Difference between revisions of "Lloyd1997"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Mike Lloyd |Title=The language of reproduction: Is it doctored? |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Reproduction; Infertility; Gender; |Key=Llo...")
 
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Mike Lloyd
 
|Author(s)=Mike Lloyd
 
|Title=The language of reproduction: Is it doctored?
 
|Title=The language of reproduction: Is it doctored?
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Reproduction; Infertility; Gender;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Reproduction; Infertility; Gender;
 
|Key=Lloyd1997
 
|Key=Lloyd1997
 
|Year=1997
 
|Year=1997
 
|Journal=Qualitative Health Research
 
|Journal=Qualitative Health Research
 
|Volume=7
 
|Volume=7
|Pages=184-201
+
|Number=2
 +
|Pages=184–201
 
|URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104973239700700202
 
|URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104973239700700202
 +
|DOI=10.1177/104973239700700202
 
|Abstract=Among the large body of feminist scholarship on infertility and reproductive technologies there is a subargument about the language of reproduction. Following a "medicalization" thesis, feminists argue that the language of reproduction pathologizes the female reproductive system and simultaneously hides the pathology of the male reproductive system. This article describes 3 examples of such an argument and then offers a critique. The overall point that contemporary societies display gender inequality is not disputed, but methodologically, the feminist argument about the language of reproduction is found wanting. Alternative lines of inquiry are mentioned, suggesting a need for greater methodological rigor in studies of medical discourse.
 
|Abstract=Among the large body of feminist scholarship on infertility and reproductive technologies there is a subargument about the language of reproduction. Following a "medicalization" thesis, feminists argue that the language of reproduction pathologizes the female reproductive system and simultaneously hides the pathology of the male reproductive system. This article describes 3 examples of such an argument and then offers a critique. The overall point that contemporary societies display gender inequality is not disputed, but methodologically, the feminist argument about the language of reproduction is found wanting. Alternative lines of inquiry are mentioned, suggesting a need for greater methodological rigor in studies of medical discourse.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 09:30, 20 October 2019

Lloyd1997
BibType ARTICLE
Key Lloyd1997
Author(s) Mike Lloyd
Title The language of reproduction: Is it doctored?
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Medical EMCA, Reproduction, Infertility, Gender
Publisher
Year 1997
Language
City
Month
Journal Qualitative Health Research
Volume 7
Number 2
Pages 184–201
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/104973239700700202
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Among the large body of feminist scholarship on infertility and reproductive technologies there is a subargument about the language of reproduction. Following a "medicalization" thesis, feminists argue that the language of reproduction pathologizes the female reproductive system and simultaneously hides the pathology of the male reproductive system. This article describes 3 examples of such an argument and then offers a critique. The overall point that contemporary societies display gender inequality is not disputed, but methodologically, the feminist argument about the language of reproduction is found wanting. Alternative lines of inquiry are mentioned, suggesting a need for greater methodological rigor in studies of medical discourse.

Notes