Lloyd1997
| 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 | |
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
