![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I am so very fed up of giving my details over the phone and being asked, "Is it Miss or Mrs?" without the option of Ms, or of being addressed as Mrs by default, regardless of what I've asked them to call me. I rang the Financial Ombudsman today and was greeted with this yet again. I'd actually rung to point out that they'd got my address wrong, but since they added this to having addressed the letter to Mrs even though I'd said firmly on the phone that it was Ms, the guy ended up getting a little lecture on how it's frankly rather offensive to categorise women by their marital status whether they like it or not (and also that if I'm Mrs, then I'm committing adultery and I don't think my partner would be too happy about it all). His excuse was that if he started asking, "Is it Miss, Mrs, Doctor, Reverend..." the list would go on for ever. He just didn't seem to get that Ms should be the default. It's 2009 and this problem occurs more often than not.*
So today I look at the news and encounter Female medics "to outnumber male". This does not surprise me in the least. Due to the way men and women are currently socialised, there are certain professions which have traditionally been male but fit much better with current models of female behaviour, in particular anything which involves caring or pastoral work. You can see the same pattern at work with the clergy: for instance, female rabbinical students slightly outnumber male ones at the Liberal/Reform rabbinical college in London. This doesn't mean that the glass ceiling has been broken in either the medical or the religious worlds (or academia or law, come to that), as is immediately evidenced when you look at the number of women in the higher-level jobs. Still, it's encouraging news.
But do the headlines say "Women outnumber men as medical students but are still alarmingly under-represented at the top of their profession?" No, they say Rise in women doctors "worrying". Women are more likely to work part-time, and the system is not currently all that well set-up for part-time work. The solutions are either a) limit the number of women and/or part-time employees; or b) modify the system so that it functions well with a higher number of part-time employees. The first option is wholly unethical and constitutes gender discrmination. We're meant to be past the stage where a woman can be turned down for a job because everyone knows that she'll mess things up by going on maternity leave just when she's needed. And whatever happened to paternity leave? Parents work, in many if not most cases both parents work, and there are plenty of fathers who would prefer to be able to spend more time with their kids. We need to move away from the assumption that women and women alone are dedicated to childrearing and men are the breadwinners. It's not true, it's not just, and it's buggering up the workplace. It's perfectly possible to relate childrearing to working in a more egalitarian fashion: look at the Swedish system, for instance.
Going back to doctors, I for one have a strong preference for seeing a doctor of my own gender. My reasons for this are personal, but suffice it to say that it's a common preference amongst women, especially when it comes to more intimate medical matters. Men don't seem to be as bothered about this as women are, on average. I don't know how much of this is down to women being more likely to need to talk about intimate matters with medical professionals (issues such as sexual dysfunction which can affect both genders aside, put contraception, smear tests, childbirth, PMS, menopause against prostate and testicular cancer), and how much of it is due to gender dynamics relating to power, fear, respect. There's also the issue of some religions requiring a same-gender doctor for women; I don't know if they require it for men, I've certainly never heard that they do but it would be logical.
Whatever the reason, from a patient's perspective there is a distinct advantage to having slightly more women than men in the medical profession. My GP works part-time because she has a small child, and guess what, I'm still far happier with her than I've been with previous doctors. I know that I can ring my surgery and get hold of my GP within a couple of days, and that if it's urgent I can get hold of a female doctor if necessary (though I don't always bother if it's something basic like an ear infection). My mother has a GP who is much harder to get hold of than mine despite the fact that he works full-time, she finds that he is terribly condescending in a way that's typical of a certain type of male-female interaction, and she'd never feel comfortable discussing gynaecological matters with him. Indeed, she sounds far, far less comfortable with him than I am with my GP, and I think a lot of that is due to gender dynamics. Women are more likely to talk freely to other women they don't know well than they are to men, and less likely to feel intimidated. Women are socialised to listen, men to give orders: it's a sweeping generalisation, of course, but the overall pattern I've observed with doctors and other authority figures does reflect it. If I'm not getting on well with medication my GP has prescribed, I ring her up and chat about it, and she adjusts my medication accordingly. My mother would never dare do that, and considering the behaviour she's reported, I'm not surprised. Most of this will, of course, be down to the fact that I have a stonking good GP and hers isn't as good, and I've encountered plenty of good male doctors and bad female doctors, but I still suspect that gender dynamics remain relevant.
