Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Lauren,

    As with any profession, neither sex has the handle on being the
    best or the worst.  There are excellant male ob/gyns as well as
    the most incompetent.  There are those with great empathy toward
    women and those in it for their own psychology of "getting back"
    at women.  The women have their own agendas also with some of
    the same problems being ob/gyns.  It tends to be a HUMAN relations
    problem.  

    The best internal I was given was by a woman geriatric specialist
    but her terminology and interaction was atrocious!  She wanted to
    be seen as the all-knowing doctor and the patient was to be seen
    and not heard!

    I guess you could also ask who makes the best engineers????  ;*)

    It all ends up with the behavior of the individual not the individual's
    sex!

    justme....jacqui

    I don't deny that there are good and bad doctors of both sexes. But
    in the context of engineering, every female engineer is aware that
    the entire TONE of the engineering field is very male.
    
    There are two questions, the first is the personal, of whether you
    prefer to be examined by a man or a woman, but the second is whether
    you feel that ob/gyn research would be more progressive if the majority
    of ob/gyn specialists were women. 
    
    Also, would there be a different TONE to ob/gyn if there was a female
    majority of doctors.
    

    I personally prefer to go to a woman gynecologist -- you can describe
    symptoms and be sure that they know what you are talking about, because
    they have the same type of body you have.  
    
    However, I've never gone to a male gynecologist, so I have no
    comparison.  I couldn't say for sure that a man who talks with women
    every day about feelings in the female body is incapable of coming to
    understand our medical concerns.  I'd hesitate before making such a
    sweeping statement.  I have some friends who go to male gynecologists
    and say that their doctor is "wonderful."  Conversely,  I've been to
    women gynecologists who were fairly cold in their approach.
    
    Guess it depends on the personality of the doctor and why she/he chose
    that specialty.  
    
    A friend of mine who's a doctor says that in the medical community 
    it's commonly understood that a lot of specialists in OB/GYN are
    frustrated surgeons.  That would explain the quickness to perform
    C-sections...  

    
    
    I prefer also to go to a female gyn, but for the sole reason that
    I honestly do not feel that a man can tell a woman what it feels
    like to be a woman and vice versa.  I bet if you asked men who were
    about to have a vasectomy whether or not they would prefer a male
    or female doctor that many of them would say male.  Each sex has
    an equal capacity to learn to be a doctor/engineer/whatever.
    
    One question though, could you explain what was meant by the
    statement that engineering has a male tone to it?
    
    Mi

    I've had all male OB/GYN's up until 1987, when, by a stroke of luck,
    I was referred to Dr. Elizabeth Kopin of Worcester OB/GYN.
    
    I have very serious problems with my reproduction system, have had
    a scalpingo/ooforectomy, and many of my doctors have told me I need
    a hysterectomy (before the age of 25, no less!).  This includes
    my current doctor down here in Virginia (of course, I don't listen
    to him on that subject.  He's willing to try everything to "save"
    my system, so I won't switch doctors unless he goes to drastic
    measures)
    
    When I started developing huge tumors in my pelvic cavity, one of
    my doctors kept asking me how was the pain.  I could not describe
    it to his liking and we actually had a screaming match on the subject
    while I was internally hemmhoraging profusely.  He dragged me across
    the street to Memorial Hospital via wheelchair and it was there
    that (thank god) I was introduced to Dr. K (as I call her).  She
    was wonderful, very sympathetic and a wonderful surgeon to boot.
    She made certain she was telling me EVERYTHING that was happening
    to me during surgery, and kept me well-informed as to my condition
    and prognosis.  Before, my GYN's were all acting as though they
    didn't need to tell me what was happening with me and my body, I
    should just take what they say and deal with it.
    
    If I could go back to Dr. K, I'd do it in a heartbeat!
    
    Tammi
    

>    I bet if you asked men who were
>    about to have a vasectomy whether or not they would prefer a male
>    or female doctor that many of them would say male.  

This raises an interesting point.  Personally, I think would have been as 
happy to have my vasectomy done by a woman as by a man.  (This doesn't prove 
anything -- I'm one man, not many.)  But I started reflecting:  there's no
reason (to my mind) that being a man should give a doctor any particular 
edge in doing vasectomies... but how about having had one himself?  Would
that make the doctor more empathetic in performing the operation himself?

But consider:  a doctor who has never had a vasectomy at least knows that
his (or her) experience is incomplete.  A doctor who *has* had one knows
what the experience was like -- FOR HIM.  So, will he be more empathetic?
Or will he tend to assume (perhaps unconsciously) that every patient's 
experience will be like his own?

There is a generalization here, of course.  A woman doctor who experiences
severe menstrual cramps will have an extra understanding of a patient who 
has the same problem -- but perhaps little understanding of a patient who
doesn't; and a woman doctor who doesn't experience menstrual discomfort
herself could easily be more convinced than any male doctor (who should
realize the limits of his experience) that menstrual discomfort is a greatly
overrated problem.

In general, any commonality between the doctor and the patient may create
greater understanding; but where the commonality is illusory, it can easily 
create greater misunderstanding.  The only guard against this misunderstanding,
this temptation of the doctor to universalize her or his own experience, is
an awareness, on the part of the doctor, of each patient's uniqueness, and
the legitimacy of each patient's experience.  But the more the doctor has
this quality of awareness, the less his or her gender will be relevant.

In short, while I can see the desirability of having a doctor whose experiences
have been similar to my own, I would give more importance to having a doctor 
who can appreciate and understand my own experience when it is *different* 
from his or hers.

	-Neil

    I have much preferred female ob-gyn's or nurse practitioners to male.
    The times I had a male do routine checkups, there was little problem.
    But when they were treating me for something, or doing a more thorough
    check-up, they were less gentle.  They also tended to do an
    unnecessarily harsh treatment, or recommend over-treating, as opposed
    to doing a lesser treatment with a "wait and see" attitude. The females
    also were more congenial, told me what to expect in the future,
    described what they were doing, and often told me alternative treatment
    methods I could do myself.
    
    At one point, I had an appointment with a new ob/gyn who was male,
    and the receptionist actually warned me he was:
    a)  abrasive in demeanor
    b)  didn't tend to tell you what he was doing
    c)  didn't generally communicate well with women
    I asked myself what he was doing in that field of medicine then!
    As it turned out, he did the pap smear swabbing pretty hard, and
    I bled for a day or two after....I didn't go back to him, needless
    to say. 

    I think progress could be made more quickly in the field
    of ob/gyn (perhaps particularly in the area of infertility treatment,
    prenatal child care, birth control alternatives, and treatment of
    various disorders) if the field were female-dominated.  Perhaps
    because women understand women better (makes sense) - perhaps because
    they'd push for greater reforms more quickly on all fronts of medical
    treatment and care.  Perhaps because I often sense women have a
    greater need for overall wellness than many men I've met (who would
    sometimes rather deny a problem, or not get it checked out, than
    deal with the hassle of treatment)....if women are to see ob/gyn's
    several times a year, throughout their adult lives, I think they deserve
    the best treatment they can get - it can affect the quality
    of their lives in many small ways.
    
    I'm not saying male ob/gyn's are BAD, I'm just saying that, given
    my experience, I prefer female ob/gyn's.

    -Jody
        
    

    1. do I prefer a male or female ob/gyn?
    
    nope.  I prefer doctor or a practice that meets my needs. I insist upon
    meeting a new doctor [of ANY specialty other than Trauma/Emergency]
    prior to any exams or appointments take place so that we might come to
    an understanding of each other's concept of the doctor/patient
    relationship. If there's not a match, that's not my doctor.
    
    I have not found that the women I have seen are any more sympathetic or
    caring than the men.  All answer my questions.  None treat me roughly.
    I do not ask for 'empathy' from a doctor; I ask for expertise, answers,
    and an acknowledgement that I am a full party to our interaction.
    
    2.  Do I feel that ob/gyn research would be more progressive if the
    field were female-dominated?
    
    'Progressive' is a subjective term.  However, I do feel that were this
    a woman-dominated field the direction research would take would focus
    more easily upon what women actually need.  While not all of the women
    involved would have experienced all of the 'problems', the chances are
    statistically better than if the field is dominated by men.
    
    3. Do I feel the 'tone' would be different?
    
    Not until the medical training that both men and women receive is
    changed drastically.  Much that is good and non-invasive is left out in
    the training of physicians.  Perhaps this is a male-thing...the use of
    technology and what is 'newest' as the default over more holistic
    means.
    
    At present, my ob/gyn of record is a man in practice with his wife.
    I rarely see either physician as I am not experiencing any problems
    which require their attention.  I see the nurse practioner/midwives,
    both male and female, in practice with them.
    
      Ann

   re .6:
>  There is a generalization here, of course.  A woman doctor who experiences
>  severe menstrual cramps will have an extra understanding of a patient who 
>  has the same problem -- but perhaps little understanding of a patient who
>  doesn't; and a woman doctor who doesn't experience menstrual discomfort
>  herself could easily be more convinced than any male doctor (who should
>  realize the limits of his experience) that menstrual discomfort is a
>  greatly overrated problem.

    That's an interesting point.  However, I'd disagree with it, simply
    because most female doctors do not exist in a social vaccuum.  They are
    likely to have friends, sisters, mothers, cousins, and others who have
    radically different experiences than they do.

    Women tend to talk about female medical concerns to other women more
    than they do to men.  I cannot count the number of conversations I've
    had with female friends about experiences with cramps, birth control,
    vaginal cysts, warts, cancerous growths, fibrocitis, mammography, etc. 
    I can certainly count the number of such conversations I've had with
    men on those topics.

    I've known women who do not get PMS.  None of them has said "it's all
    in your head, you know."  They *have* said "lucky for me, I don't have
    that problem."   A female doctor has a greater store of anecdotal
    knowledge about women's experiences than a male doctor -- to conclude
    she would "easily be more convinced than any male doctor" that cramps
    are an "overrated problem" if she doesn't get them herself is not
    convincing to me.

    I do agree that male doctors who are willing to listen and learn could
    be very effective OB/GYNs.

    
    After seeing couple female dentist, I am convinced that female
    doctors are more gentle than male doctors.  This is human nature
    between male and female.  I do believe female doctors tend to be
    more understanding of the patient's problem.   This is not limited
    to ob/gyn.  We are seeing a lot more female doctors compared to
    10 years ago.  I suppose the medical school are having a lot of
    female students recently.
    
    Seems to me nobody is concern about the sexual abuse by male
    ob/gyn doctor.  We have seen those reported on newspaper.

    
    I have seen both, male and female OB/GYNs, and contrary to what I've
    been reading here, my experience has been the female OB/GYNs were the
    more harsh/brass.
    
    I now see a male OB/GYN and am happy to say that I wouldn't trade him
    for any other, regardless of gender.
    
    - Beckie

    RE.-1
    
    I AGREE!  I have been seen by both and I too have found female Doctors
    to be less caring, less willing to talk, and a lot more insensitive,
    as well as giving rougher exams.  
    
    I have a wonderful male ob/gyn and wish I was going to be in New
    England the next time I have a baby.  Or wish I could take him with
    me to VA.
    
    jeni

I would never again see a male OB/GYN, for both experiential and philosophical
reasons.

In decreasing order of importance:

o  With a male OB/GYN, I will tense up to the point that an exam is impossible 
   or very painful.  This wasn't always the case, though...just in the last 
   3 years.  It's slightly terrifying how impatient the doctor can be in this 
   situation.

o  Men have, at best, second-hand knowledge of health problems specific to 
   women. This would put male OB/GYNs at a disadvantage in terms of just
   how well they can actually understand what is happening to the woman 
   beyond the physiological processes they learned in med school.  

   Pam Smith's (.9) statement about how woman doctors are likely to talk 
   about female health problems to their mothers, aunts, sisters, friends,
   etc., really made me think about how much information I gain just by 
   talking to other women about health problems. It made me realize how much 
   more information a female OB/GYN is likely to gain just because she is 
   a woman, and therefore it is "OK" to talk to practically a relative stranger
   about PMS or whatever, because of the commonalty of being female.

o  A lot of my friends I graduated with from Duke were accepted to med school.
   I heard a few too many joking statements made from guys about their motiva-
   tions for wanting to specialize in OB/GYN.  Yea, I know, they were just 
   joking....but hearing that does tend to make one suspicious of male 
   motivations for becoming a gynecologist.  No, this is *not* a generalization
   ... just an observation.

o  I saw the movie "Dead Ringers".


Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with the following statement made by 
.10 (MOSAIC::RU) :

>    After seeing couple female dentist, I am convinced that female
>    doctors are more gentle than male doctors.  This is human nature
>    between male and female. 

