I “mind” essentially all doctors – and medicine to boot. I haven’t been to enough female doctors, however, to properly empirically judge them categorically against men doctors though.
Established Western medicine is putrid, in terms of established “Western” science, and its method of practice is pretty much that from a niche based on ‘you take what we give, because we’re extremely collusive and we’re it’, and otherwise your life ain’t worth $&^%&^& – directly in parallel with the legal profession. But much of this comes from what is exemplified of the public in the above posts: by in large, they don’t want objective body repair or standardization; they want TLC, particularly the female members thereof. I want sufficient objective understanding of anatomy and physiology – in terms facilitating repair, standardization or prevention of worsening of problems (and possibly, but way discounted, original prevention of problems) – usually in concordance with modern science – as such be needed to most efficiently and effectively pursue such repair, etc.; that is, give me the nuts-and-bolts approach. I don’t see an MD for sociality; and don’t really care for their brand of that, and I don’t expect them to get into my subjective makeup. However, for the most part, the above isn’t what MDs are after or are trained for. . .and the public loves to suck on all the other glop – which serves to make medicine ever more ineffective and expensive. And “alternative/complementary medicine” is pretty much all a sucker game currently demanded by those millions who teem and crave TLC. More-scientific medicine is needed; not less-scientific stuff.
Though MDs now come from a broader social base than that of sons of physicians plus others from the ranks of those having moneyed leverage on the existing medical tribe, they still are selected for desire for social standing and/or “wanting to help people” without interest in how people’s nuts and bolts fit together.
As far as gender: The males have been mostly of the extreme patriarchal, egomaniacal types, and a larger portion of the present ones still are so. From what I’ve seen of the females, I think one can accept the underlying reality that no amount of PC can hide: There is bound to be much less horn-locking with male patients and more cooperation with patients of both sexes. . .but, although, of course, segments of the sexes considerably overlap in most characteristics – when you now begin to have average professional-calibre women numerically represented in medicine – the old reality arises: males prevail in the less-personal, outer world, while females prevail in the inner subjective one; so that, while female MDs may generally improve clinical efficiency through better cooperation with the patient, they will, on average, worsen clinical efficiency as it depends on needed-to-be-increased objective modeling toward and fulfilling of objective mending. That is, women MDs will tend to be a combination of just dispensing what the book says and playing nurse, but will do this in much nicer ways. Nursing is, of course, quite valuable, and often quite crucial, but it is not a substitute for coldly reasoned “screwing of nuts onto bolts” to fasten material, inanimate or animate, together so it will work. And holding the book in the other hand while doing such won’t substitute for effective body repair, etc.
I guess this thread was supposed to be about modesty or something, but I kind of think that sort of thing gets lost in the dust of the present hopeless and still nationally unaffordable, inefficient mess that is today’s medicine.
Ray (And in the end. . .medicine only confounds evolution anyhow.)
