in the wider world outside work does not). The OP is describing a problem of exactly this sort. Yes, people choose their individual spouses/partners, but you have to choose each other reciprocally, and it's well documented that in modern American society, as a woman gains in educational attainment & income, the pool of men who consider her a desirable partner decreases (whereas for men, more education & income increase the pool of women who consider them a desirable partner). So women have to make a tradeoff between education/income & marriagability, men do not. The OP - and, she posits, other women in rad onc - is struggling with dealing with the tradeoff of "geographic determinability" (which I'm not sure I accept as a real word yet) for the privilege of practicing rad onc as it's layered on this other tradeoff of potential partners for the privilege of higher education & income. Put more simply, she truly might not have had the option to to "marry an NP [herself]" even if she made job portability high priority in a spouse - NPs tend statistically to lose interest in marrying us when we become doctors (ok, I don't think the survey has been broken down to medical professionals specifically, but that's what the overall trends would suggest).

Note that mechanism #2 is not a good reason to exclude women from rad onc, on some perverse grounds that we already have "women's issues" to worry about. It's a good reason to make sure your part in the wider culture, life beyond the work realm, is contributing as little to said issues as possible.

It's hard for everyone out there right now, that's a problem.
Whatever it is out there, it's a touch harder if you're a woman or underrepresented minority, always.

I'm far from having the worst position in this whole situation, btw, but gender issues have definitely made it harder than it should have been, and understanding these dynamics helps me have empathy for others
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: 13 users
The point about increasing education limiting the marriagiblity pool for women is well taken. Never thought about it but empirically makes sense given traditional gender roles in marriage. This may be changing but we’re no where near there yet. Definite blind spot there.

Thanks for posting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It was a constant complaint among my female classmates who were single. They often lamented that for males, as they got further along or more successful in their careers they became more attractive, whereas their pool increasingly dwindled.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
It was a constant complaint among my female classmates who were single. They often lamented that for males, as they got further along or more successful in their careers they became more attractive, whereas their pool increasingly dwindled.
I literally, unwittingly witnessed the same thing but never critically thought about it.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I literally, unwittingly witnessed the same thing but never critically thought about it.

I don‘t think the explanation for this is only „men don’t like successful women“, though.
It could very well also mean that the successful female doctors are being more selective when choosing a spouse, bearing in mind their own success.

Could it be that successful women are less likely to „settle for less“ (in terms of having a spouse who’s making money) in comparison to successful men?

Which means it‘s still their choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Here's how this works:

First of all, the idea there's no outright sexism or discrimination in the rad onc community is wrong. I'm happy for you if that's been your experience. My experience includes being told that the reason there aren't so many women in rad onc is that it requires being good at math and comfortable with computers; that my presence as the only female resident in the program really put a damper on the jokes they could tell in didactics; and witnessed textbook sexual harassment of clinic staff even younger & more vulnerable than me but didn't feel safe enough in my own status to call it out. These 3 examples are from 3 different individuals in leadership positions across multiple institutions, so not a solitary "bad apple." My biggest frustration with the #womenwhocurie "movement" is that they're still too beholden to the same power structure, too concerned with not themselves getting on the wrong side of these same people, to stand up and say, "This is the 21st century, girls are not bad at math or computers & saying otherwise to female med students interested in the field is bad leadership that's hurting this field." I'm too afraid of retaliation for being "not collegial" to even write out the equivalent for the other categories of offenses, lest I be quoted & someday doxxed. I guarantee I am not the only one with these experiences & others probably have worse. The reason you've never heard these stories is that we are afraid for our livelihoods if we do anything other than smile and nod when you say, "Well, I've never experienced any overt sexism." The paucity of tales being told is not for a good reason, it's because things are even worse than if this stuff were happening but we felt safe enough to complain about it.

But even for women who didn't run into such charming characters, there's a legitimate connection between gender issues and other problems like the current job market:

The whole idea of diversity, inclusion, historically advantaged & disadvantaged groups is that there are some things everyone needs or concerns everyone has in common - because we're all people - but to whatever extent things aren't perfect or there are problems, minority or disadvantaged groups consistently get hit worse than others. And when things improve, these same groups often don't benefit proportionately (or are sometimes systematically excluded from the improvement). So it can be and is the case BOTH that the job market is globally bad and this is bad for everyone, and that women are being hit especially hard and attention should be paid to making sure any "fixes" are helpful to them as well as the majority group.

