Illegal interview question?

[jl lin]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Did I say the question was relevant or that it should have been asked?

I agree with you that there are many other pertinent questions that could have been asked instead. I said from the words alone, one can't conclude that it is sexist. Read Goro's post for further explanation.

I read it. I disagree and I know EEOC lawyers--they have specialized only in that for years--who would disagree. It's best to steer clear of these kinds of questions. Just keep pertinent to MS and becoming-a-physician questions. It's the safest thing to do legally, and all schools, if smart, will enforce it. It's just not worth the aggravation, and IT'S NOT RELEVANT. 🙂

 

[bumblebee611]

No not right, very not right. An action (hiring or admissions decision etc) is not inherently racist or sexist, it is only such when motivated by an actor's racist or sexist beliefs. This is why court cases look for bias in a long history of lopsided hiring/admission, to find evidence of such motivations, and why the question posed to juries is "in this instance" is their sexism/racism at play, not some general "is a woman being turned down for a job sexist"

Actually, efle, you are simply wrong. Discriminatory intent and motivation, including a history of lopsidedness, is one way of showing actionable discrimination. But it isn't the only way. Read up on disparate impact versus discriminatory intent. Showing disparate impact discrimination is not "some general 'is a woman being turned down for a job sexist.'" It is a difficult showing to make and it is often dependent on showing a larger pattern and history, but it's not about proving discriminatory intent in those cases. I practiced employment law for many years and I was actually on the employer's side. The best way to avoid liability is to not discriminate.

 

[efle]

There are objective standards, at least under law, and they aren't just "whatever makes one feel victimized." Nor are they dependent in all cases on whether the accused discriminator meant any harm or intended to be sexist or racist.

I challenge you to find a single case in which someone was convicted of accidental racism/sexism. Proving the motivation is the entire ****ing point of such cases.

 

[jl lin]

There are objective standards, at least under law, and they aren't just "whatever makes one feel victimized." Nor are they dependent in all cases on whether the accused discriminator meant any harm or intended to be sexist or racist.

Yes but also think of the potential bad press--the whole boatload of needless stress and aggravation. Why would any school want to deal with this? Just stick to the important points and pertinent questions.

I can't think of one valid reason to bring these kinds of questions up during interview--and the reason why is this: they are not pertinent to the job of med school training or becoming a physician. Replace the OP's original question with asking a gay person the same kind of questions. That's a grenade. Just disarm and stick to the important stuff about MS and becoming a doctor. I'm LOL b/c I can't believe this is such a tough thing to do.

And really this is not at all about political correctness. That is a different animal in terms of the legalities of potential EEOC violations.

 

[bumblebee611]

To be fair, we're not in EEOC land here. Maybe Title IX and the Department of Education guidance, though.

This is incredibly true: you don't have to be a male to be a misogynist. Anyway, I won't judge the interviewer's motives; but I think she was not well-informed about how to steer clear of question that could be construed as an EEOC-ish violation. Doesn't matter that it's school and not a job. Just don't go there and you're fine, period.

 

[bumblebee611]

The term isn't "convicted," it's found liable. Or, in many cases, settled in some way that suggests that some wrongdoing did occur--perhaps the employer is forced to change a hiring practice, pay a large sum out, or both. Do you know the difference between a civil and a criminal case? Again, try looking up disparate impact discrimination. I'm sure with the recent Supreme Court decision in the housing discrimination context you can find plenty of discussion of this well-established principle. Yes, it's been eroded by our right-wing judiciary over the years but the 2015 housing discrimination case definitively reaffirmed the doctrine's vitality.

I challenge you to find a single case in which someone was convicted of accidental racism/sexism. Proving the motivation is the entire ****ing point of such cases.

 

[efle]

Actually, efle, you are simply wrong. Discriminatory intent and motivation, including a history of lopsidedness, is one way of showing actionable discrimination. But it isn't the only way. Read up on disparate impact versus discriminatory intent. Showing disparate impact discrimination is not "some general 'is a woman being turned down for a job sexist.'" It is a difficult showing to make and it is often dependent on showing a larger pattern and history, but it's not about proving discriminatory intent in those cases. I practiced employment law for many years and I was actually on the employer's side. The best way to avoid liability is to not discriminate.

You're moving the goalposts. Saying there needs to be more diversity in hiring is not the same as a case in which it is concluded there was racism/sexism at play without demonstrating racist/sexist beliefs in the actor. The law acts against motivations, not perceptions.

 

[jl lin]

To be fair, we're not in EEOC land here. Maybe Title IX and the Department of Education guidance, though.

EEOC standards actually do apply to schools. It doesn't matter that they are not interviewing for a job. It falls here:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination

The Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section enforces several federal civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, language, sex, religion, and disability in schools and colleges.


