I wouldn't dare bring this question up on the La-la land of Mommd, but maybe it will spark some interesting and 2 sided debates here:

http://www.angryharry.com/esIstheTrainingofWomenDoctorsAWaste.htm

I wouldn't dare bring this question up on the La-la land of Mommd, but maybe it will spark some interesting and 2 sided debates here:

http://www.angryharry.com/esIstheTrainingofWomenDoctorsAWaste.htm

Well, one thing about this particular article that jumps out immediately is that it's British -- the significance being, that they're trying to find a reason why a socialized medical system isn't producing a nice match of supply and demand. Must be the presence of women! Ironically, though, the socialized system is the one in which this question makes the most sense, being specifically designed, and centrally controlled, to produce the maximum society-wide benefit for a minimum investment.

The second thing that jumps out is the number: 60% leave the career field within 10 years. I would love to see the statistics that produced that number, which seems likely to be the result of some very creative and desired-result-directed analysis.

Third, I don't know how their government's investment in medical training and benefit from residents-in-training compares to ours. For that matter, I don't actually know anything about ours on its own -- and this question is really only important when it comes to society-level investment, in other words government subsidies.

So before we can have an intelligent debate, we need to decide

Which system (socialized or US) are we considering?
Where'd they get that number from, and how bad is the problem really in whichever country we're talking about?
What is the government's financial contribution to medical training, and the common benefit produced by residents-in-training, in that system?

Yeah, I would be curious to find out if that 60% number is anywhere near correct. My instinct would be to say no, but I don't really know. I would also be curious to know what the percent of men leaving the field (maybe they are taking off in droves as well), before I could make an informed comment.

I was thinking along the same lines as everyone else. From what I have read, physicians in Britain are even more fed up than they are here. Assuming that women are leaving more than men, perhaps it is because they can. At least here, women physicians are much more likely to be married to a working spouse. Maybe the men don't have a financial backup.

training women doctors is great from my perspective because it reduces competition in the marketplace

Waste of money for who exactly??? Med schools charge such outrageous fees nowadays that Im sure they are turning a tidy profit on seat, in fact I know they are, probably on the order of 10,000+ per student at a private school per year if the base fees are 30K/year. For a class of 150 that is a 1.5million dollar revenue center.

For women who spend the money, yeah it might be waste. I dont know, if they work long enough to pay off the debt then who cares really. Its when they rack up 150K then immediately drop out of the market with rugrats that things go FUBAR.

LOL@NHS anyway. they are doomed regardless of this.

The article while based in England I think is reasonably applicable here in the US.

I brought this issue up on a website for women physicians/premeds and to say the least it wasn't received well.

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of resources to train someone, ANYONE, for a career they won't be in very long. Education is generally very valuable as far as personal develpoment is concerned, but with med school seats being at such a premium I'm not so sure med schools should admit as many women in the prime of their reproductive years into medicine.
And while med schools may be turing a profit creatign physicians, my understanding was that residency slots are financed in part by the federal gov't which means we all "loose money" when a person doesn't practice.

At least here, women physicians are much more likely to be married to a working spouse. Maybe the men don't have a financial backup. As for women having spouses who can support the families bottom line, I find it interesting that women in jobs far more physically demanding than medicine and who work for far less pay (janitor, fast food cashier, grocery store clerk, ect), manage to balance career and family needs just fine. Many women physicians are married to physicians so I think that makes it a LOT easier to quit medicine altogether which many do. All I'm saying is that if they do that, I think they should reinburse the Gov't in some way ie 10 hours/week at a health clinic for example or with cold hard cash.

I also think that when they quit, they make things a lot harder for those of us who did things to make finding a balance easier, such as have fewer children or choosing "softer" residencys.

But without a solid statistic concerning female physicians in the United States, any claim made is a generalization.

I really don't think there is a great percentage of women that leave practice permanently for family reasons. Most likely those that leave do so for a short period of time and come back. Then again, I don't have any statistics to prove my thoughts.

I'm certainly not gonna be one of those women. I've already got children and I plan to work as a physician as long as they'll let me.



The article while based in England I think is reasonably applicable here in the US.

I brought this issue up on a website for women physicians/premeds and to say the least it wasn't received well.

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of resources to train someone, ANYONE, for a career they won't be in very long. Education is generally very valuable as far as personal develpoment is concerned, but with med school seats being at such a premium I'm not so sure med schools should admit as many women in the prime of their reproductive years into medicine.
And while med schools may be turing a profit creatign physicians, my understanding was that residency slots are financed in part by the federal gov't which means we all "loose money" when a person doesn't practice.

As for women having spouses who can support the families bottom line, I find it interesting that women in jobs far more physically demanding than medicine and who work for far less pay (janitor, fast food cashier, grocery store clerk, ect), manage to balance career and family needs just fine. Many women physicians are married to physicians so I think that makes it a LOT easier to quit medicine altogether which many do. All I'm saying is that if they do that, I think they should reinburse the Gov't in some way ie 10 hours/week at a health clinic for example or with cold hard cash.

I also think that when they quit, they make things a lot harder for those of us who did things to make finding a balance easier, such as have fewer children or choosing "softer" residencys.

I'm certainly not gonna be one of those women. I've already got children and I plan to work as a physician as long as they'll let me.I'm with you!

I think admitting certain women over say 35 and/or those done with child bearing, is the best idea around.:thumbup:

The article while based in England I think is reasonably applicable here in the US.

I brought this issue up on a website for women physicians/premeds and to say the least it wasn't received well.

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of resources to train someone, ANYONE, for a career they won't be in very long. Education is generally very valuable as far as personal develpoment is concerned, but with med school seats being at such a premium I'm not so sure med schools should admit as many women in the prime of their reproductive years into medicine.
And while med schools may be turing a profit creatign physicians, my understanding was that residency slots are financed in part by the federal gov't which means we all "loose money" when a person doesn't practice.

As for women having spouses who can support the families bottom line, I find it interesting that women in jobs far more physically demanding than medicine and who work for far less pay (janitor, fast food cashier, grocery store clerk, ect), manage to balance career and family needs just fine. Many women physicians are married to physicians so I think that makes it a LOT easier to quit medicine altogether which many do. All I'm saying is that if they do that, I think they should reinburse the Gov't in some way ie 10 hours/week at a health clinic for example or with cold hard cash.

I also think that when they quit, they make things a lot harder for those of us who did things to make finding a balance easier, such as have fewer children or choosing "softer" residencys.

Why do you make the assumption that those who are admitted in the "prime of their reproductive years" will do anything at all with that reproductive ability? They may choose to not do anything at all or accomodate that ability. This is the beauty of the privacy act - YOU CAN'T ASK!!!!

Likewise, men, who are also admitted in the prime of their reproductive years, can also be afflicted by child issues as well. I, myself, know of 2 physician couples who both had child issues & it was the male's career which was more modifiable than the female's to accomodate the child's medical issues. One particular physician has altered his practice for >20 years so he could be the more primary caregiver for his child.

I'm a pharmacist & have been married to a dentist. We've both been in practice for >30 years & have raised two kids (one which is an MSIII). While he has made more money than me, I've worked more hours than he.

Why be so gender biased??? It seems a bit closed minded & frankly, trite & out of date.

Why do you make the assumption that those who are admitted in the "prime of their reproductive years" will do anything at all with that reproductive ability? They may choose to not do anything at all or accomodate that ability. This is the beauty of the privacy act - YOU CAN'T ASK!!!!

Likewise, men, who are also admitted in the prime of their reproductive years, can also be afflicted by child issues as well. I, myself, know of 2 physician couples who both had child issues & it was the male's career which was more modifiable than the female's to accomodate the child's medical issues. One particular physician has altered his practice for >20 years so he could be the more primary caregiver for his child.

I'm a pharmacist & have been married to a dentist. We've both been in practice for >30 years & have raised two kids (one which is an MSIII). While he has made more money than me, I've worked more hours than he.

Why be so gender biased??? It seems a bit closed minded & frankly, trite & out of date.

:thumbup::thumbup:

The article while based in England I think is reasonably applicable here in the US.

I brought this issue up on a website for women physicians/premeds and to say the least it wasn't received well.

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of resources to train someone, ANYONE, for a career they won't be in very long. Education is generally very valuable as far as personal develpoment is concerned, but with med school seats being at such a premium I'm not so sure med schools should admit as many women in the prime of their reproductive years into medicine.
And while med schools may be turing a profit creatign physicians, my understanding was that residency slots are financed in part by the federal gov't which means we all "loose money" when a person doesn't practice.

As for women having spouses who can support the families bottom line, I find it interesting that women in jobs far more physically demanding than medicine and who work for far less pay (janitor, fast food cashier, grocery store clerk, ect), manage to balance career and family needs just fine. Many women physicians are married to physicians so I think that makes it a LOT easier to quit medicine altogether which many do. All I'm saying is that if they do that, I think they should reinburse the Gov't in some way ie 10 hours/week at a health clinic for example or with cold hard cash.

I also think that when they quit, they make things a lot harder for those of us who did things to make finding a balance easier, such as have fewer children or choosing "softer" residencys.

Arent you still trying to get into medical school? Aren't you also trying to go MD/PhD? how would you feel if people said you were too old to waste resources on like that (since you wouldn't have as long as a career as younger applicants)? You would be offended wouldn't you? I feel offended by your posts as a woman. Just because women carry the children does not make men in their "reproductive years" get off the hook. Who are you to decide what age of females medical schools should or should not let in? That is very very closed minded. Everyone has a unique path and situation. You don't want people to judge you based on yours, then don't do it yourself.

Part of me is really pissed of that people assume that if you are a woman of a certain age that you are going to go and have babies and leave the field. That part of me is also pissed at every woman that actually does that, because they make life more difficult for me (by reinforcing the stereotype). The more reasonable part of me understands that people may change their priorities in life for various reasons. I guess if you know in advance that you want to have 14 babies and take a year off for each one, then maybe you should reconsider a career with such a large time commitment for training. But, that said I don't think it is fair to discriminate against women because they may decide to do that in the future.

Why do you make the assumption that those who are admitted in the "prime of their reproductive years" will do anything at all with that reproductive ability? They may choose to not do anything at all or accomodate that ability. This is the beauty of the privacy act - YOU CAN'T ASK!!!!.It's not an assumption it's based on census data.

Likewise, men, who are also admitted in the prime of their reproductive years, can also be afflicted by child issues as well. I, myself, know of 2 physician couples who both had child issues & it was the male's career which was more modifiable than the female's to accomodate the child's medical issues. One particular physician has altered his practice for >20 years so he could be the more primary caregiver for his childBringing up men in this type of debate is pretty senseless to me. Why? Because even in today's "modern" times VERY few men take on the primary responsibility of raising kids and are negatively affected by their wives having kids during their training. Put another way, male med students with wives and kids are in almost a good of position family dynamic wise as single male med students/residents. So do I know a dude or two who stayed at home? Yep, I know 2 of all the thousands of people I've met in ~20 years in the medical profession.

I'm a pharmacist & have been married to a dentist. We've both been in practice for >30 years & have raised two kids (one which is an MSIII). While he has made more money than me, I've worked more hours than he.With all due respect pharmacy and dentistry can't be compared to careers in medicine IMHO. In fact, I know of many women who wanted to become MD's but ultimately went PharmD because of the hours and money. In other words, I haven't seen women dropping out of pharmacy or dental careers due to enormous amount of time those carees have on family time. Perhaps you can share more about that.

Why be so gender biased??? It seems a bit closed minded & frankly, trite & out of date.One person's gender bias in another gender truth. And as a professional WOMAN who has made family decisions based on my projected carer goals I don't thinkit sounds trite and closed minded at all. I'm concerned, VERY concerned, about how the decisions of women who didn't think things through are not only going to affect me but my daughters as well. Too many people these days seem to only be concerend about themselves.

Arent you still trying to get into medical school? Aren't you also trying to go MD/PhD? how would you feel if people said you were too old to waste resources on like that (since you wouldn't have as long as a career as younger applicants)? You would be offended wouldn't you? .I wouldn't call it an attempt as my situation is far more complex than that. I'm currently taking classes in BOTH programs. Dam, how does she do THAT?!?!:laugh:

As for being offended, I'm a black woman living in America. If I got "offended" everytime someone said something contray to my own personal beliefs, I'd have given up my US citizenship and moved to another country at birth. So honestly, I wouldn't and don't feel anything about folks who think I'm too old. I'm in a class with about 30 med students and of those, maybe half are dudes. Weight wise, my female 20 something classmates look MUCH "older" than I could gain 20 pounds and look so to me, it's better to BE old than to LOOK old. :laugh::laugh:
Just because women carry the children does not make men in their "reproductive years" get off the hook. . A couple questions:
1) How many male med students/residents take 6-8 weeks off after their WIVES have babies?

2) How many male medical students/residents feed babies in the middle of the nioght on a regular basis? And I won't even ask about BREAST feeding babies.:laugh:

3) How many make med students call out when the baby gets ill? Needs to get to a doctors appointment?

I think there's "lala land" and reality, and the reality is that MOST men STILL aren't doing their share when it comes to child rearing. Maybe you're husband/finace' is Mr.Mom, but if you havne't even gotten to this stage yet in a relationship, I'd suggest you talk more to people who have and can give you a reality check.

It's not an assumption it's based on census data.
Bringing up men in this type of debate is pretty senseless to me. Why? Because even in today's "modern" times VERY few men take on the primary responsibility of raising kids and are negatively affected by their wives having kids during their training. Put another way, male med students with wives and kids are in almost a good of position family dynamic wise as single male med students/residents. So do I know a dude or two who stayed at home? Yep, I know 2 of all the thousands of people I've met in ~20 years in the medical profession.
With all due respect pharmacy and dentistry can't be compared to careers in medicine IMHO. In fact, I know of many women who wanted to become MD's but ultimately went PharmD because of the hours and money. In other words, I haven't seen women dropping out of pharmacy or dental careers due to enormous amount of time those carees have on family time. Perhaps you can share more about that.
One person's gender bias in another gender truth. And as a professional WOMAN who has made family decisions based on my projected carer goals I don't thinkit sounds trite and closed minded at all. I'm concerned, VERY concerned, about how the decisions of women who didn't think things through are not only going to affect me but my daughters as well. Too many people these days seem to only be concerend about themselves.

Are you kidding??? Census data on the numbers of female medical students who ultimately reproduce? The census can't even get the numbers straight on who lives in my community (a very urban one at that). Additionally, my daughter's medical class, in 3 years has had about 20 students come in & go out of her class due to repeating years or having PhD students come back in - how do you classify those???

As for you not considering pharmacy or dentistry the equivalent of medicine - I'm not surprised. That is the WHOLE basis of this forum & why it doesn't work! You women are so wrapped up in your view of medicine you don't see what the rest of us do each & every day. You are not the only ones working overnight call or longer than 24 hours!!!

However - I'm particularly insightful into all 3 professions since I'm married to a dentist & have a medical school daughter. Let me tell you - you may think you all work hard - she's not worked any harder than the rest of us. I'd also venture to add that her career will be started sooner than her father's since starting a dental business from scratch takes about 10 years to make a profit & you have absoutely NO IDEA of the amount of equipment we buy every year which a physician would cringe at (the last purchase was $100K - 30 years after he began!) So - when you can actually compare apples to apples - come back & let me know!

I can share just about anything you want to know about my career. I've been in my business 30 years - have worked every other weekend for that long & have been on call q3-4 days overnight in a hospital for 25 years of that. I worked on both my kids first birthdays, every other Christmas & Thanksgiving sinced I was married & would choose it all over again. Her father is a solo practioner dentist who takes his own call each & every day, unless he's on vacation. He takes call for his colleagues who go on vacation as well.

I raised two kids to be happy, healthy & mature adults - one of which will be your colleague in exactly 22 months. She went into it with open eyes & all the knowledge she gained from her parents. Her father was as equal a parent as I was. He took her to work when she was sick & I had to be in the OR because there was not another pharmacist to do it. I hope she makes her reproductive choice based on what she and her partner want to accomplish in life with all the influences which come into play. Fortunately, she has LIVED the experience of a loving & competent daycare situation - which both her Dad & I worked hard at finding - which, by the way we maintain close personal friendships with.

As for your condesceding comments on time off during childbirth - no, my husband did not take that time - but he took time off during his brain surgery (which was longer than my postpartum recovery) & there were no repercussions on his practice. As for night feedings - when I was on call & not home - he did it - its easy, you pump, refrigerate & he warms. Even a dentist can do that! I took time off for a broken leg (pharmacists can work if they can't stand) & no one looked askance.

My husband has honestly taken our kids to at least half their doctor appointments because his schedule is set by him - mine is not. So, if they're sick....he reschedules patients (or he did when they were little). He's also taken them & picked them up from camps & colleges. He went with her to take a second look at two medical schools across the country & went with her to move - all because my schedule would not allow me the time. I went later that summer & took my 88 yo mother so she could see her graddaughter in the process of becoming a physcian.

I respect your position, but find your post to be patronizing to not just my profession & that of my husbands, but also to the very hard work it took women of my generation to be able to have the benefits you so glibly brush off for those who want to avail themselves of them.

Sorry - you need the reality check, IMO. You are living in a 1950's world which just doesn't exist. But, you get what you want or ask for - if you want a non-involved partner, that's exactly what you'll get. I'm just glad you didn't sit on any of the 10 ADCOMS which accepteted my daughter into their programs because she is in the PRIME of her reproductive life....and fortunately - that is her own DAMN business!!!

I wouldn't call it an attempt as my situation is far more complex than that. I'm currently taking classes in BOTH programs. Dam, how does she do THAT?!?!:laugh:

As for being offended, I'm a black woman living in America. If I got "offended" everytime someone said something contray to my own personal beliefs, I'd have given up my US citizenship and moved to another country at birth. So honestly, I wouldn't and don't feel anything about folks who think I'm too old. I'm in a class with about 30 med students and of those, maybe half are dudes. Weight wise, my female 20 something classmates look MUCH "older" than I could gain 20 pounds and look so to me, it's better to BE old than to LOOK old. :laugh::laugh:
A couple questions:
1) How many male med students/residents take 6-8 weeks off after their WIVES have babies?

2) How many male medical students/residents feed babies in the middle of the nioght on a regular basis? And I won't even ask about BREAST feeding babies.:laugh:

3) How many make med students call out when the baby gets ill? Needs to get to a doctors appointment?

I think there's "lala land" and reality, and the reality is that MOST men STILL aren't doing their share when it comes to child rearing. Maybe you're husband/finace' is Mr.Mom, but if you havne't even gotten to this stage yet in a relationship, I'd suggest you talk more to people who have and can give you a reality check.


Umm I don't know what program you are in, but I know for a fact you are not yet in medical schoo (and have not yet gained acceptance to medical school). Perhaps you can let the admcoms know how you feel about this, what do you think? Also, why do you bring up being black? We are talking about women! White, black, green or orange.
You are obv the one in la la land, totally excusing men of their repsonsibilities as parents. I am sure many men would disagree with you on this as well.
So you have children? Are you basically saying that women should only be admitted past the age of 40 with grown children?

Are you kidding??? Census data on the numbers of female medical students who ultimately reproduce? The census can't even get the numbers straight on who lives in my community (a very urban one at that). Additionally, my daughter's medical class, in 3 years has had about 20 students come in & go out of her class due to repeating years or having PhD students come back in - how do you classify those???

As for you not considering pharmacy or dentistry the equivalent of medicine - I'm not surprised. That is the WHOLE basis of this forum & why it doesn't work! You women are so wrapped up in your view of medicine you don't see what the rest of us do each & every day. You are not the only ones working overnight call or longer than 24 hours!!!

However - I'm particularly insightful into all 3 professions since I'm married to a dentist & have a medical school daughter. Let me tell you - you may think you all work hard - she's not worked any harder than the rest of us. I'd also venture to add that her career will be started sooner than her father's since starting a dental business from scratch takes about 10 years to make a profit & you have absoutely NO IDEA of the amount of equipment we buy every year which a physician would cringe at (the last purchase was $100K - 30 years after he began!) So - when you can actually compare apples to apples - come back & let me know!

I can share just about anything you want to know about my career. I've been in my business 30 years - have worked every other weekend for that long & have been on call q3-4 days overnight in a hospital for 25 years of that. I worked on both my kids first birthdays, every other Christmas & Thanksgiving sinced I was married & would choose it all over again. Her father is a solo practioner dentist who takes his own call each & every day, unless he's on vacation. He takes call for his colleagues who go on vacation as well.

I raised two kids to be happy, healthy & mature adults - one of which will be your colleague in exactly 22 months. She went into it with open eyes & all the knowledge she gained from her parents. Her father was as equal a parent as I was. He took her to work when she was sick & I had to be in the OR because there was not another pharmacist to do it. I hope she makes her reproductive choice based on what she and her partner want to accomplish in life with all the influences which come into play. Fortunately, she has LIVED the experience of a loving & competent daycare situation - which both her Dad & I worked hard at finding - which, by the way we maintain close personal friendships with.

As for your condesceding comments on time off during childbirth - no, my husband did not take that time - but he took time off during his brain surgery (which was longer than my postpartum recovery) & there were no repercussions on his practice. As for night feedings - when I was on call & not home - he did it - its easy, you pump, refrigerate & he warms. Even a dentist can do that! I took time off for a broken leg (pharmacists can work if they can't stand) & no one looked askance.

My husband has honestly taken our kids to at least half their doctor appointments because his schedule is set by him - mine is not. So, if they're sick....he reschedules patients (or he did when they were little). He's also taken them & picked them up from camps & colleges. He went with her to take a second look at two medical schools across the country & went with her to move - all because my schedule would not allow me the time. I went later that summer & took my 88 yo mother so she could see her graddaughter in the process of becoming a physcian.

I respect your position, but find your post to be patronizing to not just my profession & that of my husbands, but also to the very hard work it took women of my generation to be able to have the benefits you so glibly brush off for those who want to avail themselves of them.

Sorry - you need the reality check, IMO. You are living in a 1950's world which just doesn't exist. But, you get what you want or ask for - if you want a non-involved partner, that's exactly what you'll get. I'm just glad you didn't sit on any of the 10 ADCOMS which accepteted my daughter into their programs because she is in the PRIME of her reproductive life....and fortunately - that is her own DAMN business!!!


:thumbup::thumbup:
two things....path is not taking any call (she is not in med school yet, so definately not a doctor) and is probably in your generation, which is surprising with her close minded one sided matter of fact (and unflexible ) views

We've taken a number of unproductive side paths here!

1) Do most men in society place all the burden of child-rearing on the women? I wanted to highlight a good point of sdn1977's:
...you get what you want or ask for - if you want a non-involved partner, that's exactly what you'll get.
So the bottom line for the younger ladies is: marry wisely. What most men in society can be expected to do will matter much less to us than what our own husbands do.

2) Are pharmacy and dentistry "the equivalent of medicine"? For crying out loud, that's (1) a vague and inflammatory question and (2) way above my pay grade. Maybe we should establish an ***Official Pissing-Contest Thread*** somewhere and confine this discussion there. (It might be a better idea just to leave that sort of thing to the men.) I'm just setting out to survive MS-1!!! Trying to prove that once I've done that, and another 6-9 years of training after that, I will be or will not be equivalent to somebody else -- or listening to other people trying to prove it -- is just not on my list of priorities right now.

3) "Does the fact that you don't discuss other medical career fields mean that you're closed-minded and looking down on us?"... Please bear in mind that theoretical threads like this are something of a sideline on this board. Most of us come to get & give practical advice and experience about our own careers, so we tend to phrase questions accordingly. Just because we don't carefully frame verbiage that includes all other careers in the hospital doesn't mean that we can't recognize useful experience contributed by non-MDs. Perhaps we should be slower to attribute offensive motivations to each other.

Now, let me try to summarize the actual progress we've made so far on the original question:
1) We established that we do not have enough data to debate the question directly. As lilnoelle pointed out, we don't even know whether this is a statistical problem in the US or not. Debating the solution to a problem that doesn't exist is not very sensible.
2) Noeljan tried to use a logical technique -- using the same logic to demonstrate something else that we can debate, I have no idea whether there's a rhetorical name for this -- to prove that if women are objectionable due to the cost/productivity ratio, then so are older medical students. Unfortunately that led to an argument.
3) sdn1977 tried to use that same technique regarding men -- just because men currently make fewer sacrifices for their families doesn't mean they always will, so if the cost/productivity ratio is objectionable for women now, then it will also be so for men in the future. Unfortunately, that led to an argument also.

Unless we want some guy showing up and claiming that this thread is proof that women shouldn't be trained as doctors because they're too emotional, we should probably either get back on track or close the thread. I, for one, don't have the time or interest to do the research to make a concrete discussion out of it. I was hoping somebody else would already know something about government financing and male/female attrition rates.

As for you not considering pharmacy or dentistry the equivalent of medicine - I'm not surprised. That is the WHOLE basis of this forum & why it doesn't work! You women are so wrapped up in your view of medicine you don't see what the rest of us do each & every day. You are not the only ones working overnight call or longer than 24 hours!!!!!!I NEVER said that being a pharmacist or Dentist wasn't hard work but your defensive posture in your response reeks of perhpas your personal feeling Pharmacist and or Dentist aren't as smart, talented, whatever else an insecure mind would have you believe, as "real" Doctors are. Maybe you were as a quite a few Docs I've run into believe, a reject from Med school and chose Pharmacy/Dentistry as a "back up", I don't know and I don't really care. With a best friend who's a Doctor (of Pharmacy) and cousins who are Dentists, I've got a pretty good glimpse of what these fields entail. Having said that, you can take you unwarrented opinions about MY feelings of these fields and stuff it!
Umm I don't know what program you are in, but I know for a fact you are not yet in medical schoo (and have not yet gained acceptance to medical school).? FYI, I HAVE been previously accepted to med school. You how big of an ***** do you feel like right about now becasue you're certainly WEARING that ***** title like a champ. Some of you pepole are supposee to be so dam smart but obviously haven't figured out that there's more than one way to be ENROLLED in an ALLOPATHIC med school.

Now, let me try to summarize the actual progress we've made so far on the original question:
1) We established that we do not have enough data to debate the question directly. As lilnoelle pointed out, we don't even know whether this is a statistical problem in the US or not. Debating the solution to a problem that doesn't exist is not very sensible..If SDN depeneded on printed, statistical facts to have a discussion, then I imagine that all the 2 trillion affirmative action threads would NEVER have been started.:rolleyes: I posted a position that SOME people in the world believe and in usuals fashion, the political correct police jumped in. Perhaps people are too PC to say it, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that I'm alone on this viewpoint.
2) Noeljan tried to use a logical technique --.Yeah right, by talking sh!t about something he didn't know a dam thing about, ie my NOT having been accepted to med school. Yep that's logical as hell. If you want to use his so called logic about age, then why not for the purposes of being throughly ridiculous, do genetic testing on folks going to med school and exclude those who are predisposed to have a heart attack by age 55 (which will probably be quite a few folks given the obesity epidemic). Better yet, why don't we have a BMI scale for admits to med school. What about excluding black women between the ages of 25-44 because the leading cause of death for that age group is HIV/AIDS? Or let's exclude white males between the ages of 21-24 because the leading cause of death is car acidents? It's real easy for some of you to say that this or that isn't fair but I don't think it's fair that as an example other residents/med students have to "cover" for a surgical resident who decided to have 2 kids in 3 years. What happend to logic in THAT situation?

I've known quite a few women who made the decision to not have ANY kids because they wanted career in medicine. Personally, I think that's THE most selfless thing a person can do but because society has this warped idea of what a "real" life is, ie 2 kids , a husband, a dog, and a house with a picket fense, women are going into fields making unreasonable demands.
And that's NOT fair to women like ME who really thought this med school thing through and didn't do things like matriclue into med school with a family and a dying parent. I WAITED until the time was right for EVERONE who would be affected by my decision, NOT just myself!! And I sure as hell didn't and don't expect people to create special "rules" just or me which irronically is NOT the idea most people around here get when they think about URM's and Medicine. Hmmmmmmmm.

3) sdn1977 tried to use that same technique regarding men -- just because men currently make fewer sacrifices for their families doesn't mean they always will It's called EVOLUTION dear which essentially means that certain things about men will NEVER be the same as they are for women. What are you people, a bunch of feminist, she-men, who want to go rambo style into Iraq? I don't think women belong in combat there either but if you want to enlist, be my guest. Opps maybe your avatar says it all?:confused:
Unless we want some guy showing up and claiming that this thread is proof that women shouldn't be trained as doctors because they're too emotional, we should probably either get back on track or close the thread. So what if they do? Are women too soft to have a decent debate? Are people going to shed internet tears? For goodness sakes, no wonder men dominate the world!:rolleyes:

I'm with you!

I think admitting certain women over say 35 and/or those done with child bearing, is the best idea around.:thumbup:

Haha, I'm 26.... (But had children relatively young)


I've known quite a few women who made the decision to not have ANY kids because they wanted career in medicine. Personally, I think that's THE most selfless thing a person can do.

Maybe. I could've been one of those women... except how many college age kids do you know that truly know what they want? I thought I did. 6 years later and I honestly can say I didn't have a clue. Some women are smart to wait till they really know themself before they get married/start a family. Others take the plunge when they think they're ready, but rather aren't.

Anyway. All I'm saying is that circumstances aren't always ideal, nor how one would wish they would be. All we can do is do what we can with what we've got.

And when all is said and done, I've got two beautiful children, and eventually will be a doctor. I hope they don't suffer for my choice, but even if I wasn't in med school, I'd have to work because my husband is not well employed. So either way they'd be in a daycare and only seeing me on weekends and evenings.

A couple questions:
1) How many male med students/residents take 6-8 weeks off after their WIVES have babies?

taking 6-8 weeks off is for a medical reason, similar to taking the time off after a gall bladder surgery.

2) How many male medical students/residents feed babies in the middle of the night on a regular basis? And I won't even ask about BREAST feeding babies.:laugh:

Obviously females are the only ones that can give birth and breastfeed. The time spent in 6-8 weeks off due to giving birth is minimal in a course of a career, even if the mother gave birth to as many as four kids. Even if you don't find it minimal, someone has to have children.... are we (humans) just gonna stop reproducing?
Even the time spent up at night feeding an infant is somewhat minimal in the course of things.... the mom (or dad) are sleep deprived for a few months - nothing really, if compared to a typical intern year in residency.

And, yes, I know many dads who wake up in the middle of the night to feed new infants. My husband wasn't one of them because I breastfed.

I think there's "lala land" and reality, and the reality is that MOST men STILL aren't doing their share when it comes to child rearing.

Well, I can only speak for myself, and my husband definitely doesn't, but I still don't see why this means I (or other females like me) are wasting money by attending med school.

What your saying is that women are not spending enough time working to make worthwhile doctors. How is a physician who gets trained at 22, finishes at 30, and takes 5 years off (or 10) to have children more of a waste of money than the woman who starts her family at 25, starts med school at 32, and finishes by the time she's 40?

And I think the woman who takes 5-10 years off to have a family is probably a rarity. I'm guessing most woman who go to med school are pretty career driven individuals and therefore won't take a large break.

And we're just talking about woman, what about the many nontraditionals who come to medicine after another career? Are they also a waste of money?

And how about the many male physicians who start their careers early, intending to retire at 50? I don't know any stats, but I've sure heard a lot of male pre-meds claim that is their desire.


The truth is that we have no way of knowing what individuals are going to do with the career that they are given. Med schools have a weeding out process during the application process and that is about the best we can do as far as avoiding individuals who are undesireable choices to become physicians.

I
Some of you pepole are supposee to be so dam smart but obviously haven't figured out that there's more than one way to be ENROLLED in an ALLOPATHIC med school.

Enlighten me. I'm not trying to argue. I'm curious. Tell us about your program.

Enlighten me. I'm not trying to argue. I'm curious. Tell us about your program. Try this one: SMP. Some SMP's require enrollment in allopathic medical schools. Now if you want a list, you'll have to go find that our for yourself.

And FYI, I'm not in an SMP.;)

Maybe. I could've been one of those women... except how many college age kids do you know that truly know what they want? I thought I did. 6 years later and I honestly can say I didn't have a clue. Some women are smart to wait till they really know themself before they get married/start a family. Others take the plunge when they think they're ready, but rather aren't.. First, I'm glad to finally be able to really discuss this decently with someone.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a person not having their life all mapped out. Who does? But there's a LOT wrong with expecting and feeling entitled to having other people work around YOUR choices (not you directly of course).
And when all is said and done, I've got two beautiful children, and eventually will be a doctor. I hope they don't suffer for my choice, but even if I wasn't in med school, I'd have to work because my husband is not well employed. So either way they'd be in a daycare and only seeing me on weekends and evenings...I hear ya sista', daycare was my BEST friend.

taking 6-8 weeks off is for a medical reason, similar to taking the time off after a gall bladder surgery. ...I agree but I'm not sure what the point is.:confused:

Well, I can only speak for myself, and my husband definitely doesn't, but I still don't see why this means I (or other females like me) are wasting money by attending med school....Medical training costs money beyond what you pay in tuition and inmany fields there's a physician shortage maybe even inpart due to all the women docs who quit medicine. It's really a simple mathmatical equation to me.

What your saying is that women are not spending enough time working to make worthwhile doctors. How is a physician who gets trained at 22, finishes at 30, and takes 5 years off (or 10) to have children more of a waste of money than the woman who starts her family at 25, starts med school at 32, and finishes by the time she's 40?...Easy answer. These aren't the women I'm talking about as far as wasting money is concerned. But these are the women I'm talking about as far as demanding special treatment if they expect to get partner and/or tenure at the same rate as a women who did the same family thing without taking so much time off.

And I think the woman who takes 5-10 years off to have a family is probably a rarity. I'm guessing most woman who go to med school are pretty career driven individuals and therefore won't take a large break.?...I don't think this is true but I'm basinf my thoughts on what I've read on Mommd.

