Do we need feminism?/Does sexism still
exist?
A few months ago during
a discussion regarding feminism and women’s rights, a friend of mine expressed
the following: “What more is there for
feminism to do?”
A
crushing statement. Ironically, this
student plans to join me in the field of medicine, a profession known for
its disparities and its patriarchal and paternalistic structure. Numerous posts and articles have pointed
out the gaps between males and females in science and math, starting back when
we are children and continuing on into the professional world. In her short essay, Dr. Arghavan Salles
shares some of her experiences studying engineering, then medicine, and
finally joining the ranks of the surgical residents. Surgery is known to be a notoriously
competitive field, for men and women alike.
As she notes, women have made big gains: more women are joining residencies and training
programs. However, the academic side has not seen the same increase:
Indeed, despite one third of surgical trainees being women, only eight
percent of full professors in surgery are women. Even fewer of these women go
on to hold important leadership positions such as serving as department chairs:
there are only three women chairs of departments of surgery in the United
States.
She
negates the idea that men work harder than women or that men are more qualified than
women and thus are more likely to succeed.
However, she discusses an interesting study which reminds me of an
earlier post by Morghan. As Dr. Salles
explains:
The article argues that women face a stereotype that their ability is inferior
to that of their male colleagues. The stereotype leads to a taxing dynamic:
there’s pressure to perform at the highest level — with patient lives at stake
— while constantly feeling like others doubt your ability. My research shows
that when women believe others endorse this negative stereotype, our mental
health deteriorates. Likewise, when we believe men are better surgeons than
women, we experience physical health problems, such as gastrointestinal distress
or low back pain.
Morghan
brought up a similar study where the "main finding suggests that job authority
decreases men's depression but increases women's depression" and Morghan
suggested a similar emotional strain could be affecting mental health. Dr. Salles calls it “nuanced
sexism.” Not as overt as sexism might
have been 50 years ago, but still damaging on an emotional and perhaps physical
level.
A previous post by Morghan detailed her experience of
being at the receiving end of this kind of nuanced sexism:
Then I found out that two significant people on the project thought my day-saving efforts were "bitchy" and, while ultimately appropriate,
unacceptable on any future projects. At first I thought I'd done
something terrible, but after some soul searching I realized these
people would not have responded this way if a man had acted as I had. I
remembered how often I'd been told to smile (not something you'd say to
a man) and how they had loved me when I was nothing but a servile
bucket of sunshine.
Talking about sexism
Sheryl Sandberg (COO of Facebook, author of Lean-In) and Adam Grant (UPenn) have
teamed up to write a series of four articles regarding women and work. Two of these have been published, the first titled “When Talking About Bias Backfires.” Sandberg and Grant outline how spreading
information about stereotypes can actually perpetuate and enhance them. Disseminating this information can lead
individuals to think discriminatory behavior is common, socially acceptable, and
thus permissible for them to perform as well. They detail some studies exploring this
phenomenon, and I suggest you check out the entirety of the article.
Their point is that talking about
discrimination and sexism is not enough.
In fact, it could be dangerous and detrimental. Instead, as shown by some follow-up studies,
we need to talk about discrimination, express how it is wrong, and show how discriminatory viewpoints can be devalued. Not only
is this effective in changing perspectives, but it also motivates those being
discriminated against to work beyond these external limitations.
When we communicate that a vast majority of people
hold some biases, we need to make sure that we’re not legitimating prejudice.
By reinforcing the idea that people want to conquer their biases and that there
are benefits to doing so, we send a more effective message: Most people don’t
want to discriminate, and you shouldn’t either.
But how to confront gender discrimination and sexism?
Sandberg
and Grant’s second article is entitled “Speaking While Female,” in which they follow the suggestions made in their first article. They outline the stereotypes and current
gender discrimination seen in the workplace, explain why this is problematic, and end with a
call to action.
Studies
(and personal anecdotes) show that when women do speak and assert their ideas
in the workplace, they are commonly interrupted and spoken over. Their ideas may be co-opted by male
counterparts and subsequently receive more praise. On this blog alone, we have had many posts and articles
surrounding this balance of assertiveness being viewed as “bitchy and pushy.” One study in the Sandberg/Grant article highlights this imbalance
as such:
Male executives who spoke more often than their peers
were rewarded with 10 percent higher ratings of competence. When female
executives spoke more than their peers, both men and women punished them with
14 percent lower ratings. As this and other research shows, women who worry
that talking “too much” will cause them to be disliked are not paranoid; they are
often right.
Other studies show how this creeping form of nuanced sexism leads
society at large to devalue the ideas and opinions of a woman, due solely to
the fact that she is a female. Clearly,
devaluing half the working population is an ineffective business model. Women have indeed come up with fantastic new
ideas and innovations, providing immense contributions to all genres of human
achievement. However, they need some
time and space for the actualization of these ideas.
