[Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC

[Ryan Kaldari]

I have to say that viewing pregnancy as a "medical article" seems to be 
a rather male point of view :) I also find it telling that maternity 
clothing isn't even mentioned in the article (but I guess that makes 
sense if pregnant women don't wear clothes).

Ryan Kaldari

On 9/6/11 12:04 AM, Arnaud HERVE wrote:
> Intuitively I was not shocked by the nude pregnant woman. I found it
> very casual instead. Might be my European education, I don't know.
>
> I think that for medical articles, all the relevant body parts must be
> fully exposed. And believe me I have seen much worse than a healthy
> pregnant woman, because i do website editing for a faculty of medicine.
>
> In that case the part to be expose would be the whole swell of the
> belly, from pelvis to thorax. Including the breasts is ok to me.
>
> Showing that part exclusively would not only be more medically relevant
> (because thighs and neck are not relevant here), it would also make the
> person non identifiable.
>
> The clothed photograph seems to me more improper than the nude one for a
> medical article. If it is medical, then the body part must be exposed
> without clothes. Even if it might sound surprising, I also disagree all
> photographs showings hands on belly, nude or clothed. I acknowledge that
> it shows the mother's care, but for medical purpose it is the belly
> alone that must be shown.
>
> What I find much more disturbing is WP being used to publish pictures of
> the photographer's wife. Even if he is very proud of her. It might be an
> unwanted precedent, first of people posting pictures of their children
> to show blond hair, tennis playing, whatever, second of people posting
> photos of their girl-friend at the first opportunity.
>
> That might against the interests of female participation.
>
> Arnaud
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap