Failure to Use the Anatomic Names for Female Genitals: Ethical Illegitimacy?
I was a bit surprised and perplexed when I found and read an Essay in the current May-June 2012 issue of the Hastings Center Report, one of the major ethics journals. Sarah Rodriguez and Toby Schonfeld wrote the Essay titled "The Organ That Must-Not-Be-Named: Female Genitals and Generalized References". It is all about the observation that in various public presentations, the vagina is referred to as "it" or "the v" or the female genitalia, presumably the vagina, as "down there" and failure to specifically name the vulva,clitoris, mons or the vagina itself.
My concern with the Essay is whether this is really a vital ethical issue and whether TV's hiding the anatomic names from their advertisements of women's products is worth an ethical dialogue as hoped for by the authors in their final paragraph excerpted here: "Our purpose is to encourage not a monologue about the vagina, but rather a dialogue. Part of this discourse involves recognition on the part of women, men, their doctors, and advertising companies that female genitalia, like male genitalia, are multiply constituted, diverse, and, of necessity, named. We must start using words like vagina in order for the words to become normalized and for the speakers of the words to be empowered and respected—something Betty Ford did for “breast” in the 1970s."
I think there are so many more significant ethical issues around us in this world and the way humans are treated that printed space and reading time should be better applied to them. Go to the link above and read the free full Essay and then return and share your opinion regarding my concern. Oops! Well, I guess we will have started the authors' dialogue. ..Maurice.
Graphic: Image from Wikipedia modified with Picasa 3.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 3:58:00 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
In all fairness if you are going to put a medical photograph displaying female parts and the issue of naming
them properly, why not refer to the numbers on the photograph and name them. Secondly, it would also be appropriate and equal in that you share a male photograph as well naming it's parts as well; otherwise this photograph is offensive.
Anonymous, there was the same photograph available on Google Images with each number identified by the anatomic term, however my point with the graphic was to emphasize the concern delivered by the two authors of the Essay, that while there are specific anatomic names for the female genitalia, often public expressions reveal no names but only "it", "the v" and the last "down there", the latter I included in the graphic. Numbers but without names, I felt, emphasized that reported public ignorance.
Interestingly, these authors failed to specifically detail the matter of public anatomic descriptions of the male genitalia so my use only of a photograph of the female genitalia was to be consistent with the matter dealt with in the Essay.
Now, Anonymous, if you find evidence of the same anatomic naming ignorance of the public with regard to the male genitalia and want to write about it, I could consider an appropriate graphic for that.
Actually, I want to emphasize my point of publishing this whole issue. I am concerned that the this topic for an ethics journal to publish is too trivial in terms of significant ethical issues and that there are host of other issues that should take precedence for publication space and reading time.
But maybe some of my visitors would take a view supporting the authors and the Hasting Center Report editors. ..Maurice.
Anonymous, one other point and question I would like an answer to a question that I forgot to include in my above posting : why do you consider this clinical-anatomic graphic of female genitalia without a corresponding male genitalia "offensive" if the topic is about an "ethical" affront to a woman's anatomy? ..Maurice.
For more on this issue of the use or lack of use of the word "vagina" read the current Associated Press article.
But to be fair to the editors of the Hasting Center Report, in the introduction to my thread, I failed to mention the Essay was a companion piece to a major article "The Woman Question in Medicine: An Update" by Hilde Lindemann who discusses the past and now current equality and inequality of the female gender.
Nevertheless, I am awaiting the views of my visitors whether I may be overlooking an important ethical matter stressed by the authors of the Essay. ..Maurice.
To the first poster,anonymous.
This is after all a medical blog so this can be
expected. Second, I think it is appropriate and equal
that since the privacy of male patients are not respected,
half of all female mammographers should be male,thus
in your mind that makes everything fair,right.
PT
PT, I am not clear about your view whether giving the female genitalia euphemisms rather than medical terminology by some in society is of ethical importance. ..Maurice.
Although I think it important the correct medical terminology be used in all cases for both males and females, I do agree with Dr. Bernstein that this issue takes low priority in the ethical realm. If not, then let's also discuss some of the double standards involved with the broad context of this topic.
-- Why is that hitting men in the crotch is such a funny event? Watch America's Funnies Videos. You rarely see shots of women being slammed in the crotch or breasts -- but when men get it in the crotch, it's an amusing incident, regardless of the pain or damage it can do.
-- Read the article on the blog Dr. Sherman and I moderate about how the media treat men. Why is a male priapism so humorous on those "reality" ER shows? It's always a big joke. Rarely if ever are women's genital medical problems treated that way by the media.
-- Gee, I just read some pieces were men's genitals were referred to as "junk." Look at the connotations of the world "junk." Can you imagine refering to a woman's genitals humorously as "junk?"