This is the point where the Sandberg and Grant article falls flat for me, as their proposed methods of change leave nothing for concrete the motivated individual. Sandberg and Grant outline two new strategies: 1) increasing the number of women in leadership roles and until then, 2) encouraging current leaders to incorporate
gender equalizing practices. Right now, business leaders can enact new models of teamwork and evaluation, such as blind auditions, no interrupting pitches, etc. Then, following our current trend of increasing female leadership roles, women in power can enforce an
equal playing field and provide an effective barrier to the nuanced sexism smog
infiltrating the professional workplace.
However, I am left wondering… What can women do now to improve their situation? The two strategies outlined above leave the current female population dependent on the motivation of their bosses (who are most likely male) or waiting to reap the benefits of future change. This state of dependence is almost as debilitating to the feminist cause as is being talked over in business meetings. In Laura’s earlier review of #GIRLBOSS, she highlighted the following strategies from the book: don't apologize for ambition, there is no
shame in learning, draw strength from other women (and men). While these tenants provide a real-time strategy for change, but I
am concerned. Will my assertiveness and directness only earn me negative evaluations and the title of “bitchy?”
Feminism in medicine and the workplace
A commenter on one of the Sandberg/Grant articles, Dr.
Srinivasan, writes:
Medicine is a bastion of
prejudice against women. Mild mannered men and "foreign doctors" are
targeted too for the type of behavior described in this article and in
Medicine, when women are not allowed to speak, patients suffer... At medical conferences women can have their
hands raised for ever to speak and be ignored. When they are allowed to speak
they are often rudely interrupted…What is worse, female speakers and females in
power practice the same prejudice against women that the men do. Men and women
in power are threatened by the ambitious, knowledgeable and up and coming lower
echelon … This behavior is practiced to disconcert, divide, enervate and
deliberately frustrate underlings and those who don't belong to the
"tribe" or network in power. It comes from the belief that sharing
power is the equivalent of diluting power. Audacious questions, probing ones,
dissenting opinions and contentious or discomfiting observations are not
brooked from either gender, especially if those talking and dissenting are not
"important."
Medicine may be unique in its hierarchical structure,
but as Dr. Srinivasan and Dr. Salles point out, gender discrimination (among
other types) is a medical prevalent issue. Just as minimizing female contributions can limit the effectiveness of business teams, reducing the thoughts and concerns of the female health professionals effects patient care and health. This is not an issue to be taken lightly. What Dr. Srinivasan talks about is a conscious/unconscious method of "dividing and conquering" to maintain control, ultimately holding medicine in a stagnant, backwards state. Reduced efficacy in screenwriting sessions may mean we have poor quality programming, but reduced efficacy in hospitals and doctor's offices means that patients die.
I would also like to point out something from both Dr. Srinivasan's comment and the Sandberg/Grant article: gender discrimination can come from both males and females. Dr. Srinivasan writes, "What is worse, female speakers and females in power practice the same prejudice against women that the men do." Studies quoted by Sandberg and Grant mention "When female executives spoke more than their peers, both men and women punished them with 14 percent lower ratings." This calls into question one of Sandberg and Grant's methods of change, namely that increasing the numbers of women in leadership roles will provide a more female-friendly work environment. Multiple factors can underlie this phenomenon: perhaps only the most competitive women have succeeded thus far, competitive women who are ill-equipped to provide a nurturing work environment. Whatever the reasons, this questions the effectiveness of Sandberg and Grant's recommendations for future change.
Thus, what
is the best way for me, as student and later a resident, to talk about and
confront the nuanced sexism I may encounter? How
can I speak out and be effectively heard by those who are not interested in
listening? How can I speak out without negatively affecting my performance
evaluations and ruining my career aspirations? How can I use my skills (as a female) to advance medicine and provide the highest quality care for my patients?
Herein lies the
paradox,
To break down the barriers that hold women back, it’s not enough to spread
awareness. If we don’t reinforce that people need — and want — to overcome
their biases, we end up silently condoning the status quo. (Talking About Bias)
But..
when women challenged the old system and suggested a new one, team leaders viewed them as less loyal and were less likely to act on their suggestions. (Speaking While Female)
Society at large, like my friend, may not understand why feminism is still necessary. This "nuanced sexism" may be more hidden and subtle, but it is nonetheless damaging to the physical and emotional health of women. It is also damaging to our workforce and the efficacy of our health services. Thus, we need to talk about bias and discrimination; we need to talk about feminism. We need to find effective ways to have female voices heard without remaining dependent on the theoretical change-of-heart of professional leaders or future changes to our hierarchical structure. I am still perplexed as how to find these viable strategies. Perhaps what we need is a male/female brainstorm session where both sets of ideas are equally valued ... but how we get to that point is beyond me.
