Are you a woman? Are you a surgeon? Are you in Australia (or maybe any of many other places)? Then you should be aware of the culture in your profession.
Dr Gabrielle McMullin, a Sydney vascular surgeon, says sexism is so rife among surgeons in Australia that young woman in the field should probably just accept unwanted sexual advances.
She referred to the case of Caroline, who won a case against a surgeon accused of sexually assaulting her while she was completing surgical training at a Melbourne hospital. But the woman was unable to get work at any public hospital in Australasia after the legal victory, Dr McMullin told ABC radio at a book launch at Parliament House in Sydney on Friday night.
"Her career was ruined by this one guy asking for sex on this night. And, realistically, she would have been much better to have given him a blow job on that night," Dr McMullin said.
"What I tell my trainees is that, if you are approached for sex, probably the safest thing to do in terms of your career is to comply with the request; the worst thing you can possibly do is to complain to the supervising body because then, as in Caroline’s position, you can be sure that you will never be appointed to a major public hospital."
Sounds like exactly what the sexist men in the business like to hear: free blow jobs! No complaints!
But, Dr McMullin, you probably agree that this situation is deplorable and ghastly. So how do you propose changing it if you are asking all the women to comply quietly?
And shouldn’t we be talking about all those hospitals that refuse to give Caroline a job because she did what was right?
Follow-up: Dr McMullan stands by her remarks: (link)
Well everything’s just peachy then.
It struck me not as advice on the part of Mullin, but as a scathing criticism of the way things are in OZ.
the paper took the critical response to her comments as being accurate, but I’m not at all sure they were.
I don’t think it’s ever wrong to stand up for what is right. Well, unless it gets you killed or maimed or brutalized or . . . Hey, who made life so complicated?
again, it’s the paper suggesting Mullins commentary was ADVICE, instead of SCATHING CRITICISM OF THE REALITY.
if you actually read what she is quoted as saying, it’s clear the paper really misses the mark here.
Clearly the answer here is for women to stop completing their surgical training. Wouldn’t want to ‘put themselves in that situation’, amirite?
get it straight, read the rest of what she said, and it becomes clear her point was that the reality is that indeed, given that women are indeed punished for whistleblowing in that profession, then you’d probably want to not do that if your goal was to further your career.
it was clearly a scathing critique of the way things actually ARE in medicine in OZ.
jeez.
PZ is missing it, and others are missing it, apparently because the paper’s misleading headline is leading you to a false conclusion.
it’s mostly the Herald’s fault.
mostly.
the rest of it is not actually reading what she said.
like this?
yeah, because that was her actual point, regardless of how the paper wanted to paint her comments.
seriously, you (and the Herald) are making her out to the the villain, when in reality, Mullin is fighting hard to get things changed there.
yeesh.
But but but … I was assured that feminism isn’t needed anymore because women have equal rights on paper and sexism has therefore ceased to exist…just like racism…
Citation seriously fecking needed, and not to the Herald.
my wrongheaded analogy is this is analogous to the proper responses to a mugging: “give him your wallet, no complaining, nor fussing, nor bunched muscles, Just give him the wallet and watch which way he goes and go the opposite direction. at the next phone [before cellphones, natch] call 911. period. wait for LEOs to show up.” This advice does not encourage mugging, just prioritizes the vic’s safety over penalizing the perp. This is not a valid analogy, the crimes are oo different to be analogized. It is totes awful that a potential victim gives such enabling advice. Do I hear murmurs of “Enabler”? Well, yes I do, if only in my head, I hears them.
Disgusting, on several levels.
Stating that the situation is so bad that for practical and safe consequences complying and accepting abuse and injustice is the the most prudent thing to do, can not in anyway be taken as advice and advocacy of compliance and acceptance. Mulin is telling the world just how truly horrible and awful the situation is. This is in no way advocating compliance.
Pteryxx @1 link:
However it appears that there’s no measures in place to stop retaliation against sexual harassment whistleblowers. Caroline won her case against the surgeon and now cannot get a job. What is the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons doing about that, besides nothing?
After reading it, I have to agree with Icthyic. I don’t get the impression that Mullen is happy about the situation at all. I don’t get the impression that she means it the way the paper reports. After reading her comments, it seems to me that what she’s doing is highlighting just how terrible it is.
