Men in OB/GYN

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I've come to a conclusion here. I think Janice and/or Asherah is actually an OB/GYN or somebody else in the medical field. I think they post these opinions here and laugh like hell while they're doing it because they're extremely bored at work, and, you've gotta admit....it sure is entertaining reading. And the responses are sometimes truly hysterical! :laugh: Personally, I've had more laughing induced tears while reading these threads in the past 3 weeks than I've had in a year! Janice/Asherah/bored MD getting your kicks at our expense.. great job! We bought into it. Thought you were for real. You fooled us...100+ times!!! :laugh: :D :laugh:

Members don't see this ad.
 
Please accept my heart-felt gratitude for taking this forum as far away as possible from its original purpose of "OB-GYN Residency" and into a social discussion of .... ah whatever!

Have any of you wondered as to the specifics regarding out beloved posters. I mean we all know the med student & resident members, but will Janice, Asherah, and the like ever grace us and let us know what they do for a living and what level of education they boast?

Good night all!
 
Global Disrobal said:
Please accept my heart-felt gratitude for taking this forum as far away as possible from its original purpose of "OB-GYN Residency" and into a social discussion of .... ah whatever!

Have any of you wondered as to the specifics regarding out beloved posters. I mean we all know the med student & resident members, but will Janice, Asherah, and the like ever grace us and let us know what they do for a living and what level of education they boast?

Good night all!
I fully agree. I came on here to discuss topics with other intelligent beings, but that seems to be a no-go for the most part. At least in the OB/GYN forum anyway. Hopefully 'some people' won't discover my other favorite ones and drag them down into the pits of hell too. And yes, I too am curious about their education level. Janice? Asherah? Anybody? :confused:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I came to read "Crazy Janice's" posts because someone recommended them in the lounge. Ha ha ha! I loved them! You can't fake that type of comedy!

:laugh: :laugh:
 
Sage880 said:
I came to read "Crazy Janice's" posts because someone recommended them in the lounge. Ha ha ha! I loved them! You can't fake that type of comedy!

:laugh: :laugh:
lmao! :laugh: :D :laugh:
 
Talking about intelligence...an intelligent person is unlikely to laugh at other people's feelings, that's a sign of immaturity and complete lack of empathy. ESPECIALLY if you are a physician and have this attitude to laugh at patients who feel raped during a physical exam.
If I were a physcian I would feel ashamed to be your colleague.

You're not even capable of giving any arguments, no you can only laugh at dissidents in a desperate attempt to justify your own silly remarks.

Typically for narrowminded people is to derive someone's intelligence from his/her diploma degree,now how intelligent is that!

So I don't need to tell you that I am not impressed by your amount of degrees, they only confirm of what I already thought of classical med trained people in general : not even capable of giving the right definition of intelligence, not having any clue of what intelligence really is, but yet have this arrogant thought of themselves that they are the smartest people on earth.

Learning stuff out of books by heart, does not mean that you are intelligent. You still have a lot to learn. But offcourse, when you're dumb, you don't realize it of yourself.

An intelligent person is someone who not only has developed his logical reasoning, but also his intuition, his ability to emphatize, his understanding and knows the distinction between right and wrong (which has many subtle nuances b.t.w.)

As you like to know it so badly, I have studied plastical arts and before you jump into any conclusions-as you like to do anyway- I do am interested in medicines, but the narrowmindedness in the classical med industry is not satisfying to me, and I am planning to study natural medicines or something in that area.
 
asherah said:
Talking about intelligence...an intelligent person is unlikely to laugh at other people's feelings, that's a sign of immaturity and complete lack of empathy. ESPECIALLY if you are a physician and have this attitude to laugh at patients who feel raped during a physical exam.
If I were a physcian I would feel ashamed to be your colleague.

You're not even capable of giving any arguments, no you can only laugh at dissidents in a desperate attempt to justify your own silly remarks.

Typically for narrowminded people is to derive someone's intelligence from his/her diploma degree,now how intelligent is that!

So I don't need to tell you that I am not impressed by your amount of degrees, they only confirm of what I already thought of classical med trained people in general : not even capable of giving the right definition of intelligence, not having any clue of what intelligence really is, but yet have this arrogant thought of themselves that they are the smartest people on earth.

Learning stuff out of books by heart, does not mean that you are intelligent. You still have a lot to learn. But offcourse, when you're dumb, you don't realize it of yourself.

An intelligent person is someone who not only has developed his logical reasoning, but also his intuition, his ability to emphatize, his understanding and knows the distinction between right and wrong (which has many subtle nuances b.t.w.)

