Dare you to reply!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
RadOncMegatron said:
Ok, you know from all my quotes here that I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT we are all Americans

I think it also extremely fair to note that I have been AGAINST categorization via gender, race, orientation.

Please be charitable and note that I was simply bringing up the point that those who I oppose bring up race all the time as a factor and I was using it to show the flaw of their argument.
Click to expand...

ALL MUST TURN HEAT DOWN! And eat a steaming plate of spicy biryani (lamb optional, especially if tortured) together.
Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
This thread really hurts the credibility of this place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
xrthopeful said:
This thread really hurts the credibility of this place.
[/
Krukenberg said:
I think this thread has run its course and should be closed to make room at the top for fresher content
Click to expand...
QUOTE]
Click to expand...

I highly disagree. It is the only place where one can disagree with and talk about the “diversity, equity, and inclusivity” movement. I welcome any criticism and there have been some here and I think it is valuable. Where else can this topic be discussed in oncology? ASTRO, ASCO, academia? No. Just like many other issues, SDN is the only place this discussion is being had.

Unfortunately, many criticisms here are simply ad hominem or “I don’t like it” just like the quoted statements. Those are not reasons to close this unique thread.

Mind you, this thread was dormant for several months, but again these issues keep coming up so it definitely has not run it’s course here or in society at large.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Mandelin Rain said:
Not our finest effort, that’s for sure
Click to expand...
This thread isn't totally off base, and as ROM stated, these are issues that aren't addressed in the other spaces in our specialty.

Seriously, as a overrepresented minority, I have 0 desire to go work in a rural flyover place having grown up in the suburbs of one of the most rapidly growing states in the nation. I like my bibimbop, Chicken biryani and poke bowls, dammit.

Prior to the CMS bombshell, targeting the types of folks who might want to go back there and work (I.e. The ones that grew up there) makes a lot of sense
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Krukenberg said:
I think this thread has run its course and should be closed to make room at the top for fresher content
Click to expand...

No. It's been pruned from time to time, but this is an acceptable topic of discussion as long as discourse is kept reasonable, regardless of whether twitter agrees or not. If you do not want to participate in discourse on this topic, you are welcome to ignore it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
It’s absolutely an acceptable topic, and it’s responsible to have the debate and push back against the JP/JR/IDW folks who when you dig through and actually use logic, you get “yah, buts” and you get stuttering and then fits and shrieks of “PC”.

None of them addresses the fact that women get called by the first name and their credentials aren’t highlighted. Because when confronted that bias exists, they change the topic and talk about another stupid (and I agree that it’s stupid because it does nothing to fix the problem) diversity in the workplace article.

A kid at CVS last week couldn’t get his meds because the healthcare provider didn’t accept his Puerto Rico state ID. The kid is an American citizen!! How do you not think there are true disparities? How frustrating is this. Before social media, this doesn’t even get reported.

There are biases, the world is imperfect, and we learn from it.

Keep the debate going. It matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
ROFallingDown said:
It’s absolutely an acceptable topic, and it’s responsible to have the debate and push back against the JP/JR/IDW folks who when you dig through and actually use logic, you get “yah, buts” and you get stuttering and then fits and shrieks of “PC”.

None of them addresses the fact that women get called by the first name and their credentials aren’t highlighted. Because when confronted that bias exists, they change the topic and talk about another stupid (and I agree that it’s stupid because it does nothing to fix the problem) diversity in the workplace article.

A kid at CVS last week couldn’t get his meds because the healthcare provider didn’t accept his Puerto Rico state ID. The kid is an American citizen!! How do you not think there are true disparities? How frustrating is this. Before social media, this doesn’t even get reported.

There are biases, the world is imperfect, and we learn from it.

Keep the debate going. It matters.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is not an echo chamber that is full MRA. I'm not even sure what JP/JR/IDW means, which is probably a good thing for my personal mental health.

I agree that addressing sources of implicit bias needs to be done. That JCO article about percentage of women addressed by first name I actually agree with and I would encourage all people to consider if they do that in their daily lives (even if it's outside of introducing presenters).

After some consideration, I am going to prune this post of radoncgrad and medgator's argument, amongst other things. The post is about gender equality/inequality and the virtues of that, and some of their stuff is off-topic to the rest of the post. The stuff about supervision rules has turned into it's own thread and I'm going to remove things considered off-topic from the primary discussion point of the thread.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
A more important debate to me isn't about gender equality (equality of opportunity I wholeheartedly agree with), but rather gender equity. The push from our academic centers has been for gender equity, not equality, meaning we need a 50/50 mix of people who identify as men and women in our specialty. However, this stems from a fundamental principle- men and women are not different biologically or psychologically- that has no basis in science or reasoning. To push for an absolutely equal mix of men and women in a specialty when men and women may not choose the specialty at equal rates makes no sense to me.

It could be that, as time goes on, there will be more women than men in our specialty. Could be the other way around. Either way, I do want to remove any artificial barriers someone of any race/gender/religion/etc may find in medicine. However, to focus on a goal of equal gender representation in any specialty ignores fundamental differences between genders, which have been thoroughly studied and verified in both the biological and social sciences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
ROFallingDown said:
It’s absolutely an acceptable topic, and it’s responsible to have the debate and push back against the JP/JR/IDW folks who when you dig through and actually use logic, you get “yah, buts” and you get stuttering and then fits and shrieks of “PC”.

None of them addresses the fact that women get called by the first name and their credentials aren’t highlighted. Because when confronted that bias exists, they change the topic and talk about another stupid (and I agree that it’s stupid because it does nothing to fix the problem) diversity in the workplace article.

A kid at CVS last week couldn’t get his meds because the healthcare provider didn’t accept his Puerto Rico state ID. The kid is an American citizen!! How do you not think there are true disparities? How frustrating is this. Before social media, this doesn’t even get reported.

There are biases, the world is imperfect, and we learn from it.

Keep the debate going. It matters.
Click to expand...

I think you and I disagree on most things here, but I do think it is important to have the discussion. I've had these discussions in real life with people of differing views and we surprisingly can meet in the middle. For instance, I do think that women should be called by their first name or credentials. We can agree here and to the fact this conversation should happen. I think we all want equality, just have major disagreements on the methods to and endpoints. I am sure we can learn from each other.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I agree it's really stupid to have an end goal of a specific number of any race, any gender, any religion, whatever in any specialty.

If you have 90% men in a field, then yeah, most chairman are going to be men. If you have 50% men in a field, then MAYBE (not for sure, not saying we have a problem) if there are 95-100% male chairmen, MAYBE that's something worth sorting out. MAYBE we will find that there are systemic issues that keep women from getting ahead in the academic world. I don't know that there is. I know that we are starting to get data that shows there may be systemic issues. But, do I think it's worthwhile to ask the question or to have a discussion about it? Yah, man. Women literally weren't allowed to go to medical school and if you look at the class portraits there are only white male faces until after the mid 60s. Not blaming anyone here for this. But, that's the past and history matters.

I will say in my past experience in private practice rad onc, women appear to be treated incredibly fairly. It's a credit to the docs in their 40s and 50s that grew up knowing that women can do everything men can do in medicine. I'm curious if anyone has had a different experience.

And, as far as the modern world, almost every single day is better than the day before for protected classes. I'm not a hysteric about "TRUMP RUINING THE WORLD FOR BLACKS/WOMEN/GAYS". Almost every day is better than the last and I think we have progressed. If you really think it's worse, you should read newspaper articles from the 70s-80s and see how people spoke and acted towards protected classes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
ROFallingDown said:
.

And, as far as the modern world, almost every single day is better than the day before for protected classes. I'm not a hysteric about "TRUMP RUINING THE WORLD FOR BLACKS/WOMEN/GAYS". Almost every day is better than the last and I think we have progressed. If you really think it's worse, you should read newspaper articles from the 70s-80s and see how people spoke and acted towards protected classes.
Click to expand...
Yup. So much has changed the last few decades.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UPMC clown bully chair got away with bullying a female resident. That is a FACT. These bully men must be removed from leadership. We know who you are.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users
thecarbonionangle said:
UPMC clown bully chair got away with bullying a female resident. That is a FACT. These bully men must be removed from leadership. We know who you are.
Click to expand...