And we're just talking about woman, what about the many nontraditionals who come to medicine after another career? Are they also a waste of money?.?...Already addressed.:)

And how about the many male physicians who start their careers early, intending to retire at 50? I don't know any stats, but I've sure heard a lot male pre-meds claim that is their desire.Perhaps quite a few of them will be working oin their second bimbo-ish wives so I can't imagine how they can afford to quit medicine!:laugh:

Medical training costs money beyond what you pay in tuition and inmany fields there's a physician shortage maybe even inpart due to all the women docs who quit medicine. It's really a simple mathmatical equation to me.
:

I agree that medical training costs beyond what we pay in tuition. I'm sure that females and males who quit medicine contribute to the physician shortage. I'm just not sure that females are more guilty than males and would require real solid stats from the US to think so.
Even if women do leave in higher numbers, the number would have to be EXTREMELY significant for me to think females shouldn't be trained as doctors. As it is, perhaps there should be some way to try to weed out individuals that are likely to quit before they retire, but theres no way of knowing who those individuals will be.

Concerning the physician shortage.... Isn't it mostly due to an increase in patients, not a decrease in doctors? It also seems to me that it is a problem of disbursement of doctors (both the apparent dislike of primary care and the avoidance of rural/poor urban areas) rather than a shortage of physicians in general.

Another thing I've heard (I have no evidence) is that females that plan on having a family are more likely to go into pediatrics and family practice than males. Therefore, females are meeting a need that males are not. I guess one could argue that those individuals chose their fields because they are most family friendly (not a bad thing) and are also most likely to leave their field for there family, therefore increasing the shortage, but if males don't want to step in and take their place anyway, I don't see that replacing those female doctors with males will make any difference.

I NEVER said that being a pharmacist or Dentist wasn't hard work but your defensive posture in your response reeks of perhpas your personal feeling Pharmacist and or Dentist aren't as smart, talented, whatever else an insecure mind would have you believe, as "real" Doctors are. Maybe you were as a quite a few Docs I've run into believe, a reject from Med school and chose Pharmacy/Dentistry as a "back up", I don't know and I don't really care. With a best friend who's a Doctor (of Pharmacy) and cousins who are Dentists, I've got a pretty good glimpse of what these fields entail. Having said that, you can take you unwarrented opinions about MY feelings of these fields and stuff it!
FYI, I HAVE been previously accepted to med school. You how big of an ***** do you feel like right about now becasue you're certainly WEARING that ***** title like a champ. Some of you pepole are supposee to be so dam smart but obviously haven't figured out that there's more than one way to be ENROLLED in an ALLOPATHIC med school.

umm an SMP is not the same as being accepted and enrolled as a medical student, it is a program for people trying to gain acceptance

If SDN depeneded on printed, statistical facts to have a discussion, then I imagine that all the 2 trillion affirmative action threads would NEVER have been started.:rolleyes: I posted a position that SOME people in the world believe and in usuals fashion, the political correct police jumped in. Perhaps people are too PC to say it, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that I'm alone on this viewpoint.
Yeah right, by talking sh!t about something he didn't know a dam thing about, ie my NOT having been accepted to med school. Yep that's logical as hell. If you want to use his so called logic about age, then why not for the purposes of being throughly ridiculous, do genetic testing on folks going to med school and exclude those who are predisposed to have a heart attack by age 55 (which will probably be quite a few folks given the obesity epidemic). Better yet, why don't we have a BMI scale for admits to med school. What about excluding black women between the ages of 25-44 because the leading cause of death for that age group is HIV/AIDS? Or let's exclude white males between the ages of 21-24 because the leading cause of death is car acidents? It's real easy for some of you to say that this or that isn't fair but I don't think it's fair that as an example other residents/med students have to "cover" for a surgical resident who decided to have 2 kids in 3 years. What happend to logic in THAT situation?

I've known quite a few women who made the decision to not have ANY kids because they wanted career in medicine. Personally, I think that's THE most selfless thing a person can do but because society has this warped idea of what a "real" life is, ie 2 kids , a husband, a dog, and a house with a picket fense, women are going into fields making unreasonable demands.
And that's NOT fair to women like ME who really thought this med school thing through and didn't do things like matriclue into med school with a family and a dying parent. I WAITED until the time was right for EVERONE who would be affected by my decision, NOT just myself!! And I sure as hell didn't and don't expect people to create special "rules" just or me which irronically is NOT the idea most people around here get when they think about URM's and Medicine. Hmmmmmmmm.

It's called EVOLUTION dear which essentially means that certain things about men will NEVER be the same as they are for women. What are you people, a bunch of feminist, she-men, who want to go rambo style into Iraq? I don't think women belong in combat there either but if you want to enlist, be my guest. Opps maybe your avatar says it all?:confused:
So what if they do? Are women too soft to have a decent debate? Are people going to shed internet tears? For goodness sakes, no wonder men dominate the world!:rolleyes:


In this "argument" of yours, you actually are providing reasons against your claims. Who are you to say with absoulte certaintly what is right or wrong concerning someones career and choices??
Oh and I was using logic (something you don't seem to do often). You keep spouting off how female docs for the most part are a huge waste of resources. I was using the same logic and asking you, as someone applying to medical school +40 yrs old would be a huge waste of resources?
Mind you I don't think either cases are, but I am using your "logic"
there are people older and younger than me in my class, and they all appear to be great people with different experiences.

If SDN depeneded on printed, statistical facts to have a discussion, then I imagine that all the 2 trillion affirmative action threads would NEVER have been started.:rolleyes: I posted a position that SOME people in the world believe and in usuals fashion, the political correct police jumped in. Perhaps people are too PC to say it, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that I'm alone on this viewpoint.
Yeah right, by talking sh!t about something he didn't know a dam thing about, ie my NOT having been accepted to med school. Yep that's logical as hell. If you want to use his so called logic about age, then why not for the purposes of being throughly ridiculous, do genetic testing on folks going to med school and exclude those who are predisposed to have a heart attack by age 55 (which will probably be quite a few folks given the obesity epidemic). Better yet, why don't we have a BMI scale for admits to med school. What about excluding black women between the ages of 25-44 because the leading cause of death for that age group is HIV/AIDS? Or let's exclude white males between the ages of 21-24 because the leading cause of death is car acidents? It's real easy for some of you to say that this or that isn't fair but I don't think it's fair that as an example other residents/med students have to "cover" for a surgical resident who decided to have 2 kids in 3 years. What happend to logic in THAT situation?

I've known quite a few women who made the decision to not have ANY kids because they wanted career in medicine. Personally, I think that's THE most selfless thing a person can do but because society has this warped idea of what a "real" life is, ie 2 kids , a husband, a dog, and a house with a picket fense, women are going into fields making unreasonable demands.
And that's NOT fair to women like ME who really thought this med school thing through and didn't do things like matriclue into med school with a family and a dying parent. I WAITED until the time was right for EVERONE who would be affected by my decision, NOT just myself!! And I sure as hell didn't and don't expect people to create special "rules" just or me which irronically is NOT the idea most people around here get when they think about URM's and Medicine. Hmmmmmmmm.

It's called EVOLUTION dear which essentially means that certain things about men will NEVER be the same as they are for women. What are you people, a bunch of feminist, she-men, who want to go rambo style into Iraq? I don't think women belong in combat there either but if you want to enlist, be my guest. Opps maybe your avatar says it all?:confused:
So what if they do? Are women too soft to have a decent debate? Are people going to shed internet tears? For goodness sakes, no wonder men dominate the world!:rolleyes:

and finally, I think I know what's going on here. I have seen your posts in the nontrad forums. You are worried about getting into med school, the competition, etc. We all were. You need to realize though, your claims of who is and who is not fit for medicine are very similiar to people who do not get in and attack URMs. I'm surprised, because usually that comes from a more younger inexperienced crowd. I'm in my 20's, a few years older than the typical right out of college med student, and looking back now I can't believe how closed minded I was with some things.
Oh and as far as the husband thing goes, I don't know about you but if my future husband ever EVER acted the way you are describing men are allowed to act....THERE IS THE DOOR!!! We will be a team.

We've taken a number of unproductive side paths here!

1) Do most men in society place all the burden of child-rearing on the women? I wanted to highlight a good point of sdn1977's:

So the bottom line for the younger ladies is: marry wisely. What most men in society can be expected to do will matter much less to us than what our own husbands do.

2) Are pharmacy and dentistry "the equivalent of medicine"? For crying out loud, that's (1) a vague and inflammatory question and (2) way above my pay grade. Maybe we should establish an ***Official Pissing-Contest Thread*** somewhere and confine this discussion there. (It might be a better idea just to leave that sort of thing to the men.) I'm just setting out to survive MS-1!!! Trying to prove that once I've done that, and another 6-9 years of training after that, I will be or will not be equivalent to somebody else -- or listening to other people trying to prove it -- is just not on my list of priorities right now.

3) "Does the fact that you don't discuss other medical career fields mean that you're closed-minded and looking down on us?"... Please bear in mind that theoretical threads like this are something of a sideline on this board. Most of us come to get & give practical advice and experience about our own careers, so we tend to phrase questions accordingly. Just because we don't carefully frame verbiage that includes all other careers in the hospital doesn't mean that we can't recognize useful experience contributed by non-MDs. Perhaps we should be slower to attribute offensive motivations to each other.

Now, let me try to summarize the actual progress we've made so far on the original question:
1) We established that we do not have enough data to debate the question directly. As lilnoelle pointed out, we don't even know whether this is a statistical problem in the US or not. Debating the solution to a problem that doesn't exist is not very sensible.
2) Noeljan tried to use a logical technique -- using the same logic to demonstrate something else that we can debate, I have no idea whether there's a rhetorical name for this -- to prove that if women are objectionable due to the cost/productivity ratio, then so are older medical students. Unfortunately that led to an argument.
3) sdn1977 tried to use that same technique regarding men -- just because men currently make fewer sacrifices for their families doesn't mean they always will, so if the cost/productivity ratio is objectionable for women now, then it will also be so for men in the future. Unfortunately, that led to an argument also.

Unless we want some guy showing up and claiming that this thread is proof that women shouldn't be trained as doctors because they're too emotional, we should probably either get back on track or close the thread. I, for one, don't have the time or interest to do the research to make a concrete discussion out of it. I was hoping somebody else would already know something about government financing and male/female attrition rates.

:thumbup: You are right, sorry if this post went off topic at all on my behalf. I feel so much for the pioneer women who went before you and I, and what they had to fight for. It just hits such a nerve inside when people try and attack that.

If SDN depeneded on printed, statistical facts to have a discussion, then I imagine that all the 2 trillion affirmative action threads would NEVER have been started.:rolleyes: I posted a position that SOME people in the world believe and in usuals fashion, the political correct police jumped in. Perhaps people are too PC to say it, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that I'm alone on this viewpoint.
Yeah right, by talking sh!t about something he didn't know a dam thing about, ie my NOT having been accepted to med school. Yep that's logical as hell. If you want to use his so called logic about age, then why not for the purposes of being throughly ridiculous, do genetic testing on folks going to med school and exclude those who are predisposed to have a heart attack by age 55 (which will probably be quite a few folks given the obesity epidemic). Better yet, why don't we have a BMI scale for admits to med school. What about excluding black women between the ages of 25-44 because the leading cause of death for that age group is HIV/AIDS? Or let's exclude white males between the ages of 21-24 because the leading cause of death is car acidents? It's real easy for some of you to say that this or that isn't fair but I don't think it's fair that as an example other residents/med students have to "cover" for a surgical resident who decided to have 2 kids in 3 years. What happend to logic in THAT situation?

I've known quite a few women who made the decision to not have ANY kids because they wanted career in medicine. Personally, I think that's THE most selfless thing a person can do but because society has this warped idea of what a "real" life is, ie 2 kids , a husband, a dog, and a house with a picket fense, women are going into fields making unreasonable demands.
And that's NOT fair to women like ME who really thought this med school thing through and didn't do things like matriclue into med school with a family and a dying parent. I WAITED until the time was right for EVERONE who would be affected by my decision, NOT just myself!! And I sure as hell didn't and don't expect people to create special "rules" just or me which irronically is NOT the idea most people around here get when they think about URM's and Medicine. Hmmmmmmmm.

It's called EVOLUTION dear which essentially means that certain things about men will NEVER be the same as they are for women. What are you people, a bunch of feminist, she-men, who want to go rambo style into Iraq? I don't think women belong in combat there either but if you want to enlist, be my guest. Opps maybe your avatar says it all?:confused:
So what if they do? Are women too soft to have a decent debate? Are people going to shed internet tears? For goodness sakes, no wonder men dominate the world!:rolleyes:


Actually no "she-male" here. I am a former pageant girl and cheerleader (in HS and college) if that's hard to believe:D I am such a girly girly, although I am pretty strong (thanks to years as a gymnast:)

umm an SMP is not the same as being accepted and enrolled as a medical student, it is a program for people trying to gain acceptance
Here you go again not knowing what the hell you're talking about. SOME SMP's and post baccs come with a conditional acceptances to medical school.

Here you go again not knowing what the hell you're talking about. SOME SMP's and post baccs come with a conditional acceptances to medical school.

haha ok. First, CONDITIONAL does not mean you are definately in. It will depend on your performance (hence the word conditional). Second, you have claimed to be a premed without such "conditions", applying to med school,hoping to get into MD/phd before. Has that changed?
I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You seem to be the one with a warped sense of reality. Your rapid and baseless judgements about people have been wrong over and over again. For example, see the previous posts. I am done here, you don't even make any sense.

I have seen your posts in the nontrad forums. You are worried about getting into med school, the competition, etc. We all were..Worried about getting into med school again? Ahh yeah, not sure where you got that from perhaps you're mixing up YOUR insecurites with those that quite frankly I don't have. I have a "life" so med school isn't something I EVER worry about perhaps related to my 1) current enrollment and 2) current academic success. Here's some things I DO worry about. I'm worried about having another parent/in law to take care of while in med school. I'm worried about how my daughter is going to do in school taking Chinese as a 6th grader. I'm worried I may be a BRCA 1 carrier. THOSE are examples of "real" worries IMHO.
Oh and as far as the husband thing goes, I don't know about you but if my future husband ever EVER acted the way you are describing men are allowed to act....THERE IS THE DOOR!!! We will be a team. Where is the smiley that falls on the floor laughing when you need one!:laugh: Do you mean team as in 50-50? Bahhahahahha:laugh:

First, CONDITIONAL does not mean you are definately in. .Well apparently "definitely in" doesn't mean "definitely in" based on the number of med students I've had in classes who flunked med school courses.:rolleyes:
I am a former pageant girl and cheerleader (in HS and college) if that's hard to believe:D I am such a girly girly, although I am pretty strong (thanks to years as a gymnast:) You're a former pageant girl too? I did a few Miss America prelims back in the day(in Florida). But I passed on Cheerleading to become a Majorette in the marching band (in high school)and a Dancer on a dance team (in college).;)

Second, you have claimed to be a premed without such "conditions", applying to med school,hoping to get into MD/phd before. Has that changed?.First, I'm not a premed. Second, there's an MD/PhD in my future and I have about 11 credits on the MD side and 15 on the PhD side. Third, it's a dam waste to train an 40 something FEMALE MD/PhD, isn't it?:laugh:

First, I'm not a premed. Second, there's an MD/PhD in my future and I have about 11 credits on the MD side and 15 on the PhD side. Third, it's a dam waste to train an 40 something FEMALE MD/PhD, isn't it?:laugh:


no, actually I don't think it is a waste. I think it is a great thing when people realize what they want to do, and go for it. I feel that the adcoms do in fact select people with many different experiences to represent the future of the profession. It makes me happy when I see people reach their dreams. I think all people can make contributions in their own way.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11318996&dopt=Abstract I'm guessing this is what the author of the Daily Telegraph was referring to and she really misread the results. If you have access to the full text I suggest that you read it. The article points out that women leaving medicine usually return. Men also leave the NHS, although it is usually to practice medicine abroad or in Britain, but outside the NHS. Taking the highest numbers for any one time, 3.6% of men were not working in medicine and 12.2% of women were not. The 12.2% number was from women who graduated in 1977 at 5 years after qualification. By 15 years, the number not working was 4.5%. Not quite the jaw dropping number as 60%.

First, I'm not a premed. Second, there's an MD/PhD in my future and I have about 11 credits on the MD side and 15 on the PhD side. Third, it's a dam waste to train an 40 something FEMALE MD/PhD, isn't it?:laugh:

I would guess her confusion stems from your other posts you have made stating you aren't an "MS I (yet)", and that you are currently working on a master's degree.

Making assumptions on what someone may do with their future career is a stupid way for med schools to select their class. If a real problem with people leaving the field developed (and I don't believe there is one that isn't related to distribution as opposed to actual numbers), one way to deal with it would be with scholarship programs that cover med school costs in return for service obligations after training (like the military and indian health service programs, but they could be administered at a county level as well). Otherwise, the schools just roll the dice that the people they pick will make good physicians (not guaranteed) and will make a meaningful contribution to the field (which involves more than just being a warm body in the clinic, in my opinion).

Everyone is entitled to their opinion & I do respect yours 1Path. I just don't think your path & mine will cross since you really do have, IMO, a very closed minded approach to the multidisciplinary approach to healthcare - ALL aspects of healthcare, no matter who delivers it & the age at which they were trained or the time they took off - to take a sabbatical, have children, travel or teach.