The same standards have been upheld for schools. I am not saying that the OP should have her EEOC attorney file in federal court on Monday. I am saying stick to those same standards b/c you can be held to them. And the questions given in the OP were not at all pertinent or necessary. Avoid trouble---even if it's bad press. It's not worth it.

 

[jl lin]

The term isn't "convicted," it's found liable. Or, in many cases, settled in some way that suggests that some wrongdoing did occur--perhaps the employer is forced to change a hiring practice, pay a large sum out, or both. Do you know the difference between a civil and a criminal case? Again, try looking up disparate impact discrimination. I'm sure with the recent Supreme Court decision in the housing discrimination context you can find plenty of discussion of this well-established principle. Yes, it's been eroded by our right-wing judiciary over the years but the 2015 housing discrimination case definitively reaffirmed the doctrine's vitality.

Confused, I don't know to whom you are responding. 🙂 Uh yes. Civil law is different from criminal law. ???

 

[Chelsea FC]

B/c it can lead to legal issues. Here:


http://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination

I dont see how those question discriminate against her on the basis of her gender .. just like if a black interviewer asked if I thought about the problems I would face etc .. I do not see how it was discriminatory I am not saying it isnt but I cant see it and I am open for someone to show it to me in a respectable manner

 

[Chelsea FC]

Maybe something else was said to piss the OP off that was sexist or the tone used or whatever but in such cases you have to be careful how you label people,,... Again I am not saying no way this is sexist I am just saying I dont see it .. But I concede maybe I am looking through my male privileged glasses

 

[Stagg737]

I won't tell you what to do, but no. It was not appropriate. The reality is certain schools get away with these kinds of things b/c they are betting on the applicant applying elsewhere and not wanting it to effect their chances of acceptance somewhere.

I am amazed that people don't see the trouble with questions like these. What is hard about discussing pertinent questions? That question was not relevant. Whether it was meant to get a knee-jerk reaction out of you or not, it's not appropriate. It would not be considered appropriate in the work world upon interview. Flying just under the radar is not a good idea. It's bad practice and it could cause some trouble. So the interviewer, regardless if male or female, should have avoided such questions.

When entering a field in which minor breaches of professionalism or even the perception of unprofessionalism may warrant a lawsuit, do not find it appropriate to test how professionally and eloquently a potential candidate could deal with an adverse or even flat out ridiculous situation?

Haha, well I'm an English/Political Economy major so.

This explains so much...

Maybe something else was said to piss the OP off that was sexist or the tone used or whatever but in such cases you have to be careful how you label people,,... Again I am not saying no way this is sexist I am just saying I dont see it .. But I concede maybe I am looking through my male privileged glasses

Intent/tone of the question and what would be viewed as a 'correct' response is what I feel would make a question like this inappropriate. If it was spoken in a caring tone, or even simply a professional and non-aggressive tone, I do not see a problem with it (other than the 'responsibilities of a woman' phrase). As we don't know the exact context, we can only offer speculations. Since OP said in her original description that she felt like she was being attacked, it may have very well been inappropriate. However, it's also possible that she just misunderstood the intent of the tone and question and became easily offended. Either way, unless the interviewer explicitly asked her something like, "How do you think being a woman is going to hinder your career as a doctor?" I don't think this specific case is worth reporting.

 

[Danbo1957]

I wonder how the OP will handle real sexism...

 

[Xenith]

I hope someone learned something here after 11 pages...

 

[Axes]

What a non-answer

I don't really think this was a non-answer. My understanding is that we just don't share the opinion that the status quo is oppressive towards certain groups of people, eg women. You're the one who brought the law into the intent vs impact discussion; I'm not talking about suing people. I was just talking about what's appropriate and what's not, on an interpersonal level, ie the impact of one's actions matter a lot more than the intentions behind them. My understanding is that your view is, if someone's case won't stand up to legal scrutiny, it's not worth hearing out someone who feels discriminated against. The problem with that is that, when asked their motivation, essentially every person accused of sexism is going to say that they did not have sexist intent. Usually, the way of proving that their motivation is sexist, and not innocuous, is by showing a pattern of similar behavior. Thus it is a problem when people say "look at the glass half full," and tell people not to make a mountain out of the "molehills" women may face throughout their career, because it makes it difficult to ever show that pattern of similar behavior, and therefore allows sexism to go unchecked. And by reinforcing a status quo where people who make complaints aren't listened to unless there's already a list of prior complaints against the offender, you incentivize all victims to keep quiet and acquiesce.

The main thing is that you keep using systems/institutions like the law and business standards to prove your point. You keep saying that "this is how it's done." Dude, we all know how it's done. There's still a lot of sexism everywhere, as everyone in this thread has said, so maybe there are flaws in the system? That's the whole point of reforming the status quo. I have neither the education nor the experience to give you a specific outline as to how these systems should be reformed, but a good place to start would be an emphasis on victim testimony and an acknowledgement of social/institutional stratification.