It's worth repeating this ad nauseum. UPMC used and bullied a female resident, refused to graduate her as a PGY-5, then tried to tank her career.

Good luck in the match, UPMC.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users
KHE88 said:
It's worth repeating this ad nauseum. UPMC used and bullied a female resident, refused to graduate her as a PGY-5, then tried to tank her career.

Good luck in the match, UPMC.
Click to expand...

where were these so caring women who care about “women who curie” at back then? Where are they now? They are having cocktails with same crooked people because they stand to benefit from current system!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
thecarbonionangle said:
where were these so caring women who care about “women who curie”
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

No doubt busy pumping out practice-changing diversity research papers and crying victim, gunning for that sweet cushy Dean of Inclusion/Diversity/Equality/insert-PC-buzzword-here job where they are only in clinic one day a week treating one site.

Fortunately I know quite a number of extremely competent private practice female docs who can treat circles around them (no pun intended) at any site and bust their butts seeing patients full time, who all think this is a crock of ____ and makes them all look bad.

But KHE88, Why do you hate Diversity???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
imhopeful432 said:
I have an SO with a professional career and I both want/need to leave in a large metropolitan area.

BUT there is nothing wrong with BK or others talking about the need to recruit folks who want to practice in non-metro areas. Those places do need more rad oncs (relative to large metros). I'm for one glad that academic leaders are talking about that and I just hope that translates into the actual people they match/look for during interviews.

At the same time, I also think we need to increase diversity in rad onc (women and URM). Literature is replete with benefits of this in medicine in general, both for innovation/culture of a field/workplace and for patients.

Yes, the above 2 can (will) be in conflict with one another at times, but I do not agree that talking about both of those are virtue signalling that we should shame.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I hate to be on this side of things, but why do "we need" to increase diversity in rad onc. Seriously, what is the need? I think women should be treated more fairly in the workplace (all workplaces) and should be considered for leadership roles. But, I want them to make the right decisions for themselves regarding what specialty to pick. Why do "we need" more URMs in rad onc? If we have more URMs in our field, we are taking away from other fields - this truly is a zero sum game. For a young black person who came from very little and made it through med school, I'd feel guilty steering them towards this field in this era. I think that's harmful. I want them to assess the landscape and make a good decision - something they are capable of doing without me or you putting on a fake smile and telling them everything is going to be alright.

This is virtue signaling. Give me one reason a URM needs to be taken from ortho, rads, ENT, urology, dermatology or any other competitive field and placed into this cesspool of a field where leadership are more narcissistic, shallow, and money-grubbing than your local south Florida radonc that gives 15 fx to a hip met from stage IV SCLC. No thank you. Don't be paternalistic to a group that is independent, strong, and capable of making their own decisions. Good lord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
I do agree that diversity is a good thing. It is not about filling quotas but getting in people with a broad range of life experiences and backgrounds to create a synergistic mesh. The big challenge is that the mechanisms to increase diversity are often times superficial "lip service" to increase numbers and score political points. The real work to increase diversity is much more challenging and less rewarding by societal standards. I'm talking about going into disadvantaged communities early and encouraging kids to go into STEM fields.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Gfunk6 said:
I do agree that diversity is a good thing. It is not about filling quotas but getting in people with a broad range of life experiences and backgrounds to create a synergistic mesh. The big challenge is that the mechanisms to increase diversity are often times superficial "lip service" to increase numbers and score political points. The real work to increase diversity is much more challenging and less rewarding by societal standards. I'm talking about going into disadvantaged communities early and encouraging kids to go into STEM fields.
Click to expand...

REAL diversity is a good thing. Agree 100%.