Do I think that men shouldn't be allowed to be doctors? Good heavens, no. Do I think that the increasing number of women in the medical world is a good thing? Yes, and I think it should be encouraged. I also think that attitudes need to shift, and that incorporating more traditionally female values, into what is still a very male-dominated situation, would be beneficial. Put bluntly, we need fewer doctors who think they are God and more doctors who are willing to let their patients talk about anything they need to.
I'm curious to see how other people feel about this, so here is a little poll. I've tried to make it as flexible as possible, which is always tricky. Forgive me if I've messed up anywhere. For the sake of simplicity, the gender options are male, female and other. You may wish to pick "other" if you identify primarily as one gender but your experience has encompassed more than that.
* Apart from that glazier who addressed a letter to me as Mr, which was somewhat startling. Between that and getting my flat number wrong, I decided that I didn't trust them to get the measurements for my window right.
[Poll #1410333]
So today I look at the news and encounter Female medics "to outnumber male". This does not surprise me in the least. Due to the way men and women are currently socialised, there are certain professions which have traditionally been male but fit much better with current models of female behaviour, in particular anything which involves caring or pastoral work. You can see the same pattern at work with the clergy: for instance, female rabbinical students slightly outnumber male ones at the Liberal/Reform rabbinical college in London. This doesn't mean that the glass ceiling has been broken in either the medical or the religious worlds (or academia or law, come to that), as is immediately evidenced when you look at the number of women in the higher-level jobs. Still, it's encouraging news.
But do the headlines say "Women outnumber men as medical students but are still alarmingly under-represented at the top of their profession?" No, they say Rise in women doctors "worrying". Women are more likely to work part-time, and the system is not currently all that well set-up for part-time work. The solutions are either a) limit the number of women and/or part-time employees; or b) modify the system so that it functions well with a higher number of part-time employees. The first option is wholly unethical and constitutes gender discrmination. We're meant to be past the stage where a woman can be turned down for a job because everyone knows that she'll mess things up by going on maternity leave just when she's needed. And whatever happened to paternity leave? Parents work, in many if not most cases both parents work, and there are plenty of fathers who would prefer to be able to spend more time with their kids. We need to move away from the assumption that women and women alone are dedicated to childrearing and men are the breadwinners. It's not true, it's not just, and it's buggering up the workplace. It's perfectly possible to relate childrearing to working in a more egalitarian fashion: look at the Swedish system, for instance.
Going back to doctors, I for one have a strong preference for seeing a doctor of my own gender. My reasons for this are personal, but suffice it to say that it's a common preference amongst women, especially when it comes to more intimate medical matters. Men don't seem to be as bothered about this as women are, on average. I don't know how much of this is down to women being more likely to need to talk about intimate matters with medical professionals (issues such as sexual dysfunction which can affect both genders aside, put contraception, smear tests, childbirth, PMS, menopause against prostate and testicular cancer), and how much of it is due to gender dynamics relating to power, fear, respect. There's also the issue of some religions requiring a same-gender doctor for women; I don't know if they require it for men, I've certainly never heard that they do but it would be logical.
Whatever the reason, from a patient's perspective there is a distinct advantage to having slightly more women than men in the medical profession. My GP works part-time because she has a small child, and guess what, I'm still far happier with her than I've been with previous doctors. I know that I can ring my surgery and get hold of my GP within a couple of days, and that if it's urgent I can get hold of a female doctor if necessary (though I don't always bother if it's something basic like an ear infection). My mother has a GP who is much harder to get hold of than mine despite the fact that he works full-time, she finds that he is terribly condescending in a way that's typical of a certain type of male-female interaction, and she'd never feel comfortable discussing gynaecological matters with him. Indeed, she sounds far, far less comfortable with him than I am with my GP, and I think a lot of that is due to gender dynamics. Women are more likely to talk freely to other women they don't know well than they are to men, and less likely to feel intimidated. Women are socialised to listen, men to give orders: it's a sweeping generalisation, of course, but the overall pattern I've observed with doctors and other authority figures does reflect it. If I'm not getting on well with medication my GP has prescribed, I ring her up and chat about it, and she adjusts my medication accordingly. My mother would never dare do that, and considering the behaviour she's reported, I'm not surprised. Most of this will, of course, be down to the fact that I have a stonking good GP and hers isn't as good, and I've encountered plenty of good male doctors and bad female doctors, but I still suspect that gender dynamics remain relevant.
Do I think that men shouldn't be allowed to be doctors? Good heavens, no. Do I think that the increasing number of women in the medical world is a good thing? Yes, and I think it should be encouraged. I also think that attitudes need to shift, and that incorporating more traditionally female values, into what is still a very male-dominated situation, would be beneficial. Put bluntly, we need fewer doctors who think they are God and more doctors who are willing to let their patients talk about anything they need to.
