|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Moreover, like the doctor, men can have perspectives on "women's issues" which are valuable precisely because they are different."
I certainly feel a person's opinion should not be discounted based on their gender, race, etc. However, when it comes to doctors, I've had both male and female doctors and I tend to prefer the female variety. I am just more comfortable in what is otherwise an uncomfortable situation. I have a female friend, somewhat older, who prefers male doctors because she doesn't want "some lesbian poking around down there."
I am just curious if men find they are more comfortable being "poked around" by someone of the same gender, or if that makes any kind of difference to them in selecting a physician.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am just curious if men find they are more comfortable being "poked around" by someone of the same gender, or if that makes any kind of difference to them in selecting a physician.
When it comes to poking around, I definitely prefer a male physician. Also, in another thread recently, some men commented that they find the prostate examination embarassing or degrading or something like that. For what it's worth, I don't feel that way at all. It's just part of life. While I wouldn't find anything funny about prostate cancer, I find the exam itself to be a somewhat droll part of being human (well, male in this case).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should point out that McElroy's analogy in her column has nothing to do with who should go to what doctor of what sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
indeed. although, i'd still like to see a survey that determines what demographics prefer whom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I know that the column isn't about doctors and such. The mention of "doctor" just reminded me of the subject, which I had sometimes wondered about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
personally, i prefer a male doctor. i simply feel that a guy has first hand experience and hence a better understanding of the anatomy. sure, a female doctor versed in male anatomy has the expertice... hrm... this opinion is turning out to sound a lot like indentity politics mcelroy talked about.
on the note of prostate exams, there was an episode of some television show (i forget which) in which a man was about to get a prostage exam by, to his suprize, a female doctor. she discounted his concerns by saying "would you rather have a man do this?" i didn't enjoy that belittlement of concern. as i said before, i would rather have a man examine my male anatomy for medical concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with what Wendy McElroy wrote in her recent column regarding identity poitics.
H. Rearden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I am just curious if men find they are more comfortable being "poked around" by someone of the same gender, or if that makes any kind of difference to them in selecting a physician
According to an article in the Journal of General Internal Medicine (Vol. 15, pp. 761-769):
Male patients who had female doctors were more satisfied with their experiences than male patients with female doctors. This was presumed to be because males who had female doctors (an unusual occurence) were probably seeking out specific doctors with qualities they liked, and therefore were happier.
Interestingly, in comparing the 4 gender matchups between patient and doctor, the LEAST satisfied group was female patients with female doctors. This was presumed to be because female patients have higher expectations of care, and female patients who specifically seek out female doctors have the highest of expectations, and are theregore the most likely to be dissappointed.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 05, @05:31PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think I have the "highest of expectations" just because I choose to have a female doctor. In the past I've had some very sexist remarks made to me by male doctors and I don't need that kind of shit when I'm having a pap smear test or whatever. Besides, look how many cases there have been of male doctors sexually molesting female patients. Don't tell me what gender of doctor I should choose. It's none of your business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous:
I think you're getting mixed up in the friendly conversation at hand, and attacking male doctors is no way to formulate an argument. I can't recall a single syllable uttered about which gender of doctor you personally, Anonymous User, should choose. As for the sexist remarks made to you by male doctors, I'd wager a male doctor asking you any sort of routine health question regarding your anatomy is considered a sexist remark. Perhaps even eye contact would be considered intimidation to you.
Men endure sexist remarks made to them by women from all aspects of life, including doctors, every single day, yet note that men have not stereotyped women in general as much as women in general have stereotyped men. Sterotyping much like the ones running rampant through your post.
Perhaps you should see another doctor, Anonymous User, because the one you have has yet to diagnose your tunnel vision.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't tell me what gender of doctor I should choose. It's none of your business.
Aside from your complete misinterpretation of the thread, which never once "told you which doctor to choose", you exhibit a typically feminist trait of selective blindness. In the UK, if a female has a preference to see a female doctor for gynecological issues, she has a right to ask and depending on resources, they will attempt to accommodate that request. I have no such choice.
