Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!watmath!twltims
From: twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: the vision of women.only - (nf)
Message-ID: <6882@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 11:21:44 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.6882
Posted: Mon Feb 13 11:21:44 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 06:27:50 EST
References: <5353@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 54


	----------
		re:women in medicine
		having had physicians of both genders, dentist, and
		opthamologists of both genders as well I am 100% convinced that
		women make the best health care practitioners..being
		techinically talented and sensitive to the entire individual,
		women physicians are not the mechanics that male doctors tend
		to be.
	----------
	The above is from net.women.only.  It's nice to see that modern,
	feminist women don't believe in stereotypes.

	scott preece

A counterexample to the original article:

	I (male) had a women GP for some time.  She was one of
the most insensitive, obnoxious, rude people I have ever known.  One
by one, the members of my family have been switching to other doctors.  My
current doctor, male, is competent and quite unmechanical.  Any doctor who
lets me grab the scalpel and anesthetic spray while removing embedded wood
is OK by me.  I suspect that the problem stems from traditional vs. new wave
approaches to health care.  Could it be that medical schools are becoming
more humanistic?  That the doctors currently going into practice are more
frequently committed to recognising their patients responsibility and
preferences in health care?  Since the numbers of female health care
professionals being trained is rising, it makes sense (given the above
assumptions) that the proportion of "humanist" doctors would be greater
among female doctors.

But who cares what sex they are as long as:
	a)	you like seeing the doctor (for whatever reasons --
		including the "political support of women in medicine")
	b)	they are competent  (possible subcase of (a))

What else is important?  The ideological question concerning the fitness of
males as doctors?  Females as chess players?  Small furry creatures from
the Crab Nebula as comic devices in radio plays?  I maintain that these are
not important.

Science may find out that men are better suited to mathematics.  (A postulate
I don't even care to think about)  It clearly doesn't matter.  We should say
"Who cares?" and go on giving anything (male,female,earthworm,tree) that has
aptitude at mathematics good training in it.  Sure, we may be able to predict
the relative quantities of these beings in math (x%,100%-x%,0%,0%) but DOES IT
MATTER?

	How can you know what you can do until you do it?  How can you
	KNOW what I can do until I do it?  Why prevent me from trying?
	Why discuss the outcome as if the discussion was the important
	part?

	Tracy Tims	{linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
			The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730