I'm curious to see how other people feel about this, so here is a little poll. I've tried to make it as flexible as possible, which is always tricky. Forgive me if I've messed up anywhere. For the sake of simplicity, the gender options are male, female and other. You may wish to pick "other" if you identify primarily as one gender but your experience has encompassed more than that.
* Apart from that glazier who addressed a letter to me as Mr, which was somewhat startling. Between that and getting my flat number wrong, I decided that I didn't trust them to get the measurements for my window right.
[Poll #1410333]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 01:27 pm (UTC)From:... Okay, I could keep ranting about this until the cows come home. I'll just go look at the rest of the post instead now.
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 01:53 pm (UTC)From:Other pet peeve: "partner" is pretty well used in the UK by now, but I still get an awful lot of people assuming that D is my husband, even if I've just said "partner" and sometimes even when I've just said "boyfriend". No one's said "you should consult your husband about this" yet, though, which is good as I'd probably have murdered them with my walking stick.
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 02:13 pm (UTC)From:[Someone - in Italy - once addressed me as the wife of the friend that I was out for lunch with. I think he was actually surprised that it made me so angry and I got so rude. My friend thought it was funny. My sudden stream of insults, that is.]
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 02:40 pm (UTC)From:I didn't know you don't use titles at all. What an excellent way of doing things. I mean, the main titles denote gender and sometimes marital status, and why is it necessary to point those things out? The UK hasn't always had this system, and I do wonder how the change came about. A few centuries ago, the default title for women was "Mistress" and it didn't reveal marital status. We're used to the pattern of using a single name, with title if it's the surname, in this country, but there's no real reason why we have to apart from habit. I've been listening to Lindsey Davis' Falco novels (ancient Roman sleuthing), and it's interesting to note the patterns there. The narrator is Marcus Didius Falco. Some people call him Falco, those who know him a bit better call him Marcus Didius, and the ones who are very close call him Marcus (or Uncle Marcus). His partner just seems to be known by her first two names, Helena Justina to most people and Helena to the very close ones. Just as with Russian patronymics (incidentally, are those still used, or am I getting side-tracked by nineteenth century novels?), it's not really that unwieldy. We seem to be obsessed with shortening names in this country: how often do you run into someone called Elizabeth rather than Liz or Beth or what have you? I have no idea why.
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 05:43 pm (UTC)From:The most common thing to do, really, is using just the first name, whether you're addressing you're best friend, your teacher or you boss. Last names are used in address mainly if two people have the same first name, and you want to make it clear who you're talking to. I've actually no idea about the Russian patronymics. I've always imagined that they still were in use, but like you said - I might have got that solely out of Dostoevsky, and he's probably a bit out of date by now.
[My first name has three syllables when pronounced correctly. I don't mind the fact that English people have an easier time just dealing with two, but must they shorten it to just one?]
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 02:48 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 04:39 pm (UTC)From:Why people are interested in my marital status so much is beyond me. I'm tempted to start signing my name with all my qualifications after instead, that would probably earn me the respect I'm not currently getting on account of my 'single' status (another pet peeve: rarely is there the option for listing yourself as 'partnered' although some do now - my maternity notes spring to mind).
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 05:18 pm (UTC)From:I've had quite a few people tell me that people will assume I'm divorced if I call myself Ms, do you get told that as well? Of course, I also get helpful people telling me that people will think I'm an alcoholic if I don't drink, so I'm not really too bothered by such nonsense.
"Living together" seems to come up quite a lot as an option these days. I think you're right, "partnered" (as used in Le Guin's The Dispossessed) would probably be the best catch-all term. Although why on earth does everyone need to know one's relationship status, as you say? I can just about see situations where it might be relevant, for instance needing to know a contact in case of emergency, but even that doesn't have to be about your love life. OK, it'd probably be relevant in cases relating to something done jointly, such as children, but surely in those cases the form would need far more than a simple box declaring marital status.
There's a nice Margaret Drabble from, hmm, several decades ago anyway, called The Millstone. In it a young woman unexpectedly gets pregnant from her only sexual encounter and quite peacefully settles into single (really single) motherhood. She is rather peeved when she finds that her medical notes at the hospital call her Mrs even though she explains that she's unmarried, and is told, "Oh, we call all the women in the maternity ward Mrs, it's a courtesy title." Hint: you should be ashamed of being an unwed mother, you slut you, but we're generously going to cover up for you.