How and why do women (or whatever minority/disadvantaged group) get hit harder by problems relevant to everyone? It's a combination of two things. First is whatever degree there may be of conscious or unconscious discrimination among people/parties directly involved in the problem. As above, I hope we can dispense with the idea that none of this exists in rad onc. And there are plenty of more subtle versions that nevertheless result in training programs or mentors being less invested in female residents' career development, practices & hiring committees feeling more comfortable with male job applicants when sitting down for an interview, etc.

The second mechanism is that the same group (women) is disadvantaged in various ways in the larger culture, outside rad onc, so even if rad onc were a perfect haven of gender equality, the women have to deal with its issues as an addition to the problems of being a woman in a wider sexist culture, whereas the men aren't carrying that burden. (This is why the dynamics don't flip to a perfect mirror image when a medical specialty becomes heavily female-dominated, like pediatrics or ob/gyn. Internally the balance might, but what ppl are living with in the wider world outside work does not). The OP is describing a problem of exactly this sort. Yes, people choose their individual spouses/partners, but you have to choose each other reciprocally, and it's well documented that in modern American society, as a woman gains in educational attainment & income, the pool of men who consider her a desirable partner decreases (whereas for men, more education & income increase the pool of women who consider them a desirable partner). So women have to make a tradeoff between education/income & marriagability, men do not. The OP - and, she posits, other women in rad onc - is struggling with dealing with the tradeoff of "geographic determinability" (which I'm not sure I accept as a real word yet) for the privilege of practicing rad onc as it's layered on this other tradeoff of potential partners for the privilege of higher education & income. Put more simply, she truly might not have had the option to to "marry an NP [herself]" even if she made job portability high priority in a spouse - NPs tend statistically to lose interest in marrying us when we become doctors (ok, I don't think the survey has been broken down to medical professionals specifically, but that's what the overall trends would suggest).

Note that mechanism #2 is not a good reason to exclude women from rad onc, on some perverse grounds that we already have "women's issues" to worry about. It's a good reason to make sure your part in the wider culture, life beyond the work realm, is contributing as little to said issues as possible.

It's hard for everyone out there right now, that's a problem.
Whatever it is out there, it's a touch harder if you're a woman or underrepresented minority, always.

I'm far from having the worst position in this whole situation, btw, but gender issues have definitely made it harder than it should have been, and understanding these dynamics helps me have empathy for others

I'm not sure what people assume about my thoughts on these gender issues due to the Dare You to Reply thread, but I agree with a lot of the things said on this post because this sounds like real life issues from a real life person, not some theory laced abstraction. Thanks for posting.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
That dare you to reply thread did turn into a cesspool at times. Overall, I think that this board has been highly successful at presenting issues and criticizing where criticism is warranted. It calls out some of these "thought leaders" out on the BS they shovel. It allows an outlet for this to happen without fear of reprisal and we are indeed a small field with a smaller group of largely vindictive individuals in charge. However, the board can often veer to the fringe, or at least be sickeningly redundant. I'm as guilty as anyone.

It wasn't always like this, and it won't always be like this. We used to help reassure worried students that they'd match or make suggestions to improve applications. We used to discuss cases frequently. The Shah article and reaction to what turned out to be prescient, kind of started turning the tides here. There are many challenges in this field currently. Anyone who suggests otherwise is straight up lying to you. And yes, unfortunately, those graduating in the next 10 years will likely bear the brunt of those challenges. If you're interested in that, it is still a satisfying work that we do.

Love how we use to think of them as thought leaders; they’re literally knowledgeable about the smallest slice of the smallest speciality in medicine and yet they think they have the freedom to say whatever they want about any topic. How dumb do you have to be to announce to the world you avoid the one place that has been right about all issues related to residents and students as if everybody automatically agrees with you. Reshma has been told there is vitriol here and won’t read SDN. Well good, I’ve been told what she talks about on Twitter is utter BS and ‘assiduously’ avoid it. She’s not a special snowflake as much as she tries to make herself out to be. Same with RW, both leaders of academic hubris.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I don‘t think the explanation for this is only „men don’t like successful women“, though.
It could very well also mean that the successful female doctors are being more selective when choosing a spouse, bearing in mind their own success.

Could it be that successful women are less likely to „settle for less“ (in terms of having a spouse who’s making money) in comparison to successful men?

Which means it‘s still their choice.

I do think there is some truth to this, for example (Evil, I’m still on topic), you typically never see Female celebrities “settle” for Just any man who is not on their “social status.

I’m still waiting for J Lo to give me a call!
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I do think there is some truth to this, for example (Evil, I’m still on topic), you typically never see Female celebrities “settle” for Just any man who is not on their “social status.

