Is Google Sexist?

In the movie version of the TV cartoon naughty word list, a list of words reminiscent of George Tony Comstock calls Google’s “sex ghetto.” This ghetto includes words one shouldn’t take out of the locker room and should never let slip in front of Mom, as well as some other borderline words one might understand a lack of images for, but at least should be defined for the clinically curious: nude, naked, erotic, bastard, anus, fellatio, cunnilingus.

But Google isn’t known for being overly puritanical, especially when it comes to sexuality. The company recently lifted a ban on alcohol advertising, joining Google’s storied history of allowing porn ads, but gambling establishments and gun sellers remain advertisers-non-grata. If one can advertise it and talk about it in doctor language, it’s not entirely clear why Google would place the clitoris on the naughty words list.

Go ahead. You can say it. It’s not filthy if half the population has one. Clitoris, clitoris, clitoris.

Other critics say such avoidance is something much deeper, a silent but felt undercurrent influencing what’s acceptable in society and what’s not, and in this case, what’s unacceptable is something not only so overtly “dirty” and feminine, but something that takes away power (or perhaps necessity) from men. At the basest level, the clitoris being so powerfully trumped by the penis suggests an age-old problem of male domination.

“It's been clear for a long time that the giant obscene 'F' word in Internet censorship is feminism,” writes Jody Lisberger, Ph.D., M.F.A., Interim Director of the Women’s Studies Program at the University of Rhode Island and author of the short story collection
I think she means our penises, but I was thrown by the word “vulnerable.” Grunt. Snarl. Growl. The word “vulnerable,” in my search engine, returns no results.

Whether it is sexist or not to exclude the clitoris from filtered search results is likely a lengthy, heated debate. Wouldn’t it be reasonable, though (dare it be said?), that Google be more like Yahoo, and at least bring back clinical, technical-manual type results and leave the images in their proper place: the imagination?