ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

If there is a single thread running through this issue of the journal, it may be the complex interplay between the individual and the system(s) of which they are apart, highlighting a need for systems thinking in medical ethics and public health. Such thinking raises at least three sorts of questions in this context: normative questions about the locus of moral responsibility for change when a system is unjust; practical questions about how to change systems in a way that is morally appropriate without triggering unintended, potentially harmful side-effects; and epistemic questions about how to predict the multidimensional consequences of a proposed change or set of changes to an intricate social system such as healthcare. My focus will be on gender bias in the surgical profession.
1
Systems thinking in gender and medicine
Brian D. Earp
If there is a single thread running through this issue of the journal, it may be the complex
interplay between the individual and the system(s) of which they are apart, highlighting a
need for systems thinking in medical ethics and public health (1,2). Such thinking raises at
least three sorts of questions in this context: normative questions about the locus of moral
responsibility for change when a system is unjust; practical questions about how to change
systems in a way that is morally appropriate without triggering unintended, potentially
harmful side-effects; and epistemic questions about how to predict the multidimensional
consequences of a proposed change or set of changes to an intricate social system such as
healthcare (3). These questions crop up throughout the issue, as I will discuss, but my focus is
the target article and linked commentaries on gender bias in the surgical profession.
Hutchison (see pages …) conducted in-depth interviews with 46 Australian women surgeons
and surgical trainees, taking care to avoid leading questions regarding gender bias or
gendered mistreatment. Nevertheless, despite minimal prompting, at least four types of
gender-related concerns were described by the surgeons, whether directly or indirectly:
This is the authors copy of a published paper:
Earp, Brian. D. (2020). Systems thinking gender and medicine.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(4), 225-226.
2
(1) structural bias in workplace factors, including insufficient (or stigmatized)
parental leave for women, exclusion from men’s spaces (e.g., changing rooms) where
informal training may occur, and a dearth of senior female role models;
(2) epistemic injustices including unfair doubting of women’s surgical competence
or knowledge relative to men;
(3) stereotyped expectations that women surgeons would or should shoulder the
burden of medical carework, for example, by attending to patients’ emotional needs;
and
(4) objectification, both by colleagues and patients, including sexual innuendo,
remarks about clothing, and even outright sexual assault.
Each of these concerns is disturbing on its own, and yet they do not operate in isolation.
Rather, they interact with each other, often in mutually reinforcing ways, and they may cause
aggregate harms to women that are greater than the sum of their parts. As Hutchison notes,
addressing such harms thus requires (a) “understanding the functioning of the system” from
which they emerge, (b) “making the harms and the way they aggregate visible,” and (c)
“challenging expedient practices that support them.”
Hutchison’s study makes a valuable contribution primarily to (b), while leaving (a) and (c)
ripe for further discussion. How, then, should we make sense of the wider system from which
the harms identified by Hutchison flow; and who is responsible for challenging the structures
and practices that support those harms?
To answer these questions, we must first step back and acknowledge analogous biases and
harms befalling women in other fields traditionally dominated by men—for example,
academic philosophy (4). As McCleod notes in a linked commentary (see pages …),
“objectification of women or the assumption of credibility deficits among them” are not
unique to the world of surgery; rather, they are “common to disciplines in which women are
seriously underrepresented.” More broadly, they are a predictable consequence of any
gendered system in which access to resources, positions of authority, and the concomitant
power to shape norms and institutions are not distributed equally among stakeholders of
different genders (5).
3
The usual way of theorizing such a situation is by appeal to patriarchy. On classic models,
this refers to a gendered system of male dominance and female subordination, wherein
gender is analyzed in terms of binary, hierarchical, sex-based positioning in social or
institutional space (6). Yet as Scully observes in another of the linked commentaries (see
pages …), “biases and epistemic injustices undoubtedly affect not just female surgeons, but
minority and LGBT surgeons as well.” Of course, some racial/ethnic minority or LGBT
surgeons are also female; some have non-binary gender identities, some are recently
immigrated, some are dealing with physical or mental disabilities, and so on. The remark by
Scully thus underscores the need for an intersectional analysis of gender (whether in the
context of medicine or in any other domain). Classic models typically fail to achieve this.