Request Rejected

radiationoncology.pitt.edu
 
ROFallingDown said:
Gosh, I hate to be on this side of things, but why do "we need" to increase diversity in rad onc. Seriously, what is the need? I think women should be treated more fairly in the workplace (all workplaces) and should be considered for leadership roles. But, I want them to make the right decisions for themselves regarding what specialty to pick. Why do "we need" more URMs in rad onc? If we have more URMs in our field, we are taking away from other fields - this truly is a zero sum game. For a young black person who came from very little and made it through med school, I'd feel guilty steering them towards this field in this era. I think that's harmful. I want them to assess the landscape and make a good decision - something they are capable of doing without me or you putting on a fake smile and telling them everything is going to be alright.

This is virtue signaling. Give me one reason a URM needs to be taken from ortho, rads, ENT, urology, dermatology or any other competitive field and placed into this cesspool of a field where leadership are more narcissistic, shallow, and money-grubbing than your local south Florida radonc that gives 15 fx to a hip met from stage IV SCLC. No thank you. Don't be paternalistic to a group that is independent, strong, and capable of making their own decisions. Good lord.
Click to expand...

I have come to the conclusion that the topic of gender/diversity in RadOnc is like receiving a patient from the community with a palpable cervical node, diagnosed with Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary.

The node is gender and diversity. It's important. It needs to be addressed and managed. If mismanaged, it could kill you.

However, what about the primary site? I get the patient, look in their mouth, I see unilateral swelling in the posterior oropharynx. I name this swelling "the potential oversupply of RadOncs in the current landscape of American Healthcare". I say, "hey, maybe we should work this up, maybe get some more imaging, perhaps a biopsy, what if this is HPV+, maybe we could cure this patient if we do this right".

...and all I hear back is "WHAT ABOUT THE NODE, CAN'T YOU SEE THE NODE, YOU'RE IMAGINING THAT SWELLING BACK THERE EVERYTHING IS FINE".

For the love of God, people in charge of this field...can we biopsy the oropharynx? I know there's a node, stop telling me.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Happy #WomenWhoCurie day to everyone. If many people in rad onc would stop playing the gender victim card, we wouldn't need forced attempts at creating a distinction between sexes such as this day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is diversity like porn? Idk exactly what it is but i know it when i see it. So is UPMC “diverse”? Discuss
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
ROFallingDown said:
Gosh, I hate to be on this side of things, but why do "we need" to increase diversity in rad onc. Seriously, what is the need? I think women should be treated more fairly in the workplace (all workplaces) and should be considered for leadership roles. But, I want them to make the right decisions for themselves regarding what specialty to pick. Why do "we need" more URMs in rad onc? If we have more URMs in our field, we are taking away from other fields - this truly is a zero sum game. For a young black person who came from very little and made it through med school, I'd feel guilty steering them towards this field in this era. I think that's harmful. I want them to assess the landscape and make a good decision - something they are capable of doing without me or you putting on a fake smile and telling them everything is going to be alright.

This is virtue signaling. Give me one reason a URM needs to be taken from ortho, rads, ENT, urology, dermatology or any other competitive field and placed into this cesspool of a field where leadership are more narcissistic, shallow, and money-grubbing than your local south Florida radonc that gives 15 fx to a hip met from stage IV SCLC. No thank you. Don't be paternalistic to a group that is independent, strong, and capable of making their own decisions. Good lord.
Click to expand...

I think the fundamental difference is not so much URM/women vs. non-URM...its whether you think its acceptable to encourage medical students to go into radiation oncology.

I admit that there are issues with the field (residency expansion, geographic restrictions, etc) and I admit our leaders have not done enough to address those. BUT I would still go into the field over ENT, gen surg, IM, etc. Certainly the field is not as attractive as it used to be for a whole host of reasons, but I do not think it is virtue signalling or wrong to encourage URMs/females or anyone else for that matter to go into rad onc.

Can you imagine someone in general surgery saying its fundamentally wrong to encourage females to go into gen surg based on these data: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1903759

We can be honest about the problems in the field without bashing on those who talk about why they like the field or bashing on people who talk about women who curie on twitter
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
imhopeful432 said:
I think the fundamental difference is not so much URM/women vs. non-URM...its whether you think its acceptable to encourage medical students to go into radiation oncology.