-- We still suffer from Victorian notions of how men and women feel about nudity and sex. Those ideas ranged from women as nonsexual, i.e. not really getting or need pleasure from sex -- or, as so sexual that they were a danger to men. We still have the cultural notion that it's a great sacrifice for a woman to be forced to view a nude man, i.e. it seriously offends their dignity and modesty. They gain no pleasure out of this. There's nothing sexual about it. Whereas all men at all times get pleasure out of seeing nude women in all contexts -- and all the time, pose a danger to them.
So -- if you want to talk about the naming of genital anatomy, let's put it into a broader context and deal with how the genital anatomy of both genders is treated by people in general, the medical culture and the media.
Doug, your example descriptions of behavior towards men rings true and seems to imply that men have besides their genetically established genital organs another seemingly gender specific organ: "thick skin"! I mean "thick skin" specifically related to their genitals in terms of modesty and even sexuality: no modesty and no difficulties with sex. I can't believe that anyone reading the "Patient Modesty" thread from the beginning to the current Volume 49 could possibly find that the generalization of "thick skin" valid. ..Maurice.
"We still have the cultural notion that it's a great sacrifice for a woman to be forced to view a nude man, i.e. it seriously offends their dignity and modesty. They gain no pleasure out of this. There's nothing sexual about it."
Doug: I think this is really the only area where our POV's vastly diverge. Perhaps 40-50 years ago, but women are loudly proclaiming that this Victorian notion has come to an end. Most "older" women that I have interviewed were not, in fact, offended by male nudity but moreover: were told that the "decent woman" should be. Women now have become honest with each other...I just don't know if they have burst that taboo bubble with the men in their lives.
When I wrote the article: “Are Women Ready to Sexually "Come Out" Of The Medical Cultural Closet?”, I asked the questions:
Why are we the exception? Why are women often considered the sexually benign one in the room? And more importantly, why is this alright with us?”
And later posed that “We are neither the neutral or invisible gender in the room. Men might have a better chance at modesty issues if society were honest about both genders.”
We all need an honest and forthright “He Said/She Said” about how each gender really feels about each other's nudity and sexuality. And that honesty needs to cross-over into the medical arena with answers other than ‘contextual” for either gender to have modesty issues addressed.
The “ethical issue” of what we call our parts might be answered if we were honest about how we view them.
I have a question which I think is pertinent to the discussion here. Do you think that a reason why in society there is this lack of use of anatomic terms for human genital anatomy is because there is something mystical beyond being sexual with human genitalia which if the precise anatomic term is used as a descriptor, all the mystery and sexuality would be diminished? And it has nothing to do with bias against one gender or the other. Doctors and nurses will use the anatomic terms in communication to be precise and prevent ambiguity but also to remain personally sexually aloof as part of professional requirements. Just a thought. ..Maurice.
Perhaps we need to be clear on the scenario before answering that question.
If you were to ask that if tonight while sharing a bottle of champagne with my husband he were to whisper anatomical descriptors in my ear, would I be just as charmed as perhaps a more artful and romantic type of verbiage then my answer may be one thing regarding mystical mystery!
But if you are speaking in general population terms why we are hesitant to use proper anatomical terms then an answer might be quite different.
Enter the medical scenario and fully a third answer would be possible.
Not to be trite, but I believe circumstances may dictate candor.
In terms of the third, I know many in the medical arena who do not use actual "proper" terms with patients regarding genitals or bodily functions. Their theory is that all persons to some degree have a mental diversionary tactic that allows others to do procedures on them that they ordinarily would not allow. Using 'soft' terms allow for a slight illusion to the actual graphics of the reality. Once proper terms start being used, people withdraw in the harshness of those realities and become even less comfortable and not likely to communicate. It's an avoidance of sorts, but I'm sure not all in or out of the medical arena subscribe to it.
The second is probably answered best in history...but the first to me is simpler.
*To me, the more I know does not take the innate mystery out of it. I can go through the checklist of things that fired off in my body to progressively make two children grow inside of me, but the magic of it never changes. And so...I can know all of the technical terms of all of our most intimate body parts, but it does not change the fact that sexually our bodies are built wondrously. But isn't the real mystical part that of the emotions and bonds those physical responses create? So no. I don't think the mystery goes away when (for example) you call a penis a penis. Or a vagina a vagina. Knowledge is, after all, power.
Suzy, I would be most interested, after reading your views, how you evaluate the Essay as written to the Hastings Center Report by Sarah and Toby. Do you think they are over- concerned about the public or media leaving out the anatomic names of women's genitals and perhaps they are over-concerned that this reduces or demeans the power or value of the modern woman? The ethical value of their argument to be published in an ethics journal was the basis for me to start this thread. ..Maurice.
Maurice, I see your point about there being other, more pressing ethical issues to devote page space to. Which is why I only skimmed the article. It doesn't really interest me.
