A lexicon for gender bias in academia and medicine
BMJ 2018; 363 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5218 (Published 13 December 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;363:k5218
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
How is this 'satirical' piece remotely focused on creating a climate of gender harmony? What purpose does the inclusion of 'whiteness' in a gender lexicon list serve? Is open hostility and a narrow vision of the world now an accepted definition of satire? Can we imagine if the authors of this piece replaced 'white males' with another class of people? Who would publish such an article if the target was any other class of person?
I argue that no reputable publication would engage in such a blatant example of hate-mongering. This is truly shameful.
It is certainly an interesting socio-cultural phenomenon when a respected organization such as BMJ publishes a piece like this that would fit much better in Cracked or Buzzfeed. Not only are the terms listed in this 'lexicon' divisive and hostile, they are also not even remotely effective descriptors of academic or corporate life. A simple analysis of the faculties of education and humanities show quite clearly that the notion of 'male dominance' in academia is more myth than reality. In the workplace, all-female committees and female-dominated departments are commonplace.
Can we imagine a 'lexicon' mocking female and ethnic minority stereotypes being published like this? I cannot. And I'd have a similar revulsion to such a piece.
With all due respect, this does not belong here.
Competing interests: No competing interests
A brilliant piece of satire -- many of these terms will indeed I think enter the social media lexicon -- I see #s coming for he-ja-vu
This humor will be a great stimulus I predict to identifying these phenomena as they present themselves in academia, at conferences -- and will promote efforts to see more equitable representation of the genders in academic medicine.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Unfortunately, the "sexism in reverse" i.e. discrimination of males in medical institutions is rarely mentioned. It is a well-known fact in Russia that middle-aged and elderly men visit primary health care centers (policlinics) on average less frequently than women of the same age; quantitative observations by the author in a Moscow policlinic produced male/female ratios in this age category from 1/3 to 1/20. In particular, people recognizable as alcohol consumers are sometimes unwelcome in medical institutions, being treated not always in accordance with medical ethics [1]. War veterans enjoy privileges; however, there are misgivings that the veteran status has been awarded gratuitously to some people from the privileged milieu [2].
1. Jargin SV. Popular alcoholic beverages in Russia with special reference to quality and toxicity. J Addiction Prevention 2017;5(2): 6.
2. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism in Russia. Int J Emerg Ment Health 2015 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282876325_Alcohol_abuse_and_alc...
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: A lexicon for gender bias in academia and medicine
Before commenting I also have some non-competing interests to declare. I am not an academic and have never been one. I have not risen to any level of significance in terms of executive power in any organisation (I was a non-executive director of BMJ Group until earlier in 2018). I am just a jobbing doctor who sees patients; a male, yes, but a nobody with no official power over my colleagues. My boss, my Senior Medical Officer, is a woman. She is the best boss I have ever had.
This piece rises, for me, to the level of no more than glancingly droll. It repays reading, but only barely. The theme is a well-worn one and the article highlights true disparities in opportunity for men and women in medicine, but in its tone it is as patronising to men as men have been to women over the aeons. Revenge may feel good. Getting men to eat humble pie and casting them as a homogenous, oppressive and rather dull-witted battalion in need of indoctrination and re-education may get a few laughs, for a while at least until the jokes become hackneyed, but it will not 'win hearts and minds' in the quest for regime change, which is a lengthy campaign with many twists and turns, not a single battle.
Mature equity between men and women in medicine will eventually be reached, but I do not think the eye rolls this article will engender will do anything to hasten that process.
(Also, I am not quite sure why Dr Glaucomflecken, whom I follow on Twitter and whose tweets I generally enjoy, gets to publish this anonymously. I thought anonymous publication was only allowable in exceptional circumstances?)
Competing interests: I am a male and a doctor. I could be classed as white, though I am Jewish and a bit olive-skinned with dark, curly hair and a long, hooked nose and I remember as a child walking into a classroom and having the entire class chant "Jew! "Jew! Jew!" at me until I ran out, so make of that what you will. Myself, I don't know if I count as having white privilege or not. Male privilege at least I must plead guilty to.