I admit that there are issues with the field (residency expansion, geographic restrictions, etc) and I admit our leaders have not done enough to address those. BUT I would still go into the field over ENT, gen surg, IM, etc. Certainly the field is not as attractive as it used to be for a whole host of reasons, but I do not think it is virtue signalling or wrong to encourage URMs/females or anyone else for that matter to go into rad onc.

Can you imagine someone in general surgery saying its fundamentally wrong to encourage females to go into gen surg based on these data: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1903759

We can be honest about the problems in the field without bashing on those who talk about why they like the field or bashing on people who talk about women who curie on twitter
Click to expand...
He didn't say general surgery for a reason...
 
Sure. I agree with it being acceptable.

But, if I care about the plight of those that had been been disadvantaged in the past, I'm not sure that pushing them towards any given field is necessary. The best thing to do for everyone, especially those that are URM/women, is to make sure they have enough information to make good career choices.

To say, and I'm quoting the prior post, that "we need" URM/women in radiation oncology - we need URM/women in all fields. But, you take from Peter to give to Paul. Someone said encouraging STEM development early - that's a good idea. Doing our best to make sure all kids get a good education - that's a good idea. But, when someone gets to the point of choosing a residency - they are 25+ years old, they've lived life, they are independent, thinking beings.

It's a very odd idea, that "we need" any type of people in this field more than we need diversity in any other field. I agree with the sentiment for medicine as a whole, but not for rad onc, specifically. Seems, again, paternalistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
KHE88 said:
:rolleyes:

No doubt busy pumping out practice-changing diversity research papers and crying victim, gunning for that sweet cushy Dean of Inclusion/Diversity/Equality/insert-PC-buzzword-here job where they are only in clinic one day a week treating one site.

Fortunately I know quite a number of extremely competent private practice female docs who can treat circles around them (no pun intended) at any site and bust their butts seeing patients full time, who all think this is a crock of ____ and makes them all look bad.

But KHE88, Why do you hate Diversity???
Click to expand...
With diversity you cannot win see below

@KHE88 I'd better not see you on the authorship of this paper "Mentorship in Radiation Oncology: Role of Gender Diversity in ASTRO Abstract Presenting and Senior Author Dyads on Subsequent High-Impact Publications" https://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(19)33042-1/fulltext


Results: Specifically, FM pairings (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.20-4.05) and MF pairings (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.05-3.84) had higher odds of high-impact publication than MM pairings, whereas there was no significant difference in this outcome between FF and MM pairings.

Negative on this very poor study but NEGATIVE nonetheless. Male / Male authorships did not do better... This is a Red Journal quality paper? Just guess who is the senior author. Guess before you look!

Even a more glaring lose / lose situation:
Huff Po.PNG



This Tweet From a 'Huffington Post' Editor Shows the Problem With White Feminism articles notes:

"What Twitter users noticed immediately was not how many women appeared in the photo, but how few people of color seemed to be included: "

Now enter MSKCC rad onc #womenwhocurie debacle:



MSKCC.jpg

Win on gender diversity, but there is only one non white non Asian on this list - so are they racist? Really can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
ROFallingDown said:
In JCO: Black and hispanic kiddos do worse in terms of survival after treatment for Hodgkin Disease.

Multivariable analysis:
5YOS - 1.88 x higher risk of death

5YOS post relapse survival rate
White - 90%
Black - 66%
Hispanic - 80%

Biology of disease? Disparity in care? Poor parenting? DARE YOU TO REPLY :)
Click to expand...