You say you've been accepted to a medical school - great. I've got to say - just from my daughter's experience with interviews at 10 medical schools in the country - a small n for sure....she was asked repeatedly about this in one form or another - how does she view the physician's position in healthcare in the 21st century. Now - your experience perhaps is much broader than hers......she was only accepted at the 10 she interviewed at. But, I am surprised at the perspective you bring since she just had 2 classmates leave for their PhD training & absorbed 3 who have completed their PhDs & have come back to finish their clinical medical years - and those are not the experiences she relates. But - again, I admit, it is hearsay - her relationships with these folks as related to me.

As for my own experience - I was never interested in medicine. When I applied in 1973 - probably before you were born - I had no interest in it, nor do I now. As for my female physician friends - they have varied practice pathways depending on the specialty. Some are partnerships, some are sole practioners & some are employees of medical corporations. All have children & took the appropriate time off for childbirth. Perhaps you don't know quite as much of the practical side of medicine as you claim, but that is just what I'm assuming from your posts - perhaps misguided on my part. Again - you will believe what you will. The reality is what it is, no matter your belief as a premedical student. Thats the beauty of reality - each is unique to ourselves & our situations.

My husband was a biochemist at Harvard before he went to dental school - he has no issues with not being a "real" doctor - but you need to believe in what you want to believe. He's fine just being a dentist & fortunately derives much satisfaction from it.

However....I will say your posts say much about your personal life & professional aspirations, assessments & those of us who choose to make a decision other than yours. Some of us make our choices based solely on what we like (I like drugs - particularly genetics of drug disposition) & many of us have 50-50 partnerships with our spouses - again - choices and negotiations we make. The fact you find that humerous is "telling".

The negativity you show to those who seem to disagree with you (ie - telling me to "stuff it"....just this side of a TOS violation) does seem to indicate some lack of patience & tolerance which is a defining characteristic of any healthcare provider - no matter the field.

Good luck in your endeavors.

I would guess her confusion stems from your other posts you have made stating you aren't an "MS I (yet)", and that you are currently working on a master's degree. Now I wonder exactly how much time you spent looking into this. Dude, you MUST geta life! I thought derm path residents had better things to do.:laugh::laugh: So are you gonna verify my credit hours earned next?? Just an FYI, Medical Histology isn't on the list of required courses for a graduate degree in Pharmacology.;)

no, actually I don't think it is a waste. I think it is a great thing when people realize what they want to do, and go for it..Going for "it" is great. Going for it and expecting others to bend the rules for you is not great but rather selfish. I don't see men asking for special favors in medical careers and perhaps many don't need to (so much for that 50-50 relationship). Maybe women wouldn't need to either if they made smarter reporductive choices or had to deal with the consequences of the reproductive choices they do make.
The negativity you show to those who seem to disagree with you (ie - telling me to "stuff it"....just this side of a TOS violation) does seem to indicate some lack of patience & tolerance which is a defining characteristic of any healthcare provider - no matter the field..Let's be clear here. I specifically showed "negativity" toward you because it absolutely enrages me that Non MD types think folks interested in becoming a physician or who already are, believe the MD is the greatest degree of all, MD's work harder than everyone else, MD's are smarter than everyone and the list goes on and on. Of course the problem is that, I have NEVER, EVER said ANY of that nor do I think it to be true. Of all the people on SDN, I'm one of the few who thinks that ANYONE with a doctoral level degree should be called doctor. That you somehow assumed I thought otherwise speaks to the unspoken resentment many people seem to have toward MD types. Then you "cover" your comments with borderline insults (telling me I lack patience/tolerance to be a healthcare provider) then go off and file a formal TOS complaint. Is this type of behavior anyway to have a debate? If I had a dollar for everytime I heard HERE that I wouldn't make a good healthcare provider, I'd have enough to pay for my AMCAS applications. I don't know many practicing MD's who spend much of their day on the in forum pages on the internet, so exactly what do my comments HERE have to do with the practice of medicine??? I work with patients from a variety of backgrounds EVERYDAY, a proper venue for exercising "patience and tolerance". And I'm certain that if I did in fact have problems with "pateince and tolerance", the adcom members I occcasionally work with would have had me fired by now. As it stands, I'm more than "holding it down" in the clinic, although I'm still looking forward to completing a pathology residency.

Final thing is that I think people take things said on forum pages way too seriously. Usinf "stuff it" was as much in reverence to Dolly Parton as to make a point. But it certainly wasn't to insult anyone. Trust me, I'm sure we could all come up with a truly insulting way to tell someone to "stuff it" using other choice words.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion & I do respect yours 1Path. I just don't think your path & mine will cross since you really do have, IMO, a very closed minded approach to the multidisciplinary approach to healthcare - ALL aspects of healthcare, no matter who delivers it & the age at which they were trained or the time they took off - to take a sabbatical, have children, travel or teach..You really are mixing apples and orangatuans here. Taking a sabatical, taking SOME time off for having children, isn't the issue here. The primary issue here is 1) Women who quit medicine for good and 2) Women who make what I deem are over the top demands to accomodate their personal choices.

I've got to say - just from my daughter's experience with interviews at 10 medical schools in the country - a small n for sure....Now - your experience perhaps is much broader than hers......she was only accepted at the 10 she interviewed at. .It's a well known fact that high SES and having a parent (in her case 2) with the letters "Dr" in front of their name makes for a HUGE advantage over everyone else applying to med school for a variety of reasons. But that's best left discussed in another thread.

So sure, I think we're all impressed with 10acceptances. But personally, I'm even more impressed with 10 acceptances from a person who's from the ghetto of Boston or the back woods of small town Tennessee.

As for my own experience - I was never interested in medicine. When I applied in 1973 - probably before you were born - I had no interest in it, nor do I now. Don't let the Ipod playlist fool ya, I'm a Fabulously Forty and have been working in and around medicine for the last 19 years (started in 1988). TONS of things pepper my viewpoint of medicine from working with poor, uninsured HIV + patients to being a Fellow at the #1 research institution in the world, the NIH. I've had a ton of time to observe women "Dr's" as I defined above, balancing family and career. So I can honestly say that these past few years, I've observesd more selfish, destructive for ALL women, behavior from working women "dr's" now than I EVER have. And at the rate things are going, it's only going to get worse for those of us who make smarter family/career decisions.

Now I wonder exactly how much time you spent looking into this. Dude, you MUST geta life! I thought derm path residents had better things to do.:laugh::laugh: So are you gonna verify my credit hours earned next?? Just an FYI, Medical Histology isn't on the list of required courses for a graduate degree in Pharmacology.;)

It took about two minutes, and I did it because I was curious about the comments that were going back and forth. I don't know where you got the derm path resident thing from (it would take about 30 seconds to see that I just started surgical residency). Knowing someone's background helps to place their comments in perspective. I believe someone already posted the info that shows that your original assumptions (that women are leaving medicine for good in droves) were incorrect. That you still seem so angry towards women making over the top demands (such as what I am not sure), makes it seem like you feel you have been personally affected by this. After having been through the med school admission process, as well as residency applications in a field not typically welcoming to women, I realize that schools and programs aren't as worried about whether women are going to drop out to pop out a bunch of babies as you seem to think they are. Sure some programs are still in the dark ages, and I was asked about children at a program or two, but the majority are not going to exclude an entire gender because they MIGHT decide to have babies, and this MIGHT end up affecting their career.

I am curious what you are actually advocating. Should women be excluded from training in the medical field? Should they be allowed in only if they sign a contract to work at least x number of hours for at least x number of years? Perhaps only those who have been sterilized should be allowed in.

If you are really just trying to say that people should be considerate of those around them and try not to impose on them for their own needs, I can understand that. It just isn't really possible to force anyone to do so, and it isn't always possible to make every life decision based on how it affects everyone else.

It took about two minutes, and I did it because I was curious about the comments that were going back and forth. I don't know where you got the derm path resident thing from (it would take about 30 seconds to see that I just started surgical residency). .My bad!:)I believe someone already posted the info that shows that your original assumptions (that women are leaving medicine for good in droves) were incorrect. .Where exactly did I post that women were leaving in droves?? Man I swear, SDN is the ONLY forum page I regularly participate on where the members ad-lib the post of others, especially those they disaree with.:rolleyes:
That you still seem so angry towards women making over the top demands (such as what I am not sure), makes it seem like you feel you have been personally affected by this. After having been through the med school admission process, as well as residency applications in a field not typically welcoming to women, I realize that schools and programs aren't as worried about whether women are going to drop out to pop out a bunch of babies as you seem to think they are. Sure some programs are still in the dark ages, and I was asked about children at a program or two, but the majority are not going to exclude an entire gender because they MIGHT decide to have babies, and this MIGHT end up affecting their career..You may have finished med school and currently be in residency, but obviusly you haven't been in an academic setting very long. Ever wonder WHY there aren't very many TENURED women in academia? Probably not because I'm guessing that med school was your first experience with all that.

And I'm wondering, do you ever think about why surgery "not welcoming to women". Interestingly, I don't see folks making those kinds of statements when looking at say the number of Native Americans in a surgical residency. If I said, "surgery is not welcoming for blacks" all hell would break loose.

I know a black female surgeon VERY well. She has 3 kids. She has a husband that stays at home. SHE is a role model for how to get your training, and not ask for "special" treatment every 5 minutes. And I've NEVER heard her say that "surgery isn't welcoming" to blacks and/or women.

Children "MIGHT" affect your carrer??Jeez a weez, I can tell that you are definitely NOT a Mom yet because if you were you'd know that having kids DEFINITELY affects your career even if you have a SAHD AND a nanny.

I am curious what you are actually advocating. Should women be excluded from training in the medical field?.Ummm no, I'm not excluding myself from a career in medicine.:)
Should they be allowed in only if they sign a contract to work at least x number of hours for at least x number of years?.I think a good start would be a requirement to practice for at least 20 years total AND for a certain number of hours to allow for part-time employment. Why not have a work requirement? The military does it ALL the time.
Perhaps only those who have been sterilized should be allowed in..Or those who have had so many STD's that they had to have their "hot tubes" removed. :rolleyes:Come on, we were doing so well with intelligent exchanges before.

I too am trying to understand your solution to the issue presented. Is this it?

To indicate ahead of time that the applicant will work at least 20 years with no greater than (fill in the blank) number of years of part-time work?

Do you want this on AMCAS, during the interview, on the offer of acceptance?

To indicate ahead of time that the applicant will work at least 20 years with no greater than (fill in the blank) number of years of part-time work??No not quite. I can't be any more clear than I was in a previous post.:confused:

Do you want this on AMCAS, during the interview, on the offer of acceptance? None of the above. You'd sign this document on the first day of med school. Additional info provided on that form would include the consequences of quiting medicine including a requirement to pay back twice what it cost to train you with interest.

To address another point in this thread, I believe someone mentioned that young people don't always know what they want to do. Well, my very easy solution to that which I've previously stated on SDN is to ONLY admit people after they: 1) Reach a certain age and 2) Have had a "real" job with benefits, and 3) Can prove that they can survive without Mommy's and Daddy's "payroll". 4) Have served the disadvantaged in some capacity. Perhaps if people were admitted when they were say 28+ (perhaos an exception for future surgeons), there wouldn't be as many women dropping out of medicine.

Ok, I'll throw some more references out for discussion as think the first article has questionable "valid" statistics.

The work lives of women physicians results from the physician work life study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10886471&dopt=Abstract)The SGIM Career Satisfaction Study Group.

McMurray JE, Linzer M, Konrad TR, Douglas J, Shugerman R, Nelson K.

Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53705, USA. mcmurray@facstaff.wisc.edu

OBJECTIVE: To describe gender differences in job satisfaction, work life issues, and burnout of U.S. physicians. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: The Physician Work life Study, a nationally representative random stratified sample of 5,704 physicians in primary and specialty nonsurgical care (N = 2,326 respondents; 32% female, adjusted response rate = 52%). Survey contained 150 items assessing career satisfaction and multiple aspects of work life. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Odds of being satisfied with facets of work life and odds of reporting burnout were modeled with survey-weighted logistic regression controlling for demographic variables and practice characteristics. Multiple linear regression was performed to model dependent variables of global, career, and specialty satisfaction with independent variables of income, time pressure, and items measuring control over medical and workplace issues. Compared with male physicians, female physicians were more likely to report satisfaction with their specialty and with patient and colleague relationships (P <.05), but less likely to be satisfied with autonomy, relationships with community, pay, and resources (P <.05). Female physicians reported more female patients and more patients with complex psychosocial problems, but the same numbers of complex medical patients, compared with their male colleagues. Time pressure in ambulatory settings was greater for women, who on average reported needing 36% more time than allotted to provide quality care for new patients or consultations, compared with 21% more time needed by men (P <.01). Female physicians reported significantly less work control than male physicians regarding day-to-day aspects of practice including volume of patient load, selecting physicians for referrals, and details of office scheduling (P <.01). When controlling for multiple factors, mean income for women was approximately $22,000 less than that of men. Women had 1.6 times the odds of reporting burnout compared with men (P <.05), with the odds of burnout by women increasing by 12% to 15% for each additional 5 hours worked per week over 40 hours (P <.05). Lack of workplace control predicted burnout in women but not in men. For those women with young children, odds of burnout were 40% less when support of colleagues, spouse, or significant other for balancing work and home issues was present. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences exist in both the experience of and satisfaction with medical practice. Addressing these gender differences will optimize the participation of female physicians within the medical workforce.

Publication Types:

* Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't


PMID: 10886471 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

******************************************8
Gender in medicine – an issue for women only? A survey of physician teachers' gender attitudes
Gunilla Risberg,corresponding author1 Eva E Johansson,1 Göran Westman,1 and Katarina Hamberg1
Int J Equity Health. 2003; 2: 10.

Background
During the last decades research has disclosed gender differences and gender bias in different fields of academic and clinical medicine. Consequently, a gender perspective has been asked for in medical curricula and medical education. However, in reports about implementation attempts, difficulties and reluctance have been described. Since teachers are key persons when introducing new issues we surveyed physician teachers' attitudes towards the importance of gender in professional relations. We also analyzed if gender of the physician is related to these attitudes.

Method
Questionnaires were sent to all 468 senior physicians (29 % women), at the clinical departments and in family medicine, engaged in educating medical students at a Swedish university. They were asked to rate, on five visual analogue scales, the importance of physician and patient gender in consultation, of physician and student gender in clinical tutoring, and of physician gender in other professional encounters. Differences between women and men were estimated by chi-2 tests and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results
The response rate was 65 %. The physicians rated gender more important in consultation than in clinical tutoring. There were significant differences between women and men in all investigated areas also when adjusting for speciality, age, academic degree and years in the profession. A higher proportion of women than men assessed gender as important in professional relationships. Those who assessed very low were all men while both men and women were represented among those with high ratings.

Conclusions
To implement a gender perspective in medical education it is necessary that both male and female teachers participate and embrace gender aspects as important. To facilitate implementation and to convince those who are indifferent, this study indicates that special efforts are needed to motivate men. We suggest that men with an interest in gender issues should be involved in this work. Further research is needed to find out how such male-oriented endeavours should be outlined.

Leaders in American surgery: where are the women?
Jonasson O.

American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Ill, USA.

PMID: 12075183 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

**********************************
Am J Surg. 2005 Jul;190(1):141-6.Click here to read Links
Why are women deterred from general surgery training?
Park J, Minor S, Taylor RA, Vikis E, Poenaru D.

Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3A 1R9. j.park@utoronto.ca

BACKGROUND: This study explored the factors contributing to the low application rates to general surgery (GS) residency by female students and compared perceptions of GS between students and female surgeons. METHODS: We distributed surveys to final-year students at 4 medical schools and nationwide to every female general surgeon in Canada. RESULTS: Of students who were deterred from GS, women were less likely than men to meet a same-sex GS role model and more likely to experience gender-based discrimination during their GS rotation (P < .05). Female students had the perception that GS was incompatible with a rewarding family life, happy marriage, or having children, whereas female surgeons were far more positive about their career choice. CONCLUSIONS: Both real and perceived barriers may deter women from a career in GS. Real barriers include sex-based discrimination and a lack of female role models in GS. There are also clear differences in perception between students and surgeons regarding family and lifestyle in GS that must be addressed.

***********************************************
1: Arch Surg. 2006 Nov;141(11):1086-94; discussion 1094.Click here to read Links

Erratum in:
Arch Surg. 2007 Feb;142(2):197.

Influences on medical student career choice: gender or generation?
Sanfey HA, Saalwachter-Schulman AR, Nyhof-Young JM, Eidelson B, Mann BD.

Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0709, USA. has9s@virginia.edu

HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that increased enrollment of female medical students and different priorities of the current generation of students would be important influences on the declining interest in surgical careers. DESIGN: Students scored statements on surgical careers on 5-point Likert scales regarding agreement and whether these statements encouraged them to pursue a career in surgery. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative comments were iteratively coded using a constant comparative method. SETTING: Nine US medical schools. PARTICIPANTS: A Web-based survey on the Association for Surgical Education server was e-mailed to medical students. A total of 1300 of the 1365 respondents stated their sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey asked questions pertaining to surgical life, surgical residency, surgeons as influence, equity, family, and other influences. RESULTS: A total of 680 (52%) of the 1300 respondents were male. Men and women disagreed about whether surgeons lead well-balanced lives (68% and 77%, respectively) and saw this as a deterrent. A total of 35% of women (3% men; P<.001) were discouraged by a lack of female role models. Compared with students unlikely to study surgery, lower percentages of male (74% vs 65%) and female students (85% vs 58%) likely to study surgery agreed that career choice was influenced by their decision to have a family (P=.01 for men, P<.001 for women). Of medical students who agreed that their skill sets were compatible with surgical careers, similar percentages were likely (30% men vs 24% women) and unlikely (49% men vs 54% women) to study surgery. All differences between men and women were less apparent when students likely to study surgery were compared with students unlikely to study surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to have a family was a more significant influence for women than men, but family and lifestyle priorities were also important to male students, supporting our hypothesis that generation and gender are both important influences on career choices.

PMID: 17116801 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

************************************************** ***************
Am J Surg. 2006 Nov;192(5):695-8.Click here to read Links
Family issues affecting women in medicine, particularly women surgeons.
Straehley CJ, Longo P.

PMID: 17071209 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

************************************************** ****************

Best link I've found so far, which can address the biases in the first article posted on this thread:

1: BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 May 5;6:55.Click here to read Click here to read Links
The generation and gender shifts in medicine: an exploratory survey of internal medicine physicians.
Jovic E, Wallace JE, Lemaire J.

Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada. ejovic@uwo.ca

BACKGROUND: Two striking demographic shifts evident in today's workforce are also apparent in the medical profession. One is the entry of a new generation of physicians, Gen Xers, and the other is the influx of women. Both shifts are argued to have significant implications for recruitment and retention because of assumptions regarding the younger generation's and women's attitudes towards work and patient care. This paper explores two questions regarding the generations: (1) How do Baby Boomer and Generation X physicians perceive the generation shift in work attitudes and behaviours? and (2) Do Baby Boomer and Generation X physicians differ significantly in their work hours and work attitudes regarding patient care and life balance? Gen Xers include those born between 1965 and 1980; Baby Boomers are those born between 1945 and 1964. We also ask: Do female and male Generation X physicians differ significantly in their work hours and work attitudes regarding patient care and life balance? METHODS: We conducted exploratory interviews with 54 physicians and residents from the Department of Medicine (response rate 91%) and asked about their perceptions regarding the generation and gender shifts in medicine. We limit the analyses to interview responses of 34 Baby Boomers and 18 Generation Xers. We also sent questionnaires to Department members (response rate 66%), and this analysis is limited to 87 Baby Boomers' and 65 Generation Xers' responses. RESULTS: The qualitative interview data suggest significant generation and gender shifts in physicians' attitudes. Baby Boomers generally view Gen Xer physicians as less committed to their medical careers. The quantitative questionnaire data suggest that there are few significant differences in the generations' and genders' reports of work-life balance, work hours and attitudes towards patient care. CONCLUSION: A combined qualitative and quantitative approach to the generation shift and gender shift in medicine is helpful in revealing that the widely held assumptions are not necessarily reflective of any significant differences in actual work attitudes or behaviours of Boomer and Gen X physicians or of the younger generation of women entering medicine.

Contrary to belief, women are moving up the ranks of medicine as well:

1: N Engl J Med. 2000 Feb 10;342(6):399-405.Click here to read Links

Comment in:
N Engl J Med. 2000 Feb 10;342(6):426-7.
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 15;342(24):1839-40.
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 15;342(24):1839; author reply 1840.
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 15;342(24):1839; author reply 1840.
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 15;342(24):1839; author reply 1840.

Women physicians in academic medicine: new insights from cohort studies.
Nonnemaker L.

Center for the Assessment and Management of Change in Academic Medicine, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC 20037, USA. lnonnemaker@aamc.org

BACKGROUND: I conducted a study to determine whether women who graduate from medical schools are more or less likely than their male counterparts to pursue full-time careers in academic medicine and to advance to the senior ranks of medical school faculties. METHODS: The rates of advancement to the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor for all U.S. medical school graduates from 1979 through 1993 and for all members of U.S. medical school faculties from 1979 through 1997 were studied. Cohorts were defined on the basis of the year of graduation from medical school, track (tenure or nontenure), and academic department. Within each cohort, the number of women who advanced to a senior rank was compared with the number that would be expected on the basis of parity between men and women, and 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Women were significantly more likely than men to pursue an academic career. During the study period, 634 more women became faculty members than expected. The numbers were higher in the older cohorts than in the younger cohorts. The numbers of women who advanced to the ranks of associate and full professor were significantly lower than the expected numbers. This was true for both tenure and nontenure tracks, even after adjustment for the department. A total of 334 fewer women advanced to associate professor than expected, and 44 fewer women advanced to full professor than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities persist in the advancement of men and women on medical school faculties. However, the numbers of women physicians at all levels of academic medicine are increasing.

PMID: 10666431

To address another point in this thread, I believe someone mentioned that young people don't always know what they want to do. Well, my very easy solution to that which I've previously stated on SDN is to ONLY admit people after they: 1) Reach a certain age and 2) Have had a "real" job with benefits, and 3) Can prove that they can survive without Mommy's and Daddy's "payroll". 4) Have served the disadvantaged in some capacity. Perhaps if people were admitted when they were say 28+ (perhaos an exception for future surgeons), there wouldn't be as many women dropping out of medicine.
I don't really agree with these as well as can you show me the stats for #4 (in the US). I'm not seeing those numbers at all, if anything I'm just seeing women working less, going into women friendly fields or not overall dissatisfied with job advancement, all due to the fact that women still are stereotyped in many fields and due to the responsibility still falling on women to raise their families if their spouse is not a "stay at home" dad. Hence why all those articles I quoted state surgery is seeing a DECREASE in women in the workplace for various reasons. An argument which you have previously made was women need to stay out of surgery to have kids, apparently they are listening!

1: J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2005 Mar;14(2):146-53.Click here to read Links
Career satisfaction and retention of a sample of women physicians who work reduced hours.
Barnett RC, Gareis KC, Carr PL.

Women's Studies Research Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the career satisfaction and factors related to retention of women physicians who work reduced hours and are in dual-earner couples in comparison to their full-time counterparts. METHODS: Survey of a random sample of female physicians between 25 and 50 years of age working within 25 miles of Boston, whose names were obtained from the Board of Registration in Medicine in Massachusetts. Interviewers conducted a 60-minute face-to-face closed-ended interview after interviewees completed a 20-minute mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-one full-time physicians and 47 reduced hours physicians completed the study; the completion rate was 49.5%. The two groups were similar in age, years as a physician, mean household income, number of children, and presence of an infant in the home. Reduced hours physicians in this sample had a different relationship to experiences in the family than full-time physicians. (1) When reduced hours physicians had low marital role quality, there was an associated lower career satisfaction; full-time physicians report high career satisfaction regardless of their marital role quality. (2) When reduced hours physicians had low marital role or parental role quality, there was an associated higher intention to leave their jobs than for full-time physicians; when marital role or parental role quality was high, there was an associated lower intention to leave their jobs than for full-time physicians. (3) When reduced hours physicians perceived that work interfering with family was high, there was an associated greater intention to leave their jobs that was not apparent for full-time physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Women physicians in this sample who worked reduced hours had stronger relationships between family experiences (marital and parental role quality and work interference with family) and professional outcomes than had their full-time counterparts. Both career satisfaction and intention to leave their employment are correlated with the quality of home life for reduced hours physicians.

PMID: 15775732 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


1: Arch Intern Med. 1999 Jul 12;159(13):1417-26.Click here to read Links
Career satisfaction of US women physicians: results from the Women Physicians' Health Study. Society of General Internal Medicine Career Satisfaction Study Group.
Frank E, McMurray JE, Linzer M, Elon L.

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30303-3219, USA.

BACKGROUND: Despite major changes in health care, the prevalence and predictors of career satisfaction have not recently been comprehensively studied in either women or men physicians. METHODS: The Women Physicians' Health Study surveyed a nationally representative random sample (n = 4501 respondents; response rate, 59%) of US women physicians. Using univariate and logistic regression analyses, we examined personal and professional characteristics that were correlated with 3 major outcomes: career satisfaction, desire to become a physician again, and desire to change one's specialty. RESULTS: Women physicians were generally satisfied with their careers (84% usually, almost always, or always satisfied). However, 31% would maybe, probably, or definitely not choose to be a physician again, and 38% would maybe, probably, or definitely prefer to change their specialty. Physician's age, control of the work environment, work stress, and a history of harassment were independent predictors of all 3 outcomes, with younger physicians and those having least work control, most work stress, or having experienced severe harassment reporting the most dissatisfaction. The strongest association (odds ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 7.3-17.5; P<.001) was between work control and career satisfaction. Other significant predictors (P<.01) of outcomes included birthplace, ethnicity, sexual orientation, having children, stress at home, religious fervor, mental health, specialty, practice type, and workload. CONCLUSIONS: Women physicians generally report career satisfaction, but many, if given the choice, would not become a physician again or would choose a different specialty. Correctable factors such as work stress, harassment, and poor control over work environment should be addressed to improve the recruitment and retention of women physicians.

Baby Boomers generally view Gen Xer physicians as less committed to their medical careers. In my personal/professional life, I definitely find this statement to be true. And even though I'm technically a Gen X by about 2 years, I identify more with Baby Boomers.

As a former epidemiologist, I find ANY study including the one I quoted that relies on a significant statistical data, suspect. It's too easy too make numbers support your position. I posted that article in the original post because it jives very well with what I've seen and heard in medicine. Still I say if URM's voiced their "concerns" about medical/academic careers as much as women do in professional settings, all hell would break loose.

"Employee's" age, control of the work environment, work stress, and a history of harassment were independent predictors of all 3 outcomes.........
An extremely important point that gets missed all the time in studies of working women are questions related to whether or not the physicians' MOTHER worked. And I'd also like to see more significant data on the RACE of the respondents (ethnicity isn't always as straight forward). The above quoted statement was almost certainly how my Grandmother must have felt being a Maid for white families in 1920's southern USA and my mother who did the same to put herself through nursing school in 1960's southern USA.

Another point is that since the majority of folks accepted to med school have parents in the highest SES bracket in the US, I'd imagine that a LOT of women don't have one of the most important role models of all for women, Mom, to show them HOW to balance work and career. I'd also like so info on the numbers of children the unsatisfied women have.

An argument which you have previously made was women need to stay out of surgery to have kids, apparently they are listening!Here we go again.:rolleyes: I didn't state that women need to stay out of surgery to have kids.

To be clear, women who expect special treatmemt for their choices need to stay out of medicine period and not just medicine but ANY career that is demanding. The example I posted previously is that a woman who CHOSES to have 2 young kids in the middle of her surgical residenty should NOT expect special treatment. If she had been admitted to med school at 28 it's likely that 1) She would have already had those 2 kids and so would have a MUCH easier time with two kids 10 and 8 in a surgical residency rather than age 2 and 4. 2) Maybe she wouldn't have married another doctor (which obviously makes it easier to quit medicine herself) and instead would have married a Teacher or Engineer. 3) Perhaps she would have decided to have those 2 kids in med school, where the impact on her and her classmates would be greatly decreased versus having them in residency against the backdrop of a ticking clock.

In other words, admitting older people I strongly believes forces people into making better life decisions. If you don't believe me, go check the "unsatisfaction" meter on Oldpremeds. In 5 years of membership, I've NEVER heard ANYONE there complain.

I doubt many women expect special treatment. Perhaps you consider the time taken off near the birth of the child (before or after) special treatment, but in reality this is something that is done by women in all kinds of jobs (now if they got paid for that time off that would be a different story). An example of other people having to pay for your choices I would give is that of a senior ortho resident who chose to participate in a risky activity and ended up breaking his wrist. The program ended up having to alter the schedule since he was unable to scrub for surgeries for an extended period of time. By your logic, those people that participate in certain risky hobbies should likewise be excluded from admission.

I appreciate that you want people to take responsibility for their choices, and not expect others to make sacrifices in order to meet their own needs. I just think that your proposed solution would bar a number of potential physicians without guaranteeing any change in what you perceive as a problem. Also, your proposed contract wouldn't really make sense without a major restructuring of medical education, as well as a major change in public opinion.

I doubt many women expect special treatment. Perhaps you consider the time taken off near the birth of the child (before or after) special treatment, but in reality this is something that is done by women in all kinds of jobs (now if they got paid for that time off that would be a different story). An example of other people having to pay for your choices I would give is that of a senior ortho resident who chose to participate in a risky activity and ended up breaking his wrist. The program ended up having to alter the schedule since he was unable to scrub for surgeries for an extended period of time. By your logic, those people that participate in certain risky hobbies should likewise be excluded from admission.. This entire post is probably the most asinine comment made in this thread. So with that, I'm going to make this my last repsonse to your posts in this thread.:)

I doubt many women expect special treatment. Perhaps you consider the time taken off near the birth of the child (before or after) special treatment, but in reality this is something that is done by women in all kinds of jobs.

Oh it is most definitely special treatment. I am not saying it is unfair or unwarranted but it is special treatment. The fact that every other job also does it is irrelevant.

I tried to find some hard data for the US but came up empty handed. I do know from my family that they have noticed very similar things as the initial article, perhaps not in the same proportion but they have noticed that women tend to leave the profession much earlier than men.

I think that it comes down to a conundrum of pragmatism vs personal rights. If we have a major doctor shortage and women tend to leave the profession early it seems logical to have less women in medical school but how is it fair or legal since not every woman will choose to leave.

Thus far it doesn't seem to be an issue in this country but when/if it does, I really have no idea how they will deal with it.

I don't consider the six weeks off as special treatment because of a couple of things:

Both men and women are authorized this time off in this and other situations (whether to have a child, which is a choice or to care for a sick loved one, which is also a choice)

The time off is unpaid.


Look, if one of the other interns in my program (there are three of us out of four) decided tomorrow that she wanted to get pregnant, and that meant later I would have to take extra call (assuming she didn't do what some other people have done-work until her water breaks, answer floor pages from her hospital room, then return to work shortly after getting out of the hospital), I would be pissed. However, I wouldn't decide that all fertile women are threats to the future of medicine and make efforts to keep them out of school. I would understand that one person may decide to get pregnant, another may decide to care for their dying mother, and another may decide they chose the wrong specialty. All of these would affect my schedule, but I wouldn't expect any of these people to consult me for my approval. I would be pissed because of the extra work, but I wouldn't sit around and whine about the special treatment the government allows in the first two cases, or the weakness of the contract allows in the last.

Now if someone has a crapload of babies and takes a bunch of time off then expects to get promotions and more money as if they had been working the whole time, I would call that special treatment (but I don't think that is happening). If someone leaves the field (permanently or just for a time) I expect they will take a hit in prestige and in finances (at least those I know who did it when called up in the first gulf war experienced this, male and female).

The doctor shortage has more to do with location and specialty of existing physicians, than with actual numbers. The way to fix this is with incentive programs (or by forcing people to work in certain specialties and locations). Merely trying to increase overall number of physicians isn't really going to do anything except bring down the price of cosmetic surgery in LA and other places where there is a doc on every corner, as long as you have the cash.

Interesting topic. When you think about women throughout human history, it has only been 50 or so years out of a record of thousands of years that they have even had much of choice in anything. Less than a fraction of a single percent of the total record.

We went from women never really working to 50% of med school classes being female in literally a blink of an eye. A total reordering of human society in what could be considered milliseconds in relation to the timescale of Western Civ.

Of course there are going to be issues surrounding this like child rearing/birth etc. Somebody has to do it. I wonder if "modern society" is merely a passing phase and one day we will wake up in a government more resembling 1958 America or if the Pandora's box has been opened and we wont ever go back.

Everything is so fragile it seems. Do women ever step back and just say "Wow, wow Im so lucky to be in America in 2007" or has it all become some huge sense of entitlement where they just want it all, and pronto.

Even if this is true, medicine has changed even more in the last 50 years... technology as well. Everything has changed.

I'm not a historian, but I think your wrong. Women played a larger role in MANY societies than they did in 1800-1930's in the United States. Not all societies have been run by men.

Also, I'm pretty sure that women played a larger role in paternally run societies than we give them credit for.


Interesting topic. When you think about women throughout human history, it has only been 50 or so years out of a record of thousands of years that they have even had much of choice in anything. Less than a fraction of a single percent of the total record.

We went from women never really working to 50% of med school classes being female in literally a blink of an eye. A total reordering of human society in what could be considered milliseconds in relation to the timescale of Western Civ.

Of course there are going to be issues surrounding this like child rearing/birth etc. Somebody has to do it. I wonder if "modern society" is merely a passing phase and one day we will wake up in a government more resembling 1958 America or if the Pandora's box has been opened and we wont ever go back.

Everything is so fragile it seems. Do women ever step back and just say "Wow, wow Im so lucky to be in America in 2007" or has it all become some huge sense of entitlement where they just want it all, and pronto.

