In Emily Martin’s article, titled “The Egg and the Sperm”, she argues that scientific accounts tend to portray reproductive biology using stereotypes. Frankly, I have never read a biology textbook and considered it gender-biased, but as I read Martin’s explanation my well-hidden feminist side took over. “Why do women shed a single gamete each month, but men produce hundreds of millions of sperm?” I began to ask myself (486). Every part of the menstruation as well as reproductive process of women was phrased in a negative and inferior way. As I continued to read the article I understood the point that Martin was making: even something as small as learning about the reproductive process can be biased to “justify the social order of that time”, subconsciously creating gender roles in our minds (500).
Although it may sound ludicrous to some, I completely support Martin’s argument. Scientific evidence should not be influenced by “cultural ideas”, especially if these beliefs favor one gender over another (500). Women are depicted as passive and helpless, while men are seen as strong and heroic. Regardless of the unfair portrayal of women, the actual information has been proven to be incorrect. The sperm, once seen as a “forceful penetrator”, is actually extremely weak (492). The sperm and the egg are mutually active partners, and both have equally important roles.
The further I thought about the metaphor Martin analyzed in her article, the more I understood the metaphors hidden in our language as well as in our culture. The sexist ideas concealed in scientific research still exist today, and it is up to us to uncover the truth. Without questioning and analyzing things, growth cannot take place.
*Quick note before I actually respond, don’t hide your feminism!! Let it out!!*
I completely agree with you in that I hadn’t noticed how supposedly unbiased, factual texts were actually filled with subconscious (or maybe even conscious?) efforts at further perpetuating cultural gender stereotypes. I figured that science and social sciences were influenced by culture (I mean, remember racial anthropology? How messed up was that?), but I grew curious after reading Martin’s article if other sciences were affected by stereotypes as well. I might look into that as well.
I think this piece ties in well with Layoff & Johnson because both readings were eye-opening for us; I’m sure we all hadn’t realized that these hidden metaphors were practically everywhere.
Like you I never viewed biological text as being biased and even sexist. Martin noted comparisons between the sperm and the egg that viewed sperm as more superior. It only served to promote the most common gender stereotypes today, men should be the aggressors and women pacifists. We like many other children have been socially constructed from a very young age to learn these stereotypes. We learned it unconsciously even if it were against our will. Even though feminists have gained voting rights and can occupy dominantly male jobs, there are still sexist metaphors pervasive in society. Unless the metaphors end, there will always be a slight sexist ideas.
I also have not read a textbook and immediately thought that it could be “gender-biased”, and this article definitely helped raise that awareness. When I read the article, I was actually a bit disappointed to know that these textbook weren’t in fact as “objective” as they may propose to be. Though I believe that something should be changed so that biology (specifically the reproductive system) is not represented in any gender-biased way, I wonder how exactly this can be accomplished?
I agree with all of those above, who until this article, did not realize that biology textbooks could portray women in such a negative light. I think that because it is a textbook, everyone takes the words in it to be right, and not possibly sexist, even though they very much are. I think that the task of changing this is a very hard one, yet much easier and more feasible than changing stereotypes altogether.
“Without questioning and analyzing things, growth cannot take place.” I like your mindset on this topic. I was also a bit weary at the start of the article considering I have always believed science to be unbiased and definite. But as I continued reading, I realized the hidden stereotypes that Martin pointed out that lay within even scientific research itself. And, in order to encourage a change against gender stereotypes, we must start by fighting even the smallest offenses.