As you like to know it so badly, I have studied plastical arts and before you jump into any conclusions-as you like to do anyway- I do am interested in medicines, but the narrowmindedness in the classical med industry is not satisfying to me, and I am planning to study natural medicines or something in that area.

Sorry for trolling on the OB/GYN site, but I couldn't pass this up.

Janice/Aserah,

I don't want to denigrate you personally, but I do have to say that I realize my comments probably won't penetrate your 'logic-filter'. But I feel I have to say them anyway.

- If you think that the professionals on this site don't have empathy, you are just living in a different world. I grew up with an OB/GYN father. He lived and breathed women's health. He loved childbirth, and helping women in need. Now that I am getting ready to start my medical education after leaving a well paying and respected profession, I can see where he was coming from.

- I think you are seeing the utter frustration of these people on the sight after MONTHS of trying to to attempt to logically reason with you. Let me give a couple examples:

1. YOU HAVE TO BE A WOMAN TO UNDERSTAND WOMEN'S HEALTH. No one on this site has said that a woman should not be able to choose, all have said they fully comply with a woman's right to pick a health care provider. This does not mean that men can't/shouldn't be involved in women's health. If you carry this 'logic' to it's extreme, here is an example of what you would get:
- Only paraplegic doctor's should treat paraplegics. 'Fully functional' doctors just don't understand the trials and tribulations of the physically handicapped.
- Only doctor's with down's syndrome should treat down's syndrome patients. Even-chromosomed doctor's just dont' understand the plight of the extra chromosome set.
- I could go on. Get the point? My dad may not be a woman, but he's delivered thousands of baby's, so who is more 'qualified' to diagnose an eptopic pregnancy? Him or the 19 year old girl who thinks she just has stomach pains? Sure, she needs to know her body, but without an obstetrician (male or female), she will probably die.

2. DIAGNOSTIC EXAMS ARE SOMEHOW WRONG, AND SHOULD ONLY BE PERFORMED ON THOSE WITH THE CONDITION TO BEGIN WITH. Wow - not sure how you came to this conclusion. I would agree that not all women should be TREATED for cervical cancer, but if you don't test individuals to see who has the problem, how do you know who to treat? And the fact that cervical cancer has become essentially non-existant for screened women - how do you account for that? And the fact that virgins or other low risk women get the disease too (albeit at a lower percentage) - what is worse, a pap smear or death from cancer?

3. EQUATING WOMEN'S PREVENTIVE HEALTH/BIRTH WITH RAPE. I think this is where you REALLY see people getting angry. I cannot concieve of a sane, logical person making this leap. It just doesn't make sense. IF you have had a personal problem with this, I can understand your fear. BUT this does in no way give credence to your argument. This is the beginning of stereotyping and all the negatives that go along with that. Using your logic:
- If you see on the news (or experience) that a black man mugged someone, then all black people are muggers.
- If you see (or experience) a pickpocket in Italy - all Italians are thieves.
- see how your logic ends up.

I'm sorry I got pulled into responding. If you/and or Janice are just out there pulling our chains - congratualtions, you finally pulled me in. If not - realize that your logic just isn't . . . . logical. I know you won't (beating head against table as he realizes post was in vain), but I figured I'd try to make you come back to the 'light' of reality a bit.

Oh - and you are not a patient. So don't get all strumpy about people ridiculing you. You are an anomomys internet 'troll' who is spouting extremely unproductive viewpoints. Don't try to have it both ways.
 
asherah said:
As you like to know it so badly, I have studied plastical arts and before you jump into any conclusions-as you like to do anyway- I do am interested in medicines, but the narrowmindedness in the classical med industry is not satisfying to me, and I am planning to study natural medicines or something in that area.

"Plastical arts?" I am unfamiliar with this. Care to elucidate, Asherah? All that comes to mind is creating art out of plastic! :laugh:
 
And for the second or third time, no one here is in a patient/physician relationship with eachother.

Do not try and degrade people by saying they must be awful physicians beacuse they're laughing at you on an online forum. You don't know them at all, and they don't owe you any level of good treatment on here. They are not your doctor, and they don't have to act like it.
 
I will not keep on repeating over and over again when you narrowminded idiots just can't even listen to what I have to say.


Start learning to READ before you finish med school, I would say.


So they have gotten scared of two single dissidents? Scared to be thrown of your trone?

I have given my opinion, which I'm glad for, but with these wannabe's there is NO COMMUNICATION possible.


But don't think that people will keep on being your little submissive patients, you ain't the law and you ain't God!
 
asherah said:
I will not keep on repeating over and over again when you narrowminded idiots just can't even listen to what I have to say.


Start learning to READ before you finish med school, I would say.


So they have gotten scared of two single dissidents? Scared to be thrown of your trone?

I have given my opinion, which I'm glad for, but with these wannabe's there is NO COMMUNICATION possible.


But don't think that people will keep on being your little submissive patients, you ain't the law and you ain't God!

byebye now, janice. :rolleyes:
 
I am not an Ob/Gyn, and will doubt I ever will go into that specialty. I 100% respect male and female Ob/Gyns though - just not where my specific interest lies. I just came to read the forums because they came highly recommended!

But I will add this to the original post. I asked 3 of my non-med female friends last night what they thought of male Ob/Gyn's. Only 1 had been to see one and she had switched from a female to a male. The other 2 said they would prefer a male Ob/Gyn as well and that kind of suprised me.

For some reason, they have the impression that a male Ob/Gyn would be more "gentle" then a female would. I have never heard this bias before and it's just the opinion of 3 friends so don't flame me! I thought it was interesting that they said that though so I thought I'd throw it out there. Is this a weird opinion?
 
asherah said:
I would prefer a homosexual female doctor over a homosexual male doctor.
But as I already said, I'd preferred to have none, because the whole MENTALITY in gynecology needs to change and it can only change when women only work on this. How can women free themselves otherwise from these mental chains? Men can't change the mentality in gyn industry as they are the cause of it. Women first need to make these changes.

Everything that is wrong in this industry started with male doctors who interfered with this natural gift that women have: giving birth.
Male doctors(in the past there weren't even female doctors and the midwifes were not allowed anymore to do what they always have done)have made women believe that they can't deliver babies on their own, that it is a scary thing, dangerous and needs technical help.

These men there ideas about the reproductive organs of women, childbirth and everything that has to do with it is based on unhealthy ideas, because they were developed out of the desire to dominate over women.

Gynecology as it is today is still influenced, not only influenced actually, but has not changed from how it used to be. Only the technical aspect has improved, which is a good thing for the small number of women who can benefit from it, but as I already said the technical help that men offer women in childbirth stems from the idea that women can't succesfully give birth without their help and that is why it's abnormal that most women give birth with the commands of a gyn/ob.

A good trend in gynecology is that women today(after all these years) are allowed to become a gyn/ob as well, but that hasn't changed the mentality yet. After all, these female students had to learn from their male professors about their own bodies. Women can't just take everything in gynecology for factual truths as we know with what intentions the male founders of it have started it and have excluded women from it for ages.


Gynecologists use scientific arguments to prove other thinking women that they are wrong, but out of statistics, you can draw any type of conclusions.
Science can be very well manipulated. Especially since people believe that only scientists know the truth. But the truth is that science without spirituality is blind and spirituality without science is superstition.

When a woman lets herself be examined by a male gyn, it will not change a thing if the male physician is caring and understanding(offcourse it would be even worse if he was not), because the male domination over women that has continued for centuries and especially in the gyn industry is still present in the collective subconscious of women. And male doctors continue to make abuse of this, because this medical branche is a great way to still gain controll over women in a legal way.

As I said it is not about the individual choice of finding the right caring gyn regardless of their sex, because it is a collective problem that is based on sexism. A problem that has it roots in the fundaments of gynecology. All ideas about gyn issues stem from that same basic idea: women need to be controlled.

That is why only women can and need to change this mentality in the gyn industry and why a single caring male gyn can not resolve the problem.
I would like to point out if you look at some population pyramids of different countries where women are provided medical birthing care the survival rate is higher than countries which do not provided this type of care. Medical birthing care has increased the life expectancy of women. That is a fact period, not even debatable. Perhaps doctors became tried of their wives and infants dying during childbirth and wanted to do something to improve their survival rate. Yes, medicine was male dominated at the time certain protocols were instrumented but how can you say that these male doctors did not have a genuine interest in saving the lives of women. Please note that male doctors have wives and daughters which I am sure they want to survive during childbirth. They were not trying to control women they just wanted the women that they loved to live and not die during childbirth.
 
Heliums said:
I would like to point out if you look at some population pyramids of different countries where women are provided medical birthing care the survival rate is higher than countries which do not provided this type of care. Medical birthing care has increased the life expectancy of women. That is a fact period, not even debatable. Perhaps doctors became tried of their wives and infants dying during childbirth and wanted to do something to improve their survival rate. Yes, medicine was male dominated at the time certain protocols were instrumented but how can you say that these male doctors did not have a genuine interest in saving the lives of women. Please note that male doctors have wives and daughters which I am sure they want to survive during childbirth. They were not trying to control women they just wanted the women that they loved to live and not die during childbirth.

