Not much change here....

In his 1930 work on Male Disorders of Sex, Kenneth Walker blithely claimed that in cases of marital infertility, the doctor 'no longer starts with the assumption that the wife is to blame' and that 'for the proper solution of the problem an examination of both is required'. This was a very sanguine view not substantiated by the evidence. Even if the possibility of testing the husband's sperm was known about (and even doctors did not always realise this was a thing) there was considerable reluctance to undertake it.

The situation has not changed as much as one would like to suppose: Men represent 50% of all infertility cases but poor understanding among GPs means it is often untreated even though these days there are means of treating the issue which are more effective than a recommendation to 'go for a six months holiday' without his wife, 'eat oysters and drink stout and probably things would come right', as one correspondent reported to Marie Stopes.

Even in 2025 

[W]omen visiting a doctor after struggling to conceive were often rapidly submitted to “every test you can think of”, whereas it could take years for men to receive even basic testing....

“Historically, fertility has been seen as a women’s health issue. It was always considered as ‘the barren woman’ because men think they’re fertile if they’re producing semen,” he said.

It is gratifying to see the advocacy expressed in this report for initiatives to pay more attention to the male side of the fertility equation. However, over the years I have come across several people interested in researching the somewhat thwarted history of andrology - attempts to create a speciality of looking at male problems parallel to gynaecology. In my own PhD research which resulted in Hidden Anxieties: Male Sexuality 1900-1950, I was looking at the response of average family doctors to men's sexual problems presented to them, and standard works of advice, rather than than the attempt to create a sphere of expertise. This never really achieved significant lift-off. There might be a few specialists but not a developing discipline.

I have my own at least partial theory as to why this was the case. Problems of 'manhood' already fell into a murky and stigmatised area, comprising venereology, a despised specialism, and the field in which quacks made a profitable living over anxieties over masturbation and nocturnal emissions. This posed problems of professional prestige and social capital for any doctor entering this particular field of practice, although it might, at least, be remunerative.