We can argue over whether or not the method of her critique is legitimate… I think there’s a worrying undertone of defeat, there, and to be dead honest, that makes me worried about what she’s been through. What she says is angering on so many levels, and people need to do something instead of giving up in defeat.
This is a terrible commentary on the system, no matter how you look at it.
She probably was being satirical, but the problem is, when your satire is indistinguishable from the actual position of the people you are satirizing, your point is easily lost.
It’s as if Swift had written A Modest Proposal in a world where a large number of Englishmen really did support eating Irish babies–how would you know he was being satirical?
Actually, I’m not even sure it’s satire, Doug. It reads more to me like defeat.
I don’t think she’s saying it because of internalized misogyny (which it seems to me is how it was twisted). I read it as a sign of “there is nothing else to do. This will never be fixed. We women in this field are damned either way.” Essentially, I’m reading it as if McMullin’s given up, and doesn’t know what else to say or do.
NateHevens,
Well, that may be, but we’re not mind-readers. It’s akin to Poe’s law, but worse. Because even if she didn’t mean it, saying things like “women should just comply” supports the misogynist narrative.
Oh I don’t dispute that. You’re absolutely right. It’s just that she comes across to me more as if she’s given up. I’m not arguing that she’s right to at all, and I disagree vehemently with her message. It’s just… given the situation, I kind of feel bad for her… if that makes sense. That is… she’s not the bad one, here… it’s the men.
I guess I should say… I don’t agree with what she said at all. The whole situation is disturbing and I do think people should fight back and not give up. I think McMullin is wrong. There’s just an element of defeat to what she’s saying that makes it hard for me to vilify her, specifically… because I’m very worried about what she’s been through herself to reach this point.
Sorry for the three posts in a row thing, but I keep re-reading what I’m writing and I’m afraid what I’m trying to say isn’t getting across because I’m shit with words.
I’ll end with… I agree that it furthers and supports the misogynist narrative. Regardless of her meaning, she really shouldn’t have said it.
And that’s it… I’ll stop before I dig anymore holes…
I got the impression that Dr. McMullin was using the situation to illustrate how bad the state of affairs is for women who are surgeons. Your career can literally be ruined by saying no to sex or reporting abuse of a sexual nature in their profession. As women, they may have to decide between pursuing justice and being employed.
I did not get the impression Dr. McMullin is OK with this situation. I got the impression she was trying to shine a light on it.
She’s not being satirical. She’s being cynical.
No, but we are print-readers who, supposedly passed middle school reading comprehension. Maybe we should engage the skills we supposedly were exposed to.
And where, in the entire length of her quote, did she say anything even remotely resembling “women should just comply”?
She said “And, realistically, she would have been much better to have given him a blow job on that night,” and “probably the safest thing to do in terms of your career is to comply with the request; the worst thing you can possibly do is to complain”.
It would take a severely naive and deluded Polyanna to confuse “safest in terms of your career” with “the correct and socially responsible thing to do”.
Fuck no, it doesn’t and hell, yes she should have.
My girlfriend is in med school now, I’ll have to send her this link. Sadly I doubt the situation is much better here in Canada.
I can’t comment on the surgeons here, but I know that when discussing making a case about sexism and job loss due to bias the lawyer I talked to, after saying I probably had a winnable case, said that another woman he had represented had found another job after a (successful) lawsuit–at a much less prestigious university with fewer resources and lower salary. He also mentioned that it was because she’s brilliant. I was not encouraged.
I’m in the US, BTW. In the “enlightened” northern part of the US where we’re not in the least bit sexist or racist. Nope, not at all.
A friend of mine was in the surgical training program for years, never getting anywhere despite good work. Eventually she quit for a different speciality, in her words, “when I realised they were waiting for my ovaries to drop.”
Makes me want to perform a free-form vasectomy on an Australian surgeon with the toe of my boot. As crude, rude, socially unacceptable that may be, it is how I feel.
Dr McMullin, you are a surgeon at this point. Rather than tell your students to “accept it”, can’t you perhaps affect things from within? And where is the government and law enforcement on this?
woozy @ 23,
As you say, the exact quote was: “And, realistically, she would have been much better to have given him a blow job on that night.”