 

[Goro]

Not at all. While the interviewer I think phrased the question inexpertly, there are plenty of instances where you ask a candidate something, and they either have the experience, or they don't. It's not lethal at my osteopathic school for a candidate to have never shadowed a DO, for example.

Another might be "I see you shadowed Dr X, who's a Primary Care doc. Have you shadowed a ___ " [fill in blank with any specialty]

If I were the Admissions dean at the school in question, I would have asked the interviewer to simply rephrase the question, or at least explain what they were trying to get at, and then ask the interviewee's opinion.

And believe me, we ask plenty of questions where not saying or not having done something will be lethal. I have several designed to ferret out controls freaks, for example, and others to weed out people who have very patriarchal attitudes. And no, I'm not sharing.

QUOTE="NotASerialKiller, post: 16837705, member: 703602"]I agree with most of this, except that from my perspective if an interviewer asks you if you've ever shadowed a doctor from whatever demographic you belong to, doesn't that mean that you'll do worse in the interview by saying no? I have to think that by asking that question they're hoping that you did, and not having done this will therefore worsen your chances at getting in by making you seem ill-prepared in a way that could never happen to a white male. That's what I meant by saying that they "have" to; if you belong to a potentially disadvantaged group you either shadow someone from that group as expected or lose points. That's why I think an interviewer shouldn't be asking that question, not because I find it fundamentally offensive or horribly sexist.[/QUOTE]

 

[Axes]

When entering a field in which minor breaches of professionalism or even the perception of unprofessionalism may warrant a lawsuit, do not find it appropriate to test how professionally and eloquently a potential candidate could deal with an adverse or even flat out ridiculous situation?

Not if it's a situation that applies to them because of their gender, and wouldn't be applicable to other genders.

This explains so much...

At my school political econ is basically just a poli sci/econ dual major with some policy based classes.

 

[Gastrapathy]

Yikes, premeds!

Too many posts to read them all. My personal favorite was the OP demonstrating her newfound maturity by apologizing and then insulting me again in the same post.

And WS's post. She nailed it in one sentence. I'm a little scared that I'll have to hire one of you someday.

 

[efle]

I don't really think this was a non-answer. My understanding is that we just don't share the opinion that the status quo is oppressive towards certain groups of people, eg women. You're the one who brought the law into the intent vs impact discussion; I'm not talking about suing people. I was just talking about what's appropriate and what's not, on an interpersonal level, ie the impact of one's actions matter a lot more than the intentions behind them. My understanding is that your view is, if someone's case won't stand up to legal scrutiny, it's not worth hearing out someone who feels discriminated against. The problem with that is that, when asked their motivation, essentially every person accused of sexism is going to say that they did not have sexist intent. Usually, the way of proving that their motivation is sexist, and not innocuous, is by showing a pattern of similar behavior. Thus it is a problem when people say "look at the glass half full," and tell people not to make a mountain out of the "molehills" women may face throughout their career, because it makes it difficult to ever show that pattern of similar behavior, and therefore allows sexism to go unchecked. And by reinforcing a status quo where people who make complaints aren't listened to unless there's already a list of prior complaints against the offender, you incentivize all victims to keep quiet and acquiesce.

The other thing is that you keep using systems/institutions like the law and business standards to prove your point. You keep saying that "this is how it's done." Dude, we all know how it's done. There's still a lot of sexism everywhere, as everyone in this thread has said, so maybe there are flaws in the system? That's the whole point of reforming the status quo. I have neither the education nor the experience to give you a specific outline as to how these systems should be reformed, but a good place to start would be an emphasis on victim testimony and an acknowledgement of social/institutional stratification.

I don't deny there are problems in the current status quo. I refer to things like hate crime not as an appeal to authority or tradition but as a well known example that illustrates what my view really is: that it is the motive behind an action which qualifies something as racist/sexist, not anything inherent in the action, and certainly not how it is perceived. Things you've said such as intent is irrelevant and only members of the minority can identify if something is racist/sexist are very wrong, regardless of status quo.

 

[jl lin]

I dont see how those question discriminate against her on the basis of her gender .. just like if a black interviewer asked if I thought about the problems I would face etc .. I do not see how it was discriminatory I am not saying it isnt but I cant see it and I am open for someone to show it to me in a respectable manner

Try asking that in the workplace. I dare you. Legally how it can be defended is based on the same principles as EEOC. Didn't say you had to agree. What I am saying is that it can potentially put you in a bad place, and since it really isn't at all relevant or necessary, and neither should it be--at least from the interviewer's stance, don't go there. It's potentially gonna save you from trouble to just not go there. It's just arrogance to fight for the right to go there--especially when it's so unnecessary. You don't need to, so why risk it? This is common sense EO stuff.