In a forthcoming book, Dembroff seeks to rectify this problem by proposing a new, more
sophisticated account of patriarchy that is intersectional to its core (6). Dembroff calls this
account the Real Men view. In a nutshell, it holds that the defining feature of patriarchy is not
male dominance and female subordination per se—although that is certainly part of the
picture—but rather, the dominance of “real men” over everyone else. Here, “real men” refers
to the group of persons taken to sufficiently exemplify the characteristics of “natural”
manhood, as that concept applies in a given context (6). These characteristics thus include the
cluster of physical traits typically considered to ground membership in the male biological
sex category (7), but also the whole suite of biopsychosocial attributes that are prototypically
“masculine” in the relevant culture.
1
A strength of this account is that it preserves the notion of male dominance—reflected in the
“old boys club” quality of surgical culture noted by participants in Hutchison’s study—
without ignoring the ways in which patriarchal gender systems can confer structural
disadvantages along numerous social-identity axes. Thus, on Dembroff’s account, even males
can be harmed by patriarchy, to the extent that they fail to qualify as “real men” according to
the prevailing gender ideology.
2
If that is right, the surgical culture described by Hutchison’s
participants might best be understood, not as an “old boys club,” but rather, as a “real men’s
1
For my own take on a biopsychosocial understanding of gender, see the video “What is (your) gender? A
friendly guide to the public debate,” https://youtu.be/LZERzw9BGrs.
2
Thus, in many cultures, adolescent boysor older males who have not yet “proven” their manhood by, for
example, undergoing a prescribed rite of passage (8)—as well as gay men, trans men, men of color, disabled
men, and others, may be disadvantaged as men within the logic of patriarchy, alongside women, non-binary
people, and others who are “not real men.” For an important discussion of the need to study (at least) male and
female aspects of a gender system holistically and together (i.e., in relation to each other) in order to understand
either aspect of the system, much less the system as a whole, see (9).
4
club,” with various harms and biases befalling everyone who does not fit the—presumably
white, male, heterosexual, etc.—stereotype of a “proper” surgeon (10). Future research
should consider this possibility.
Now to the question of responsibility. If we assume that Real Men patriarchy is at least one
of the systems behind the harms, biases, and injustices identified by Hutchison, who is
responsible for changing that system? Brennan (see pages …) argues that change must be
sought and pursued at the level of the institution, as opposed to the level of individuals,
advising against strategies that involve finger-pointing and blame—at least when it comes to
unconscious biases and unintentional mistreatment. Brennan writes that blaming individuals
in such cases “is unlikely to be effective even if one thinks it is warranted. It is certainly not
the case that only male surgeons, staff and patients are to blame [for instance, as] research on
implicit bias [indicates] that both men and women undervalue the work of women and
overvalue the work of men.
Brennan’s analysis seems right as far as it goes. But, as Brennan would no doubt agree,
institutions do not reform themselves. Rather, individuals, both within and without unjust
institutions, must work together to make concrete changes to relevant polices, while staying
mindful of their individual-level moral responsibilities. And insofar as Real Men have
disproportionate power and authority within an institution like surgery, they may have
disproportionate responsibility to initiate changes at the institutional level—in collaboration
with, and centering the perspectives of, those with less power—while also ensuring
respectful, unbiased interactions with (inter alia) their female colleagues. As Gupta has
argued in another context, addressing injustice is not an either-or proposition: individual-
level and social-structural factors are often co-constitutive and synergistic (11). In other
words, one can both lobby for systemic change where appropriate and take responsibility for
one’s own behavior (12).
In their article on medical cannabis prescribing, Glickman and Sisti (see pages …) make a
similar point. Decrying the current political situation in which medical cannabis policy is
driven more by moralization and wishful thinking than by a sound appraisal of the evidence
concerning benefits and risks of cannabis use, they are clear that systemic change is needed.
For example, they suggest that the training pipeline needs to be reformed so that physicians
receive an adequate (or indeed any) education about why and when to prescribe medical
5
marijuana. But given the messy reality of politics coupled with institutional inertia, they
argue that individual primary care providers now have a personal and professional obligation
to “develop a level of clinical and ethical competency to enable them to recommend cannabis
to their patients when it is indicated.”
