Equity is NOT Identity

Lawrence Summers, then the President for Harvard, was castigated for suggesting that women and men approach careers differently.

It seems to me that it may be his opponents, not Dr. Summers, who are sexist. The female life cycle is different from that of men and the only path to true equality of opportunity is if we alter the times course expectations of the two genders or, perhaps, offer both genders a "female" pathway.

The issue is far more than theoretical and idealistic. Our own medical schools now graduate more females than males. While feminists cavil at the lack of female chairs and deans, at least as serious is the effects of the career continuity expected of Docs based on the male life cycle.

The Brits, with a longer experience and a more orderly health system are already running into the problem.

At hte same time, our med. school has recently appointed to outstanding women as heads of departmnet or division. While I ams ure the admin. would claim this si nothing new, I think there is for exactly the reason that both Dr. Jarvik (Medical Genetics) and Dr. Schwinn (Anaesthesiology) were chosen despite the absence of any interest here in "affirmative action." Beyond being smart and good leaders, I honestly believe both these folks bring leadership styles that are new to our traditions. Put another way, I am not awfully symnpathetic to the idea that equality of opportunity is the reason for hiring people, I am far more interested in the idea that different backgrounds, including the effects of XX vs XY, may make a better form of doing things.

The Brit problem and th link above, IMHO, illustrate the worng approach. Rather than panicking about why more women are nto filling traditional male roles, it seems to me we should ask whether the structure of the work place makes sense for both genders. In my opinion it does not.