 

[jl lin]

When entering a field in which minor breaches of professionalism or even the perception of unprofessionalism may warrant a lawsuit, do not find it appropriate to test how professionally and eloquently a potential candidate could deal with an adverse or even flat out ridiculous situation?
.

No. It's unnecessary and not worth it. You're playing too close to the line, and there is no genuine need to do so. Period. This has become sort of hilarious. Just don't wade it those waters AND YOU WILL BE FINE. Why? What is the need to go there? Yes we live in a litigious world. Get over it, and just be careful. Don't listen, and don't be surprised if you have to deal with something you could have avoided. You can think it's nonsensical all you want-- until you are on the receiving end of an administrative or legal kerfuffle. (Had to use that word; b/c I like it.) 😀

 

[jl lin]

I dont see how those question discriminate against her on the basis of her gender .. just like if a black interviewer asked if I thought about the problems I would face etc .. I do not see how it was discriminatory I am not saying it isnt but I cant see it and I am open for someone to show it to me in a respectable manner

It doesn't matter how you or anyone else sees it. It matters how it can be presented legally--at the very least unnecessary administrative stress or bad press. People are confusing what they think something is versus how it can be presented. In order to be wise, it's important to make such distinctions.

I can think of numerous legal departments that would see the need for some insight here.

 

[Chelsea FC]

Try asking that in the workplace. I dare you. Legally how it can be defended is based on the same principles as EEOC. Didn't say you had to agree. What I am saying is that it can potentially put you in a bad place, and since it really isn't at all relevant or necessary, and neither should it be--at least from the interviewer's stance, don't go there. It's potentially gonna save you from trouble to just not go there. It's just arrogance to fight for the right to go there--especially when it's so unnecessary. You don't need to, so why risk it? This is common sense EO stuff.

Again you are saying dont go there But I dont see anything wrong with it.I dont understand the legal mobo jumbo so please talk in plain terms . If the interviewer honestly and sincerely wants to know how OP will handle such issues then I dont think its wrong

 

[twistedroses]

Yikes, premeds!

Too many posts to read them all. My personal favorite was the OP demonstrating her newfound maturity by apologizing and then insulting me again in the same post.

And WS's post. She nailed it in one sentence. I'm a little scared that I'll have to hire one of you someday.

Why is this forum still active...

Anyways, reread the post and then please tell me at which part you felt insulted by. I was simply stating how I personally felt about your remark and that it had nothing to do with you being an attending physician. I am not about putting someone on a pedestal just because they are "higher up". We are all human and prone to error.

Frankly, I'm a bit scared to be hired by someone like you one day. Let the hate comments commence again.

 

[Chelsea FC]

Ok lets not continue @jl lin we are talking in two different languages ...

 

[Chelsea FC]

Why is this forum still active...

Anyways, reread the post and then please tell me at which part you felt insulted by. I was simply stating how I personally felt about your remark and that it had nothing to do with you being an attending physician. I am not about putting someone on a pedestal just because they are "higher up". We are all human and prone to error.

Frankly, I'm a bit scared to be hired by someone like you one day. Let the hate comments commence again.

You started a thread you dont dictate when it ends .. You are free to voice your concerns without any hate but you have to understand that these physicians take time out of their busy life to help us out and the way you attacked him was downright wrong regardless who he was .. You apologize and that was good but the same you can judge the physician because of what he said we can judge the horrible and childish way you attacked him ..

 

[Stagg737]

Not if it's a situation that applies to them because of their gender, and wouldn't be applicable to other genders.

At my school political econ is basically just a poli sci/econ dual major with some policy based classes.

The italicized only further supports my statement of "that explains a lot". You fit the stereotype of PC idealist to a T.

No. It's unnecessary and not worth it. You're playing too close to the line, and there is no genuine need to do so. Period. This has become sort of hilarious. Just don't wade it those waters AND YOU WILL BE FINE. Why? What is the need to go there? Yes we live in a litigious world. Get over it, and just be careful. Don't listen, and don't be surprised if you have to deal with something you could have avoided. You can think it's nonsensical all you want-- until you are on the receiving end of an administrative or legal kerfuffle. (Had to use that word; b/c I like it.) 😀

So what you're saying is that it's not necessary or worth it to look for candidates who are capable of handling volatile situations in which they may be attacked on a personal professionally? I'm not talking about sexism/discrimination from co-workers here. I'm talking about interacting with patients here, you don't always have the option to 'not wade those waters'. Some people handle these patients extremely professionally, while some should have been weeded out long ago during school or an interview. You'd probably be shocked by how many times I've seen a nurse or tech give a patient the finger or say "F*** you" to their face. So while you may not find it necessary, I think not considering professionalism is a foolish way of looking at it.

 

[Stagg737]

Why is this forum still active...

Anyways, reread the post and then please tell me at which part you felt insulted by. I was simply stating how I personally felt about your remark and that it had nothing to do with you being an attending physician. I am not about putting someone on a pedestal just because they are "higher up". We are all human and prone to error.

Frankly, I'm a bit scared to be hired by someone like you one day. Let the hate comments commence again.

Frankly, if you think gastrapathy has been anything but civil during this thread, you're in for a very rude awakening when you start doing rounds...

Not trying to be a jerk, just giving a heads up.

 

[jl lin]

Ok lets not continue @jl lin we are talking in two different languages ...

OK, but opinions are everywhere, and that's fine. The language that does matter is the law, and how a misunderstanding or an intention or unintentional, irrelevant detour can get you in hot water. So the law is what trumps here--and/or how the law can be used to cause a reaction--which, for the billionth time was needless and could have been prevented. So what? People don't listen to the aphorisms of Ben Franklin or the wisdom of the ages anymore? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

 

[Chelsea FC]

OK, but opinions are everywhere, and that's fine. The language that does matter is the law, and how a misunderstanding or an intention or unintentional, irrelevant detour can get you in hot water. So the law is what trumps here--and/or how the law can be used to cause a reaction--which, for the billionth time was needless and could have been prevented. So what? People don't listen to the aphorisms of Ben Franklin or the wisdom of the ages anymore? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

LOL thats what I was talking about you are talking law and I dont think its wrong from face value. Hence I said lets agree to disagree

 

[Gastrapathy]

You stated that you plan to "mitigate"my attitude while characterizing me as someone who encourages female submission. You also said you weren't "primarily" intending to insult with your statement that you hope I never have children. Right under your "sincere apology."

You've endured sexism throughout your life while graduating from a "top tier"university. You can't even see how ridiculous that sounds and now you're headed off to fix medicine. I feel bad for the future dean, program director and partners who will have to deal with your trumped up outrage over and over again. You are going to wear them out.

 

[efle]

Are you saying top universities don't have students that have been exposed to sexism racism homophobia etc?

 

[Axes]

The italicized only further supports my statement of "that explains a lot". You fit the stereotype of PC idealist to a T.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pc2respect/mgkjmkalaomdhdldmfbgpjdpmpdnhiio?hl=en

You've endured sexism throughout your life while graduating from a "top tier"university. You can't even see how ridiculous that sounds

This statement is the one that sounds ridiculous, not hers.

 

[Chelsea FC]

Are you saying top universities don't have students that have been exposed to sexism racism homophobia etc?

LOL @efle you guys are just looking for a debate he is trying to point out how the OP came across as slightly snobby .. The statues of her university should have no bearing on if she faced sexism or not but she felt that she needed to slip that in their .. When I first read it I picked up on it but decided not to comment

 

[twistedroses]

Frankly, if you think gastrapathy has been anything but civil during this thread, you're in for a very rude awakening when you start doing rounds...

Not trying to be a jerk, just giving a heads up.

I find it amusing that people assume this is my first experience with sexism, that I have been just hiding under a rock for the past 21 years of my life. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how discrete or blatant it may be, whether it was subconscious or overt -- sexism on any level and degree is wrong and needs to be addressed. The fact that people are still unable to see what was implied by his statements just shows that how much progress needs to be made in society.

Not angry in any sense, not outraged, not about to start a war. Just defending my thoughts.

 

[efle]

LOL @efle you guys are just looking for a debate he is trying to point out how the OP came across as slightly snobby .. The statues of her university should have no bearing on if she faced sexism or not but she felt that she needed to slip that in their .. When I first read it I picked up on it but decided not to comment

I dunno sounds more to me like "lol you're spoiled and haven't really faced sexism" rather than calling out a humblebrag

 

[jl lin]

The italicized only further supports my statement of "that explains a lot". You fit the stereotype of PC idealist to a T.



So what you're saying is that it's not necessary or worth it to look for candidates who are capable of handling volatile situations in which they may be attacked on a personal professionally? I'm not talking about sexism/discrimination from co-workers here. I'm talking about interacting with patients here, you don't always have the option to 'not wade those waters'. Some people handle these patients extremely professionally, while some should have been weeded out long ago during school or an interview. You'd probably be shocked by how many times I've seen a nurse or tech give a patient the finger or say "F*** you" to their face. So while you may not find it necessary, I think not considering professionalism is a foolish way of looking at it.

LOL. A flare of the dramatic. No it's unnecessary. I will add, however unrelated, that I've been in direct health care in exhaustively busy places for a long time, and I have never witnessed any nurse give a patient the finger or say F*** you to their face. Never. And you can bet your last $c note, if it was witnessed or even a complaint by the patient was made, there would be a lot of paperwork flying and yes, I have to say it again, more administrative kerfuffle, and a suspension or worse. I am not saying it can't happen. I am saying I have worked a long time in inner city university centers and specialty centers, and while I have seen patients using such language on nurses and docs or just whoever walks by, I haven't witnessed it the other way around. I don't know. Maybe I have just worked in some awesome places. 🙂 In general it wouldn't be tolerated; or maybe people where I have worked just liked keeping their jobs.

