If you are interested in the ART Program, please go to the program page
Advanced Resuscitation Training (ART) Program
FEMinEM Discussion
So we have our RESUSCITATE NYC conference coming up soon. On the day we listed the program, we got this tweet from @First_do_noharm
Well, needless to say, I was a bit upset by the tone of this tweet–but the issues raised were incredibly important. Hence, instead of touching off a tweet-war, I instead reached out to the FEMinEM folks to see if they would host a discussion. Dara Kass (@darakass) and Jenny Beck-Esmay (@jbeckesmay) were kind enough to set up a google hangout to discuss the issues. Simon Carley (@EMManchester) has been doing research on this topic and was kind enough to join us as well.
I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation and felt it was balanced and hopefully raises some things to think about. Especially in the setting of this kind of ridiculous sexist trolling:
Update
Ashley Liebig wrote with this message:
What are you waiting for?
In 7th grade, I was at a school dance. Everyone was dressed in their best; boys and girls stood, clustered together, on opposite sides of a vacant dance floor.
I loved to dance, and at the age of 12, this wasted opportunity was a tragedy. “Why isn't anyone dancing?”
“None of the boys have asked us.”
I recall this conversation like it was yesterday. I remember the look on my friend’s face as the words came out of her mouth. Even as a young girl, she nearly choked on them as she realized what she was saying. Almost as quickly as they passed her lips, she grabbed my hand, and marched across the gymnasium floor to the boys and commanded, “Let’s go! We are dancing!”
I couldn’t help but recall this story as I listened to the #feminEM forum addressing the need for more female conference speakers.
From this, and the conversations I have had in person and viewed in the Twittersphere, it seems that women are waiting for an invitation to be heard. Women: smart, powerful, articulate professionals are WAITING for someone to invite them to the stage and then become frustrated when no one does! Wouldn’t that energy be better spent in active pursuit of that opportunity?
Public speaking can be terrifying and becoming a great public speaker doesn’t just happen organically. It takes work, a massive amounts of time and practice. Ask women like Natalie May, Liz Crowe and Victoria Brazil. All brilliant speakers, whose craft has been honed over countless hours of commitment to the design and choreography of great lectures. This is not said to deter anyone, but rather to provide an appreciation of the effort involved. Submitting ideas, preparing for and giving lectures is a job in and of itself. Great speakers don’t just appear, they build a name for themselves, they work “the circuit”. They give lectures on a small scale, at grand rounds, and at regional conferences until they establish a reputation that propels them to the national level.
With this in mind, have you submitted proposals to speak? Granted not all conferences call for speakers, but most do. When is the last time you submitted a lecture idea or topic? If you have not, the better question to ask is why not?
There was mention on the Hangout about feeling “legitimately qualified”, speculating that women are less likely to give lectures than their male colleagues of the same experience level because they didn’t feel qualified. Do you think that Scott Weingart is the authority on resuscitation? Some do, others don’t. Does he? Not likely, but he is confident enough in his idea to deliver a powerful educational experience. In fact, if you talk with any great speaker, I doubt you will find any that think that they are THE authority on any topic. They research and prepare and practice content and seek feedback. Perhaps we should consider redefining “legitimately qualified”.
I believe that this fear of legitimacy is truly imposter syndrome. The term, coined by two psychologists before I was born, is used to describe people, who despite intelligence and achievements, live in fear that they are a fraud and that this will be discovered.[1] Natalie May wrote a beautiful article describing this phenomenon and her experience on stage at #smaccGOLD. I, too, once suffered from this self-imposed syndrome but was fortunate to be rescued from this ego-crushing monster by superhero women. Women that I consider mentors, colleagues and friends. Women who have made it their mission to build one another up, to encourage, to give constructive feedback and to listen. These kind of women are the answer.
Putting a woman on a stage to obtain a percentage of women is not the solution. Tasking conference leaders with searching the globe for worthy female speakers is not the solution. Waiting for in invitation is not the solution.
Be the solution.Do the research, prepare and submit proposals. Find a network of women who inspire, encourage and mentor you. Build your experience in smaller venues and make a name for yourself. If the conference stage is what you want, stop making excuses and waiting for your invitation.
Be the girl woman who marches across the gymnasium floor and demands to dance. Be brave, be fantastic.
[1] Pauline Clance, Susan Imes, ‘The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention’, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, Vol 15(3), 1978, 241-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0086006
What do you think? Post here or on the FEMinEM site. Now on to the Wee…
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (2.1MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Google Podcasts | RSS | More
Scott Weingart
This conversation is amazing for many reasons. Ironically it has also opened my eyes as well. My own career has never been about seeking out speaking – both because of my own time issue (having kids, figuring out my niche) and because “I didnt think I had anything important to say” (hold chuckle, swami et al). Then I think about the few regional talks I have given and how audience members have come to me years later and thanked me for being on the stage with mostly men. I realize that as female mentors and leaders we need to put ourselves out there more, even just to send the message to younger physicians that their voice will matter and the door is open to them as well.
Again, thank you Scott, for choosing to turn a small tweet into a call to action. This is how real change will start. Proud to know you all.
I don’t find Scott’s argument that because there are no female speakers he has heard speak before, therefore he can’t invite females to his conference, very convincing. To say the least.
