Managing masculinities. Doctors, men, and men’s partners facing male infertility in France and French-speaking Switzerland (c. 1890–1970)

Bajeux, Camille

doi:10.1080/18902138.2020.1805887

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While it is not the focus of this article, we suggest that these different circumstances are also related to the different imaginaries of the patient’s needs and expectations, and are impacted by the historical developments of the fields and the sexgendered subjectivities imagined by the doctors about the patients (c.f. Bajeux, 2020 ; Björkman and Persson, 2021 ). And, as Gleisner notes, it may be beneficial to think about how the use of professional patients for prostate exams – something which does occur at some urology departments in the USA – could be engaged more ( Gleisner and Siwe, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Caring for affective subjects produced in intimate healthcare examinations

Gleisner

Johnson

2021

Health (London)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is about the feelings – affect – induced by the digital rectal exam of the prostate and the gynaecological bimanual pelvic exam, and the care doctors are or are not instructed to give. The exams are both invasive, intimate exams located at a part of the body often charged with norms and emotions related to gender and sexuality. By using the concept affective subject, we analyse how these examinations are taught to medical students, bringing attention to how bodies and affect are cared for as patients are observed and touched. Our findings show both the role care practices play in generating and handling affect in the students’ learning and the importance of the affect that the exam is (or is not) imagined to produce in the patient. Ours is a material-discursive analysis that includes the material affordances of the patient and doctor bodies in the affective work spaces observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%