Or, to put it another way, “realistically, she [would have been much better to let herself sexually assaulted]”
That’s victim blaming, plain and simple. You can twist the language into a pretzel trying to justify it, but when you get right down to it, suggesting that a woman should have complied with her sexual assault is not a decent or reasonable thing for someone to say.
People don’t get to tell sexual assault victims how they “should have reacted”. And they especially don’t get to say “you would still have your career if you have allowed yourself to be sexually assaulted.” Would you accept that kind of thing from a man?
Look, just because she said some good things doesn’t mean she gets a pass for a nasty little quote, especially when that quote gets the lead. And if she didn’t know that the quote would lead, she’s naive, it’s a shocking, attention getting quote, of course its going to lead. And distract from her actual point, which is women shouldn’t be placed in a position where they have to give blowjobs to continue their careers.
right, so it’s fine for PZ to cite the herald story to make a conclusion, but making a different conclusion, based on what she actually said in a related article there… that’s not good enough.
uh huh.
I worry about how you folks are misreading things, and not for the first time.
I think I’m done with Pharyngula.
bye.
… woozy at least sees the truth of it.
It would be depressing for Dr McMullin to read this discussion and discover that – with a couple of honourable exceptions – you lot were against her as well.
If she had said sexism is bad then no one would be reporting anything so I would understand if she merely said to the reporters, the safest thing to do is comply and not complain. If you’re speaking to the media about it, you want something outrageous and shocking. But the way she said it, that she would tell her trainees the safest thing is to comply; if she did do that she would be normalising because there’s no media to perform for, just her advising her trainees. The charitable reading, is that she doesn’t say that to her trainees, but claimed she does, for maximum exposure. That is my reading of it, but I don’t think it’s so clear cut that more literal interpretations deserve outright scorn.
Doug Hudson:
I’m from Melbourne, and I hear her loud and clear. The comment isn’t distracting from her point; it is making her point.
She is realistically talking about power dynamics, which is feeding into a much larger conversation about sexual abuse of power in schools and institutions, and she is drily pointing out that the abuse of power even exists among surgeons.
Ichthyic, woozy and echidna have it exactly right. Her quote just tells the naked truth, in all its cynicism: If you try to fight back, they’ll retaliate by ruining your career. The supposed recourse against sexual harassment is absolutely worthless because it does not protect you at all. So if your career is your priority, you have no choice but to comply.
How does stating these facts mean that McMullin would find this situation acceptable? In the next bloody sentence of the interview she calls for new laws to actually protect people who are trying to fight back!
All the “encouraging” of women to report incidents is utterly hypocritical as long as this is how complaints end for the harassed person. And it’s especially disgusting when voiced by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, who are exactly the professional organisation that should be doing something to improve this mess but is acting like your typical boys’ club instead.
See also the follow-up article, with the usual denials, minimisation and empty assurances, even as more women confirm McMullin’s claims.
@30
Realistically, she would have been better off being assaulted. That’s cynical cold truth. Realistically, she’d be better off being a man. Or pursuing a career more friendly to women. Or being born rich. Things being “realistically better” have no bearing whatsoever with what one “should” do.
No. What’s victim blaming is to suggest that if one does “the right thing” all will work out. If you eat your vegetables you won’t get cancer. “What? You reported abuse and you got marginalized? Well, you’re still better off because the system works and anyone who says it doesn’t is victim blaming. If women still get abused… well, you did the right thing so, of course, we’re making progress and surely these women can’t have it that bad anymore.” That’s victim blaming.
The fact that you equate “should” with “realistically better off” is telling. In a shit-storm you’d blame the weatherman for pointing out that people have poop in their eyes.
The “nasty little quote” is the good thing she said.
The reaction to her statement is understandable, but wrong.
I can see kind of why that is.
At first sight it’s rather jarring to see her resigned to such a state. But she’s not resigned. She’s just being honest about how fucked up the situation is to her trainees. The safest thing to do is something horrible and awful that you probably won’t consider. Worse, if you try to do the right thing and report it to the right people, something horrible and awful that you shouldn’t even have to consider will happen.
Her point is valid. Her tact is a side-issue. I’m left scratching my head at this response here of all places.
