Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
if you can point out like 2-3 instances of sexism (now racism apparently) in that paper, ill consider your point
Last edited:
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
OK, kids....thoughts?
Started by Goro
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
if you can point out like 2-3 instances of sexism (now racism apparently) in that paper, ill consider your point
Yeah that's why I say undertones, like specifically mentioning bikinis. Of course it's theoretically possible all of the "provocative pictures" were shirtless men or something but I'm not really buying that. And I fully admit I'm making broad assumptions about the author here but I don't feel too bad about that because I'm not some malcontent who made fake Facebook accounts to get creepy data to support his weird article about how young people are bad.
D
deleted480308
Yeah that mainly says that if someone is dressed in revealing clothes they aren’t perceived as professional, because those aren’t clothes for professional work. I would propose neither are cargo shorts and tshirts.It's pretty well studied, here's a random article of the literally hundreds on the topic if you want to be spoon fed
The (Female) Graduate: Choice and Consequences of Women’s Clothing - PMC
This research investigates how female students choose their graduation outfit and how clothing affects observers’ judgments. In Study 1, we manipulated the students’ graduation outfit so as to look professional or sexy. Female peers, adults, and ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
the abstract doesn’t do a good job of describing a major problem
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Also what kind of operation is their IRB running here?
Frequency aside, when men wear tight clothing/bro tanks etc. virtually nobody is up in arms. The same can't be said for similarly revealing clothing in women
If you're making the argument that the amount of skin shown should be the only measure lol, and that men show less in general, then women should be free to be photographed in a shirt without a bra just as men do... but that would be seen as "unprofessional" as well...... In reality a lot of whether something is revealing is culturally mediated
Last edited:
D
deleted480308
I don’t think anyone should care at work what you wore to the beach this weekend either way, but I think it’s intellectually dishonest to claim men and women’s fashion share the same propensity to be revealing. It’s not true
I just said that I'm not going to word search the article for you. And that's exactly my point about dogwhistle anyways - if you don't see it, then it's not directed at you. So maybe take the public reactions of hundreds of female professionals as an indication that they felt discriminated against by this article.
And read MadJack's article/look up your own if you want more evidence.
It's pretty well studied, here's a random article of the literally hundreds on the topic if you want to be spoon fed
The (Female) Graduate: Choice and Consequences of Women’s Clothing - PMC
This research investigates how female students choose their graduation outfit and how clothing affects observers’ judgments. In Study 1, we manipulated the students’ graduation outfit so as to look professional or sexy. Female peers, adults, and ...
so basically you’re saying:
this article is sexist, but I’m not going to read it first
lol you literally can’t point out 1 specific thing about the paper that indicates sexism
Sure, but I don't see where the frequency of this had been the focus on the conversation - it shouldn't matter much either way.
I mean yeah if thousands of highly educated professionals are calling it sexist it's easy to be inclined to believe them.
I read it. I just don't want to spend all evening trying to teach somebody that doesn't want to be taught.
I think the people who should be apologizing are the hypersensitive authors who can't chill enough to realize that doctors have their own lives.
Why do you care? Live and let live.
D
deleted480308
Because it wa claimed the women were judged more often for dressing provacatively, which implies that men and women dress equally so but women are incorrectly judged more for it.
I don’t think it matters how you dress off hours but found the implications dishonest
I do want to be taught, yet you still haven’t pointed out a single phrase, sentence, paragraph, or word that supports your point. Instead, you claimed that because some ppl on twitter got mad about the paper, then the paper must be sexist
the only thing they do that could be considered sexist that I found is mentioning the word bikini 1 time (please please correct me if I’m wrong about this)
In using that word, they:
1) precondition that with the word “provocative”
2) specifically used the phrase “bikini/swimwear”
I don’t think using the word bikini in this context is sexist, especially when it’s literally “bikini/swimwear” and preconditioned with the word provocative, indicating that not all bikini pics are provocative. I presume you think the use of the word bikini here is a sign of the oppressive patriarchy and that the authors are deeply biased against females showing skin
If the paper described jacked males wearing revealing bro tanks and used the word “bro tank”, I wouldn’t be offended by that. It’s true. Pictures of jacked dudes in bro tanks are unprofessional and revealing, just like provacative bikini pictures are But I presume there are not enough pics like this
Last edited:
D
deleted480308
The paper was garbage, but what percentage of people posting about it do you think actually read it?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yeah they definitely talked about both men and women. It’s still gross and really creepy regardless of the sex.
Highly educated people say all kinds of things. Doesn’t mean you should just automatically believe them without reading it for yourself if you’re capable of understanding it (which I assume you are).
That's fair, though I felt some of the quotes and the core recommendation were enough to take issue with
Yeah I mean with this study you could take issue with it just from the abstract. I just don’t know if calling people sexist without really seeing what they wrote is the best idea.
They are.
See above. There are certain sensitivities when it comes to things like women's dress. Let's face it, women have been criticized and villianized for how they dress since the beginning of time. In some cultures, women are still beaten or even killed (honor killings) for not covering every inch of skin on their bodies. Right here in the US, how often has a rape discussion turned into "what was she wearing?" How often are discussions about women leaders turned into commentary on what they wear? While Trump is giving COVID discussions, Facebook posts and online forums discussed Dr. Birx's scarves and whether or not they're flattering on her. Nothing about Fauci's dorky suits (I like Fauci so settle down). How often during Presidential elections/debates, are the women criticized for what they wear or their hair or their makeup? How often are men in speedos called a hunk while women in skimpy bikinis or equally revealing outfits are called sluts? Why are men praised for body building competitions while women are looked down upon for bikini contests? Perhaps women are sick of the double-standard and regardless of a line or two about men, perhaps it strikes a different nerve for women. It isn't up to men to tell them they don't get to be offended.
That's why i hate the stupid societal expectations on what women should wear. The fact that a garbage and horrifyingly sexist paper got published (and thus with proud approval from reviewers and editor) shows very deep problems in medical and scientific community.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I didn’t say women shouldn’t be offended so I’m not even going to address that.
What I said is that the authors addressed both men and women, and in fact looked at more men than women (68% of the surgeons they looked at were men) and found no differences across sex in number of “unprofessional” photos (although hilariously one of the authors had a bathing suit pic on his Facebook apparently). So while the paper is offensive, it doesn’t appear that they were being sexist since they addressed men and women equally and didn’t hold any sort of different standard for the males vs the females.
And again just to point out that the second author was female. I mean it’s possible for a woman to be sexist, but like every post about this article calls the authors a bunch of sexist men and completely leaves out the female author or any of the facts I mentioned above.
To me, your saying it's not sexist is kinda the same as saying women don't get to be offended. It also doesn't matter that the 3rd (not 2nd) author is female. There are plenty of sexist females out there.
how often are discussions about female leaders turned into commentary on what they wear?
pretty rarely, at least on media outlets. Maybe individual politicians say ****, and people say things on forums all the time.
but here is how the media treats male looks:
Trump bald spot revealed in video - Business Insider
Trump on His Hair: ‘I Try Like Hell to Hide That Bald Spot, Folks’
Is the Age-Old Quest for a Baldness Cure Reaching Its End? | The New Yorker
Donald Trump’s New Gray Hair Is Just His Latest Political Tactic | Vogue
President Donald Trump admits to trying to hide his bald spot
13 Photos Of Donald Trump's Hair, Through Thick & Thin
Revealed at Madame Tussauds: Donald Trump's Actual Hand Size
https://www.newsweek.com/heres-scie...o-small-hold-water-bottle-normal-712944?amp=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nds-are-actually-pretty-small/?outputType=amp
Jon Stewart Challenges Mitch McConnell To Prove That He Is Not A Turtle - Digg
Calling it provocative and specifically mentioning bikinis is, in fact, extra sexist. Very dogwhistle.
If they had just said "posted pics in swimwear", we'd just call them prudes and move on with things.
But they specifically say "provocative" and "bikini", yet fail to define anywhere in the paper what makes those pictures provocative. In addition to this being trash writing on the part of any paper (i.e. not defining your terms), this leaves it up to the imagination what they mean by provocative.
Were the captions on those pictures links to their onlyfans accts? Doubtful.
Were they doing some playboy centerfold kinda pose? Probably not.
Or were they just standing there, in a bikini that probably had pretty decent coverage (and certainly more than a shirtless guy), maybe posing like a normal human for the camera, a hand on a hip or a bent knee? A smile? like what exactly is provocative? Are only candid, unposed, one piece swim suit pics not "provocative"? How are we supposed to stand so that our pose isn't "provocative"? Should we not smile? Which segment of my chest is unprovocative enough to not count against me?
I have been told since puberty that my very existence as a woman is provocative, modestly dressed or otherwise. And the tone of this piece is entirely that puritanical, witch trial vibe that gets Tanner stage 2 teen girls written up for dress code violations that are "distracting to boys", that makes it next to impossible for me to find dress clothes that meet "professional standards", that has schools write SP rubrics where they specifically have to try and look down my shirt to see if they can see my breasts.
