Surgical specialties have for decades been symbols of technical excellence, strict discipline and vertical leadership. Today, however, these settings—interventional radiology included—are in need of a cultural overhaul. The increasing number of women entering surgical and technical specialties, such as interventional radiology, has demonstrated that an increased presence is not enough: working conditions in these settings require urgent transformation.1
An article published recently in the British Journal of Surgery, titled “Voices behind the mask: unveiling sexist verbal discrimination in surgery”,2 reveals that more than 90% of female surgeons have experienced sexist verbal discrimination, many repeatedly. These figures are alarming not only because of their magnitude, but also due the profound impact that this type of violence has on female professionals, their teams and the quality of care provided.
Other forms of more subtle but equally harmful discrimination at work include exclusion from clinical decision-making, systematic assignment to lower-responsibility tasks, infantilisation of professional role and the unjustified undermining of skills.3 These practices erode self-confidence, produce a constant feeling of insecurity and affect performance, with documented psychoemotional consequences: anxiety, insomnia, depression and exit from the profession.
At organisational level, harassment undermines team cohesion, promotes silence and distrust and prevents the promotion of safe, empathetic and efficient environments. Furthermore, it perpetuates an authoritarian model of leadership, incompatible with current demands of interprofessional collaboration, work-life balance and shared decision-making.
For many women, these environments not only threaten their well-being, but also constitute a structural barrier to their professional development. Opportunities for growth are limited when visibility is influenced by gender biases. Maternity is penalised, directly or indirectly, by rigid structures that lack flexibility and the absence of role models and clinical mentors, perpetuating generational inequality.
In this context, the creation of mentorship, visibility and female leadership programmes cannot be considered optional. Beyond their educational value, these spaces serve a critical function: they offer a safe environment where women can express themselves freely, something many workplace settings still fail to provide.4
In clinical meetings, or traditional hierarchical structures, many female professionals do not find themselves in an emotional or institutional setting that allows them to speak openly about their experiences, concerns or limits. Formal or informal mentoring provides them with a space where they can talk about situations that would otherwise be silenced: from daily microagressions to legitimate concerns about their place in the team, the fear of appearing ‘less capable’ because they are juggling work with family life, or difficulties in balancing demands with self-care.
Mentoring among women goes beyond driving development in technical and leadership skills—it also promotes listening, understanding and emotional support. In these spaces, female professionals can share their experiences, discover that they are not alone, identify structural patterns of discrimination (enacted by men as well as women) and find tools to tackle them better.5 Speaking about being a mother, frustration, guilt or ambition without being judged is, for many, a profoundly necessary process of healing.
Furthermore, these environments generate networks of trust and intergenerational solidarity. Women with more experience can offer guidance, practical support and strategies that you do not find in books: how to respond to a derogatory attitude, how to ask for better working conditions, how to keep motivation up in a hostile environment. The youngest, in turn, provide a critical perspective that enriches the process.
For these reasons, mentorship spaces should be considered an investment in institutional health, professional well-being and care quality. They represent a concrete response to isolation, inequality and burnout. They are also a way to guarantee that women do not only enter interventional radiology, but that once there they can grow, lead and transform the system from within.
However, the creation of women-only spaces within scientific associations or health departments has generated debate. Some consider it discriminatory or believe it promotes segregation.6 While this criticism stems from genuine concerns, it fails to recognise the structural reality: these spaces do not exclude, they heal. They do not separate, they create minimum conditions for security, listening and trust still not guaranteed in mixed settings.
Promoting mentorship and leadership spaces directed specifically at women is not a sign of privilege, it is a strategy for achieving equality. It is recognising that, for decades, the rules of the game have been defined by masculine structures that resist change. Promoting spaces where women can share, support each other and establish collective role models is a proportional and necessary measure to guarantee their full professional development.
That said, cultural change cannot be limited to one gender. It must be transversal, shared and lead by people, independently of their sex or gender identity, who understand that the traditional model of medicine, based on rigid hierarchies, inhumane working hours, and the exclusion of emotions, is obsolete.
Transforming medical culture means rethinking power, leadership and collaboration. It means abandoning the logic of commands and obedience and moving towards horizontal structures where mutual respect, reconciliation and the well-being of the team are as important as technical excellence. In this new paradigm, gender equality is not a parallel agenda: it is a structural requirement for a fairer, more human and more effective medicine.
Change is only possible if it is shared. And this change does not represent a threat to interventional radiology or to surgery more generally: it is the only path forward.
FundingThis research has not received funding support from public sector agencies, the business sector or any non-profit organisations.
The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest.
