Significance of Match in Sex of Analyst and Patient

While there is not much in the literature, the question of whether the sex of the therapist is a significant factor in treatment has long been considered. It is an issue increasingly raised by women's groups in the wake of the women's movement and with growing recognition that sex-role stereotypes are outdated. How do male therapists interpret women's problems? Do Freud's psychological theories about women still hold sway? How are they applied in practice?

As minority groups have insisted with some validity, those who have dissimilar upbringing, social background and experience in life cannot understand some aspects or nuances of their patients' experiences. This is reasonable-to a point. Much depends on the degree to which these special instances are crucial in therapy, on the stage of therapy, on the degree of illness in the patient, and on the breadth of experience, perceptiveness, and empathic qualities of the analyst. More about these issues later.

But now let me comment briefly on my own early experience as a woman analyst, relating to woman as therapist and choice of therapist, the significance of the sex of therapist, the role model concept, or projective identification with the therapist, offering a few illustrations before turning to sex-role bias. My major emphasis will be on the woman therapist and woman patient. Of course, when new criteria are imposed, already existing criteria are implicitly devalued.

In the days of my training, there was a higher proportion of women in the field of psychiatry and psychoanalysis than in other specialties. One of the beliefs commonly held was that a woman analyst's maternal qualities were helpful-and to patients of both sexes. Of course, unless a “maternal analyst”-and one could theoretically describe a man in this way-has incorporated patriarchal values, she would not necessarily favor male patients over females, nor act destructively toward females. By implication,