So yeah, that reads as entirely sexist.
I think those are extreme examples confounded by the fact that both politicians are very prominent and controversial
Your standard balding, somewhat obese generation X/boomer male politician won't get that consistent level of commentary on their appearance
Last edited:
D
deleted480308
Men are absolutely mocked for their clothing too. They just tend to be more uniform in their choices.
Even if men were mocked as frequently as women, the character of the insult would still be far different. You might make fun of a men's pair of cargo shorts for being unfashionable, but it's usually in jest and not too frequently mean-spirited. For women, there's this unspoken expectation that women should be fashionable by default and not too prudish but not too w***ish, and there's almost this indignation to the mockery when the norms of fashion are violated for women
I'm definitely getting into the hair-splitting category now and I can't believe I'm actually read this nonsense paper so closely but I don't believe they actually comment on differences across sex in the "provocative/unprofessional" photos. They identified like 8 provocative photos in total but I don't recall seeing in any of the tables if they compare the photos between sexes. They compare total "unprofessional" content between the sexes (including political statements, photos, HIPAA, etc.) and found that there was no statistically significant difference. Which is why some, myself included, may speculate that given the specific mention of bikinis the "provocative photos" they reference might essentially be entire women in bikinis. But without looking at their actual raw """data""" I doubt that could ever be conclusively known.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Not to the extent that women are. Can't believe there's actual debate about this.
I’m skeptical that you read the article if you think the tone comes off as a puritanical witch-hunt against women
fyi, the word bikini appears only once in this statement:
“Inappropriate attire included pictures in underwear, provocative Halloween costumes, and provocative posing in bikinis/swimwear.“
D
deleted987519
Smells like mansplaining in here 🤔
sounds like anarchocommunistsplaining
D
deleted987519
kinda smells like dudebroguymansplaining to be specific
who let you back into America? Thought you guys had self sustaining farming
I mean at the point that they used the word bikini the paper became too sexist for my liking. I would encourage everyone to read the paper for themselves BEFORE you start arguing about it though. It made me cringe, but it’s really just bad research more than anything. If they had left out the word bikini (literally one word in the entire paper) we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. That’s what you need to recognize before you die on this hill. There are a lot of underlying issues here, to be sure, but people just love to get outraged and crucify other people to virtue signal. Let’s just call it a bad sexist paper and move on already.
I’m a conservative myself and I think their terms and methodology probably unfairly targeted women. I doubt that was the explicit goal of the authors, but it happened nonethelessI’ll never give into the radical left
Hold up, why are you telling people how they should feel or think after reading an article? For you to suggest that poster didn't read the article just because you disagree with the opinion is exactly the crap they talk about when they talk about mansplaining.
Thank you, @Goro for such an entertaining thread. You, sir, are truly a genius. I'll keep 
in the meantime.
in the meantime.
sorry, busy posting provocative photos to tarnish my profession brb
Lots of passion on these forums. I’m a little jealous.
I ain’t fragile about having to be selectively drafted into war based on my gender
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
and blocking. I'm done with you, I have other things to do tonight.
@Goro thanks for helping me identify more folks I need to block on SDN.
*insert post demanding editors and authors promoting garbage research should be fired immediately*
bro…
The British medical Journal puts out joke articles every Christmas as a super British twist of humor. It is a joke
The British medical Journal puts out joke articles every Christmas as a super British twist of humor. It is a joke
Orthopaedic surgeons: as strong as an ox and almost twice as clever? Multicentre prospective comparative study
Objective To compare the intelligence and grip strength of orthopaedic surgeons and anaesthetists. Design Multicentre prospective comparative study. Setting Three UK district general hospitals in 2011. Participants 36 male orthopaedic surgeons and 40 male anaesthetists at consultant or...www.bmj.com
😉
The one about how to wear your stethoscope when not in use (Drapes over neck vs ear pieces around neck with bell hanging down like a tie) was great. Particularly the way they “compensated” their subjects.
Association between specialty and vehicle driven was another good one. If I recall FM drove Volvos. Plastics was some exotic car. And I don’t think anyone knew what derm drove because they never show up at the hospital.
Lovely Penguin
Full Member
I love these threads on SDN, it honestly keeps the website fresh considering you can find the info everywhere on the internet
Also as a dude I thought it was super obvious the paper was sexist lol, can't believe there was heated debate on that but that's what makes SDN special
Also as a dude I thought it was super obvious the paper was sexist lol, can't believe there was heated debate on that but that's what makes SDN special
- Status
