Inequalities in Medical Science

Gender inequalities continue to be found in the social practices that are a part of the medical and scientific fields. Gender inequality is typically defined as an unfair or unequal treatment or the perceptions of unfair or unequal treatment based solely on the gender of a person. In examining two articles, social practices of hegemonic masculinity and heteronormative sexuality help to reach the goal of gender inequality. Hegemonic masculinity is associated with the structuring in a particular field that has a certain problem that has been addressed by a man, where the answer to that problem is dominated by men. Heteronormative sexuality is bias in favor of opposite-sex relationships and being anti-same-sex relationships. An example of bias, in this case, is the views of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Much like the fields of astronomy and astrophysics, The field of eugenics has been a prominent place where hegemonic masculinity has existed in spite of the work that woman biologists of color have performed. Historians have paid significant attention to the accomplishments of men more so than women. A closer analysis of ERO research underscores this problem or rather goal in the sense that it keeps gender inequality alive. In the case of hegemonic masculinity, answers have been provided to a problem by a male or men and have been accepted as true, even if their validity has come into question. "Some female ERO graduates [have] explicitly voiced doubts about the validity and ethics of eugenic research, drawing on their field experiences and scientific ideals." ERO head, Charles Benedict Davenport sought to understand this phenomenon in a better light. Davenport's position was that the ERO was not established to serve the purpose of propaganda or a slant on one gender's knowledge of a subject more than the other. He maintained that the ERO was to serve the students by training them with adequate knowledge in the science backgrounds (Bix). Davenport routinely promoted the students who had concentrated their application of research in the field of biology. Both men and women were proud to be a part of the ERO program. As a result of the training with the program, one male, in particular, garnered much support from Davenport and the eugenics community. "Davenport and other leaders in the eugenics community were willing to acknowledge Arthur Estabrook as a full scientific colleague, but female field-workers were trapped at a lower status without equal opportunities for employment" (Bix). It was becoming all too clear that while Davenport noted how impressed he was with women and their completion of the coursework and materials within the field of biology, they were not been employed or recognized for their accomplishments. Neither were women in the field of information technology. Thus, the goal of hegemonic masculinity was being maintained in the ERO program.

Davenport believed that "some of his most talented and experienced female workers could serve society better by producing children instead of research effectively" (Bix). This further proved the dilemma of gender inequality. Why were the women demoted to such a proverbial cliché when they had trained under the same teachers as their male counterparts?  Despite Davenport's attitudes, women did continue excelling in the field of eugenics. Female field-workers understood their place within the field of biology and that their research was just as important, just as justifiable as the men who have researched. 

Such is the case of many medical arenas today, where women are still questioned as not being valid medical professionals because of the supposed invisible line of separateness that exists between genders. The male chauvinistic attitudes exist even today with all of the evolution of the human race. Women are still denoted as being distinctively different from men. While in certain capacities, they are different from men; prominent research in the scientific fields have been achieved by both genders and it is essential that women are recognized as such. As long as the goal of hegemonic masculinity is maintained, this will continue to be an issue in the scientific arena.

In certain areas of the world of medicine, there exists a test known as the phallometric test. "The test utilizes a pickup device to the penis to monitor and record erection levels while subjects are presented with visual or auditory stimuli [and is] considered the gold standard in many jurisdictions and research settings for the objective measurement of male sexual desire" (Waidzunas). But, the test has been used to unearth lies some men tell about their sexuality. Purported as being a sexual revealer, researchers have noted that the test can be used as a routine assessment tool. There appears to be bias here; bias on the part of those seeking to measure more than just the sexual desire of man. 

The history of sexuality has always remained a scientific quandary even with the discourse provided by Foucault in the mid to late 1970s. Researchers and theorists have sought to understand the intricacies of sexuality over the years in conjunction with the phallometric test. The test itself was invented in "1950s Czechoslovakia by sexologist Kurt Freund and adoption within Western countries in the 1960s. Phallometric testing is resonant with a larger legacy of bodily measurement and modification that emerged as a form of expression of national citizenship in the West during and after WWII. Subsequently, the history of the phallometric test has included a process of co-construction of a testing apparatus along with ways of understanding male sexuality" (Waidzunas).  The test has become the norm in sexology studies that reinforces the deviant mechanisms of society about male sexuality. Heteronormative sexuality is at work with this in that the role of technology has started overstepping its boundaries in terms of what can be researched or developed to examine. Phallometric testing has been used to "understand the human through technoscientific practice and representation" (Waidzunas). While this notion offers some form of credibility, there will always be some form of bias in the test because of the ever-changing field of technoscience and its adaptation to societal norms.  

Phallometric testing has in effect allowed the goal of inequality to be present. This form of testing "extracts truths from the body, beyond the conscious mind of the subject, these practices are outside the scope of the scientia sexualis as Foucault originally conceived it. In the formation of sexuality discourses, the initiative for the confession comes from within the subject, propelled by a Western culture that demands it. Yet, while phallometry extracts truths from the body, it does this in a sense different from torture" (Waidzunas). In other words, there is an overstepping of the intention of this testing. 

While it is understandable for theorists and researchers to want to know about the underlying aspects of male sexuality, the methodology of this form of testing is a bit over the top. That is not to say that research has not been acquired through the usage of the test in terms of the sexuality discussion, but there is much debate as to how far technoscience has to go to obtain what it feels is necessary for the progression of medicine. Phallometric testing was used in the Waidzunas article to analyze the body types of homosexuals as sexual deviance. The test continues the societal and cultural stigmata that homosexuality is deviant behavior. While "deviant sexuality was highly suspect in the post-War era, and ripe for examination under the gaze of behavior therapists," (Waidzunas) that was then and this is now. It is important to note that is not by any means an opining on homosexuality, but a mere delineation of the extensive overreaching that phallometric testing allows the medical field to perform. When testing of this kind is done as a means to elicit a particular confession so that it can later be used against someone, then that is where the problem of heteronormative sexuality comes in.

Works Cited

Bix, Amy S. "Experiences and Voices of Eugenics Field-Workers: 'Women's Work' in Biology." Social Studies of Science Aug. 1997: 625-668. Print.

Waidzunas, Tom. "Erectile Truths: The Co-Construction of Male Sexualities and the Phallometric Test." Qualifying Paper. University of California, San Diego, 2007. 1-49. Print.