This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Susan J. Denman, MD
Philadelphia Geriatric Center Philadelphia, Pa

JAMA. 1995;273(16):1255-1256.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Ms Mendelsohn and her colleagues¹ made several interesting observations in their article. They reported an overrepresentation of males in nonreproductive anatomy illustrations and expressed legitimate concern that the image of the male body is being presented as the "standard model" for medical education.

This article reminded me of my experience as a first-year medical student in 1972.I certainly would not accuse our recommended anatomy text² of underrepresenting females. I was inspired to dust off my textbook and count photographs. There are 52 photographs that could be determined to be either male or female. In contrast to the findings in the study by Mendelsohn et al, 40 (77%) were of women, whereas only 12 (23%) were of men. Unfortunately, 63% of the photographs of women were pornographic poses of a quality that one might see in Playboy magazine. These photographs included nude women posed with beach . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?