Systems thinking is also evident in the papers by Winters et al. (see pages …), Semrau (see
pages …), and Decullier and Maisonneuve (see pages …). Winters et al. defend prioritarian
principles for digital healthcare in low-resource settings, arguing that certain structural
inequalities speak against utilitarian health policy and in favor of prioritizing the needs of the
worst off. Semrau responds to critics of an earlier paper on kidney markets, distinguishing
pressure to sell one’s kidney, specifically, from a more general pressure to make money, with
kidney vending as one viable option. And Decullier and Maisonneuve focus on abuse of
authorship criteria, citing researchers’ claim that the publish-or-perish system of academia
leaves them with no choice but to accept gift authorships and even ghost authorships.
Although detailed philosophical analysis of discrete, often stylized cases undoubtedly has an
important role to play in medical ethics, it is encouraging to see so many authors taking a
more holistic approach that positions actors, practices, and behaviors within the wider
systems of which they are a part.
6
References
1. Midgley G. Systemic intervention for public health. Am J Public Health.
2006;96(3):466–72.
2. Stephens A, Jacobson C, King C. Describing a feminist-systems theory. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science. 2010;27(5):553–66.
3. Earp BD, Savulescu J. Love’s dimensions. In: Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of
Relationships. Redwood City: Stanford University Press; 2020. p. 16–35.
4. Hutchison K, Jenkins F, editors. Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change? Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2016.
5. Manne K. Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
6. Dembroff RA. Putting real men on top. In: Breaking Labels. Oxford: Oxford University
Press; forthcoming.
7. Hodson N, Earp BD, Townley L, Bewley S. Defining and regulating the boundaries of
sex and sexuality. Med Law Rev. 2019;27(4):541–52.
8. Earp BD. Between moral relativism and moral hypocrisy: reframing the debate on
“FGM.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2016;26(2):105–44.
9. Merli C. Sunat for girls in southern Thailand: its relation to traditional midwifery, male
circumcision and other obstetrical practices. Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration.
2008;3(2):32–41.
10. Peters K, Ryan MK, Haslam SA. Marines, medics, and machismo: Lack of fit with
masculine occupational stereotypes discourages men’s participation. British Journal of
Psychology. 2015;106(4):635–55.
11. Gupta K. Anti-love biotechnologies: integrating considerations of the social. The
American Journal of Bioethics. 2013;13(11):18–9.
12. Earp BD. Hymen ‘restoration’ in cultures of oppression: how can physicians promote
individual patient welfare without becoming complicit in the perpetuation of unjust social
norms? J Med Ethics. 2014;40(6):431–431.
... Because the construct of binary gender and the associated bodily aesthetics are pervasive, these reminders will need to be sustained and continuing. The systems that shape disciplinary and personal constructs of gender have been well described [32]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) changes the structure and appearance of healthy external genitalia. We aimed to identify discourses that help explain and rationalise FGCS and to derive from them possibilities for informing clinical education. Methods We interviewed 16 health professionals and 5 non-health professionals who deal with women’s bodies using a study-specific semi-structured interview guide. We analysed transcripts using a three-step iterative process: identifying themes relevant to indications for FGCS, identifying the discourses within which they were positioned, and categorising and theorising discourses. Results We identified discourses that we categorised within four themes: Diversity and the Normal Vulva (diversity was both acknowledged and rejected); Indications for FGCS (Functional, Psychological, Appearance); Ethical Perspectives; and Reasons Women Seek FGCS (Pubic Depilation, Media Representation, Pornography, Advertising Regulations, Social Pressure, Genital Unfamiliarity). Conclusions Vulvar aesthetics constitute a social construct to which medical practice and opinion contribute and by which they are influenced; education and reform need to occur on all fronts. Resources that not only establish genital diversity but also challenge limited vulvar aesthetics could be developed in consultation with women, healthcare practitioners, mental health specialists, and others with knowledge of social constructs of women’s bodies.
... /fsoc. . who have undergone FGM/C (Earp, 2020). A reductive focus on the role of genitalia and a neglect of other important dimensions of sexuality can negatively impact a woman's body image and sexual self-esteem. ...
Article
Full-text available
“Female genital mutilation/cutting” (FGM/C) refers to procedures that involve altering the external female genitalia with the aim of reinforcing gendered body norms. The literature has consistently shown that, like various forms of discrimination, the practice is rooted in systems of gender inequality. As a result, FGM/C has increasingly come to be understood in terms of social norms that are by no means fixed. And yet, in the Global North, interventions remain primarily medical in nature, with clitoral reconstruction having emerged as a common means of dealing with related sexual issues. And although treatments can vary greatly depending on the hospitals and physicians involved, sexuality tends to be considered from a gynecological perspective, even when multidisciplinary care is offered. By contrast, gender norms and other socio-cultural factors receive little attention. In addition to highlighting three critical shortcomings in current responses to FGM/C, this literature review also describes how social work can play a key role in overcoming the associated barriers by (1) adopting a holistic approach to sex education, one capable of addressing those aspects of sexuality that lie beyond the scope of a medical consultation; (2) supporting family-based discussions on matters of sexuality; and (3) promoting gender equality, especially among younger generations.
... Gender norms are a special type of social norm. As such, they are upheld by a system of more or less explicit, socially imposed costs or punishments for perceived noncompliance [18][19][20][21] . Thus, there will typically be some amount of social pressure at play in decisions about GGMs, ranging from relatively weak to overwhelming. ...
Article
Full-text available
This editorial review introduces the second part of a two-part special issue on genital cutting and surgery affecting young people. Part 1 emphasized broad questions of anthropology, medicine, ethics, politics, and law, with a particular focus on practices affecting persons with intersex traits: that is, congenital variations in sex characteristics deemed atypical for females or males. This part of the special issue (Part 2) takes a complementary focus. It puts the spotlight on genital modifications affecting those born, not with intersex traits, but with “endosex” traits: congenital sex characteristics deemed biologically normative for either females or males. And yet, as the articles in this collection make clear, even apparent biological normativity does not entail cultural acceptability. Thus, in some societies, it is not only young people born with intersex traits, but also those born with endosex traits, who may be subjected to various forms of non-voluntary genital cutting or surgery without medical necessity. A model for mapping relative voluntariness, consent, and medical necessity-status onto judgments of moral permissibility or impermissibility is proposed. Cultural biases in evaluations of consent and medical necessity are also discussed.
... Scientifically, the tendency is questionable because in many countries at least two, and sometimes all three, forms of cutting are carried out together within the same cultural contexts or institutions; in these cases, the practices are often tightly symbolically linked, serving complementary or mutually reinforcing social functions. These functions-for example, maintaining gendered social divisions and associated power hierarchies-cannot adequately be understood, much less appropriately addressed, by studying each practice in isolation (Caldwell et al., 1997;Junos, 1998;Toubia, 1999;Lightfoot-Klein et al., 2000;Abu-Sahlieh, 2001;Knight, 2001;Robertson and James, 2002;Boddy, 2007;Merli, 2008Merli, , 2010Fox and Thomson, 2009;Androus, 2013;Reis, 2013;Svoboda, 2013;Ahmadu, 2016a;Prazak, 2017;Johnsdotter, 2018;Earp, 2020a). ...