But I will attempt to demonstrate: By your logic then, apply the same questions given to OP, as I have suggested more that once, to a gay person in such an interview situation. What do you see when you do that?

And for that matter of dramatics, why not get someone on the panel to break out in loud, abusive profanity to "test" the interviewee. LOL It's ridiculous. That kind of thinking is just, what was the not so old idol, "trippin," as in "you be trippin." There are much better approaches and questions without going down that slippery path.

 

[efle]

sexism on any level and degree is equally wrong

Nooooooooooo

 

[Chelsea FC]

I dunno sounds more to me like "lol you're spoiled and haven't really faced sexism" rather than calling out a humblebrag

No thats not what he was getting at its that she made it look like because she graduated from a top university that exempt her from facing sexism and if that not what he was saying this is a perfect example where a sentence can easily be viewed two ways and one shouldn't jump to conclusions

 

[Xenith]

OP you asked what insulted Gastrapathy then insulted him again a few sentences later. Sexism is wrong. Period. However, pointing out scenarios or inquiring about sexism is not. Nor is advice on how to be professional while disagreeing with someone.

 

[twistedroses]

LOL @efle you guys are just looking for a debate he is trying to point out how the OP came across as slightly snobby .. The statues of her university should have no bearing on if she faced sexism or not but she felt that she needed to slip that in their .. When I first read it I picked up on it but decided not to comment

By mentioning I go to a top tier university, suddenly I am snobby? Did I in any way state or imply that I am better than any one else for having gone there? That by graduating from a top university means I should not be facing sexism? No, I am just stating one of my personal experiences with sexism among many. Though in retrospect, I should have thought about a safer example so that people would not jump to such illogical conclusions.

 

[Chelsea FC]

I find it amusing that people assume this is my first experience with sexism, that I have been just hiding under a rock for the past 21 years of my life. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how discrete or blatant it may be, whether it was unconscious or overt -- sexism on any level and degree is equally wrong and needs to be addressed. The fact that people are still unable to see what was implied by his statements just shows that how much progress needs to be made in terms of society.

Not angry in any sense, not outraged, not about to start a war. Just defending my thoughts.

No body is saying sexism isn''t wrong we are just saying we dont see this as being sexist. I do sympathize that you felt uncomfortable with the question and my line of thinking is that if you had such a reaction then that means that their maybe been something wrong in the way the question was asked ... But from your original post I dont see it .. But the fact that people disagree with you dont mean you should condemn them or hurl insults, you could have used this opportunity to have a strong intellectual discussion to show us were we are wrong. I am the first to admit I might not be aware of these issues because I dont face them on a daily basis but the way you carry yourself on this thread made any chance of such conversation dead hence why people started to question how you would behave in the professional setting,...

 

[Chelsea FC]

By mentioning I go to a top tier university, suddenly I am snobby? Did I in any way state or imply that I am better than any one else for having gone there? That by graduating from a top university means I should not be facing sexism? No, I am just stating one of my personal experiences with sexism among many. Though in retrospect, I should have thought about a safer example so that people would not jump to such illogical conclusions.

Why is the conclusion illogical ??? What purpose is the stature of the institution you went to have on sexism ??? It did come across as snobby

 

[jl lin]

I find it amusing that people assume this is my first experience with sexism, that I have been just hiding under a rock for the past 21 years of my life. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how discrete or blatant it may be, whether it was unconscious or overt -- sexism on any level and degree is equally wrong and needs to be addressed. The fact that people are still unable to see what was implied by his statements just shows that how much progress needs to be made in terms of society.

Not angry in any sense, not outraged, not about to start a war. Just defending my thoughts.

I will tell you that some folks here think that sexism is dead--even if they have been so blessed to be a woman in a male-dominated profession. Some will also believe that porn is harmless and does not objectify people--women, men, children. While many don't feel that way, there are those that do. Sexism isn't dead, just as racism isn't, and that's just a reality. It's unfair and stupid, but what are you gonna do? SDN has it's pluses and minuses, but it's not the end all, be all on all things either.

You have to do what you think is right. As I said, I feel, while the questions weren't traumatizing, as some assume they should be in order to be dubbed as legally troublesome or problematic, they were unnecessary, irrelevant, and came too close to that invisible line of which we must be aware.

Yes the fact is gender questions such as those, as for any other protected status that has questions like those, should be avoided, unless there is some compelling and somehow related piece from the interviewee's life story that she or he brings up. If they bring it up, the interviewers still have to tread cautiously, but now it's more open game--b/c no legally offensive assumptions can as easily be made, necessarily.

You are not a bad person for bringing this up as a topic of discussion. While I am a pretty conservative person, I still recognize that things aren't quite as "squared away" as people think they are. I think in medicine, which in the US is still a white, male dominated profession, those that want to get ahead don't want to rock the boat such that it causes waves around them.

I personally think the world is imperfect, and thus fairness is a tough thing to achieve, let alone maintain; but yes. When such issues need to be addressed, they need to be addressed.

And I try to keep in mind that this is the Internet. People communicate in ways they would not necessarily communicate if they were directly in front of you. Although in RL I have seen some high-schoolish eye-to-eye, "high-fives" that people use nonverbally in order to feel validated somehow. But it's more so online. Ah, the allure of anonymity. 🙂 Good luck to you.

 

[efle]

I will tell you that some folks here think that sexism is dead--even if they have been so blessed to be a woman in a once male-dominated profession. They will also believe that porn is harmless and does not objectify people--women, men, children. While many don't feel that way, there are those that do. Sexism isn't dead, just as racism isn't, and that's just a reality. It's unfair and silly, but what are you gonna do? SDN has it's pluses and minuses, but it's not the end all, be all on all things either.

You have to do what you think is right. As I said, I feel, while the questions weren't traumatizing, as some assume they should be in order to be dubbed as legally troublesome or problematic, they were unnecessary, irrelevant and came too close to that invisible line of which we must be aware.

Yes the fact is gender questions such as those, like as for any other protected status and questions like those, should be avoided, unless there is some compelling and somehow related piece from the interviewee's life story that she or he brings up. If they bring it up, the interviewers still have to tread cautiously, but now it's more open game--b/c no legally offensive assumptions can as easily be made, necessarily.

You are not a bad person for bringing this up as a topic of discussion. While I am a pretty conservative person, I still recognize that things aren't quite as "squared away" as people think they are. I think in medicine, which in the US is still a white, male dominated profession, those that want to get ahead don't want to rock the boat such that it causes waves around them.

I personally think the world is imperfect, and thus fairness is a tough thing to maintain; but yes. When such issues need to be addressed, they need to be addressed.

And I try to keep in mind that this is the Internet. People communicate in ways they would not necessarily communicate if they were directly in front of you. Although in RL I have seen some high-schoolish eye-to-eye, "high-fives" that people use nonverbally in order to feel validated somehow. But it's more so online. Ah, the allure of anonymity. 🙂 Good luck to you.

What the duck kind of porn is objectifying CHILDREN???

 

[Axes]

What the duck kind of porn is objectifying CHILDREN???

Paging Mr. Fogle, Mr. Fogle

 

[Stagg737]

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pc2respect/mgkjmkalaomdhdldmfbgpjdpmpdnhiio?hl=en

This statement is the one that sounds ridiculous, not hers.

LOL, calling something what it is does not make it disrespectful, and being PC and sugar-coating everything is the quickest way to get nothing done. Feel free to get off your high horse and join us in reality anytime.

I find it amusing that people assume this is my first experience with sexism, that I have been just hiding under a rock for the past 21 years of my life. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how discrete or blatant it may be, whether it was unconscious or overt -- sexism on any level and degree is equally wrong and needs to be addressed. The fact that people are still unable to see what was implied by his statements just shows that how much progress needs to be made in terms of society.

Not angry in any sense, not outraged, not about to start a war. Just defending my thoughts.

I was referring to the initial post he made giving examples of questions and the posts before your little temper tantrum. Maybe I missed some of his posts, but the initial ones (and questions he gave as examples), were not sexist, as was pointed out by more than one adcom/attending. Some of whom were also women. And I wasn't addressing just the 'sexism' aspect. Residents and attendings will, at times, tear you down for the smallest reason. Miss a pimp question they ask? There goes your LOR. Forget to log something? Better hope it wasn't major. I find the number of people that are being 'outraged' by a simple question very strange, and to be honest I've met very few people in my entire life that would be so sensitive about this situation...

LOL. A flare of the dramatic. No it's unnecessary. I will add, however unrelated, that I've been in direct health care in exhaustively busy places for a long time, and I have never witnessed any nurse give a patient the finger or say F*** you to their face. Never. And you can best your last $c note, if it was witnessed or even a complaint by the patient was made, there were be a lot of paperwork flying and yes, I have to say it again, more administrative kerfuffle, and a suspension or worse. I am not saying it can't happen. I am saying I have worked a long time in inner city university centers and specialty centers, and while I have seen patients using such language on nurses and docs or just whoever walks by, I haven't witnessed it the other way around. I don't know. Maybe I have just worked in some awesome places. 🙂 In general it wouldn't be tolerated; or maybe people where I have worked just liked keeping their jobs.