Dr. McMullin was pointing out where there was a definite “old boys club” attitude working within the surgical field. And pointing out that there was a difference between what is said and is legal, versus what happens in reality. Somebody bigger and more arrogant than the “old boy” surgeons needs to check into the claims, and make a recommendations that most likely will involve firing a hard-core contingent of misogynists trying to protect their turf. Only then, will women be able to complain, have their complaints substantiated, and still get employment as a surgeon in populated areas.
Ichthyic is right. That’s a sarcastic statement pointing out the reality on the ground right now in a way that’s would jar people. And she’s right, not just in Oz either. Every woman I know (me included) who has dealt with sexual assault or even just discrimination wonders if reporting and pursuing the issue is going to ruin her career. Because often it does.
That statement from the College of Surgeons is just so much hot-air unless they’ve done something to actually support women’s careers after they do report.
That’s the danger of most forms of irony, that when reported straight they may sound the opposite of what was intended to be conveyed, especially when those reporting may well be separated in time and space from the original utterence.
On the other hand, if enough fuss is raised by the misreporting, then that’s an accomplishment of sorts, regardless of what was originally meant.
Except it’s not ironic or sarcastic. It’s meant to be shocking, but not a proscriptive statement.
Wordier would be: “Our system of oversight is so broken and protections for victims are so non-existent that reporting yourself a victim of a crime has no possible outcome where justice will be served. The criminal will not be punished, but you will end up punished for ’embarrassing’ them. I am advocating for stronger protection for the victims, but this is as the law stands. This monstrous farce.”
Women are often told that in the context of a violent, heterosexual stranger-rape that the victim fears might lead to death, there are certain strategies that will make a person more likely to survive. One of those is compliance and even assisting the rapist fulfill a fantasy or reach a positive state of emotion.
That’s not saying that it’s a woman’s job to satisfy a rapist. It’s saying that in limited, horrific circumstances, we have some data (or in McMullin’s case, some compelling anecdotes) that at the end of the horrific crime, the victim is more likely to be less injured given choices a, b, and c, rather than choices x, y, and z.
I’ve survived multiple rapes and two horrifically violent relationships, and my strategies in different circumstances varied. I believe that my choices did have some impact on (at least the likelihood of) my survival and on the length and ultimate nature of the assaults I endured.
Stating this isn’t capitulating to the idea that the harm done is the responsibility of anyone other than the perp. It’s not saying sexism or other oppressions are okay.
What’s hard about this?
Karpad is right, McMullen was not being ironic or sarcastic, but laconic.
Americans might hear laconic as sarcastic (something that I learned the hard way when I was living in the US), but quite simply Australians generally aren’t “wordy”. We do irony by understatement and our sarcasm will hit you like a brick.
Let me emphasize: “[P]robably the safest thing to do in terms of your career is to comply with the request. The worst thing you could possibly do is to complain to the supervising body…]
She also said that the the state of affairs was “appalling”, but “realistic” and this was her “attempt to speak out”.
As of this writing none of the previous 44 comments even mentioned the book that launched this shitstorm: “Pathways to Gender Equality in Australia: The role of Merit and Quotas”, or what contribution to that tome was (Ch 3, Women in Medicine: Sisters doing it for themselves.”
Never mind, let me join my voice to the chorus of old white men telling an accomplished female professional and educator that “You’re Doing Feminism Wrong!”
McMullin is saying TO HER STUDENTS, “the system is dangerous to you and you cannot change it, you’ll just have to put up with it.” It’s a miracle any of her female students continue their studies.
I understand why some commenters believe her advice is sensible: I don’t understand why those commenters don’t understand the outrage others feel.
I have no problem with her telling students “it’s going to be tough if you buck the system, you will face enormous obstacles and be punished”. I have massive problems with her telling them “it’s better not to fight”.
She is continuing the problem.
Who does she think is going to get anything changed? Who is she calling on to change the system?
I accept that McMullin has made the choice not to put her head up over the barricades: she should not tell her students that is the only thing to do.
@46 eilish,
Please accept that I understand and empathize with your outrage. Please believe me when I say that I am also outraged. I just don’t think she “is continuing the problem” by pointing out the sad reality that people who put their heads over the barricades are likely to lose them.
As near as I can tell Dr McMullin wasn’t saying to her students there is no chance to change the system, she was saying to the system that students shouldn’t have choose between martyrdom and survival.
