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