Article
Full-text available
The World Health Organization (WHO) condemns all medically unnecessary female genital cutting (FGC) that is primarily associated with people of color and the Global South, claiming that such FGC violates the human right to bodily integrity regardless of harm-level, degree of medicalization, or consent. However, the WHO does not condemn medically unnecessary FGC that is primarily associated with Western culture, such as elective labiaplasty or genital piercing, even when performed by non-medical practitioners (e.g., body artists) or on adolescent girls. Nor does it campaign against any form of medically unnecessary intersex genital cutting (IGC) or male genital cutting (MGC), including forms that are non-consensual or comparably harmful to some types of FGC. These and other apparent inconsistencies risk undermining the perceived authority of the WHO to pronounce on human rights. This paper considers whether the WHO could justify its selective condemnation of non-Western-associated FGC by appealing to the distinctive role of such practices in upholding patriarchal gender systems and furthering sex-based discrimination against women and girls. The paper argues that such a justification would not succeed. To the contrary, dismantling patriarchal power structures and reducing sex-based discrimination in FGC-practicing societies requires principled opposition to medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting of all vulnerable persons, including insufficiently autonomous children, irrespective of their sex traits or socially assigned gender. This conclusion is based, in part, on an assessment of the overlapping and often mutually reinforcing roles of different types of child genital cutting—FGC, MGC, and IGC—in reproducing oppressive gender systems. These systems, in turn, tend to subordinate women and girls as well as non-dominant males and sexual and gender minorities. The selective efforts of the WHO to eliminate only non-Western-associated FGC exposes the organization to credible accusations of racism and cultural imperialism and paradoxically undermines its own stated goals: namely, securing the long-term interests and equal rights of women and girls in FGC-practicing societies.
... 13 In addition, issues of intersectionality were not explored in this study. 27 However, the current lack of female associate professors/professors from ethnic minorities would necessitate extending the study nationwide to enable sufficient data to be gathered for a meaningful study. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to career progression for female medical clinical academics from the perspectives of female associate professors and professors, with a particular focus on women with caring responsibilities. Design An exploratory qualitative approach was adopted. Data from semistructured interviews conducted via video calls were analysed using thematic analysis. Setting Two major universities in the East Midlands of England. Participants The sample consisted of 13 female medical clinical academic associate professors and professors representing a range of medical specialties. Results Female medical clinical academics experienced barriers and facilitators to progress at individual, interpersonal, institutional/procedural and societal levels. Conclusions Many barriers experienced at an individual level by female medical clinical academics are heavily influenced by their interpersonal relationships, the academic environment in which they work and broader institutional and procedural issues which, in turn, are influenced by stereotypical societal views on gender roles. Facilitating factors, including measures to increase the numbers of female leaders, may lead to a change of culture that is supportive to aspiring female clinical academics as well as enabling a healthy work/life balance for women and men with caring responsibilities.
... Similarly, female genital cutting "strengthens in various ways the bonds among women of the same or of different generations and becomes an important source of group solidarity, mutual aid, exchange and companionship, that in turn is the primary and most important form of resistance against male dominance" (58) (emphasis added).As Obiora notes, explanations of FGC that reduce the practice to an instrument of patriarchy "can be criticized for contradictory and circular propositions that are intrinsic in the idea that men exert a totalized control over the construction of social life." The explanation "obscures the variable ways in which men and women are bound together in social units, institutions, and categories that cross-cut gender divisions [and] essentializes social tensions even when they defy gender boundaries and manifest along generational, socio-economic, or other lines"(34); see also(166)(167)(168). Moreover, relying on such a pseudoexplanation risks undermining the efforts of local resisters who are striving to end the practice of FGC in their own societies. ...
Article
Full-text available
In recent years, the dominant Western discourse on “female genital mutilation” (FGM) has increasingly been challenged by scholars. Numerous researchers contest both the terminology used and the empirical claims made in what has come to be called “the standard tale” of FGM, also termed “female genital cutting” (FGC). The World Health Organization (WHO), a major player in setting the global agenda on this issue, maintains that all medically unnecessary cutting of the external female genitalia, no matter how slight, should be banned as torture and a violation of the human right to bodily integrity. However, the WHO targets only non-Western forms of female-only genital cutting, raising concerns about gender bias and cultural imperialism. Here, we summarize ongoing critiques of the WHO’s terminology, ethicolegal assumptions, and empirical claims, including the claim that non-Western FGC as such constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. To this end, we highlight recent comparative studies of medically unnecessary genital cutting of all types, including those affecting adult women and teenagers in Western societies, individuals with differences of sex development (DSD), transgender persons, and males. In so doing, we attempt to clarify the grounds for a growing critical consensus that current anti-FGM laws and policies may be ethically incoherent, empirically unsupportable, and legally unsustainable.
