Based on the name, I assume Emily Martin is a female. Before even reading the content, the title says it all–an article based on the reflection of stereotypical male-female roles on science. Martin criticizes the fact that scientists/researchers, the people that should remain objective, choose certain dictions with cultural innuendos to describe a biological process that has nothing to do with culture. Martin highlights the gender inequality where the egg is seen as a passive biological part whereas the sperm is seen as an aggressive biological part. Even more so, the diction used for the female process of menstruation is seen as “stockpiled germ cells by birth and is faced with their degeneration” (487) compared to the celebration of continuous production of sperm in the male body. Martin points out further contradictions: the female eggs are considered wasteful, but the definition of “‘waste’ implies and excess, too much produced” (489). In that sense, sperm should be considered wasteful as the excess production of sperm is unnecessary.
However, this is not the main point of Martin’s argument. By calling attention to the way scientists/researchers choose to describe certain biological process, the cultural background of the scientists/researchers become an interference to the research produced. In an old belief, sperm is described as an aggressor with a powerful, forward thrust. Yet, new research indicates that the “forward thrust of the sperm is extremely weak” (492). A better reflection of the fertilization process would be that the sperm is constantly on the run from the powerful egg. Even so, the researchers continue to imply that the sperm is a powerful aggressor when in reality, it is not. Martin strongly criticizes the fact that the scientists/researchers are applying different kinds of personalities on biological processes that have no personality. Martin hopes to persuade the reader of the article to become aware of the metaphors being used. In doing so, it will improve the ability to fully understand and research the biological processes.
I think the last sentence of your post was particularly insightful. We should do away with this gendered thinking not only on moral grounds, but also on scientific grounds. This sort of thinking makes science a tiny bit subjective rather than objective, by influencing the way we think of the egg and the sperm. If we didn’t have these ideas, we would have much clearer vision in science, not distorted by cultural stereotypes.