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.
Women in medicine: the changing pattern over the past 50 years
Vivian Edwards is courageous to write (BMJ vol. 329 4 Dec. 2004
p.1324) of her experience of hostility towards women in medicine and
obstacles in their way in the 1950s. Her experience was closely similar to
my own. She is courageous because even in old age, recalling these times
stirs deep feelings of embarrassment, indignity and shame that we women
doctors suffered such discrimination. The attitudes were far from
universal but they were blatantly outspoken and widespread.
We were a small group of young women inspired by the pioneers of the
turn of the century, enthusiastically starting our careers in the
generally liberal post-war atmosphere. We rarely discussed the frequent
discouragement we encountered but we were aware that our senior role
models were subject to similar setbacks. Most of us disregarded the
climate and some were able to summon enough self-confidence to pursue our
goals. Many, however, kept their heads down and accepted frankly second-
rate careers. The result, although internal professional hostility was not
the only cause, was a cohort of under-achievers in the middle ranks of the
profession, just as opportunities for women to enter medicine were
increasing.
It is necessary to record these sensitive experiences as part of the
social history of medicine. We have moved slowly towards a better
understanding. In the late 1960s when looking for jobs I would try to
discover whether a woman would be welcome—enquiries which puzzled lay
people who already accepted a mixed profession. On obtaining a senior
appointment at that time one of the unsuccessful candidates spat on me and
expressed his disgust in front of the others that a woman should have been
appointed. One of the unsuccessful candidates comforted me and I was
interested to observe his own sudden comprehension that professional
success for me was not as it would have been for him. Whatever progress I
made would immediately be assailed by attempts to undermine my personal
position as a woman.
The profession urgently needs all the self-confidence and leadership
it can produce and I believe this will be forthcoming. We must not ‘waste’
people as we have done in the past.
Re: Women in medicine: the changing pattern over the past 50 years
2 Wheatley Road
Stanton St John
Oxford OX33 1ET
5 Dec 2004
Dear Sir,
Women in medicine: the changing pattern over the past 50 years
Vivian Edwards is courageous to write (BMJ vol. 329 4 Dec. 2004
p.1324) of her experience of hostility towards women in medicine and
obstacles in their way in the 1950s. Her experience was closely similar to
my own. She is courageous because even in old age, recalling these times
stirs deep feelings of embarrassment, indignity and shame that we women
doctors suffered such discrimination. The attitudes were far from
universal but they were blatantly outspoken and widespread.
We were a small group of young women inspired by the pioneers of the
turn of the century, enthusiastically starting our careers in the
generally liberal post-war atmosphere. We rarely discussed the frequent
discouragement we encountered but we were aware that our senior role
models were subject to similar setbacks. Most of us disregarded the
climate and some were able to summon enough self-confidence to pursue our
goals. Many, however, kept their heads down and accepted frankly second-
rate careers. The result, although internal professional hostility was not
the only cause, was a cohort of under-achievers in the middle ranks of the
profession, just as opportunities for women to enter medicine were
increasing.
It is necessary to record these sensitive experiences as part of the
social history of medicine. We have moved slowly towards a better
understanding. In the late 1960s when looking for jobs I would try to
discover whether a woman would be welcome—enquiries which puzzled lay
people who already accepted a mixed profession. On obtaining a senior
appointment at that time one of the unsuccessful candidates spat on me and
expressed his disgust in front of the others that a woman should have been
appointed. One of the unsuccessful candidates comforted me and I was
interested to observe his own sudden comprehension that professional
success for me was not as it would have been for him. Whatever progress I
made would immediately be assailed by attempts to undermine my personal
position as a woman.
The profession urgently needs all the self-confidence and leadership
it can produce and I believe this will be forthcoming. We must not ‘waste’
people as we have done in the past.
Rosemary Rue
Past-President BMA
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests