2009/01/23 by Edward C. Halperin · 1 citation
Social Sciences · Arts and Humanities · Medicine · Psychology · #Feminist Theory and Gender Studies #Historical Gender and Feminism Studies #Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes #Mores #Context (archaeology) #Tempest #Medicine #Classics #Psychology #Law #History #Art history #Politics #Political science
paper · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31819391e2
openalex publication_date 2009/01/23 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
Studying the history of medical education helps teach us that medicine is a social activity that occurs in the context of social mores and customs. In 1971, a major new anatomy textbook aimed at first-year medical students was published. The Anatomical Basis of Medical Practice, written by Professors R. Frederick Becker, James S. W. Wilson, and John A. Gehweiler, emphasized surface anatomy, embryology, and radiographic anatomy. At multiple places in the text, the authors used sexually suggestive and "cheeky" comments about women. A small fraction of the illustrations were stylized, posed female nude photographs purchased from California photographer Peter Gowland. These photographs, of a type typically seen in Playboy centerfolds or "pin-up girl" calendars, produced a firestorm of controversy. The book was criticized in the press and in reviews in scholarly journals, and a boycott was organized by the Association of Women in Science. The publisher received negative feedback from consumers, and the book was withdrawn from the market. The book is now a minor collector's item. Professors Becker and Wilson vigorously responded. They laid blame for the debacle on the publisher and also claimed they were the victims of a witch hunt by feminists. The Anatomical Basis of Medical Practice appeared as the women's movement became part of the American popular consciousness. It was also an era in which the public began to grapple with how to define pornography. Professor Becker and his coauthors thought that they were writing a witty, engaging, and funny book. Their detractors thought the book denigrated women.