The article broke down the disparity between men and women down to the fundamentals of sperm and egg. It goes into depth of how sperm and egg are socially constructed supporting stereotypes, which is her primary argument. In most textbooks and writings, the sperm is often described as the active one which seeks to “penetrate” into the egg. While the egg is seen as passive, as “damsel in distress”. I find that these sort of texts can influence the minds of young children but not the minds of adults. In this way, gender is a social construction and learned at a very young age. Women are taught to be passive and men to be aggressive. I find it quite appalling the lengths people go in order to make negative connotations about women. Is discrimination at work enough? No, apparently some still feed the need to portray women in more negative light.

Let’s not always assume that the sperm is all-powerful. When the sperm fertilizes with an egg, the egg is the one to “protect the resulting embryo”. In addition, sperm would be lost without the egg. The egg emits chemotactic signals which attracts the sperm. Without the chemical signals, then the sperm would be lost. It is not always the case that the egg relies on the sperm, but that the sperm relies on the egg. When the egg acts as the aggressor, it is viewed through negative metaphors. “the egg ends up as the female aggressor who “captures and tethers” the sperm with her sticky zona, rather like a spider lying in wait in her web” (498). Why is the sperm not viewed as being an obscene creature raring to attack? Just like Martin said the concept of egg and sperm serve to support stereotypes today. I would praise Martin for clearing the sexism found at the cellular level, between the egg and sperm.