I’m still waiting for J Lo to give me a call!
There are exceptions! Always!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The point about increasing education limiting the marriagiblity pool for women is well taken. Never thought about it but empirically makes sense given traditional gender roles in marriage. This may be changing but we’re no where near there yet. Definite blind spot there.

Thanks for posting.

It only gets worse as you get older...

Timely story: a very close friend of mine recently divorced and is ready to start seriously dating again. He has no children and is a 40 year old, 5'10" white man who is "spiritual but not religious" (open to anything other than extremes on either end). No joke, he is literally looking for an intelligent, college educated (associates degree would be ok) woman of any race or nationality who is between the ages of 30 and 48, height of 4'11" to 6', and makes between nothing and a few millions dollars a year.

My wife has a close friend who is a 38 year old Indian American physician (who for what it's worth is unusually tall for an Indian woman).

Who is more likely to find a life partner in a satellite center 2 hours outside of a major city (or alternatively who is more likely to take a $100,000-$200,000 potential pay cut to be in a city?)

Societal norms are fluid and subjective and after all can be ignored, but biology cannot:

Most of my close friends and siblings/cousins are in the 40-45 age range and now have well established in careers. Forget society or potential dating pool, I know plenty of men who had 2 kids between the ages of 38 and 45 (they either were married but waited to have children or married a younger woman . . . nothing crazy a 38-40 year old man marrying a 32-34 year old woman). It simply doesn't work the other way around, or is much, much more difficult.

I definitely feel for the ladies out there...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
It only gets worse as you get older...

Timely story: a very close friend of mine recently divorced and is ready to start seriously dating again. He has no children and is a 40 year old, 5'10" white man who is "spiritual but not religious" (open to anything other than extremes on either end). No joke, he is literally looking for an intelligent, college educated (associates degree would be ok) woman of any race or nationality who is between the ages of 30 and 48, height of 4'11" to 6', and makes between nothing and a few millions dollars a year.

My wife has a close friend who is a 38 year old Indian American physician (who for what it's worth is unusually tall for an Indian woman).

Who is more likely to find a life partner in a satellite center 2 hours outside of a major city (or alternatively who is more likely to take a $100,000-$200,000 potential pay cut to be in a city?)

Maybe you need to set those two up
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Maybe you need to set those two up

I forgot to mention honestly thought about it but wouldn't work on her end. Biology is one thing (with regards to childbearing age) but personal/societal norms are another... the dude is literally open to at least considering any reasonably intelligent and attractive non-felon woman of any race and height +/- 10 years or so of his age while the woman is looking for somebody (preferably or maybe exclusively) Indian with equal or preferably greater education, wealth and height: so I guess she is looking for an Indian man from a wealthy family with an MD or MD/PhD or whatever who is over 6' tall between the ages of 37 and 42 . . . not sure how many of such men live in a large city like Miami let alone Salina, Kansas!

These are obviously the two most extreme examples and the woman is not being reasonable but the point is clear and cannot be ignored. . .
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
I forgot to mention honestly thought about it but wouldn't work on her end. Biology is one thing (with regards to childbearing age) but personal/societal norms are another... the dude is literally open to at least considering any reasonably intelligent and attractive non-felon woman of any race and height +/- 10 years or so of his age while the woman is looking for somebody (preferably or maybe exclusively) Indian with equal or preferably greater education, wealth and height: so I guess she is looking for an Indian man from a wealthy family with an MD or MD/PhD or whatever who is over 6' tall between the ages of 37 and 42 . . . not sure how many of such men live in a large city like Miami let alone Salina, Kansas!

These are obviously the two most extreme examples and the woman is not being reasonable but the point is clear and cannot be ignored. . .

good luck to this person, they better freeze their eggs as my medstudent dean told us in a speech!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
I forgot to mention honestly thought about it but wouldn't work on her end. Biology is one thing (with regards to childbearing age) but personal/societal norms are another... the dude is literally open to at least considering any reasonably intelligent and attractive non-felon woman of any race and height +/- 10 years or so of his age while the woman is looking for somebody (preferably or maybe exclusively) Indian with equal or preferably greater education, wealth and height: so I guess she is looking for an Indian man from a wealthy family with an MD or MD/PhD or whatever who is over 6' tall between the ages of 37 and 42 . . . not sure how many of such men live in a large city like Miami let alone Salina, Kansas!

These are obviously the two most extreme examples and the woman is not being reasonable but the point is clear and cannot be ignored. . .


She‘s gonna end up alone... that‘s my prediction anyways...

Why? Expectations! Great expectations!
 
She should seriously start hanging out with Dutch guys. I hear they're tall.
 
good luck to this person, they better freeze their eggs as my medstudent dean told us in a speech!

Is this really something that a dean said in the year 2019 or relatively recently!?!

If so, I'm honestly curious how was the advise received?!? Also, how the hell could a medical student afford such a thing? Or is it not as expensive as I thought . . . I can't imagine it's covered in medical student insurance plan (or is it?)
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Is this really something that a dean said in the year 2019 or relatively recently!?!

If so, I'm honestly curious how was the advise received?!? Also, how the hell could a medical student afford such a thing? Or is it not as expensive as I thought . . . I can't imagine it's covered in medical student insurance plan (or is it?)

the context was basically after showing statistics of fertility per year beginning at age 30 and how much it decreases per year and the statistics and what we know regarding AMA. The statement was basically a fact based one, not meant to be offensive that all females in audience should strongly consider it. people were mostly anxious and worried lol. Yeah it is quite expensive and im not sure if any insurance covers it
 
It only gets worse as you get older...

Timely story: a very close friend of mine recently divorced and is ready to start seriously dating again. He has no children and is a 40 year old, 5'10" white man who is "spiritual but not religious" (open to anything other than extremes on either end). No joke, he is literally looking for an intelligent, college educated (associates degree would be ok) woman of any race or nationality who is between the ages of 30 and 48, height of 4'11" to 6', and makes between nothing and a few millions dollars a year.

My wife has a close friend who is a 38 year old Indian American physician (who for what it's worth is unusually tall for an Indian woman).

Who is more likely to find a life partner in a satellite center 2 hours outside of a major city (or alternatively who is more likely to take a $100,000-$200,000 potential pay cut to be in a city?)

Societal norms are fluid and subjective and after all can be ignored, but biology cannot:

Most of my close friends and siblings/cousins are in the 40-45 age range and now have well established in careers. Forget society or potential dating pool, I know plenty of men who had 2 kids between the ages of 38 and 45 (they either were married but waited to have children or married a younger woman . . . nothing crazy a 38-40 year old man marrying a 32-34 year old woman). It simply doesn't work the other way around, or is much, much more difficult.

I definitely feel for the ladies out there...

We all know what @oldking said is true, but it is consistent and willfully ignored by our society. It is a great challenge for women to balance a career that takes all of your time and to be a mother & wife that takes all of your time. I will also add that being a man (did I just dox myself? :rofl: ) it is hard to balance a career and and be a father & husband (believe me there are divorces a plenty in medicine from the rigors of it all). The reality is that it's not fair for women , but life is not fair. Unfortunately, trying to engineer social change to make believe 1) medicine can be easier than it is ie it is a lifelong passion and calling that takes up much time 2) To have a healthy family life and have it all (for both men and women. I routinely have to stop myself from reading at night to spend time with my wife. Yes sad, but you know how many journal articles are out there?!?!). This article by Anne-Marie Slaughter first woman director of policy planning at the State Department during President Obama's term is eye opening.
It opens by saying "It’s time to stop fooling ourselves, says a woman who left a position of power: the women who have managed to be both mothers and top professionals are superhuman, rich, or self-employed. If we truly believe in equal opportunity for all women, here’s what has to change."

I don't agree with her proposals (suffers from idealism), but she accurately and with open soul explains the problem well. We need not have MD, DPhil from Harvard & Oxford with national renown tells about work life balance (I will admit Dr. Jagsi is probably superhuman and thus not a good rep for the "regular rad onc"). I'd rather hear from @AlreadyRegretThis.


Not sure what the solution is, but I know pretending it doesn't exist is not an option. Also another realistic example of a former chair of surgery at Johns Hopkins Dr. Freischlag wrote this article entitled "Domestic Responsibilities of Physician Mothers Chores, Catsup Sandwiches, and Snacks."


Notice this brutally honest paragraph:

"In 1983, I was a surgical resident at University of California, Los Angeles, and I decided to hire a housekeeper to clean every other week. There were no 80-hour work weeks then. My mother commented at the time that she was surprised I needed such help since I did not have children. I eventually had a child in 1995 and inherited 2 stepsons, but since 1983, I have not cleaned my house. My husband became a stay-at-home father when my son turned 7 years of age, and I became Chair of Surgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. He took over the grocery shopping, cooking, and running of the household, and we continued to have our housekeeper clean the house every other week. Eventually, there were no children at home, yet we still have a housekeeper."

Kudos to this husband for making such sacrifices. Seriously, that is loving of him, but not sure how many men can do what he could ie be a stay at home husband. At least Dr. Freischlag and Anne-Marie Slaughter are being brutally honest about the reality of it all...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top