On the thread topic, I prefer male doctors. My one negative experience with female medical staff concerned a nurse. I had an epididymal cyst (testicular) which required an ultrasound examination. A female nurse lifted my green gown, looked at my scrotum and then called another female nurse over to look. They then shouted "Warm Gel" to a third nurse who appeared with a tube which contained warm gel. It turned out that the ultrasound equipment(similar to what pregnant women get)requires lubrication for the instrument disc to slide over - hence gel being required. The "warm" gel referred to the fact that my scrotum skin was not sufficiently loose enough (due to the typically Victorian British hospital facility being very cold) to allow the ultrasound disc to move over it. A pretty humiliating experience really.
Sorry for the graphic detail. But to the Anon troll, my point is that men also suffer humiliating procedures, the concept of sensitivity in terms of staff gender is not considered for British men, and the female staff involved could not have been any more unfriendly or brusque if they had tried.
For these reasons, where the choice is possible (such as choosing your regular Doctor) I prefer a male. Every male doctor I had contact with during this process of diagnosis and treatment seemed to understand that having your genitals touched was pretty sensitive and did their best to minimze embarrassment. Just my personal experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 05, @05:56PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
And I'd just like to add that I have NEVER been dissappointed with my female doctor. I had a male doctor who also wrote a column in the local paper. In one of his articles he actually stated that only promiscuous women get cervical cancer and that there was no need for women who didn't sleep around to have pap smear tests. God knows how many women who read his sexist article stopped having pap smear tests. I resent your insinuation that women who choose female doctors are somehow neurotic. It doesn't matter to me if my doctor is lesbian or heterosexual as long as I don't have to visit one of these smart ass male doctors who wait till a young woman has her clothes off before he takes advantage of the situation to make himself feel big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I resent your insinuation that women who choose female doctors are somehow neurotic."
Did someone say that? I must have missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 05, @06:18PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"This was presumed to be because female patients have higher expectations of care, and female patients who specifically seek out female doctors have the highest of expectations, and are theregore the most likely to be dissappointed.
Gary"
This seems to imply that women who choose female doctors are perfectionist/neurotic types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't doubt it. People can look at what you've posted "I had a male doctor who made sexist remarks" and assume that female doctors, especially OB/GYNs, are much much better than male doctors - then be disappointed when they're not much better - is having expectations neurotic?
I had one female doc who happened to be a friend of my mother's. She reported the results of a test I took to my mother before me - THANKS - not like it was life threatening or even embarassing, but it irritated me. So, there's a bad experience to chalk up on the list. I'd perfer a female doc overall, hopefully unlike the aforementioned. I've asked around and most seem to want a doc of their own gender - but then again most of my asking pool is teenagers - who usually don't need/go in for exams that often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter to me if my doctor is lesbian or heterosexual as long as I don't have to visit one of these smart ass male doctors who wait till a young woman has her clothes off before he takes advantage of the situation to make himself feel big.
Ignore the troll, folks. She obviously doesn't understand the point of either the column or the thread. No one here has told anyone they have to go to a certain doctor of a certain sex.
See, *this* kind of crap is why I wanted to clarify the subject of Wendy's column. Give 'em an inch, and they'll twist words a mile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[...] this [...] crap is why I [...] wanted to [...] [g]ive 'em a[...] twist [...]
i'm shocked and outraged by the violence you embody! *points finger* patriarch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Male patients who had female doctors were more satisfied with their experiences than male patients with female doctors."
What? That doesn't make sense.
I've had both male and female doctors. I was more satisfied with my female doctors, I felt less vulnerable, they talked to me more and their touch was more gentle, the pap smear was a breeze. But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think he meant to say "male patients who had MALE doctors.
One of my pet peeves is people who do not understand what studies tell us. They are correlation's between variables NOT causation between variables. In any good study they will always mention what the potential confounds are in their data. That is all this study is probably trying to prove.
I think from now on I will just ignore any anon postings unless they have substance and are not just rants about some injustice. If you want a voice then have one but do not hide behind a wall of anonymity.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"[Males with female doctors] were probably seeking out specific doctors with qualities they liked, and therefore were happier... [Females with female doctors] have the highest of expectations, and are theregore the most likely to be dissappointed."