Of course it is hot air. What else would you expect an organization like that to say in a situation like this?
Regarding McMullin’s statement, the qualifier in terms of your career (which I note a lot of those critiquing her are leaving out when they paraphrase her) should have been the dead giveaway that the tone she is aiming for is one of bitter irony.
Interesting to note the reactions to the designed publicity for a new book. Dr. McMullin was noticeably absent from discussions media/online/journals of the subject matter before having a book to sell, a topic widely discussed here in OZ. Five pages on a search engine and no mention of related publications or talks.
Dr. McMullin’s statements as advertised widely through the media in Australia are worrisome to many fearing that they may have the unfortunate consequence of diminishing the value and integrity of those who continue to work toward addressing the inequalities that some women are still enduring. She has openly admitted that she purposefully used an outrageous assertion and a decades old case of inequality for the promotion of her recently released book. It is part of her chosen strategy.
When pressed to provide examples of current or recent (within the last decade) cases similar to that involving ‘Caroline’ or any other student or medical staff member where the protocols currently in place have failed in their obligation she could provide none. I am not declaring that there has not been any, but substantiation would not only have been expected but welcomed. As Australian Medical Association Victoria president Dr Tony Bartone said
“Sexual assault is a crime and will not be tolerated by our society. The medical profession is not exempt from this maxim.”
This type of aggrandisement no matter how well meaning and intentioned focusses the conversation to a situation that has long since changed from the time and context of the example. Rather than acknowledgement of the progress that has been accomplished and focussing the discussion on what can be achieved on the foundations established and a celebration of them her commentary turns back the clock and people become uninterested in rehashing and regurgitating past behaviours that have been addressed. Reducing interest in discussions about gender inequality to only the already aware and thereby slowing progress that may be achieved by increased awareness of pertinent and extant examples to be overcome.
Outrageous and misleading information is guaranteed to cause chatter as people respond according to emotions incited, her statements are viewed as authoritative but appear to lack substantiation. This I think does little to further the goal and societal aspiration of equality.
Rex,
I don’t understand how you can say that this is publicity for a book widely discussed in Oz that can’t be found on a google search. I would like to follow up your comment, but it is amazingly non-specific: new (nameless) book; when pressed (by whom?); worrisome to many (to whom?); “this type of aggrandisement” – what exactly are you referring to?
I’m not in the medical profession, but I’ve personally seen too much of the abuse of power Dr. McMullen is talking about in the upper echelons of engineering to suspect the medical profession is exempt.
Hello Echidna,
The claim made by Dr McMullin was in an interview at an event to launch her new book. The book being so new is not the subject of widespread discussion I was referring to the issue of equality being a subject of discussion. I did a search for any other publications or talks given by Dr McMullin on the subject of discrimination in the medical field and after 5 pages there was no references to any commentary made by her.
Being a regular attendee at hospitals I asked around today if the assertions made were experienced by the staff I interacted with, there is no denying that there exists an almost class distinction by some (not all) doctors to non doctors but they said that there was little difference between the attitudes of male and female doctors. The subject is regularly visited at the ‘toolbox’ meetings as part of the protocols required by the DONs (Directors of Nursing- matrons) and the meetings of the support staff. There were quips that a case of discrimination would be a source of welcome income. A price I personally would not want my daughters to pay.
There is no way to deny that the culture as described by Dr Mcmullin was rampant at one time within the profession as it was across most aspects of our culture’s history, the nursing staff and my sons neurosurgeon were unimpressed with the recent publicity generated by Dr McMullin and saw it perhaps as counter productive.
Our workplaces are far from perfect but revisiting old harms previously addressed by introduced legislation and surveillance does little to address the shortcomings of today.
Happy Monday
“Sexual assault is a crime and will not be tolerated by our society.”
I hope he means “Sexual assault is a crime and SHOULD not be tolerated by our society.” Because it should by now be very clear that we are not yet there, rape culture is alive and well in most societies today, and I expect Australia is not an exception in this regard.
Thanks, Rex, for your response. I agree with your position that if the culture was bad in the past, but has since been completely cleared up, then the comments might be unhelpful. I’m sure things are better than they were, but I would be surprised if abuses didn’t happen still, especially where a single high-ranked person can influence the opportunities available to you.