Male doctors (OB/GYNs included) can be just as gentle, if not more, than 
female doctors.  I am uncomfortable with the sweeping nature of the 
"This is human nature between male and female." reasoning (and if I were
male, I'd probably be offended).  IMO, the trend you are noticing of 
degrees of gentleness between men and women doctors results from nurture, 
not nature.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Somewhat related to the topic : 

When my brother was in med school, he told me of the negative effects he
thought the current male-dominated medical profession was having on women.  

He said women were not being used as subjects in important, large-scale 
research studies, and that the reasoning behind using only men in the
studies were basically rationalizations that the scientists didn't want 
to take into account the irregularities and variation of data caused by
the physiological differences between women and men.

He claimed that the studies funded by the NIH (National Institute 
for Health) where women were asked to participate were usually studies
done on such a relatively small scale that the results were likely to be
deemed inconclusive when a later study (done on an equally small number
of women) pointed to a different conclusion.  As an example, he gave the
lack of a large-scale study on the causes of breast cancer, and talked
about all the small-scale studies that gave conflicting conclusions and
essentially non-information to doctors trying to make decisions.

						nancy b.        

    I've been  thinking about this topic for quite a while. What first
    caught  my  attention  was  talking  to  a friend who finished med
    school  around  1950. She not only wasn't allowed to specialize in
    urology,  she  wasn't allowed to do any genital exams of men. (The
    reason  for  the rule was some sort of fuzzy thought that it would
    bother  the  men.)  When I first started seeing notes here looking
    for  a  female  GYN, I wondered about the role reversal. The whole
    thing  reminded  me  somewhat  of  the comments by "racist" whites
    during  the  civil  rights era -- "Well they're ok, but I wouldn't
    want  them  in  my  schools."  I  find  that I still have this gut
    reaction  that  it  feels  like stereotyping. This bothers me more
    coming from women because they are a group that has worked (and is
    still working) to avoid sexist stereotypes.

    Since doctors  routinely  treat  patients who have conditions that
    the  doctor  has  never  had,  they  must  learn  to make sense of
    descriptions of feelings that they have never had. For that reason
    I'm   not   terribly  impressed  with  the  arguments  about  "not
    understanding this feeling".

    I can  certainly understand and respect a woman's preference for a
    woman  GYN,  but  from  the  responses  here, that demand isn't so
    overwhelming as to justify a request that men stick to urology.

    As for  my personal experience: I've had genital exams by both men
    and  women,  and  it  really doesn't matter to me. The doctors who
    seemed  reasonable  for  other ailments continued to be reasonable
    there.  

--David

re: .14 (David Wittenberg)
    ---------------------

I don't think any of us are advocating keeping men out of the OB/GYN
profession.  The first question asked us to express our *opinions* on
whether we prefer a male to female OB/GYN, while the second posed the
more controversial question of whether males in the profession are
helpful, a hindrance, or neutral.

When I answered the first question re: our opinions, I should have also
said that I realize it is not the generic male OB/GYNs fault that I
tense up with them, or that they can not have first-hand knowledge of
women's health problems...

David, I smiled when I saw your reply, since I didn't answer the more
controversial second question posed by 'Ren because the answer I
initially wrote (but didn't post) had tones of reverse sexism.  I'll try
again, and you be the judge:  I do think that the field would be more
"progressive" if women made up a greater percentage of OB/GYNS both in
practice and research.  I think this mainly because of my brother's
observations that I described in .13...  Since he initially made me
aware of this discrepancy, I've tried to be aware of the details of the
studies behind the medical conclusions they report on the nightly news.
I'm very dissatisfied with the current level of $$ spent in research on
women's health problems compared to the massive bucks spent on health
issues afflicting mainly men and the very large-scale studies where only
men are test subjects.

Remember the asprin/heart attack study where only men were test subjects
(I forget how many (lots) - 10,000?)

If there were more women in research and practice, I think there would
be more $$ for research and better health studies for women, simply
because the women doctors would fight harder for it than the men
currently are.

But I can't bring myself to say that men in the profession are a
"hindrance", *unless* the presence of a particular man in an OB/GYN
research or practice position was what blocked a woman from reaching
that same position.

                                                  nancy b.

    David - there will always be men in ob/gyn. The statement about
    sticking to urology is one in many. What about the OTHER statements.
    What about RESEARCH!!! Do you seriously believe that the ob/gyn
    research would NOT be affected if ob/gyn doctors were mainly female?
    Do you feel that techniques and learning methods would be identical
    if most of the teachers in medical schools teaching the ob/gyn field
    were female? Do you think that classroom training would be identical
    if the majority of students in the class were women, and at least
    one of them had experienced each of the routine concepts in the
    course and was in a sufficiently supportive atmosphere to actually
    give a case history?
    