Hmm, Heliums, don't you think you are being a little naive when you claim that male doctors excluded women from ever becoming doctors themselves, because they loved their own women and daughters so much? Don't forget that these caring males have been torturing, raping and even murdering their own daughters, sisters and mothers for centuries and in a lot of countries they still do!

You point out that countries who do not provide medical birthing care have a lower survival rate than countries who do provide this type of care.
This doesn't mean that the lack of medical interference during childbirth is the cause of the higher mortality rate in these countries. These countries you are talking about are underdeveloped nations where many women are underfed, have a lack of hygene and are living in bad conditions. These factors are likely to be the cause of the lower survival rate than in countries where medical birthing care is common. In fact, in industrial countries that use midwives as primary birth care providers (Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Holland, among others), the infant mortality rate is much, much lower than in countries that use doctors and physicians as primary birth care providers (as in the US).

"Because prenatal care, better nutrition, antibiotics, and blood transfusions for maternal hemorrhage have become widely available over the last few decades, the infant mortality rate has dropped. This decrease was paralleled by a higher proportion of mothers who gave birth in hospitals, leading to the assumption that birth in the hospital attended by a physician was safer than home birth for all mothers. However, no study has ever supported this assumption . In fact, each of the alternative birth options in this book is usually safer than conventional hospital birth. In the alternative birth setting, the mother is at a reduced risk (and often at no risk) of iatrogenic (doctor-caused) medical complications and nosocomial (hospital-caused) infection and other problems in childbearing. . . .

Though hospital birth is safe for most mothers, medical studies have shown that there is an increased risk of maternal and infant morbidity in the hospital as compared to home. The risk of infection to mother and baby is greater in the hospital (where there are more pathogenic organisms) than at home. Varying with the hospital, the mother and baby are also at higher risk of iatrogenic complications. These include such problems as fetal distress from overuse of oxytocic drugs to stimulate labor and from pain-relief medication, infections from too many vaginal exams, and unnecessary surgical birth."

from Alternative Birth: The Complete Guide, Carl Jones



"It is often claimed that because far fewer mothers die around the time of birth than, say, 60 years ago when most mothers had their babies at home, hospital birth must be the cause of this decline in the maternal and perinatal mortality rates. But the fact that two things happen at the same time does not mean that one causes the other.

Nor should we compare statistics of home births in different historical periods. Many things change, including women's health, their access to contraceptives, and their socioeconomic condition. These things have a profound effect on perinatal mortality. As the standard of living rises, fewer babies die at birth in every country, whether or not home births are allowed, and whatever the obstetric practice is."

from Homebirth, Sheila Kitzinger


"One of the greatest myths perpetuated by the medical system is that hospitals are the safest place to give birth. Stories abound of women dying in childbirth before the advent of modern hospitals. And yet, few people realize that women were not dying due to the fact that childbirth is inherently dangerous, but rather because of the living conditions at that time. Poor women were generally underfed and overworked during pregnancy,.."(Laura Shanley)
 
You know, sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat after having dreamt about being thrown from my trone! :scared:

I just thought I'd post this in response to the previous post:

Outcomes of Planned Home Births in Washington State: 1989-1996

Obstetrics & Gynecology
August 2002
Volume 100, Number 2
Pages 253 - 259

Jenny W.Y. Pang, MD, MPH,a,c James D. Heffelfinger, MD, MPH,a,d Greg J. Huang, DMD, MPH,a Thomas J. Benedetti, MD, MHA,b and Noel S. Weiss, MD, DrPHa

Objective: To determine whether there was a difference between planned home births and planned hospital births in Washington State with regard to certain adverse infant outcomes (neonatal death, low Apgar score, need for ventilator support) and maternal outcomes (prolonged labor, postpartum bleeding).

Methods: We examined birth registry information from Washington State during 1989-1996 on uncomplicated singleton pregnancies of at least 34 weeks' gestation that either were delivered at home by a health professional (N = 5854) or were transferred to medical facilities after attempted delivery at home (N = 279). These intended home births were compared with births of singletons planned to be born in hospitals (N = 10,593) during the same years.

Results: Infants of planned home deliveries were at increased risk of neonatal death (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06, 3.73), and Apgar score no higher than 3 at 5 minutes (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.29, 4.16). These same relationships remained when the analysis was restricted to pregnancies of at least 37 weeks' gestation. Among nulliparous women only, these deliveries also were associated with an increased risk of prolonged labor (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.28, 2.34) and postpartum bleeding (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.74, 4.36).

Conclusion: This study suggests that planned home births in Washington State during 1989-1996 had greater infant and maternal risks than did hospital births.


Now, if I can just find my trone . . . :)
 
What is a trone?
 
Top