Even if this is true, medicine has changed even more in the last 50 years... technology as well. Everything has changed.

I'm not a historian, but I think your wrong. Women played a larger role in MANY societies than they did in 1800-1930's in the United States. Not all societies have been run by men.

Also, I'm pretty sure that women played a larger role in paternally run societies than we give them credit for.

Im speaking of generalities. yes there has been scattered exceptions, yes there have been extraordinary women in human history but overall it has been one of extreme servitude, second class status and warlord-like domination by men. Just recently I read something about women being traded for bad debt in the present day Middle East.

I have this feeling that no one appreciates how utterly delicate the balance of society really is. Today we have universal sufferage but tommorrow we could have a military junta and total reordering of society.

the only power we really have is the power some stronger, tougher, rougher guy with a gun is willing to give us. What power is that?

Yes today women are in medicine, tommorrow? I have no clue.

Interesting topic. When you think about women throughout human history, it has only been 50 or so years out of a record of thousands of years that they have even had much of choice in anything. Less than a fraction of a single percent of the total record...................Everything is so fragile it seems. Do women ever step back and just say "Wow, wow Im so lucky to be in America in 2007" or has it all become some huge sense of entitlement where they just want it all, and pronto.

LaDocc brings up some very valid points. However, an important distinction needs to be made about women in America. White women in America have only recently worked outside the home, but this is far from the case for women of other races ie Native American and Black, for example. The overwhelming majority of URM women have ALWAYS had to balance duties outside the home (which seems like an odd way to characterize being a slave) with family duties.

So do I think I'm lucky to be in America in 2007? Hell yeah :banana:, versus being here 1807 where my live would be VERY different than it is now. Hell, even being here in 1907, the year my grandmother was born, would have been no walk in the park for a black woman who dared to aspire to become a physician.

Wow, 1path, did you really need to play the race card?

DPMD, you really think that if my SO was to have a baby and I (male) took 6-8 weeks off people would not be up in arms 'cause I was taking so much time off? Again I am not saying it is unwarranted for a woman to take that time off, but if women can take the time and it is look down upon for men to do the same, then that is special treatment. Also, an unpregnant woman couldn't just say, "hey I think i will take 6-8 weeks off."

Wow, 1path, did you really need to play the race card? ."Since it relates to the topic, working women, yes and I think it's a valid consideration and point. Besides, it's true.
Also, an unpregnant woman couldn't just say, "hey I think i will take 6-8 weeks off."Lemme get this straight. You're a medical student and you don't know that taking 6-8 weeks off after the birth of a child (espeically for a C-section) is for MEDICAL not personal recovery? People take 6-8 weeks off for recovery from other medical issues, why should pregnancy especially for a C-Section, be any different?:confused:

As for the fact that it's looked down upon for men to do the same, a real man wouldn't care what people thought.:cool:

For a different topic: Is it inappropriate IF a member of your resident team becomes preggers and get a massive belly, that other residents can rub it for luck?

Wow, 1path, did you really need to play the race card?

Since it relates to the topic, working women, yes and I think it's a valid consideration and point. Besides, it's true.

Ummm... it was totally off topic. Somehow, whenever you end up on a thread you always turn it to race. We could be talking about how some jackass at a supermarket cut in line and you would chime back w/ "well let me tell you what black women have to go through at the supermarket"

I could tell you about the monstrosities my family (and ethnicity) has had to go through that are much, much worse than anything you could ever come up with but I dont b/c using those struggles as some sort of sales pitch in an online forum cheapens that ordeal.



As for the fact that it's looked down upon for men to do the same, a real man wouldn't care what people thought.:cool:

Sure but when you start getting Sh!t on by your attending or resident b/c you took the times off it goes from caring about what they think to caring about the hell that they put you through.

For a different topic: Is it inappropriate IF a member of your resident team becomes preggers and get a massive belly, that other residents can rub it for luck?

Of course not. It's even better if they intentionally get preggers just so that they can add luck to the residents team. Talk about a team player.

I could tell you about the monstrosities my family (and ethnicity) has had to go through that are much, much worse than anything you could ever come up with but I dont b/c using those struggles as some sort of sales pitch in an online forum cheapens that ordeal. . :sleep: +pity+
Sure but when you start getting Sh!t on by your attending or resident b/c you took the times off it goes from caring about what they think to caring about the hell that they put you through..I serioyusly doubt it. I'm going into Pathology NOT surgery.:rolleyes:Besides, as a BLACK WOMAN, I've learned the art of ONLY drawing positive attention to myself!!!! :laugh:

Now have you talked to anyone about the recup time necessary after a C-section yet?:confused:

:sleep: +pity+
I serioyusly doubt it. I'm going into Pathology NOT surgery.:rolleyes:Besides, as a BLACK WOMAN, I've learned the art of ONLY drawing positive attention to myself!!!! :laugh:

Now have you talked to anyone about the recup time necessary after a C-section yet?:confused:

1Path....is that YOU:
http://www.sea.fi/foto/cleopatrajones.jpg


which button do I push:
http://www.bostonguitar.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/menatone-foxy-brown.jpg

1Path....is that YOU.....which button do I pushLaDoc, I may have my black expoltation films mixed up, but haven't you confused Cleopatra Jones with Foxy Brown?:laugh::laugh:

DPMD, you really think that if my SO was to have a baby and I (male) took 6-8 weeks off people would not be up in arms 'cause I was taking so much time off?

According to law, they would have to let you do it. They do not have to like it though. I kinda get the feeling that there are places that would be up in arms regardless of whether it was the man or the woman taking the time off (like at the place where the person I described earlier who took floor calls from her L+D room was at). There are also places where you could take the time off and the pwers that be wouldn't bat an eye (firsthand account from a guy who did it in a surgical residency, though the pregnancy was complicated so maybe that made it more acceptable). I am not sure, but I think the family medical leave act forbids retaliation for taking the time off, but I am not naive enough to believe that there aren't ways around that.

which button do I push:
http://www.bostonguitar.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/menatone-foxy-brown.jpg


Is there an off button?

Is there an off button?Obviously, the off button only applies to Ob/Gyn lectures/rotations.:laugh:

I think it's great that we live in America where people (male and female) can choose, or not choose, to go to medical school, without the "central government command" dictating where, what, when, and how we choose for our careers.

If we go socialized? Remember HillaryCare? Yes, you'll be a nice round peg in the machinery dictated by the sovereign socialists who govern from on high...

I have nothing but an anecdote to add to this.

I have a classmate at my med school who has already said that she is going to quit medicine -- forever -- once she starts having kids.

As in, for good.

Which begs the question, why did she decide to waste a precious med school slot? Why does she choose to take her medical training, wrap it up in a nice little bundle, and flush it down the toilet?

Does her decision make things better, or worse for the state of health care in this country?

What if she had said this in her med school interview? Does anyone think she would have gotten in if she had been honest? No, of course not. Her spot would have gone to someone who might actually stay in medicine.

The saddest part is that her husband makes at MOST a *third* of her potential earning power as a physician.

She should not have been admitted to med school. She should not have even applied.

She reinforces every negative stereotype about working women, and provides fuel for people like the one linked to by the OP.

Granted, I live in the backwards Midwest where submitting to your husband is the expectation of every woman but still... damn. I was frankly appalled when I heard about her "plans."

I believe this is more a situation of medicine and academia assuming a male model.

Just because women don't always manage to function like penis-less males does not mean that educating them to become physicians is a, "waste of money."

Much of the success of traditional males lies in the willingness of their wives to devote their lives to that of supporting their doctor-husband. The little woman stayed home and reared his brood, *she* was there holding down the fort while he put in his endless hours of residency or practice. Heck, it was likely even she that slaved at some pink collar job to put his ass through medical school.

Women, in general, don't have that well of unpaid help from which to draw, why should women be maligned because we can't always manage to be dickless men?

The only this thread has demonstrated is that most people when they argue about a sex- or race-related issue are arguing about something else. When women hear the question "is training women doctors a waste of money" they're not really answering the question. Instead most of them are acting like people are asking if women should be allowed to train. Then they react histrionically. I mean, this whole bit by Empi is the woman's response to everything. "Not only do we do what men do, but at the same time we're raising your children, shopping for your groceries, cooking your meals, cleaning your toilets, etc etc." Wow, not only are women not underqualified, they're overqualified. And not just for medicine, but every job ever! And if that doesn't work, they'll talk about how tough pregnancy or periods are.

The fact remains that if men take 50% of the household and childcare duties, they're lauded as great guys but women are (in our culture,) *expected* to sholder more than 50% of these duties.

If women weren't historically burdened with unpaid and unrecognized work, the playing field would already be level and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Comma and Snoopy, I read your posts then wondered if I needed a chromosome check.:confused: I think what you said is 1000% true.:thumbup:
If women weren't historically burdened with unpaid and unrecognized work, the playing field would already be level and we wouldn't be having this discussion.This excuse worked well hundred years ago but this is 2007. If a woman makes a poor family choice, like having too many kids in a short period of time for example, then it's HER problem if she then becomes burdened with "unpaid and unrecognized" work for an extended period of time. She should have either married a man that could afford to pay a Nanny/housekeeper/cook, poped a pill, or made him pay her a salary. I did the later and it worked wonders during my short lived time as a SAHM.

ALL women should know that 99.9999999999999999% of men haven't changed since first put on ths planet. You can either bitch and complain about it, or you can work with what you got. Trying to change men from hunter/gatherers into housekeepers/childcare providers is IMHO a terrible idea.

............. don't have that well of unpaid help from which to draw, why should women be maligned because we can't always manage to be dickless men?Why? Because there's a LOT of women making some dumb ***** choices.

The woman that goes to med school then quits after she starts having kids (assuming all are healthy and don't have special needs) is IMHO only a notch above a prostitute at worst, and an educated gold digger at best. Why? Because she obviously only went to med school in the first place to improve her "stock", which in turn makes her more appealing to her fellow male medical school classmates and other "high earning" men.

Now as cold blooded as that sounds, I KNOW some you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

.

ALL women should know that 99.9999999999999999% of men haven't changed since first put on ths planet. You can either bitch and complain about it, or you can work with what you got. Trying to change men from hunter/gatherers into housekeepers/childcare providers is IMHO a terrible idea.

Until this attitude changes, women will have an unequal burden and will continue to be blamed for something that is a general societal problem.

Why? Because there's a LOT of women making some dumb ***** choices.

The woman that goes to med school then quits after she starts having kids (assuming all are healthy and don't have special needs) is IMHO only a notch above a prostitute at worst, and an educated gold digger at best. Why? Because she obviously only went to med school in the first place to improve her "stock", which in turn makes her more appealing to her fellow male medical school classmates and other "high earning" men.

Now as cold blooded as that sounds, I KNOW some you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

That's pretty harsh. I am not particularly pleased with droves of women quitting practice to stay home full time, but what about the men? *They're* able to continue with thir careers most often *because* they have the little woman quietly supporting him. Without her, *he'd* be just as vulnerable. How many men would be able to manage a career in medicine and take care of a household and a couple of kids? It's time to recognize the societal inequity and do something to change it.

Obviously, the off button only applies to Ob/Gyn lectures/rotations.:laugh:

I still haven't figured out how you 'got into" an MD/PhD program and are not actually working on your MD or PhD but rather at the NIH...? Perhaps you shouldn't be the one making academic quips. I'll prempt your response: It's not 'cause you're a black female and has nothing to do with history.

If women weren't historically burdened with unpaid and unrecognized work, the playing field would already be level and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The issue is not that women historically were homemakers; the issue is that many women doctors NOW choose to leave the field very early thereby decreasing supply. And, while it is their right to do so, if we were ever faced with a major Dr shortage, pragmatically it probably would become an issue.

That's pretty harsh. I am not particularly pleased with droves of women quitting practice to stay home full time, but what about the men? *They're* able to continue with thir careers most often *because* they have the little woman quietly supporting him. Without her, *he'd* be just as vulnerable. How many men would be able to manage a career in medicine and take care of a household and a couple of kids? It's time to recognize the societal inequity and do something to change it.


Well, the solution is pretty obvious, isn't it?

Women physicians should not be afraid to step up and start asking that their husbands be the ones to sacrifice their careers by working part-time to take care of the kids, especially if they are in easier or lower-paying fields.

If he's a high school teacher and she's a cardiologist, it's clear to me that the family and the kids would be better served by dad working part-time. Yes, even though he is the one with the penis. A cardiologist's salary would provide for the family a little bit better, even if the cardiologist owns two ovaries, no?

Of course, women like my classmate mentioned above and their husbands are so hung up on traditional gender roles that they make choices ultimately detrimental to themselves and their children, just so the man can "feel like a man" by being the "breadwinner."

You can't put this all on the patriarchy. Yes, women are conditioned to be submissive housewives especially here in the Midwest, but it's ultimately going to have to be women who break the cycle and demand more.

Oh man! Wow. I think women can be so dumb. Why do you do it? Why do you fight about this? If you want to be a doctor, be a doctor. IF you want your husband to do more housework, then do less. Eventually they will get sick of living in a pigsty and they will do it. Why would you go to med school and then drop out? That seems so dumb. Iam happy that i have my kids already, my husband is already used to taking care of them 99% of the time, and Iwill be 29 when i enter med school. There are no what ifs. I know what I want to do, my husband knows what I want to do, my kids know what I want to do - there is no mystery if i will drop my career one day.

Women who enter the field and drop it frustrate me so much. Why did you bother? Why do you ruin the name of female doctors? And why do you give into society's rules of the male and female roles. Think outside the box.

There's still a big disconnect here. Because the women who feel like Empi do view things as "unfair because I have to take care of the kids and practice medicine or sacrifice one or the other because I'm a woman." Which is exactly what a man does with one big difference. You're right that women are often more willing to stay at home or sacrifice their career. But that's not because a man made them do it. I always say, hey, if a woman who is successful and high-earning wants to support me or another man while we stay at home and raise the kids, fine. But let's be honest, most women don't want that man. But they all say they'd be open to being with that guy, they just never actually follow through. In the same way, if a man is with a woman who refuses to give up her work, what do you think he's going to do, beat her until she agrees? No, he just says "OK" and deals with the situation, either not having kids or hiring help. PERIOD.

So unless you are willing to go out with the guy who stays at home then you need to pick one or the other. That's the same as a guy who can't find work in his area and has to move. He can stay there and be unemployed and stubborn or he can move and find work. Likewise, women can sit around complaining about disparate income or they can act like men (in the sense that they don't get pregnant, don't take maternity leave, don't leave the workforce for eighteen years, demanding jobs pay for daycare, etc) and make up the ground. But I'll tell you what won't work: trying to act differently and get paid the same.

Re: this particular issue, if a woman wants to get a medical degree and not use it, she has a perfect right to do that. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a waste of money, which is the actual question being asked. The thread should have ended in one post, were it not for the fact that people are so emotional and crazed about these gender- and race-related questions.

If you want to be a doctor, be a doctor. IF you want your husband to do more housework, then do less. Eventually they will get sick of living in a pigsty and they will do it. .

haha this really works. I do it on my boyfriend now (and we don't even live together). He always starts to clean and do the dishes because I just leave them when I have to much going on. Haha it totally works:)

.....but what about the men? *They're* able to continue with thir careers most often *because* they have the little woman quietly supporting him.What about the men? Some may have a "little woman" at home, but keep in mind that she essentially lives off HIS salary. If she wants to feel equitable, then she needs to do what I did and REQUIRE a salary.

Instate, do a search if you want to know what the deal is. I haven't kept it a secret around here so with a little research you should be able to put it all together although I don't understand why you give a dam. As for academic quips, when I comment on something medical or scientific around here, you can better believe that 99% of the time, I know what the hell I'm talking about. And for the times when I don't, unlike YOU being clueless about the recop necessary after child birth, I'm not afraid to admit it.

.....but what about the men? *They're* able to continue with thir careers most often *because* they have the little woman quietly supporting him.What about the men? Some may have a "little woman" at home, but keep in mind that she essentially lives off HIS salary. If she wants to feel equitable, then she needs to do what I did and REQUIRE a salary.

Instate, do you mind staying on the topic at hand? My CV has nothing directly to do with this discussion. As for academic quips, when I comment on something medical or scientific around here, you can better believe that 99% of the time, I know what the hell I'm talking about. And for the times when I don't, unlike YOU being clueless about the recop necessary after child birth, I'm not afraid to admit it.

Overall, I think this turned out to be a pretty good discussion and I'm happy to see people not giving political correct "happy, happy, joy, joy" responses.

haha this really works. I do it on my boyfriend now (and we don't even live together). He always starts to clean and do the dishes because I just leave them when I have to much going on. Haha it totally works:)

I have news for you. You're being a jerk. The only reason what you do works is because you're essentially going over to his place and making it dirty and then leaving. First of all if you had to live with him, most guys are more tolerant of messiness than women. I guarantee that if you couldn't just walk out of the door and leave for a few days you'd start cleaning before him, if you want to turn it into a "tactic." Second of all that's as inconsiderate as most anything I can imagine because you're deliberately trashing his place in order to make him clean it. I don't understand why some women are so bitter about being in relationships where they try to manipulate it into some passive-aggressive warfare.