This completely ignores the fact that women to this day have a hard time in medicine, from female trainees in surgery being bullied and being victims of sexual suggestive language and different treatment to male trainees, to the bias that Diana EW mentioned in her tweet, whether that be conscious or subconscious.
Medicine, and EM and Surgery in particular, are male-dominated disciplines. Machismo and bullying is rife. You can not seriously be surprised that female EM docs are represented less on speaking circuits. But the only solution is to give them opportunities, to get them into slots, not Scott’s ” I haven’t heard any women speak on cardiac arrest before therefore I can’t invite them” nonsense.
Medicine is not isolated from the rest of society. We need to catch up.
Hey Scott. thanks for publishing this discussion. I am not surprised this all started on Twitter and that it felt so personal to you. The immediacy and impulsivity of twitter makes for very blunt, unsubtle, almost insulting nature at times. I wanted to make a comment in regard to SMACC since I have been on organising committee . It is true that after Sydney 2013, due to feedback regarding gender bias of speaker lineup, there was a deliberate shift in strategy of speaker selection as Scott has described. I recall meetings whereby we discussed selection of female speakers who are not only well recognised academically but also excellent speakers. It is as Scott has said, one of our criteria was that the speaker had to have seen to be giving a good quality talk before. SMACC Chicago was relatively easy to find excellent female speakers in EM/CC. Our focus was international audience and it attracts a global speaker lineup. Personal networks amongst the committee are luckily so extensive that its not hard to reach out to anyone on the planet. The use of social media amplifies the ability to do this. So turning SMACC into a more gender neutral conference… Read more »
i think a new speaker slot, aside from the Blast is a great idea. if it is designated, then the pressure is off.
Hi Scott I think you are right to credit @First_do_noharm with raising important issues (disclaimer – she is a friend and colleague of mine). As we know – that very discomfort you felt (‘upset’) can sometimes be a defensive response to some unwelcome forced reflection…… at least i have often found that myself… and at best prompts the kind of more indepth thoughts and discussions that Twitter is not good at. I will give further credit to you in presenting this to your large (and adoring 🙂 audience at emcrit.org I also recognize the emotional element of your response – as that’s a little bit of what i feel everytime i look at a conference program/ panel line up that is yet again all men, …… but my emotion is not anger, just kind of sad, resigned, disappointed….. But to remove emotion for a minute….. I guess we have to start with a confronting question – is it actually a good thing to have greater female participation in conversations at professional conferences/seminars large or small. ie What is the evidence that this will make for better patient outcomes/ more rigorous discussions of evidence/ improved translation of evidence to practice. Not… Read more »
Vic, Hells yeah, your friend was right to raise the issue, and I have to imagine the nature of how she raised it was merely a manifestation of the upset you mention. That being said, a tweet such as: No women speakers on the panel. What’s up with that? Is this #unconsciousbias would have expressed the identical sentiments, would have led to the same sequelae of dialog with the FEMinEM folks, and would not have led to any upset on my part. So, no, at least in my potentially deluded head, my upset at the tweet was the chosen means of expression rather than the content. I think I have shown that I am more than willing to address these kind of issues, admit that there is another viewpoint, and that my viewpoint may be wrong. As I think I have shown in other incidents on this blog, I don’t condone meanness in the FOAM world. When I responded to the original tweet with an offer of dialog, the response I got was, I don’t see what we have to talk about (paraphrased). As to the other sentiments you raised: “I guess we have to start with a confronting question… Read more »
Scott,Vic, I have been thinking about this post a lot since it got published. I agree with Scott that the original tweet was somewhat unfair in accusing him of unconscious bias. But what Vic commented on made me think about a wider issue of bias in medical education/meetings and its something I have noticed with SMACC as an example. As I mentioned before SMACC2013 was criticised for gender bias and this was deliberately addressed in the subsequent meetings. SMACC is promoted as inclusive of all, including multidisciplinary attitude, encompassing rural doctors, paramedics , nurses etc. The fact of the matter is that majority of speaker lineup are doctors. There are very few non doctors who speak. This is somewhat made up for via online competitions where participation appears more evenly spread across disciplines. I have even noticed on Twitter and other media the concern that some have that few non doctors are invited to speak at SMACC, since it is billed as a multidisciplinary critical care and social media event. Why dont we have more nurses or paramedics speaking? It might even balance the genders! I guess my point is at some point you have to draw the line at… Read more »
I am so glad to see this discussion up here – hale to you Scott for initiating and hosting, and to the FeminEM team and Simon for their considered input. I have little to add, but to support what Vic has said above. If our starting point is that we agree having female representation is beneficial – to conference goers, to knowledge consumers, to education propagators, and ultimately to patient care, then we need to start to look at the whys, and the hows of rectifying this ‘unconscious bias’. All biases are insidious. This one’s a cultural, as well as an individual, cognitive one. Not only for men mind, but also for women. The first step is its recognition, giving it a name, and affording it respectful airtime and discussion. So thank you all. If I could just add two things: 1) Females in critical care can see this as the doors creaking open. Not a call to arms, but an invitation. You are respected and esteemed and your voice matters. But you need to be putting up your hand and standing strong, so that your valued voice can be heard. 2) It always surprises me the far reaching influence… Read more »
thanks so much for these comments, my friend!