quote:

---

Women have come a long way. After thousands and thousands of years of subordination and oppression, many have finally begun to contribute their intelligence and creativity to the milieu of advanced societies.

To find an example of progress, one need look no further than the composition of medical schools. Nearly a century ago, there were no women. Now, women make up half the seats, and even predominate in some countries. So is this a good thing? Not necessarily.

According to Dr. Carol Black, president of the Royal College of Physicians in Britain, the domination of women potentially diminishes the power and influence of the profession. She reasons that whenever women swarm into a particular field, the prestige diminishes greatly.

---

Link

I am so pissed off right now. Am I stuck in some kind of time warp here? What is going on?

How can someone argue that "the prestige diminishes greatly" when women enter a professional field? And to summarily dismiss any form of disagreement by stating: "Certainly, such sentiment would garner rage from a swath of feminists." Well of fucking course it will garner my rage, you pompous asshole. I am a woman! Don't stand there and tell me that my presence in a given profession will degrade it.

There are so many things wrong with this article that I want to puke. I just can't believe that my campus newspaper, my beloved Sheaf, would publish this kind of sexist tripe.

I'm so mad I'm not even coherent.

[ 02 December 2005: Message edited by: Nikita ]

When men were bank tellers and secretaries they were positions of some prestige unlike the "pink collar" ghettos they have become.

Are there statistics to back up the assertion that the more female doctors there are the fewer specialists there are and the less care people who need these specialists then receive? Women have been in medicine long enough in great enough numbers for some statistical analysis to have been done that would support/refute the statements made in the article.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
Still it is this downgrading that we need to fight against, not having more women in the medical field.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
And of course NPs will probably never enjoy even a fraction of the prestige doctors do.

---

quote:

---

Nor a fraction of the income.

---

Well, "a fraction of the income" would probably be accurate.

quote:

---

They do with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loretta:
The question for me is, who determines what merits being deemed "prestigious"? Historically, it's been men and when women have entered a field in large numbers, that field has lost it prestige. With women entering most fields in large numbers, what areas of employment will be left upon which men can put their seal of exclusive approval? There is nowhere to go now (except for the "prestige" of military service and that's debatable).

---

quote:

---

NPs are mostly women, and not surprisingly, many doctors want to keep as much of the "doctoring" as they can for themselves, and resent the intrusion of NPs into their sphere.

---

...don't forget about midwives. I recently had to change hospitals for my upcoming delivery because my midwives don't work well with the obs at my local hospital.

From the article:

quote:

---

...whenever women swarm into a particular field...

---

quote:

---

I recently had to change hospitals for my upcoming delivery because my midwives don't work well with the obs at my local hospital.

---

quote:

---

...but I never want her to feel herself to be above me.

---

I don't want my doctor or anyone else to feel that they are above me either but I'm not sure that many don't (those with "higher" education or social location, for example). I can't do anything about their attitude but I don't have to buy into that kind of stratification.

quote:

---

Prestige is merely the degree to which one can disasociate oneself from the opressed. Fuck your prestige. I don't want my doctor (who is a wonderful woman BTW) to consider herself 'prestigious'. She is entitled to make as much cash as she wishes, but I never want her to feel herself to be above me.

---

ie, doctor = minor deity

[ 02 December 2005: Message edited by: Mandos ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
For those interested in the medical profession, its prestige, and its intersection with feminism, keep your eye on Nurse Practitioners. Not surprisingly, NPs are mostly women, and not surprisingly, many doctors want to keep as much of the "doctoring" as they can for themselves, and resent the intrusion of NPs into their sphere.

And of course NPs will probably never enjoy even a fraction of the prestige doctors do.

---

The status of teachers has been falling in the West for a long time. Isn't it equally possible that male-dominated teaching positions lost prestige, allowing women to enter them, and not the other way around?

Then the article get even less logical:

quote:

---

First, there’s no denying it, women shoulder the brunt of family commitments. Consequently, many women tend to avoid more time-consuming and demanding specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, and surgery. If women occupy more seats, then it is obvious the talent pool of these disciplines would decrease in the future.

Second, more women wish to work part-time and fewer hours, and many have rebelled and objected to the long hours associated with the field. As a result, patients will often be taken care of doctors who do not know them. More importantly, it exacerbates a looming physician shortage that threatens healthcare delivery.

---

This is utter nonesense. First of all, as any aspiring doctor will tell you, the shortage of doctors is not in the specialities. There is never a shortage of would-be cardiologists. It's in primary care. Medical schools, governments, communities -- they're doing everthing they can to channel people into primary care. If more women want to do that -- and I don't know that they do, there are a lot of type A girl pre-meds out there -- that's all to the good.

And that "works less hours" thing is utter garbage. It's recycled propaganda; people also used it to justify 120 hour weeks in residency and soul-killing 90-hour-a-week practices. Those things are on the way out, and it's all to the good. The idea of exhausted workaholics in high-stress jobs with lives depending on their clear judgement and unlimited access to powerful drugs -- whoever decided that was a successful model was probably dipping into the Percocet themselves.

quote:

---

I don't see the evidence that more women=less prestige. The article cites "the relatively low status that has ensued for doctors in Russia and teachers in England."

---

When were teachers held in any kind of esteem in England? In North America, teaching below university level has always been a low-paid, undervalued, female-dominated profession.

