Image du jour: Girl cancer!

The March, 2007 edition of Australian Family Physician magazine is a special issue on gynaecological malignancies. I’m boggling at this cover illustration. What do you think?

(click for larger version)

Categories: gender & feminism, health

11 replies

  1. My gut reaction: it is a typical 1950s magazine cover.

    My next thought: the doorway thing reminded me of that magazine article about anal sex that has recently been discussed.

    And, now, looking at it a bit longer: what is it that has caught her attention? Is it a faint, wispy, malformed, lower case gamma on an almost translucent cube?

    Doctors are weird!

  2. An “Empty room/barren womb”. “Leave a light on for me, baby”. “Frilly Curtains!”. “All the world’s uteri are a stage and all the world’s men are its players”? (Insert pomo bollocks about colonization). 1950’s – yeah, funny how they seem much closer now than 20 years ago. Am I deluded or is there no way in hades that a journal cover like that would have passed in the 80’s/90’s? Blecch.

  3. So that’s where the G-spot is!

  4. vagina = theater? Eh? I’m a bit baffled.
    Other than a vague impression impression of ‘drama’, I just get this sense of a jumble of passive body parts, laid out for inspection. The utter lack of eye contact just adds to it.

  5. Or maybe it’s just some trendy graphic designer following a fad in collage/montage images.

  6. I don’t find it offensive though I’m interested to read how other women respond to it… to be honest it reminds me of Bitch Magazine covers a little.

  7. Very pseudo-50’s, yes, even the script (such as the “E” in “Endometrial”), but it /is/ a bit of a fashion for this graphic style.
    BTW: See the section “Health care of refugee women”? Now /that/ might cause more of a stink against the GPs (by the gov) than the graphic does from feminists

  8. I couldn’t articulate what was bothering me at the time, but I think it’s a combination of all the things that have been mentioned. The inert, doll-like figure all retro-femmed up and staring off into space, legs impossibly positioned compared to the body.
    The complete erasure of the abdomen, pelvis and thighs, replaced by this bizarre image of a box-like, empty theatre stage. A bad pun on the operating “theatre” and “staging” of cancers? (Staging = the process of gaining multiple tissue samples and determining how widespread the cancer is). But every other interpretation I can come up with of the “stage” idea is horribly anti-woman.
    The giant G and the golden scribble, I’m still baffled on. “G” for “Gynaecology”? “G-spot”, as Brooklynite suggested, tongue-in-cheek?

  9. See the section “Health care of refugee women”? Now /that/ might cause more of a stink against the GPs (by the gov) than the graphic does from feminists

    Yes, docs have been engaging in a bit of civil disobedience, setting up a network to treat insurance-poor refugees for nothing. I expect docs will start getting arrested soon for recklessly providing a Pap smear.

  10. My interpretation was the “theatre of operation” proscenium set-up too.
    I think Ob/Gyn quacks have to de-personalise the actual woman in order to cope with their area of her.
    … and i wouldn’t want to be a dentist either.

  11. The depersonalisation is what disturbs me about this cover definitely, Ann O’Dyne.

%d bloggers like this: