Male Codes of Honor

In 19th c., physicians “engaged in intra-professional regulation in a relatively informal way, according to an honor code that physicians as gentlemen, were supposed naturally to understand” . . . the BMA had a Central Ethical Committee to assure gentlemanly behavior among its own membership. . . The committee did not have the power to expel offenders from the professional and even hesitated to revoke association membership in most cases. . . the committee acted much as the committee of a social club of “good old boys” in addressing violations of the recognized, masculine code (72, 73). . . . Why was there no dramatic increase in number of female physicians in first three-quarters of 20th century? “. . . one hitherto unappreciated factor has been the exclusionary role played by the male honor culture in the multiple formal and informal settings where professional sociability controlled behavior, expectations, and opportunities. . . . In view of the fact that a willingness to engage in violence was regarded as a warrant for the truthfulness (or at least sincerity) of public statements, it is likely that in such situations educated middle-class women would feel, at the minimum, discomfort, and at most, a thoroughgoing disenfranchisement. . . [even where actual violence, e.g., dueling, had died out] “’satisfaction,’ ‘making amends,’ the mediation of ‘differences,’ the premium put on deft but ‘frank’ interchange, all remained important aspects of middle- and upper-class professional sociability . . . Might this not have stilled the voices of women, who did not know or care to adopt the gestural repertory of assertiveness? Further down the hierarchy . . . smoking, drinking, and profanity, which were salient expressions of male exclusivity if not aggression” (Nye, 75-76).