You are absolutely right. It's not women who have lowered the presitge of doctors in Russia (and eastern Europe*} but socialized medicine. That, universal education and free child-care, made it possible for more women to become doctors.
*Each country is different - and quite different from Russia. On the whole, an influx of enthusiastic, caring, paractical women has been an enormous boon to health care in those countries. For one thing, they cope creatively with a woeful shortage of modern conveniences and equipment. For another, fierce competition and well-connected male classmates forces some of the best into rural postings - maybe not what they would prefer, but good for the patients. And - a minor consideration perhaps - many female doctors (a few male ones, too) refuse cash bribes.
Unfortunately for those same patients, a lot of young female doctors get fed up and come west.
During my years at a couple of Toronto hospitals, i worked with many young woman from eastern European countries (and India). I hope i won't be accused of sexism (on the other hand, who cares?) if i observe that, on average, these residents were more adaptable, more conscientious, quicker to learn new methods, more attuned and sympathetic to the patient and more efficient in their work habits than any other identifiable group. (And more pleasant to work with, which matters to the support staff, and therefore, indirectly, to the health-care team effort.)

I guess I could start with the point about women working 'less hours' and 'shouldering the care for their families'. This is possibly the only real argument in the entire piece, but it doesn't consider the fact that many women don't have children, and the ones who do are only affected by increased family responsibilities for a period of a few years over their career. By the time they're in their 40s and 50s, this is a moot point, and we should instead be pointing to the longevity factor: women live longer than men, so they should eventually have more productive years as knowledgeable and experienced physicians. Also, when women have children, their own experience is often useful - both in reproductive health and in basic pediatrics.

I know a few guy doctors, and if they aren't helping their partner 'shoulder the family burden', they aren't working crazy hours, instead they are getting involved in the community, in personal hobbies or in politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
This is an argument I've heard both in human and veterinary medicine. It is such utter wrongheaded bunk that you don't even know where to start.

I guess I could start with the point about women working 'less hours' and 'shouldering the care for their families'. This is possibly the only real argument in the entire piece, but it doesn't consider the fact that many women don't have children, and the ones who do are only affected by increased family responsibilities for a period of a few years over their career. By the time they're in their 40s and 50s, this is a moot point, and we should instead be pointing to the longevity factor: women live longer than men, so they should eventually have more productive years as knowledgeable and experienced physicians. Also, when women have children, their own experience is often useful - both in reproductive health and in basic pediatrics.

I know a few guy doctors, and if they aren't helping their partner 'shoulder the family burden', they aren't working crazy hours, instead they are getting involved in the community, in personal hobbies or in politics.

But prestige? I think the interview is pretty telling on that point. Doctors tend to believe that they are highly educated compared to the general population, but their situation isn't what it used to be. They used to be able to run roughshod over patients because they had a greater 'culture générale'; however, most younger doctors know better than to try that today. I've heard young doctors describe their profession with a tinge of wistfulness as 'the stupid man's profession' and they're not too far off. There is still a tonne of rote learning in medical curricula (it's necessary) and very little critical and investigative thinking. Doctors aren't as relatively well-educated as they used to be, and that is what has caused the decrease in prestige. That - and the increased access to medical information over the Internet and through companies that specialize in medical literature and education. It has very little to do with the increased presence of women in the profession, and any doctor who believes that this is the case is a misinformed and uncritical dope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichy Smith:
The only woman Doctor I have had any dealings with eventually went into palliative care, which happened to be where I thought she should have started. At the vet clinic I got to, OTOH they have two couples working in one clinic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
I prefer working with womyn professionals personally.

---

quote:

---

and when the patient is 150 pounds that is a big factor.

---

That's one ginormous pet Itchy!

quote:

---

As someone who has midwives attending the births of two of my children, is it perhaps more likely that that the obs don't work well with the midwives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Does the loss of the "e" from the spelling of their gender improve their performance in any way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Improves the respect of feminist womyn on this forum. Sometimes its just about respect, word?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
When men were bank tellers and secretaries they were positions of some prestige unlike the "pink collar" ghettos they have become.

---

1. Women DON'T choose demanding specialties more than men 2. Women Don't
work equal hours with men 3. There are consequences of physician shortages
in the delivery of healthcare in developing nations.

1. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges (aamc.org), the

data illustrates the specialty choices of male and female residents in 2004.

It clearly demonstrates that the proportion of women choosing less demanding

areas such as family medicine and pediatrics are much greater than men.
However, the most demanding ones were predominated by men. Males outnumbered

females in neurosurgery, radiology, anesthesiology, orthopedic surgery,
thoracic surgery, and internal medicine sub-specialties by the following
respective multiples: 7.3, 2.7, 2.6, 9, 11.5, and 2.1 times as much. There
were 7.3 times as many men than women in neurosurgery residencies for
example. The data is out there, and anyone can find it.

2. Women on average work fewer hours than men. According to the Canadian
Medical Association (cma.ca), in the under 35-age group, the average hours
worked (excluding on-call time) by men was 55.9 hours per week, and for
women 46.9 hours. That's a difference of 9 hours per week. The significant
differences are present in all areas, from family practice to surgical
specialists. Surely Ms. Heath cannot argue that today's men and women are
working equal hours in medicine. Granted, there are legitimate and
worthwhile reasons for the differences, such as to raise children and so
forth, but it still doesn't change the facts.

3. If women work fewer hours; if those deficit hours exacerbate a future
shortage; and if a country wants to sustain its standard of living, they
have to recruit from abroad. I recommend you watch the BBC special examining

the devastating impact poaching doctors in Malawi has had on its population.

Perhaps that will change her level of seriousness and respect she gives to
the matter. I'm not saying women are 100% responsible for physician
shortages, and 100% responsible for the damaging effect on the health of
people in places like Africa. If women dominate medicine, and if the net
hours worked is less, then you must logically believe that a future shortage

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Bobolink ]