But it think the article is valid as an ethical discussion, albeit a limited one. In terms of general society's views on genitals, it's not an ethical problem, rather a social one. But stopping relevant TV ads because of correct terminology IS an ethical issue. A tampon ad is not violent, or degrading, or illegal. Should TV be allowed to become the dictator of what is 'acceptable' to this extreme? If not, where should this issue be discussed, if not in ethical forums?
Dr. Bernstein:
Well, the simple answer is that I feel that this(commercials not using the word vagina) no more " reduces or demeans the power or value of the modern woman" any more than you should feel your power as a modern man is reduced or demeaned because ED commercials do not point out that the organ of concern is your penis. Perhaps also, any more than the general public should feel reduced or demeaned because suppository commercials do not say "remember to insert in rectum".
Yes. It is a bit over-reaching in my view. As far as media: let's remember that their purpose is to sell products and not educate us fully about our bodies. Commercials are not science projects. Advertisers are not biology teachers. A bit of perspective needs to be used here.
Now while I feel that the use of scientific terms in a medical scenario could have merit in discussions, I struggle to find the "ethical" issue.
Practical/educational/informative...maybe. But I can't seem to fit this square peg into a round hole.
Suzy, as one of the female gender, it would appear by what you write that there are issues of much greater ethical significance that need to be brought out and discussed which as they stand now diminish the status and societal advancement of the woman.
So now, irrespective of the ethical significance of what was brought out in the Essay, what do you and the others reading this thread is the psycho-social basis for this "shyness" for the various media and perhaps public in general to express long established anatomic names for the male and female genitalia. Is this something out of the tradition of the subject. For example, the expression of the word "cancer" by the public in public speech has been, until recent generations, a word never used. Despite our current public immersion into sex and sexuality could it be that the anatomic names for the genitals are still too emotionally descriptive and could be said to be analogous to that felt for "cancer" in the past? Maybe what is needed is for society to solve the dilemma is to realize and verbally admit that sex is not a "square peg into a round hole" but "a round peg into a round hole" and then go ahead and give the peg and hole their valid anatomic names! ..Maurice.
Re: Doug’s post that “We still have the cultural notion that it's a great sacrifice for a woman to be forced to view a nude man” this may be true of some women but not all. I would like to call your attention to an article on jezebel about the movie Magic Mike and the author’s observation that “the audience was 99% female, and second, they were positively giddy about seeing some naked dudes.” The author also quotes anthropologist Carole S. Vance with something called "Vance's One-Third Rule," which is: "Show any personally favored erotic image to a group of women, and one-third will find it disgusting, one-third will find it ridiculous, and one-third will find it hot." Now the hospital is not an erotic strip show, at least I sure hope it isn’t, but in a sense, it is to a small degree. So does the one third rule apply to female nurses as well?
http://jezebel.com/5922895/magic-mike-junk-in-the-face-and-the-female-gaze
Anonymous
The one third rule is skewed and here is why. It
is estimated that about 8 percent of all women are
gay, thus that's about one fourth of the first third that
is mentioned. Additionally, it is further estimated that
as high as 11 percent of women have had bisexual
encounters, however, they don't count in the final
analysis.
More and more older women are taking on this
cougar mentality which to me reflects a double
standard. It's ok for an older woman to date a younger
man,yet if an older man dates a younger woman he
is considered a dirty old man.
So what is the final answer in all of this, it's
irrelevant what choices people make and whatever
the percentages are. I don't believe the statistics
that Jezebel states are correct in that women will
lie only to benefit the feminist movement, to appear
lady like and only when it benefits them. I do know
that essentially every female that ever worked at the
meps and afees military induction centers went and
peeked at males receiving medical exams. I read this
first hand from a male corpsman.
And finally, one female nurse said, " why would I
pay to see that movie when I can see the real thing for
free!"
PT
I completely agree with anonymous, that this is offensive. It appears, since the various arrows aren't labeled, that it is not an instructional image, just an image to get one's attention. Not to mention, those who do not oppose the image are men. Everything in the world - advertisements, movies, songs, books - focus on women's sexuality, and have an indirect affect on what happens in society. I work with ethicists and they, too, would find this unnecessary - maybe not offensive, but unnecessary. anon2
My response to Anon2 would be the same as I made on June 27 to the first commentary. The graphic is nothing but normal human anatomy and emphasizes the issue presented by the authors in the Hasting Center Report Essay: specific anatomic locations (as shown by the numbers) and each has an anatomic name are often unstated by the public and, in the view of the authors, diminished the personal importance and significance of their genitalia.
Now, I would agree with Anon2, if commenting about the issue itself, the public's not using specific anatomic names as brought out by the journal authors, that the Essay was "not offensive, but unnecessary". I still think there are more important ethical issues in medicine and society to discuss. ..Maurice.
Post a Comment
<< Home