I think these differences are legit and could be a combination of biology and disparities in care. My family was not able to afford a lot of healthcare while I was younger, so I would not be surprised if those with less financial means would have poor outcomes. I wouldn't go onto to say anything more sinister such as institutional racism or unconscious bias. It is definitely a question worthy of study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
“Indians are the highest-earning group by ancestry in the U.S., with a median household income of more than $110,000 in 2016. The average second-generation Indian who grew up on the edge of poverty will tend to reach the upper-middle class. "That level of upward mobility is simply amazing," writes columnist Noah Smith. Why do Indian immigrants do so well? "Even in comparison with other high-achieving groups, Indian-Americans stand out in terms of education level and dominance in high-skilled occupations," Smith continues. But it’s not just scientific and technical fields in which Indian-Americans excel. They are increasingly a force in politics and law. A growing number of politicians, top political staffers and judges are of Indian descent. In business, too, Indians are rocketing to the top -- two of the U.S.’s five biggest companies, Alphabet and Microsoft have Indian-born chief executive officers. Though historical comparisons are hard, Smith says Indians seem on track to be the most accomplished minority group in U.S. history. “

Indians seem to be doing quite well in rad onc too. Are people mad? Plenty of Biriyani for everyone folks! (Tortured lamb or not, your pick?)

bloom.bg

U.S. Needs More Skilled Immigrants From Two Countries

Some of the most ambitious and talented people from India and China want to be Americans.
bloom.bg bloom.bg
 
Last edited:
thecarbonionangle said:
“Indians are the highest-earning group by ancestry in the U.S., with a median household income of more than $110,000 in 2016. The average second-generation Indian who grew up on the edge of poverty will tend to reach the upper-middle class. "That level of upward mobility is simply amazing," writes columnist Noah Smith. Why do Indian immigrants do so well? "Even in comparison with other high-achieving groups, Indian-Americans stand out in terms of education level and dominance in high-skilled occupations," Smith continues. But it’s not just scientific and technical fields in which Indian-Americans excel. They are increasingly a force in politics and law. A growing number of politicians, top political staffers and judges are of Indian descent. In business, too, Indians are rocketing to the top -- two of the U.S.’s five biggest companies, Alphabet and Microsoft have Indian-born chief executive officers. Though historical comparisons are hard, Smith says Indians seem on track to be the most accomplished minority group in U.S. history. “

Indians seem to be doing quite well in rad onc too. Are people mad? Plenty of Biriyani for everyone folks! (Tortured lamb or not, your pick?)

bloom.bg

U.S. Needs More Skilled Immigrants From Two Countries

Some of the most ambitious and talented people from India and China want to be Americans.
bloom.bg bloom.bg
Click to expand...

India itself is probably considered a ****hole by the current administration though....

Good points nonetheless

www.economist.com

How Indians triumphed in America

America needs to consider what it might lose if it curbs the influx of clever, hard-working, entrepreneurial Indian immigrants
www.economist.com www.economist.com
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
medgator said:
India itself is probably considered a ****hole by the current administration though....

Good points nonetheless

www.economist.com

How Indians triumphed in America

America needs to consider what it might lose if it curbs the influx of clever, hard-working, entrepreneurial Indian immigrants
www.economist.com www.economist.com
Click to expand...

I
medgator said:
India itself is probably considered a ****hole by the current administration though....

Good points nonetheless

www.economist.com

How Indians triumphed in America

America needs to consider what it might lose if it curbs the influx of clever, hard-working, entrepreneurial Indian immigrants
www.economist.com www.economist.com
Click to expand...

what’s ironic about indian docs calling for diversity because specialty spots are zero sum game. over represented minorities like Indians and Asians would have to be reduced to make way for under represented minorities. Either these Indian women who are pushing for diversity are self hating or they missapropriated their darker skin tone into believing they share a common history of oppression.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
RickyScott said:
I

what’s ironic about indian docs calling for diversity because specialty spots are zero sum game. over represented minorities like Indians and Asians would have to be reduced to make way for under represented minorities. Either these Indian women who are pushing for diversity are self hating or they missapropriated their darker skin tone into believing they share a common history of oppression.
Click to expand...
radoncdoc16 said:
And here is the fearless leaders response. Bravo. No empathy whatsoever in her messages

Click to expand...


