Emily Martin’s primary argument in her academic paper, The Egg and The Sperm Cell:How Science Has Constructed A Romance Based On Stereotypical Male-Female Roles, was that the way biologists portrayed the fertilization process of an ovum was influenced by gender stereotypes. She believed that the cultural stereotypes of “macho men” and “women in distress” had seeped their way into biology. Martin brought up specific scenarios where the sperm were being described as warriors; who fought their way through the vaginal canal to complete their quest, fertilizing the egg. Some biologists reinforced this view of sperm by using certain terminology-strong, burrow, deliver, propel, velocity, etc. Some research papers even stated sperm cells “harpooned” onto the egg cell and upon contact began to “penetrate” the egg cell. This terminology and portrayal of sperm does seem to derive from the cultural stereotypes of men being heroes, warriors, and even saviors of women.
In addition to the way sperm were described, Martin also went out of her way to describe the injustices toward egg cells. In most biology textbooks and research papers on the female gamete, ova are described as being “passive” and not contributing much to the fertilization process. Even when research contradicts that, showing that the reproductive cells are mutual “partners” and both active in the process, biologist still find a way to discredit the egg cells. Martin also believes that the ovum’s lack of credit isn’t the only problem, she mentions how many scientists tend to view the ovaries as a “deteriorating and wasteful” organ. Some scientists don’t understand why women are born with a million egg cells and only use around 500, seeing this as “wasteful.”
All of these examples boil down to one common factor, that gender stereotypes have a strong grasp over the way biologists portray the human reproductive system. In my opinion, as long as these unjustified views and “terminology” don’t cause any harm or misinterpret information/data it isn’t such a major problem. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for gender equality and getting rid of gender stereotypes, but women face bigger problems than the way their egg cells are portrayed in biology textbooks.
I completely agree with you that women face bigger problems in society when attempting to achieve gender equality; however, I also think that this is a minor stepping stone in achieving that. Her piece is exemplifying how second-nature it has become to just assume the gender stereotypes and apply them in areas they don’t belong (They don’t really belong anywhere, but why are there stereotypical metaphors in the first place in biological texts?). I agree that the terminology may seem minuscule and many haven’t thought twice about this phenomenon, but it does cause misinterpretation. By using those metaphors she cited from texts and studies, we envision the sperm as the active party and the egg as the passive party, when in reality, both serve active roles. This might seem less relevant than the glass ceiling, but I just think its one of those areas of error we have to keep in mind and change.
I thought I understood where this was going, until the last paragraph. At first, you seemed to be somewhat in agreement with, if not cordial to, the idea that our cultural/gender stereotypes do have an influence on our biological descriptions of the reproductive system. You even went as far as to admit, “all of these examples boil down to one common factor, that gender stereotypes have a strong grasp over the way biologists portray the human reproductive system.” But I am confused, as to why then, you say these “unjustified” views are acceptable if they are unfair? Why even promote such stereotypes at all, even if the matter at hand is as “insignificant” as sex cells?