Hmmm... this doesn't seem like a very satisfying explanation. If people who have female doctors are more likely to have sought out a doctor with certain qualities (probably true) then wouldn't the potential for disapointment be the same?
Interesting study none the less.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am just curious if men find they are more comfortable being "poked around" by someone of the same gender, or if that makes any kind of difference to them in selecting a physician.
More comfortable? I really do not have a preference based on my limited experience. Mind, the only female doctor I have seen regularily was a friend of the family I'd known for years.
I doubt I'd choose a doctor based on their gender. I want someone who can TALK and knows their work....
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @12:09AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will you all kindly shut up about doctors! As long as you've got Dr Curenicely rather than Dr Killpatient what does it matter?!?!?!?!
To the other subject, you know, the article? McElroy writes:
There is nothing inherently wrong with dividing people into separate categories or classes. A class can be defined by almost any factor — income level, hair color, age, nationality, etc.
Isn't there something seriously wrong with this remark in relation to its use of the word 'class' and how it relates to the Marxist use of the word? When feminists talk of men as the oppressor class the word does not merely mean a grouping or category of people. It carries the very different conotations of social class, which are based on wealth, power and influence. At least the original Marxist conception had some validity, since it was underpinned by real, physical considerations. Those of the ruling class actually did rule, they actually did own all the wealth, and it was that which defined them. In the feminist conception of class, however, you do not need to have any wealth or power to be considered part of the male 'oppressor class', it's simply treated as a kind of innate quality, like a scent which has rubbed off wealthy, powerful men onto all men, thus making them indistinguishable to the feminist nose. One of the consequences of the idea that 'oppressor classness' is innate is that feminists are incapable of recognising injustices against men. By decoupling the ideas of opressor and oppressed from meaningful physical factors the sexes are staticised in their perceived historical roles, thus women are the 'victim class' irrespective of how much wealth, power and status they have, and irrespective of what they do. Men, on the other hand, are the 'oppressor class' regardless of how poor, how disenfranchised or how badly they are treated. Look at the recent spate of women being let off for murder and serious violent assault, or the way men are treated by the 'family' courts, or the way DV laws are constructed so that they can criminalise the man even if he's the one being beaten (the 'primary aggressor' rule). It's no wonder these people are so reliant on History as an excuse for their behaviour. If they applied the same standards to what's happeneing in the here-and-now to what may have happened in times past they would have to have very different ideas about who is in this 'class' or that 'class'.
What does anyone else think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's an excellent observation and elequently put.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great analysis, really. What you're getting at is an exceptionally important concept--the notion of "collective guilt". Standard fare for Women's Studies texts is the assertion that all men make daily, conscious decisions that maintain their status as oppressors. This is obviously a proposterous idea. There is a chauvanism at work, a self-promoting philosophy that actually doesn't lead to any real happiness. Understand that these are extremely unhappy people that hold these beliefs. All efforts at theraputically raising their self esteem by painting themselves as hapless victims (without consideration of their status as middle to upper-class academic sloths) are doomed to failure. The end reult is only bitterness, disappointment, and inner conflict as they try to reconcile the idea that their fathers hate them with the fact that they know this to be untrue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post!
Very insightful!
I would also note that feminist theory, the way it is formulated currently, is basically a conspiracy theory. It has formulated the postulate that men have all the power and then looks at every situation with a slanted perspective.
While theoretically this helps to highlight certain issues it has gone well beyond this recently. Feminist theory has moved from an examination of the femle role in society to the accusation of men. Until another theory is brought up to widen the examination of gender issues little progress can be or will be made. What is needed is a comprehensive theory that allows people to examine gender without the feminist theoretical bias of "society is patriarchal" skewing everyones focus.
My constant battle in class is to break away from this monotheoretic lens of gender examination. Men's issues will never be considered seriously as long as feminist theory is the only lens that gender is examined through.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is needed is a comprehensive theory that allows people to examine gender without the feminist theoretical bias of "society is patriarchal" skewing everyones focus.
Tony,
I have some ideas on that which I'm totally unqualified to turn into any kind of legitimate theory. Email me if you're interested. revdom_2000@yahoo.com.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