Article
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore existing frameworks and practices for addressing discrimination in supervision as well as patterns of discriminatory treatment in supervision identified in social work and related fields. Methods: The project employed a rapid review guided by the methods of Search, Appraisal, Synthesize, and Analysis (SALSA) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA). Results: The authors found evidence that discrimination in supervision is a documented problem that occurs in related fields. It revealed a range of social identities that have been the target of discrimination. It also found opportunities for social work to build on existing regulatory frameworks to address critical gaps. Conclusion: It is critical that social work take steps to fill the gap in social work professional standards and regulations and ensure that social workers from disadvantaged backgrounds have equal opportunity and access to training and licensure.
Article
Full-text available
This is a lightly edited transcript of a lecture based on coursework submitted as part of my Ph.D. It was recorded on Whidbey Island, Washington, and published online on January 15th, 2020. I'm a philosopher and cognitive scientist who studies gender, sex, identity, sexuality and related topics and I am offering this lecture as a friendly guide to the (often very heated) public debate that is going on around these issues. This is my best attempt, not to score political points for any particular side, but to give an introductory map of the territory so you can think for yourself, investigate further, and reach your own conclusions about such controversial questions as "What does mean to be a man or a woman?" This lecture is not meant to be authoritative; it is not the final word; experts on these topics will find much to quibble with (and perhaps some things to disagree with outright). But for those who would like to take some first steps in getting a sense of the landscape without feeling intimidated, I hope this will be of some use.
Chapter
Full-text available
What are love drugs? Basically, drugs that affect love—or romantic relationships more broadly. This chapter begins with an account of drugs, explaining that they are essentially just chemicals—clusters of molecules that work on the brain to produce certain effects—and that our choice to regard them as medicine versus recreation, or as a means to personal or spiritual development, is up to us. It is a question of values. The chapter then gives an account of love, explaining that it has both biological and psychosocial dimensions. When there is a tension between love and well-being, it may make sense in certain cases to intervene in either or both of those dimensions to improve our relationships and our lives.
Chapter
Full-text available
Instead of trying to strengthen a relationship, what if the relationship needs to end? This chapter discusses existing drugs that may be capable of diminishing love, lust, attraction, or attachment to a current romantic partner. It also raises concerns about possible negative outcomes and points to the limits of what is likely to be possible. Given that drugs or medications used for other purposes may have anti-love side-effects, what would be the ethics of prescribing them off-label as a way of assisting with a difficult breakup or healing a broken heart? The chapter concludes by acknowledging the risk of ‘pathologizing’ love and romantic relationships by intervening in them with medical substances, and suggests a way to avoid this particular worry.
Article
Full-text available
Sex and sexuality are contentious concepts, blending the deeply personal with the pro- foundly political. They concern most of us in our private spaces of fantasy and mean- ing, relationships and families, pleasure and pain, creation and loss. But sex and sexuality are not solely private matters; with conceptual boundaries moving and being transgressed, they have increasingly been brought into public life and contested in the courts. Should we press on with this use of the law, or not? This special issue of the Medical Law Review looks at cutting-edge medical and legal aspects of sex and sexuality.
Book
Full-text available
What if there were a pill for love? Or an anti-love drug, designed to help us break up? This controversial and timely new book argues that recent medical advances have brought chemical control of our romantic lives well within our grasp. Substances affecting love and relationships, whether prescribed by doctors or even illicitly administered, are not some far-off speculation - indeed our most intimate connections are already being influenced by pills we take for other purposes, such as antidepressants. Treatments involving certain psychoactive substances, including MDMA-the active ingredient in Ecstasy-might soon exist to encourage feelings of love and help ordinary couples work through relationship difficulties. Others may ease a breakup or soothe feelings of rejection. Such substances could have transformative implications for how we think about and experience love. This brilliant intervention into the debate builds a case for conducting further research into "love drugs" and "anti-love drugs" and explores their ethical implications for individuals and society. Rich in anecdotal evidence and case-studies, the book offers a highly readable insight into a cutting-edge field of medical research that could have profound effects on us all. Will relationships be the same in the future? Will we still marry? It may be up to you to decide whether you want a chemical romance.