To 1path: if you managed to find someone who would pay you to be a mother, congratulations. I can't fault that because if the guy is willing to do it then that's his decision. I just can't imagine that most people (guys or girls) would want to salary their spouse to be a spouse.

I have news for you. You're being a jerk. The only reason what you do works is because you're essentially going over to his place and making it dirty and then leaving. First of all if you had to live with him, most guys are more tolerant of messiness than women. I guarantee that if you couldn't just walk out of the door and leave for a few days you'd start cleaning before him, if you want to turn it into a "tactic." Second of all that's as inconsiderate as most anything I can imagine because you're deliberately trashing his place in order to make him clean it. I don't understand why some women are so bitter about being in relationships where they try to manipulate it into some passive-aggressive warfare.

To 1path: if you managed to find someone who would pay you to be a mother, congratulations. I can't fault that because if the guy is willing to do it then that's his decision. I just can't imagine that most people (guys or girls) would want to salary their spouse to be a spouse.

wtf, you have no idea what you are talking about. It is pretty funny how moronic your reply is. FYI I am the one with my own place. HE stays at MY place. He CLEANS MY PLACE.
Get a grip.

I have news for you. You're being a jerk. The only reason what you do works is because you're essentially going over to his place and making it dirty and then leaving. First of all if you had to live with him, most guys are more tolerant of messiness than women. I guarantee that if you couldn't just walk out of the door and leave for a few days you'd start cleaning before him, if you want to turn it into a "tactic." Second of all that's as inconsiderate as most anything I can imagine because you're deliberately trashing his place in order to make him clean it. I don't understand why some women are so bitter about being in relationships where they try to manipulate it into some passive-aggressive warfare.

To 1path: if you managed to find someone who would pay you to be a mother, congratulations. I can't fault that because if the guy is willing to do it then that's his decision. I just can't imagine that most people (guys or girls) would want to salary their spouse to be a spouse.


haha I still can't get over all of your wrong assumptions and notions that are SO fliiping off base, it's hysterical. never did I say I go to HIS place (which BTW he still lives at his parents), I said HE DID MY DISHES WHEN I LEFT THEM. Yep, that's right. Guys know how to do that stuff too. Oh and your other assumption, that guys are more tolerant to messes?? NOPE. I am a slob and I don't care if something stays there for a week even if I too much going on, him on the other hand, well he gets aggitated and starts cleaning.
I always find it so ridiculous when people feel that they know how every single persons situation or stereotype is correct.
Oh and sometimes, I even tell him to clean stuff. Yep it works, I got it like that:)

oh had to add one more against the usual, he is 4 years younger than me:) Yep.

wtf, you have no idea what you are talking about. It is pretty funny how moronic your reply is. FYI I am the one with my own place. HE stays at MY place. He CLEANS MY PLACE.
Get a grip.

It's interesting how you make a big deal about all my "wrong assumptions." It's irrelevant if it's your place. You essentially posted in order to brag about how you have this way of getting your boyfriend to clean for you. (By the way, you're clearly not telling the truth, either. You said at one point that you're more of a slob than him and can tolerate messes far more. Then you say that you tell him to clean up stuff.) It's sort of pathetic because you think that it's provocative and funny to act like you essentially have a male maid.

I would bet rather heavily that if I posted that I had a girlfriend who I had developed a method to make her clean for me and then said "it totally works!" you and the other hens would get quite agitated. And then if I tried to cover that by saying that oh by the way she's also young and I whip her around and tell her what to do your head would explode. But that's women for you.

haha I still can't get over all of your wrong assumptions and notions that are SO fliiping off base, it's hysterical. never did I say I go to HIS place (which BTW he still lives at his parents), I said HE DID MY DISHES WHEN I LEFT THEM. Yep, that's right. Guys know how to do that stuff too. Oh and your other assumption, that guys are more tolerant to messes?? NOPE. I am a slob and I don't care if something stays there for a week even if I too much going on, him on the other hand, well he gets aggitated and starts cleaning.
I always find it so ridiculous when people feel that they know how every single persons situation or stereotype is correct.
Oh and sometimes, I even tell him to clean stuff. Yep it works, I got it like that:)

oh had to add one more against the usual, he is 4 years younger than me:) Yep.

Awesome guy, defintely a keeper!

Stereotypes are just plain stupid. We try never to succumb to them. My husband.... he cooks, cleans, launders, and loves doing it. He can't wait for me to be a doctor so he can afford to be home full time.
He is also great with our kids. When I am cooking (on the rare occasion) I can't even have my kids near me, but he lets them crack the eggs and mix the dough - i don't know how he does it. IT makes me crazy!

.....

To 1path: if you managed to find someone who would pay you to be a mother, congratulations. I can't fault that because if the guy is willing to do it then that's his decision. I just can't imagine that most people (guys or girls) would want to salary their spouse to be a spouse.Pay me to be a mother? I don't think so.:rolleyes: I don't recall seeing the words maid and cook in the Webster dictionary next to the word mother. And, BTW I was paid to be a chef and cleaning lady, and the last time I checked, that was WORK. So don't get it twisted again, Ok hun? FYI, having a husband is very much like having TWO kids as far as cooking and cleaning is concerned so yeah, my old man had to cough up the dough.:laugh:

Man I don't know what kind of households you guys have/come from. There are NO freebies in mine. Hell, even the cat has a job to keep flying insects out!:laugh:

And Nolejan, you go girl!:thumbup:

And, BTW I was paid to be a chef and cleaning lady, and the last time I checked, that was WORK.

Like I said above, this is the typical female argument when it comes to this area. They say, I'm a chef, a cleaning lady, a chauffer, a day care worker, etc etc. Therefore according to my calculations I do sixty jobs which means I make $10 million/year, so really the guy owes me that much money.

So if that's the case, can the guy fire you if he wants? And hire someone else? And can he tell you to do something when he wants? That, after all, is the definition of "working" in that role. I'm not saying that what you do has no value. Far from it. But let's not go overboard and act like you "are a chef." Come on. That's like saying wives give Tylenol and Band-aids to their sick child so they're all doctors.

My simple point is that I find it all odd because you're all in the mentality of winning some battle with your spouses and boyfriends and congratulating each other for winning. When did it get to that?

Awesome guy, defintely a keeper!

Stereotypes are just plain stupid. We try never to succumb to them. My husband.... he cooks, cleans, launders, and loves doing it. He can't wait for me to be a doctor so he can afford to be home full time.
He is also great with our kids. When I am cooking (on the rare occasion) I can't even have my kids near me, but he lets them crack the eggs and mix the dough - i don't know how he does it. IT makes me crazy!

:) thanks. He really is a good guy. I think he is very used to that stuff at home (his mom cooks and cleans, does anything for anyone) she even makes me stuff:) So I really think he likes things more in order in the house than me. Funny his good friend is a post doc in the lab and his wife is an MD (my bf is a masters student), he is always trying to convince him to stay in science and let me be the doc so they can go to the lab, take care of home stuff, and have time to play video games:laugh: Not that the lab is easy, heck I finished grad school, but it's a lot more flexible
you sound a lot like him and I if we have kids:)

It's interesting how you make a big deal about all my "wrong assumptions." It's irrelevant if it's your place. You essentially posted in order to brag about how you have this way of getting your boyfriend to clean for you. (By the way, you're clearly not telling the truth, either. You said at one point that you're more of a slob than him and can tolerate messes far more. Then you say that you tell him to clean up stuff.) It's sort of pathetic because you think that it's provocative and funny to act like you essentially have a male maid.

I would bet rather heavily that if I posted that I had a girlfriend who I had developed a method to make her clean for me and then said "it totally works!" you and the other hens would get quite agitated. And then if I tried to cover that by saying that oh by the way she's also young and I whip her around and tell her what to do your head would explode. But that's women for you.

Although there has been steady progress, it is still true that women are *expected* to be the caretakers and if a man does even the smallest good deed, he is lauded as such a find. There is a double standard in the expectations of a person, in general, based upon gender. Think of a dinner party or gathering and, chances are, the women instinctively start collecting the dishes and help the hostess clean up. This happens much more frequently than spontaneous clean-up among males. It *does* happen, and is actually happening in my own family (a fairly recent event.)

So, until th playing field is leveled, we "hens," will have our collective feathers in a ruffle.

Although there has been steady progress, it is still true that women are *expected* to be the caretakers and if a man does even the smallest good deed, he is lauded as such a find. There is a double standard in the expectations of a person, in general, based upon gender.

I don't disagree there are differences; that's the funny part. What I think is silly is how women approach the issue, as if being the "caretaker" or "mother" is a dirty word or an insult, like "slave." Seriously, you guys have to let it go. Back in the '90s women would constantly mock and denigrate stay-at-home mothers for "wasting" their potential instead of working. Now women work at jobs and lots of studies show they hate it just as much as men (you think we all love the rat race?). So what's the solution? Apparently to continue thinking that the reason for everything is because men are still holding you down or abusing you or something.

Like I said, if you want perfect equity, then you need to act that way. In other words, like the "penisless man" that you were talking about originally. Not "I get to choose if I want kids," but "I don't have kids period." That's the essence of the issue. Women such as yourself want it all. You want to act like women, get paid and treated like men in the workplace, return to being treated like women in your personal lives, and have the ability to jump in between the two professionally. And you consider that to be reasonable. If you envy men so much, be a man.

Like I said above, this is the typical female argument when it comes to this area. They say, I'm a chef, a cleaning lady, a chauffer, a day care worker, etc etc. Therefore according to my calculations I do sixty jobs which means I make $10 million/year, so really the guy owes me that much money.?I think you have my viewpoint confused.I didn't chauffer my husband nor was I his daycare worker, he didn't pay me for that nor was I paid for doing that for our kids. He paid me because when I made the decision to stay at home, I lost my income. And since normally we have others do those tasks for us, when I took on that responsibility (of my own choosing of course), I needed to be paid just as we would have paid someone else to do it had I been working.

So if you're doing 60 million jobs and not being paid, that's just dumb IMHO. And if you're doing those things for some "guy" and not a spouse/fiance', then that's stupid as hell.

So if that's the case, can the guy fire you if he wants? And hire someone else? And can he tell you to do something when he wants? That, after all, is the definition of "working" in that roleI realized now that this conversation is a bit over your head and that not only have you probably NOT been in a serious relationship, but almost certainly never married. Why don't you sit down and let the grown folks continue to have this conversation.;)
I'm not saying that what you do has no value. Far from it. But let's not go overboard and act like you "are a chef." Come on. That's like saying wives give Tylenol and Band-aids to their sick child so they're all doctors.Just becasue your Momy fed you ramen noodles, spaghetti, and ravoli on a regular basis, don't assume everyo ther mother does the same. I used the term because I've taken a cooking class or 2 and I don't serve dinner, I present it (when I did cook, I don't have much time these days). Thus the term Chef is clearly warrented here.

That's like saying wives give Tylenol and Band-aids to their sick child so they're all doctors. In a sense they are. I've literally saved my duaghter's life twice after a doctors screwed up andif you talk to any involved mother, you'll haer the same thing. However, I think you're confusing the term Wife with Motherhood perhaps because you're one of those Mama's boys who hasn't cut the cord yet. :laugh:
My simple point is that I find it all odd because you're all in the mentality of winning some battle with your spouses and boyfriends and congratulating each other for winning. When did it get to that?I'm congratulating women for refusing to be some dudes doormat. Women who aren't afraid to assert themselves against societies antiquated views on motherhood/career/relationships, SHOULD be given a pat on the back. Or maybe a pat on the *****, NBA style!:D

Women such as yourself want it all. You want to act like women, get paid and treated like men in the workplace, return to being treated like women in your personal lives, and have the ability to jump in between the two professionally. And you consider that to be reasonable. If you envy men so much, be a man.Up until that "be a man" statment, I thought you were a dude. But no man on the planet would tell a woman to "be a man" becasue to many of them don't want us in the playing field to begin with.

No, Imma guess that you're a woman, who probably delayed her own personal ambitions to put a guy through med school/residency for example, and now resents it. Am I right?:confused:

But I am curious, what does it mean to be treated like a man professionally in a field like medicine? The equity in pay I understand which is why anytime I interview for a position, I'm tempted to go in there and say, "just gimme the white dudes starting salary". Fortunately, I've mastered the art of negoting the deal so no worries there!

I don't disagree there are differences; that's the funny part. What I think is silly is how women approach the issue, as if being the "caretaker" or "mother" is a dirty word or an insult, like "slave." Seriously, you guys have to let it go.

No, on the contrary, being nurturing and caretaking should be more highly vaued in our culture.

Like I said, if you want perfect equity, then you need to act that way. In other words, like the "penisless man" that you were talking about originally. Not "I get to choose if I want kids," but "I don't have kids period." That's the essence of the issue. Women such as yourself want it all. You want to act like women, get paid and treated like men in the workplace, return to being treated like women in your personal lives, and have the ability to jump in between the two professionally. And you consider that to be reasonable. If you envy men so much, be a man.

Again, no, the male model shouldn't be held up as the ideal for us to follow. There should be more respect for individual circumstances, if caretaking was shared, people who have family responsilities would be respected and accomodated. If the *men* in medicine also needed to take time off to take care of his baby or elderly parents, this would be accomodated. There would naturally be avenues to allow for part time work, there would be more comprehensive child and elder care solutions for people. Not as many female physicians would leave medicine when they start a family.

Again, no, the male model shouldn't be held up as the ideal for us to follow. There should be more respect for individual circumstances, if caretaking was shared, people who have family responsilities would be respected and accomodated. If the *men* in medicine also needed to take time off to take care of his baby or elderly parents, this would be accomodated.

See this is what I mean. Your whole outlook is that the job accomodates your lifestyle when in reality it's the complete opposite. You act like the job should be giving you time off and so on for your family. In other words like most women you are putting the job as secondary. That's not bad and I have nothing against that but you have to understand that's why the same population of women are always looking at men and asking why they're doing better.

You say that the men could also partake in this new benefit but that's another problem. Your solution is to say, rather than everyone putting the work ahead of their job (like men do now), the men should join with the women and also put their personal life ahead of their job. That's what you aren't seeing. Your solution is to drag everyone down and demand that the job accomodate the new position. I'm sure you think this is reasonable but that's why you're probably going to feel robbed for a long time to come.

See this is what I mean. Your whole outlook is that the job accomodates your lifestyle when in reality it's the complete opposite. You act like the job should be giving you time off and so on for your family. In other words like most women you are putting the job as secondary. That's not bad and I have nothing against that but you have to understand that's why the same population of women are always looking at men and asking why they're doing better.


What I *am* saying is no one with a family (in other words, the majority of people,) are going to be able to be available for work the way a traditional male with a wife can because everyone will be expected to find a balance between work and family. The playing field will be level and threads like this will look meaningless.
You say that the men could also partake in this new benefit but that's another problem. Your solution is to say, rather than everyone putting the work ahead of their job (like men do now), the men should join with the women and also put their personal life ahead of their job. That's what you aren't seeing. Your solution is to drag everyone down and demand that the job accomodate the new position. I'm sure you think this is reasonable but that's why you're probably going to feel robbed for a long time to come.

What I *am* saying is men will not be *able* (or enabled) to put their work ahead of their family to the extent they do today and women will not be expected to sacrifice their careers in order to take care of the needs of her family. *Because* both males and females will be expected to find a *balance* between work and family, both men and women will need to find solutions that work for them their needs will be respected because, in part, they will be the norm.

What I *am* saying is men will not be *able* (or enabled) to put their work ahead of their family to the extent they do today and women will not be expected to sacrifice their careers in order to take care of the needs of her family. *Because* both males and females will be expected to find a *balance* between work and family, both men and women will need to find solutions that work for them their needs will be respected because, in part, they will be the norm.

Empi, with all due respect, this is not very rational.

For a corporate middle manager or maybe for a radiologist, sure, it's ok to make those positions more family-friendly. But how about surgery? They work long hours in residency for a reason: the only way to get good in surgery is through practice. Or would you consent to having a subpar surgeon for your gallbladder removal just so the surgeon could have long maternity/paternity leaves and cushy kid-friendly hours during residency?

Any number of executive positions qualify for this, as well. In sales and finance, it's no secret that the promotion favors the person who puts in the most hours. Same goes for the ad game. And ask someone who makes partner at a good law firm at an early age just how much time they spend with their family.

Chances are, they will not be mentioning the word "flextime."

Shouldn't someone -- of either gender -- be allowed to choose to place work over family, if they want to?

And if so, does it not follow such people will probably get ahead faster in their career than their 40-hour-a-week-max colleagues who are rearing children?

Or are you saying that we should pass laws to prohibit people from working too hard?

When men and women are making those choices equally, it will be a different picture. No, I'm reluctant to have personal decisions legislated, but physicians in Europe are not allowed to work crazy hours, so its being done in European countries. BTW: it could be done more than it's being done, in general. I know a woman who is a pediatrician who is working part time (about 30 hours/week.) because she has a family. She's working in a government run clinic and they're picking up her malpractice costs, and she has no student debt, but it *can* be done.

What I *am* saying is no one with a family (in other words, the majority of people,) are going to be able to be available for work the way a traditional male with a wife can because everyone will be expected to find a balance between work and family. The playing field will be level and threads like this will look meaningless.

We're going around in circles because you keep acting like the playing field is not level. It is level. Like I said, you are absolutely right that women more commonly stay at home. Where you are wrong and also keep refusing to look is that women can have exactly the same situation. Simply marry a man who wants to stay at home. But you don't want that. You want the man to work, too. Then you essentially say that you won't be satisfied until everyone can have both work and family with the job subsidizing that arrangement. Only then will "fairness" have been achieved in your eyes. Like I said, you can have that viewpoint; it's your right. You'll just be very angry for the rest of your life and always talking about how the world is anti-woman.

And may I add that the reason women don't want to work while men stay at home is because they feel that's unfair, too. As if they'd be supporting some lazy slug husband who sits at home while she earns the bacon. But if the situation is reversed, then it's still the man who is the lazy guy because housework is 24/7 and more difficult than a lousy deskjob and etc etc. That's why I scoff when women say they want "equality" because they don't. They want things to be equal when it benefits them and unequal when it benefits them.

And may I add that the reason women don't want to work while men stay at home is because they feel that's unfair, too. As if they'd be supporting some lazy slug husband who sits at home while she earns the bacon. But if the situation is reversed, then it's still the man who is the lazy guy because housework is 24/7 and more difficult than a lousy deskjob and etc etc. That's why I scoff when women say they want "equality" because they don't. They want things to be equal when it benefits them and unequal when it benefits them.

Nope, I'd love it if my husband stayed at home and took care of the kids/house while I was in the workfield. Less cooking, less cleaning, less responsibilities with the kids (i.e. baths, changing diapers, etc). He could do all the things that I currently do with the house, and I would actually get to do LESS because I'm already "employed" (med student right now). Beautiful. Where do I sign up?

How many people really know their spouse when they get married? I sure didn't. I was in love.... everything good about him was fantastic and everything bad about him was "quirky" or "cute". Ha! I'm also guessing most women don't realize how much of the household burden they will bear when they get married. Or, perhaps the hubby shares the burden relatively well until kids come into the picture (my situation).

Just because a boyfriend says they'd be supportive of their future wife's career and would be willing to be SAHD, doesn't mean that it will actually happen that way.

How many people really know their spouse when they get married? I sure didn't.

As cruel as this may sound that's your responsibility isn't it? Of course you're angry that he changed his position, but isn't it true that a wife could do the same? Or are you saying women are always straight-forward with men? Bottom line is that I'm sorry that you married a guy who you don't get along with but that doesn't mean the system is unfair towards women.

The fact of the matter is that you have lots of choices. The only problem is that you have to live with the consequences of those choices. Men have fewer choices NOT TO SAY that men are powerless or discriminated against, but it's true. You can talk all you want but you know that if most women met a guy and asked, "what do you do?" or "what are your goals?" and he said "well I'm hoping to marry a woman who works and supports me so that I can stay at home and raise the children" he would disappear off her radar screen. That's life.

I wouldn't dream of saying that my choices weren't just that and therefore are my responsibility. All I'm saying is that what one thinks they're life will be when they're 21 years old is not actually how it turns out. Unfortunately, 21 years is pretty young to be making these life changing choices.

Again, my choices, my responsbility. I agree, thats life. Whining about it isn't going to change anything. I'm not whining.

I just try to understand how some people (not talking about gender here) have to struggle harder in life to recieve the same results as others do with little struggle. Life is hard, and complicated. People don't fit into a mold, nor should they be discriminated against because of statistical analysis.

Therefore, I think that the gender of an individual, the race of an individual, nor the religion of the individual should give us good reason to draw conclusions about their motivation in medicine and their likelihood to be worthwhile doctors.

As cruel as this may sound that's your responsibility isn't it? Of course you're angry that he changed his position, but isn't it true that a wife could do the same? Or are you saying women are always straight-forward with men? Bottom line is that I'm sorry that you married a guy who you don't get along with but that doesn't mean the system is unfair towards women.

The fact of the matter is that you have lots of choices. The only problem is that you have to live with the consequences of those choices. Men have fewer choices NOT TO SAY that men are powerless or discriminated against, but it's true. You can talk all you want but you know that if most women met a guy and asked, "what do you do?" or "what are your goals?" and he said "well I'm hoping to marry a woman who works and supports me so that I can stay at home and raise the children" he would disappear off her radar screen. That's life.

You can talk all you want but you know that if most women met a guy and asked, "what do you do?" or "what are your goals?" and he said "well I'm hoping to marry a woman who works and supports me so that I can stay at home and raise the children" he would disappear off her radar screen. That's life. The majority of women, especially those educated gold diggers I spoke of eariler don't walk around saying for example " I want to go to med school so I can meet and marry another doctor so I won't have to work" either so bringing this up is a moot point regardless of gender.

I just try to understand how some people (not talking about gender here) have to struggle harder in life to recieve the same results as others do with little struggle. Life is hard, and complicated. People don't fit into a mold, nor should they be discriminated against because of statistical analysis.

Therefore, I think that the gender of an individual, the race of an individual, nor the religion of the individual should give us good reason to draw conclusions about their motivation in medicine and their likelihood to be worthwhile doctors.

First of all I want to say that your attitude of responsibility is admirable and I applaud it. I also agree that we should not draw conclusions about anyone's motivations for medicine or any career. I don't think I ever said that and if I did then it was phrased poorly. I certainly don't think that you should discriminate against someone for example to say, "well you are a woman so I'm not accepting you even though you are qualified." (Although I can also see how, realistically, a residency for example could factor that in if they had been burned in the past. For example I heard from a friend that one residency that had five residents for a certain year had three females quit because they wanted to be stay-at-home mothers. Realistically you can't tell them not to be skittish of taking a woman after that.) All I am saying is that, in answer to the OP question, I can't see how it wouldn't be considered a waste if a woman did get fully trained and then quit. Not that she shouldn't be allowed to do it or we should prevent her, but it's still a waste regardless, right? I'm repeating myself a lot but I want to be sure that everyone understands what I'm saying.

To 1path: Agreed with you, too, that gold-diggers don't announce their intentions. You are correct. But being stay-at-home doesn't equal gold-digger, right? All I mean is that if a man was up-front with his g/f and said, "hey, you make the bread and I'll raise the kids" it would probably not be received as well as if the reverse were proposed. If women want to act like men can stay at home, then they should follow through on their statement. That is all that I mean.

All I am saying is that, in answer to the OP question, I can't see how it wouldn't be considered a waste if a woman did get fully trained and then quit. Not that she shouldn't be allowed to do it or we should prevent her, but it's still a waste regardless, right?

I can agree with that completely.

I'm not sure what can be done about it though.

Probably nothing at all, which is why I said I was puzzled that this thread extended past one post. ;) I assumed it would be "yes" and then thread ended.

What if she got fully trained and managed to find a way of working fewer hours in order to find a balance between work and family? Shouldn't that be another option put in play?

Why one extreme or the other?

What if she got fully trained and managed to find a way of working fewer hours in order to find a balance between work and family? Shouldn't that be another option put in play?

Why one extreme or the other?

But that's already an option. People work fewer hours when the kids arrive all the time in medicine.

The downside is, if you choose to work part-time for whatever reason (and there are many reasons besides kids), you are not going to make as much money, or climb the ladder as rapidly as the woman with the same qualifications who works full time, takes q4 call, and has her husband or nanny do the child-rearing.

I'm not sure how that basic fact of life is even an issue with you.

What IS an issue is whether a medical degree is "wasted" on someone who chooses not to use it because they'd rather raise their kids.

This is because the M.D. degree is a special case. We aren't talking about law or business school. There are a limited number of U.S. M.D. spots a year, strictly regulated by the government. Furthermore, everyone knows there is a critical shortage of healthcare professionals, especially in primary care.

Therefore, one could make the argument that maybe we should ensure these limited, valuable med school slots go to those who will actually benefit society by practicing medicine. Or if nothing else, maybe we could agree that people like my classmate who hog up a med school spot and then not even practice more than a couple years are *actively harming* society by denying admission to someone who would have practiced medicine full-time.

Empi, on the surface you are making a feminist argument but perhaps what you are saying is actually anti-feminist. You are saying that a woman's primary duty is to raise children, and the career comes second. How on earth is that any different than what a Christian fundamentalist would say?

But being stay-at-home doesn't equal gold-digger, right? It does to me if your primary intention in getting married in the first place was to have a man take care of you for the rest of your life or to have so many kids that him leaving you would cost him (It's cheaper to keep her, comes to mind).

Having an education and/or taking an elitist position in life makes no difference as far as who can be called a gold digger is concerned. A spade is a spade no matter who's in the card game.

I said it very early in this thread. If a woman goes to med school and residency then doesn't work in a field related to medicine or quits, she should have to repay with interest, all the money it cost to train her. People talk a lot about why medicine has changed and want to blame insurance companies only, but it seems ironic to me that medicine started to take a downfall at about the same time women started to enter the profession in larger numbers. Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

What if she got fully trained and managed to find a way of working fewer hours in order to find a balance between work and family? Shouldn't that be another option put in play?

Empi, on the surface you are making a feminist argument but perhaps what you are saying is actually anti-feminist. You are saying that a woman's primary duty is to raise children, and the career comes second. How on earth is that any different than what a Christian fundamentalist would say?

You know, Comma, throughout this whole thread you have demonstrated your biases. You keep talking about how you're from the Midwest, where women are expected to be submissive and everything is backwards and apparently the hayseed Christian fundamentalists are beating their wives. Why don't you just move to the coasts where everyone is liberal and enlightened and no bad is ever done? :lol:

To Empi: sure, a woman can balance career and family. Why do you feel that in America that is not allowed? The only problem is that as I have said, you get paid less.

It does to me if your primary intention in getting married in the first place was to have a man take care of you for the rest of your life or to have so many kids that him leaving you would cost him (It's cheaper to keep her, comes to mind).

This is what I don't understand. Are you saying it's OK to be stay at home or not? Whether it's a man or woman staying at home, the spouse is presumably taking care of them for the rest of their lives, right? Are you saying it's only OK to be stay at home for a certain period of time and then if you stay at home too long you become a gold-digger?

I agree with you that some women seem to go to medical school because it basically introduces them to a higher level of people to date, though. Then again, isn't that also true of people who don't go to medical school? For example, I know nurses who basically are just nurses in order to meet doctors and plan to catch one and then quit nursing. That irritates me, too.

Thank goodness that you have not been displaying any biases on this thread, snoopy :rolleyes: Not sure why you have so much anger towards the opposite sex.

If only they realized their true happiness by cooking for you, right? :D

Not sure why you have so much anger towards the opposite sex.

That's a fairly poor defense given that the only things I have said were that everyone should be equal. But if that's the only way to cover your feelings towards Midwesterners and Christians go ahead.

I see you're pretty "active" over in the URM forum as well. Let me take a wild stab in the dark here: you take exception to diversity efforts by colleges, am I right?

lawlz

No you're wrong again. Of course you could always actually read the posts instead of just making a wild guess based on a forum I posted on, but maybe that's asking a little too much from someone who talks about how Midwesterners are wife-beating fundamentalists.

Therefore, one could make the argument that maybe we should ensure these limited, valuable med school slots go to those who will actually benefit society by practicing medicine. Or if nothing else, maybe we could agree that people like my classmate who hog up a med school spot and then not even practice more than a couple years are *actively harming* society by denying admission to someone who would have practiced medicine full-time.

I would agree with this statement. I have serious issues with people going into medical school with the *intention* of quitting when they have children. That, in my opinion, is one extreme. The other extreme is regarding anyone who isn't in a high octaine medical career as wasting the slot in medical school. I wish there was a way to weed out applicants that don't want to actually practice medicine because, as you said, they are not only denying admission to another candidate, they are giving women a bad name.

Empi, on the surface you are making a feminist argument but perhaps what you are saying is actually anti-feminist. You are saying that a woman's primary duty is to raise children, and the career comes second. How on earth is that any different than what a Christian fundamentalist would say?

I am not conveying my thoughts well enough if you think I'm saying this. What I'm saying is, in our imperfect society, women are, by default the ones who get child care imposed upon them unequally. I'm suggesting women are laboring under an unequal burdon to work *and* be the primary caretakers. What I *am* suggesting is to change society in order to displace this obligation more equally between parents. At this time, the status quo is to have women take care of the children while men have been relatively relieved of this duty because it is socially acceptable for men to have domestic wives while women, generally, don't enjoy this luxury. This is changing albeit slowly, I'd like to see the change accelerated.

I would agree with this statement. I have serious issues with people going into medical school with the *intention* of quitting when they have children. That, in my opinion, is one extreme. The other extreme is regarding anyone who isn't in a high octaine medical career as wasting the slot in medical school. I wish there was a way to weed out applicants that don't want to actually practice medicine because, as you said, they are not only denying admission to another candidate, they are giving women a bad name.



I am not conveying my thoughts well enough if you think I'm saying this. What I'm saying is, in our imperfect society, women are, by default the ones who get child care imposed upon them unequally. I'm suggesting women are laboring under an unequal burdon to work *and* be the primary caretakers. What I *am* suggesting is to change society in order to displace this obligation more equally between parents. At this time, the status quo is to have women take care of the children while men have been relatively relieved of this duty because it is socially acceptable for men to have domestic wives while women, generally, don't enjoy this luxury. This is changing albeit slowly, I'd like to see the change accelerated.

:thumbup:totally agree with both points
What bothers me is when people lash out at female physicians (or physicians to be:) when they want kids, even if they have no intention of quitting. Like you, I feel both parents should assume responsibility with each married couple coming up with a plan which works. I definately want one or two kids on day, and I want to be a surgeon. I would never imagine of quitting , because I am going into medicine for a reason. I know it will be tough, but I have absolutely no intention of walking away. I wouldn't be getting myself into this if it wasn't what I wanted to do. Heck I can't wait until I am a surgeon:) :) On another note, I don't like what I am seeing about socialized care. HOWEVER, if the politicians want to be honest with it, and it does come into play, doctors in places like France only work 35 hours per week with 4 weeks vacation. If they want to cut salaries while also cutting hours like this, family life for all docs may not even be in question. But then again everyone in this country seems to want more for less lately, so they probably think doctors should still work three times of that and make the same.

I would definitely want the option of working fewer hours for less money in order to strike a balance between practice and family. I'm not sure if I would want legislated maximum hours that workers in Europe have, but I believe the more choice offered to people, in general, is a good thing.

I also believe that if people are offered some flexability in their work, it will turn out to be a win-win situation. I, personally, would prefer to have a balanced, happy, well-rested doctor who works a 35 hour week, heck, if this was an option, I wonder if those quitter women would rather opt for a position that offers flex time.

I'm also wondering if anyone has done a comparison study of overworked American doctors verses European doctors who enjoy the proverbial 35 hour 4 week vacation lifestyle.

I'm suggesting women are laboring under an unequal burdon to work *and* be the primary caretakers. What I *am* suggesting is to change society in order to displace this obligation more equally between parents.

You can't hear me but I'm screaming right now.

What I *am* suggesting is to change society in order to displace this obligation more equally between parents. Changing society as you describe it, would mean changing some of the basic characteristics that make men men and women women. As a salient heterosexal, I like my DH manly, with a serious "allergy" to anything domestic!:laugh:

1Path,

Are you insinuating that since I like that my husband cooks and takes care of the kids that I am not a heterosexual? You are defining your sexual orientation by gender roles. I prefer dick which is actually more in line with the definition for sexual orientation. All the other stuff might be more of a homophobic fear that you have that people might *think* you are not a heterosexual if you husband isn't *manly*. Get over it.

Lets try to keep the fighting at a minimum gals (and guys).

i quit coffee this week, sorry if I'm a little edgy. Oh yea, I also quit smoking this week. Just got sick of all the crap it was doing to me - even though i only smoked one cigg a day (after my cup of coffee). Oh yea, i also quit drinking in the evenings. everyone thinks I am pregnant since I quit it all at once, but I really just got sick of being a slave to bad things. Now I am eating raw seaweed and aramanth and acting like a bitch.

i quit coffee this week, sorry if I'm a little edgy. Oh yea, I also quit smoking this week. Just got sick of all the crap it was doing to me - even though i only smoked one cigg a day (after my cup of coffee). Oh yea, i also quit drinking in the evenings. everyone thinks I am pregnant since I quit it all at once, but I really just got sick of being a slave to bad things. Now I am eating raw seaweed and aramanth and acting like a bitch.

I quit Mountain Dew and am on a diet as of 6 days ago:luck::luck::luck:. Good luck!

i quit coffee this week, sorry if I'm a little edgy. Oh yea, I also quit smoking this week........acting like a bitch. Yeah, no sh!T you beat me saying that myself.;) nd given your mood, might I suggest that instead of you "getting over it" that you quickly and expeditiously "get on it" if you know what I mean??

Now in usual SDN fashion, I wonder how in the hell you got away with explicity mentioning a man private parts with such a vulgar and "minimizing" term.:rolleyes:

I think I've let this go on for long enough. Since the thread has seemed to spiraled I'm closing. If anyone cares to continue discussing in a professional fashion, please create a new one! :) Thanks!