Emily Martin's article, The Sperm and the Egg focused on the way the general public is conditioned to view the act of a sperm fertilizing an egg. She believes that there are many negative connotations with the representation of the egg as being "passive" and "unproductive". Whereas the sperm is typically seen as an "active", "dominant" force which "penetrates" the egg into submission. She gives examples of how writers have given more power to the sperm than to the egg in the fertilization process. For example, in a Farside cartoon, "the egg is seen as a housewife besieged by clever sperm who try to get a foot inside the door", which includes a bunch of random sperm disguised as postmen, insurance salesmen, etc. Generally, the eggs are personified as helpless, powerless entities. In Science News , there's an ad which shows sperm attacking an eggs with a "jack hammer, sledge hammer and pick." Martin brings up these completely sexist connotations with the egg and the sperm and talks about it's effects on how people learn about reproduction.
She mentions this scene in the film Look Who's Talking to further her point.
Riki Wilchin's article titled, Queer Theory, Gender Theory is all about the differentiations of what Sex means. He comments on Martin's article about the social connotations projected onto the biological processes of men and women and sort of laughs at it. His main point is given on page 94, "In the final analysis, what bodies, organs, and fluids mean, and whether the glass of similarity is half full or the glass of difference half-empty, are not problems of Science, but of politics." In other words, he doesn't believe that the sexes are so different, but culturally they are. People are just more focused on the differences than the similarities because that's what people are more interested in, according to him.
Questions:
1. Why are we taught to believe that women's biological processes are inferior to the male's biological processes? What does this say about our culture and the way we view femininity and masculinity?
2. Do you agree or disagree with Wilchin's statement about issues with gender being based on the politics of our culture and not the actual physiology of the sexes?
Here's a link the the "Look Who's Talking" clip I mentioned in my summary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65BV5dXXxzM
I find it interesting that you feel that Wilchins sort of laughs at Martin's argument, when I felt that Wilchins relied somewhat heavily upon it to make his argument. After all, he discussed it for two pages and used it to justify his statement that asserted it was about politics, not science. Admittedly, I do agree that Wilchins used a far less serious tone on the matter and also chose to include some more dramatic examples, like using "a cross between a Harlequin bodice-ripper and Dirty Harry film" to describe the meaning created for the egg and sperm (88). Overall, however, I think the arguments presented by Wilchins and Martin are very similar in their core, that our ideas about sex cannot be simplified into pure and natural biology.
Oh and also, I totally looked up the "Look Who's Talking" clip while I was writing my summary. Very nice of you to post a link.
It seemed to me that Wilchin's was sort of poking fun at Martin's article about the gender roles being superimposed onto a scientific, non-biased, non-opinionated body function. The reproduction system works the way it does despite the idea of "male privilege". Yes, he does use her article to make a point about how people superimpose our politics onto a biological process. The issue isn't the process itself, but the political connotations we put on it.
Good discussion charchar and SaMe! @charchar Thanks for the link to the video too! Also, is Wilchins poking fun at Martin and her discussion of hidden metaphors, or are they poking fun at the hidden metaphors that Martin is exposing? Here's what Wilchins writes on 89:
Does Wilchins believe that Science (especially its "sex industry," 85) can escape this form of politics? Do scientists have access to bias-free, objective language for describing the facts? Do we have access to meanings/language about sex and bodies that is free of hidden metaphors and of the biases promoted by those who benefit from the current descriptions of Sex as active male, passive female?Thanks for the comment Sara! I think you raise an interesting point when you ask if Wilchins thinks Science can escape this form of politics. I don't think Wilchins thinks that this problem is so much rooted in "Science" as it is rooted in larger society. While he points out the ludicrousness of science's focus, he also brings it back onto us. As he writes on page 86, "Difference is what we want, and difference is what we get." Also, while he points out that scientists seem to focus on the differences, no matter the prominence of similarity in the data, he also acknowledges on page 86 that "Researches cannot even apply for a grant to study such similarities because there is no interest in them." I think Wilchins believes that science is pulled into this political bias because these politics pay for their research. People find differences and conflict compelling; they'll pay to hear more.
It seems to me that part of the problem of why women's biological processes are portrayed as inferior is that the "portrayers" (textbook writers, medical illustrators, Biology researchers, etc.) are typically men. A study from Northern Illinois University in 2009 (link below) found that even starting in high school, a gender gap forms over interest in the "hard" sciences. This may be both a product of, and a cause of, the shortage of women in the science fields. When women have less influence over a field, I would hypothesize that women are disencouraged to be interested in the field, both through how society genders jobs within the field, but also the subject studied in the field itself. This discourages women from entering the hard sciences (although affirmative action programs have made progress in fixing this problem). With less women interested in the field, the type of portrayals of reproduction that Martin describes become more common, further lessening women's influence over the field, discouraging women from entering, and the cycle goes on and on. While a shortage of women is clearly not the only cause of the problem Martin highlights, I would argue it is likely a contributing factor. Northern Illinois Study: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/study-shows-girls-find-high-school-science-to-be-ho-hum.ars