    Its not just an issue of one doctor over another, even if most women
    are discussing it in this light.
    
    I would bet that men who study urology take it pretty damned seriously,
    and a woman who went into the field would not miss that fact. Take
    a minute to think about how you feel about your genitals, and how
    you would feel sitting in a class where you discussed things that
    could go wrong with them. 
    
    I do not see why it doesn't make sense that to have the ob/gyn field
    filled mainly with women would enable us to make better strides in
    research and health maintenance, simply it the fact that it could be
    TAUGHT differently. Many studies have shown that, given the same task,
    groups of women can come up with completely different methods, given
    the same problem, groups of women can come up with completely different
    solutions. I think women need the opportunity to dominate what is now a
    male field before we decide that in no case is it appropriate. 

RE: .15 (nancy b.)

    Ren expressed  a  "wish"  that  men would stick to urology. I took
    that  to  mean  that  she  wished  men  would  stay out of OB/GYN.
    (according  to  Ren's  later  posting  I misunderstood her on this
    point.)

    You seem  to  be  lumping  research  and practice together here. I
    understood  the  original  topic to be on practitioners only. It's
    clear  that  research  on  contraceptives  has  almost  completely
    stopped  in  this  country, but I believe that's because companies
    are  scared of product liability and "right to life" boycotts. I'm
    less clear about the relative spending levels on men's and women's
    cancers.  The  heart  study  is  a  poor  example because when the
    Framingham   heart   study   was  started,  heart  disease  was  a
    predominantly male ailment.  

    I don't   think   that   having   more  women  in  research  would
    automatically  bring  more  money  for  health  studies  for women
    because  congress is starting to specify research directions quite
    tightly.  If  there  is a need for more research on women's health
    issues,  I  think  you'll  see  more  change through the political
    process than by having more women competing for the same funds.

>But I can't bring myself to say that men in the profession are a
>"hindrance", *unless* the presence of a particular man in an OB/GYN
>research or practice position was what blocked a woman from reaching
>that same position.

    This doesn't  make  sense.  The presence of a person in a position
    prevents  another  persom  from  filling  the  same  position. (In
    physics  this  is  called  the Pauli exclusion principle.) I don't
    beleive  that  you're  arguing  that  women  should  fill  all the
    positions they want and men can fill the remainder. Please rethink
    this.

Re: .16 (Ren)

    In the  last  paragraph  you say that men and women solve problems
    differently and come up with different solutions. I take that as a
    strong  argument  that the field will advance fastest if there are
    both men and women in it, and not if onw sex predominates.

    I don't believe that a doctor has to have experienced the problems
    that  he  is  treating.  If  I  beleived  that  who would practice
    gerontology?  Med  students  get plenty of case histories. I don't
    see  why hearing one from a fellow student is better or worse than
    hearing  one  from  a  stranger.  (In  most  med  schools students
    practice  most parts of physical exams on each other, but practice
    genital  exams  on  some other group, in order to maintain privacy
    from   their  friends  (at  least  that's  how  I  understood  the
    explanation I got.))

--David

	David, I'm going to agree to disagree.  Reverse discrimination
    is one of my big hot buttons... And since you and I are opposites
    in a few ways, it doesn't surprise me that we won't see eye to eye
    every time. 
    
    Its a man's world now, but I can dream...

re: .14(still) David Wittenberg
    ---------------------------
From the following paragraph

>   As for  my personal experience: I've had genital exams by both men
>   and  women,  and  it  really doesn't matter to me. The doctors who
>   seemed  reasonable  for  other ailments continued to be reasonable

I sense you think you can compare male genital exams to female GYN exams.

There is a big difference between having a doctor examine something
on your *external* body as opposed to having someone with his hand, wrist,
etc. inside the most tender part of your body (for example, when searching
for an enlarged ovary that's been causing pain.)

I think the comparison is inappropriate.                  
							nancy b.

    re .19, Nancy-
    
    Just a point of information; Male genital exams include an inspection 
    for hernias.
    
    To those of us accustomed to considering that all male genitalia are
    external, one's first hernia exam is *quite* intrusive and *quite*
    internal.  I didn't realize that anyone's fingers *could* go where that
    examiner placed them.  I almost went through the ceiling.  
    