Article
Full-text available
The spectrum of practices termed “Female Genital Mutilation” (or FGM) by the World Health Organization is sometimes held up as a counterexample to moral relativism. Those who advance this line of thought suggest the practices are so harmful in terms of their physical and emotional consequences, as well as so problematic in terms of their sexist or oppressive implications, that they provide sufficient, rational grounds for the assertion of a universal moral claim—namely, that all forms of FGM are wrong, regardless of the cultural context. However, others point to cultural bias and moral double standards on the part of those who espouse this argument, and have begun to question the received interpretation of the relevant empirical data concerning FGM as well. In this article I assess the merits of these competing perspectives. I argue that each of them involves valid moral concerns that should be taken seriously in order to move the discussion forward. In doing so, I draw on the biomedical “enhancement” literature in order to develop a novel ethical framework for evaluating FGM (and related interventions—such as female genital “cosmetic” surgery and non-therapeutic male circumcision) that takes into account the genuine harms that are at stake in these procedures, but which does not suffer from being based on cultural or moral double standards.
Article
Full-text available
What are the ethics of hymenoplasty? In this commentary, I argue that doctors must take seriously the risks involved in not performing the procedure when stigmatization and credible threats of violence are at stake. However, the ultimate source of harm in this example is not the absence of a girl's hymen, but rather an ugly suite of discriminatory attitudes and patriarchal social conventions. Therefore, doctors who perform hymenoplasty must take care not to profit from these unjust norms. I conclude by recommending that physicians charge the lowest possible fee for the procedure, while taking active steps to combat the problematic social norms that drive women to request hymenoplasty in the first place.
Article
Full-text available
This paper provides the first detailed discussion of a set of principles developed when two epistemologies (Critical Systems Thinking and Cultural Ecofeminism) where systematically compared. There are five principles themed around gender sensitivity; valuing voices from the margins; no longer regarding the environment as outside the realm of theoretical research; selecting appropriate methodologies; and promoting the achievement of plurally desirable and sustainable social changes. The analysis subjects the principles to scrutiny from broader literature on direct and indirectly related concepts. The analysis also provides sets of theoretical recommendations for practitioners to embed single or multiple principles in their own repertoires of practice. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Book
What is misogyny? And (why) is it still occurring? This book explores the logic of misogyny, conceived in terms of the hostilities women face because they are living in a man’s world, or one that has been until recently. It shows how misogyny may persist in cultures in which its existence is routinely denied-including the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, which are often alleged to be post-patriarchal. Not so, Down Girl argues. Misogyny has rather taken particular forms following the advent of legal equality, obligating women to be moral “givers,” and validating a sense of entitlement among her privileged male counterparts. Many of rape culture’s manifestations are canvassed-from the ubiquitous entreaty “Smile, sweetheart!” to Donald Trump’s boasts of grabbing women by the “pussy,” which came to light during his successful 2016 presidential campaign; from the Isla Vista killings in California to the police officer in Oklahoma who preyed on African American women with criminal records, sexually assaulting them in the knowledge they would have little legal recourse; from the conservative anti-abortion movement to online mobbings of women in public life, deterring the participation therein of all but the most privileged and well-protected. It is argued on this basis that misogyny often takes the form of taking from her what she is (falsely) held to owe him, and preventing her from competing for positions of masculine-coded power and authority. And he, in turn, may be held to owe her little.
Article
Women have made substantial inroads into some traditionally masculine occupations (e.g., accounting, journalism) but not into others (e.g., military, surgery). Evidence suggests the latter group of occupations is characterized by hyper-masculine 'macho' stereotypes that are especially disadvantageous to women. Here, we explore whether such macho occupational stereotypes may be especially tenacious, not just because of their impact on women, but also because of their impact on men. We examined whether macho stereotypes associated with marine commandos and surgeons discourage men who feel that they are 'not man enough'. Study 1 demonstrates that male new recruits' (N = 218) perceived lack of fit with masculine commandos was associated with reduced occupational identification and motivation. Study 2 demonstrates that male surgical trainees' (N = 117) perceived lack of fit with masculine surgeons was associated with reduced identification and increased psychological exit a year later. Together, this suggests that macho occupational stereotypes may discourage the very men who may challenge them. © 2014 The British Psychological Society.