http://www.visibleworld.net/cupajane/articles_people/martin.pdf.
In The Egg and the Sperm, Martin deconstructs scientific discourse, which has caused stereotypes between men and women. Martin argues that stereotypes between sexes are created before the sperm and egg meet in the uterus, therefore before a human is even created. This is because of the discourse used by science to describe the process of conception. Science has constructed the passivity of females and activity of males through cultural stereotypes. The way we talk about conception is that the sperm penetrates and the egg takes. Martin questions this "process" and argues that the egg actually allows the sperm to come in rather than to completely dominate.
I found this post to be so interesting. I think in the realm of science there can be such literal meaning attached to the things we need to learn so as to not allow for alternative "interpretations" as in english and philosophy. For that reason I have never really challenged scientific assertions because they seem to be "just the way they are". Whenever in discussions in science I have often said "well, is that the way it is?" I assume that science has such a stability. While, I'm not saying that discoveries in science are fluid or multiplicitous in meaning, like some aspects of the theories we are learning, but (as this article proves) sometimes the way in which we have formulated discourse on a subject, even as "concrete" as science, can have biases and influences from patriarchal society.
ReplyDeleteI would be very interested to see how scientific discoveries and conclusions could come about if not under the bias and sway of patriarchy.
Specifically in this case of human reproduction, I wonder what conclusions can be drawn from this. What would the fact of the "egg allowing the sperm to come in" would have upon our conception of female passivity. I guess this relates to an overall question that has hung over all the discussions we've had. Should we look to biology to gather notions of our view of the sexes? This goes to the essentialist and social constructionist views. I think essentialist would most likely use these findings to strengthen the view of female sexuality. A social constructionist might not see these findings of any consequence.
What do you guys think?
I also found this article to be very interesting. With regards to your question, Stephen, I think that this article proves that even when we look to biology (which we most often do) in an attempt to get objective, concrete answers, we cannot escape bias and social construction. I think that we should look to biology when we are dealing with questions of sex and gender identity. In my opinion, it is impossible to completely separate gender from biology. Looking at physical differences is as important as looking at social and psychological differences (especially because of hormonal differences and others that effect more than the purely physical). However, when we look to biology, we must remember that biology is still discussed in the same language as all other aspects of our culture of patriarchy, and is therefore limited by the same assumptions. We must be aware of the framework of the masculine dialogue in order to determine—even in biological discourse—what is truly scientific fact and what is being privileged through description.
ReplyDeleteI am especially intrigued by Martin’s discussion of “wastefulness” as it fits into the masculine dialogue of biology. She writes:
"the word 'waste' implies an excess, too much produced. Assuming two or three offspring, for every baby a woman produces, she wastes only around two hundred eggs. For every baby a man produces, he wastes more than one trillion (1012) sperm."
This is such an interesting example about how facts can be presented in such a way that one party is favored. The fact is true: For every two or three offspring that a woman carries, around two hundred eggs do not become children. For every baby that a man produces, one trillion sperm so not become children. However, the way in which women are presented as “wasteful” in scientific dialogue prove that we need to be careful to distinguish what is actually fact from what merely secures the hierarchies that are in place and maintained by language.