    This is not a comparison to female exams, merely in reference to the
    commonly-made misunderstanding of male genitalia as completely external.
    
    DougO

 Not to mention prostate exams! Boy, we are talking about LOADS of fun.
Yelp! And it gets better when they find something wrong. 

 The Doctah

    
    re: .18 (DougO)
    
    I did think about that (hernia inspections) before entering my reply,
    but I was under the impression that involved fingers (like you said)
    as opposed to entire hands and all the other
    
    Well, never mind.  This is getting too graphic for me.
    
    I'm going to lunch now!
    							nancy b.
    
    p.s.  I'm sorry about your collision with the ceiling...but it is
          useful to know there is *something* that men have to go through
          that is *slightly* similar to what women do (but not really
          comparable - I've had a similar exam to what you described
          a couple years ago).

    Back in the early seventies, "Ms." posted two advertisements for
    a headache remedy in a medical journal.
    
    One began:                        The other began:
    
    "When a man has a headache..."    "When a woman complains of a headache..."
    
    Older doctors are more likely to be men, and to have this mindset.
    Even younger doctors have been exposed to this mindset.  I feel
    that those doctors who are women are more likely to have overcome
    this attitude, and accept that a woman's pain is as real as a man's.
    
    The complaints about the [lack of] validity of studies among men
    as applied to women was touched on by Richard Feynman in his [first]
    autobiography.  For many decades now, students have been taught
    to use only Caucasian men in their studies, or their results will
    be wrong.
    
    						Ann B.

    I have no preference, really, as to who examines me (male or female)
    as long as the doctor is competent and treats me like a reasonably
    intelligent person.  I have seen gynecologists in the past that
    talk to me like I've been to medical school and when I ask them
    to explain in layperson's terms what the problem is, they treat
    me like I'm seven years old.  I've also seen doctors that don't
    feel it's necessary to inform me of what's going on with my own
    body - the kind that have the "you wouldn't understand anyway so
    I'm not going to waste my time explaining" attitude.  Needless to
    say, I never see doctors like this twice.  I did find one (an older
    gentleman) when I was 18 years old (unfortunately I couldn't always
    see him as I moved a lot) who believed it was very important for
    me to know exactly how my body worked and he spent a lot of time
    with me (all his other patients also, I assume) to make sure I was
    always comfortable and informed.  He was *never* condescending when
    he spoke to me - I was always treated like an intelligent adult.
    He died almost two years ago and I cried for a week.  I thought
    I would never find anyone that I could be comfortable with again,
    (not that anyone can ever be *replaced*, so to speak) but I did.
    Again, this OB/GYN is male.  He's very young and energetic and seems
    to really care about his patients.  I received a call from him one
    evening two weeks after he treated me for cystitis - he said "I
    just wanted to know how you're feeling and if the medication I gave
    you was O.K."  I couldn't believe it.  Usually, doctors forget what
    your name is between visits.  At any rate, he'll be delivering my
    first baby this October and I'm feeling very comfortable about it.
    My husband likes him too - a hard test to pass.
    
    - Kathryn
    

    Between the ages of 20 and 32, I had two male OB/GYNs.  Both seemed
    competent, compassionate and gentle.  The first one was a funny 
    Italian doctor who made me laugh when he performed an internal exam.  
    He would feel around and make comments in his heavy Italian accent 
    like he was preparing a fine meal.  He was a riot.  He also diagnosed
    and treated me for several serious female problems with the upmost 
    professionalism.  
    
    The second doctor was much different.  He was very compassionate,
    and very handsome.  He concerned himself with my whole being.  One
    day I went to see him about some minor problem and he sensed some-
    thing else was wrong.  I admitted my grandmother had just passed
    away two days earlier and he took the time to talk out my feelings.
    He was great!  Almost too great.
    
    At 32, when I found out I was pregnant, I remembered something I
    had overheard my mother telling a friend years earlier.  She would
    often talk about how with each of her pregnancies she had 'fallen
    in love' with her male OB.  She said that she spent so much time and
    so many personal moments and shared so many emotions with this doctor
    that she just felt too close to him.  I already felt a special warmth
    for my OB, so I really didn't want to risk developing anything more
    serious.  I made a conscious decision to find a female OB to take
    me through my first pregnancy.  Even though I was was terribly 
    uncomfortable with the idea of a woman examining me.
    