Ahh... what do we expect from those who have nothing to lose who sit on high in the ivory tower complaining about injustice writing NEJM articles in their "oppression" looking down at us?

It's easy to talk with no skin in the game and to make up stories that run counter to reality. Yes, there are problems, but make believe stories end up, as I have been saying, hurting real flesh and blood people. We have to talk about these issues truthfully to come up with real solutions to these real problems. All the yelling about women's this and that by Jagsi et al looking for fake problems made them totally oblivious to these real issues that ended hurting a real woman. Yes, there are problems women uniquely have and we need to address those, not pretend it is mostly because of racism and misogyny.

I will re-iterate here what @residentwhocuries_2019 noted

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

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

So here I am - a living embodiment of why radonc is a terrible field for many women (or men with geographically restricted spouses - I know there are plenty of you out there too :)). But when I go to some of these women's meetings I don't hear a peep about it. All we talk about is things that don't matter. I've never met anyone in power in this field who was the least bit sexist to me, or who didn't go above and beyond to mentor me (male or female). People call me Dr. X - and when they don't, it doesn't harm me in the least, and I'm not at all offended by it. BUT I WANT A JOB. And the idea that all I need is a good pep talk and a hashtag is, to be frank, demeaning and a bit sexist. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
RickyScott said:
I

what’s ironic about indian docs calling for diversity because specialty spots are zero sum game. over represented minorities like Indians and Asians would have to be reduced to make way for under represented minorities. Either these Indian women who are pushing for diversity are self hating or they missapropriated their darker skin tone into believing they share a common history of oppression.
Click to expand...

Or they believe in some principles other than self-interest? Radical idea, I know

(and I don't know about "these" Indian women if you're referring to specific individuals. People and life are complicated though, and it's possible to prioritize self-interest in a lot of things without it being truly the only thing)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
AlreadyRegretThis said:
Or they believe in some principles other than self-interest? Radical idea, I know

(and I don't know about "these" Indian women if you're referring to specific individuals. People and life are complicated though, and it's possible to prioritize self-interest in a lot of things without it being truly the only thing)
Click to expand...

thank you for coming here. This place needs you.
 
AlreadyRegretThis said:
Or they believe in some principles other than self-interest? Radical idea, I know

(and I don't know about "these" Indian women if you're referring to specific individuals. People and life are complicated though, and it's possible to prioritize self-interest in a lot of things without it being truly the only thing)
Click to expand...

They are actually prioritizing self interest.

They are kicking the ladder out from under them -using the issue to advance their carereer. they are not resigning from their jobs and giving it to a minority nor did they volunteer to give up their match spot to a minority.

2) what they are advocating- limiting the entry of Indians and Asians in radonc to increase number of disadvantaged minorities is immoral.

3) if they actually cared about the well-being of women and minorities, they would caution them against entering an oversupplied field with the worst geographical restrictions in medicine and where the said women and minorities are at increased likelihood to end up in exploited positions.

4) lastly, many of the departments I have worked in, women were at least 1/2 residents and faculty.
Many of new prominent chairman positions have gone to woman-harvard Stanford ,UCSF, Columbia, pmh? etc, and almost none to the white male (not aware of any recent)

white Anglo Saxon (wasp) male make up like 10-20% of residents and faculty (anecdotally even less of new residents) despite being the predominant plurality in america

5) Lastly most important- A rising tide floats all boats. It is blatantly obvious this field is sick-rhe plight of women and minorities like our own is pegged to the health of the field. The only way to improve the situation for women and minorities is to fix the field!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lol at WASP males being ten percent.

Get a grip, lad!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
RickyScott said:
So then from your point of view it must be Very problematic that none of the recent chairs in the last 5 years went tp wasp male since they make up so much of the departments?
Click to expand...

Lol this is a made up fact
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I have no idea. But Harvard - Dana farber Stanford mdacc, Columbia, UCSF, pmh, all seen to have different chairs.
 
Just off the top of my head, Rush, UT San Antonio, Beaumont, Penn have had white male chair hires over last 5 years or so to present
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread
Top