But I will attempt to demonstrate: By your logic then, apply the same questions given to OP, as I have suggested more that once, to a gay person in such an interview situation. What do you see when you do that?

And for that matter of dramatics, why not get someone on the panel to break out in loud, abusive profanity to "test" the interviewee. LOL It's ridiculous. That kind of thinking is just, what was the not so old idol, "trippin," as in "you be trippin." There are much better approaches and questions without going down that slippery path.

Once again, our experiences in healthcare are vastly different. Of the 4 ERs I worked/volunteered in, at least one nurse/tech in each either said the phrase or gave the finger, and altogether I've seen it happen more times than I can count on my fingers. As far as I know, there were consequences to that behavior, and more than one of those individuals were not at that job a few days/weeks later. Doesn't change the fact that it happened, and likely could have been screened for relatively easily.

As for the bolded, I would not have an issue with it assuming 2 things: 1. That the question is not meant as a personal attack/questioning of their sexual orientation, but rather a method to try and understand how they would react to adversity (which given the fact that they're gay, I'm sure I could think of a dozen other ways to ask that question, but that's besides the point). 2. The intent of the question is not used to judge their character beyond professionalism and that the interviewee understands that if they don't have an answer or that if they don't feel comfortable answering, that it will not be held against them. I do have a problem with the '1 right answer' idea or using the question as a means to question their capabilities as a physician. It's the same idea as asking someone how they feel about abortion or the ACA. The purpose is to see if they have considered the subject and have a well thought out answer which views the issue from different perspectives. Not if they can give the "correct" answer. As other such as Goro or Gastrapathy have said, while the question wasn't worded as well as it could have (or probably should have) been, there may have been no mal-intent behind it. If that's the case, then I see no problem with that type of question.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with your last paragraph. I'll assume you're saying it's a dangerous line of questioning which could lead to worse things, in which case I'd advise you to simply consider the single question at face value and attempt to avoid the slippery slope fallacy.

OP you asked what insulted Gastrapathy then insulted him again a few sentences later. Sexism is wrong. Period. However, pointing out scenarios or inquiring about sexism is not. Nor is advice on how to be professional while disagreeing with someone.

You use far too much logic for the pre-med forums. What are you doing here?

 

[jl lin]

You stated that you plan to "mitigate"my attitude while characterizing me as someone who encourages female submission. You also said you weren't "primarily" intending to insult with your statement that you hope I never have children. Right under your "sincere apology."

You've endured sexism throughout your life while graduating from a "top tier"university. You can't even see how ridiculous that sounds and now you're headed off to fix medicine. I feel bad for the future dean, program director and partners who will have to deal with your trumped up outrage over and over again. You are going to wear them out.

Sorry. This sounds a bit extreme. Sigh.

 

[Gastrapathy]

The other way the OP and her ilk lose is that she won't get the best out of her male attendings. You can bet that we would have a never behind closed doors arms length relationship. Because anything else would be too risky due to her propensity to find offense. I have to protect my own job first.

I put my hands on a female fellows shoulders last week to position her correctly for a procedure. She benefited from that ( ercp is about millimeters and she just wasn't quite right) and appreciated it. I do that to male fellows to. My mentor used to talk about "using me to cannulate as he moved me around. Id coach the OP from across the room.

 

[jl lin]

As for the bolded, I would not have an issue with it assuming 2 things: 1. That the question is not meant as a personal attack/questioning of their sexual orientation, but rather a method to try and understand how they would react to adversity (which given the fact that they're gay, I'm sure I could think of a dozen other ways to ask that question, but that's besides the point). 2. The intent of the question is not used to judge their character beyond professionalism and that the interviewee understands that if they don't have an answer or that if they don't feel comfortable answering, that it will not be held against them. I do have a problem with the '1 right answer' idea or using the question as a means to question their capabilities as a physician. It's the same idea as asking someone how they feel about abortion or the ACA. The purpose is to see if they have considered the subject and have a well thought out answer which views the issue from different perspectives. Not if they can give the "correct" answer. As other such as Goro or Gastrapathy have said, while the question wasn't worded as well as it could have (or probably should have) been, there may have been no mal-intent behind it. If that's the case, then I see no problem with that type of question.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with your last paragraph. I'll assume you're saying it's a dangerous line of questioning which could lead to worse things, in which case I'd advise you to simply consider the single question at face value and attempt to avoid the slippery slope fallacy.

You use far too much logic for the pre-med forums. What are you doing here?

I am thinking you haven't been close to any slippery slopes, but once you see them, you know they are real. This is especially true for the person whose butt is sliding down one. I've interviewed plenty of people. I'll just say, "A word to the wise should be sufficient,"otherwise bring a surfboard.

We aren't talking about character evaluation. We are talking about stepping too close to a line that doesn't need to be broached. It's pointless, unnecessary, and potentially dangerous.

Whatever. Happy sliding. 😉