    My first female OB was horrible.  She was professional but she lacked
    in the compassion department, her exams were rough and she had little
    patience when things weren't going her way.  Shortly after I had
    my baby, I switched to another doctor in the same practice. That
    doctor (also a female) soon tired of the way my first doctor did
    business and started her own practice.  I am still with the second
    OB and could not be happier. 
    
    I feel so comfortable with Dr. Stephanie.  A visit with her is like
    going to see an old friend.  When she thinks it could help, she
    shares with me things that have happened to her, she talks about
    her personal life, she builds my self-esteem, she hugs me.  I think
    she can do all this because she is a woman.  It's safe.  She can
    let her defenses down because I am not a threat to her.  I will
    not press charges because she hugged me, because she got too close.
    I can be examined without another person in the room for the same 
    reasons. It's comfortable for both of us.  I like it.
    
    If I were to move away and had to find a new OB, I would definatly
    look for another female.  It may or may not work out.  I may have
    to continue looking until I find just the right combination of 
    professionalism, compassion and care, but I think for it all to
    work it would have to be a female.
    

    Jodi-
    

    Having just this last May having had my 1st physical by a female
    doctor, I would offer the following observations:

    An opposite sex doctor, not knowing how it 'feels' might be more
    gentle so as to err on the side of no pain
    

    An opposite sex doctor, might be more sensitive to the embarrasment
    factor in an exam.

    
    BTW: The woman doctor I had was very sensitive in her examination
    of me. She described what she was about to do and did it in a very
    controlled (for lack of a better word) way so as not to embarrass
    me or make me feel uneasy. I have had male doctors be rougher because
    that know about where the limits of pain are and how rough they
    can be.
    	As to internal exams. I suppose a guy can/does naturally use
    the muscles in his rectum to try and prevent an easy prostrate exam
    an it definately is internal. It is not plesant.    

    

    Steve

    I have had children with both male and female GYNs and personally
    prefer the female as she listened and trusted me to now that someting
    was wrong even if I couldnt explain why I felt that way. Apon
    examination she would find the problem.
    
    The male GYNs seem to insist that they know whats best. While I
    patiently panted through two pushing contaction to let the idiot
    get to the hospital(After telling him repetitavly I deliver on the
    second or third push). They finally have me role over onto my back
    At that point nature took over and made up for me trying to stop
    things for awhile. The Doctor barly got into the room and didnt
    get to put on his robe( I dont feel sorry that he ruin his suit)
    
    The female GYN was heeding my aprehentions about how quickly My
    first was born and came to the Hospital when the nurses told her
    I was 8cm. True to my "intuition". 10cm was only ten minutes away
    and although the actual pushes where more(4 I think) Devin turned
    out to be 9lbs 4onzs. This we did with no epiziotomy.
    
    When I senced my body "Acting strange when I was 3 1/2 mnts pregnant.
    -,,,,,,,She didn't tell me to "put your feet up and take it easy". She told
    me to come in and get an examination. We lost that one and my milk
    came in. She was surprised but perscribed the "dry-up medication.
    

    What the heck, since I seem to have written a couple of notes
    already, I may as well go back and answer this one . . . 
    
    I had to leave the only female gyn I ever tried for exactly the
    reason Neil brought up way back in .6 -- because she had never
    experienced the painful menstruation I regularly have, she wasn't
    very helpful to my problem.  She had all the right attitudes.  She
    explained everything, she believed in the health of the total
    organism, and all the rest -- which led her to conclude that if I
    was having cramps, it was because something in my life wasn't
    integrated, that I wasn't comfortable with myself.  (Turned out to
    be structural; my present ob/gyn, a wonderful avuncular older man,
    noticed it after Steven was born.)
    
    It wouldn't be fair to let that stand without noting that my
    present ob/gyn is the only one I've had who both took the pain
    seriously and didn't try to just slug medicine down me . . . my
    only point is that the woman wasn't any more sympathetic.  Seems
    like they had more in common as doctors than different as men and
    women.
    
    Similarly, I'm not convinced that having mostly women practicing
    ob/gyn, training the new ob/gyns, or performing the research would
    change the nature of the specialty very much.  I don't think it
    would change until and unless there was some cultural change that
    made doctors in general less prone to think they were in direct
    contact with God and less paranoid about being sued.
    
    --bonnie