Article Access: ‘How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-female Roles’ by Emily Martin
by Christina Xu
Anthropologist Emily Martin’s compelling piece reveals a ‘scientific fairy tale’ that demystifies the knowledge production process. She traces how women’s biological processes are described in negative terms in public representations of scientific knowledge, specifically the processes of menstruation, ovulation, and fertilization.
“[…] the male, who continuously produces fresh germ cells, and the female, who has stockpiled germ cells by birth and is faced with their degeneration.”
“The egg is seen as large and passive!’ It does not move or journey, but is passively “ transported.” ”
One wouldn’t be unfamiliar with such text if they dig into some related contents in middle school biology textbooks. Germ cells and sperm associated with males are often described as active agents in the process of fertilization. They “deliver their genes to the egg”, “activate” the development of eggs, and “propel the semen into […] vagina,” said Martin. Is this process truly as described, or is it merely based on stereotypes?
Martin traces how biological descriptions of fertilisation have changed along with scientific discoveries. Before Baltz discovered the egg’s role as an active participant in the fertilization process, eggs had long been regarded as passive cells. For example, the zona, the inner layer of the egg, was considered impenetrable; sperm was thought to penetrate this barrier by “mechanically burrowing through, thrashing their tails.” The secretion of enzymes was viewed as chemically digesting the zona.
However, more recent findings suggest that sperm is actually very weak and that fertilization processes are not always successful. Only when spermatozoa are highly efficient at detaching from any cell surface they contact, and the egg’s surface is able to trap the sperm and prevent their escape. Egg and spermatozoon then adhere to each other and fuse together. Although large quantities of sperm are depicted as powerful in popular media representations (see pic.1), sperm is not as powerful as portrayed. Fertilization is a process that requires efforts from both sides.
This interactive process is often obscured by the oversimplified use of metaphors such as “lock” and “key.” With sperm described as “keys” and the egg as the “lock,” Martin questions this imagery, emphasizing the sperm’s aggressive role. Is it possible to describe this, instead, with metaphors of “locket matching?” Why is sperm always described as the side that “inserts?” These embedded gender stereotypical metaphors not only reinforce certain existing social roles in societies but also lose their accuracy in reflecting biological processes and can be potentially misleading.
One key takeaway is that the biological world becomes a microcosm of a specific cultural stereotype, even when people use a microscope to examine cellular phenomena. An image of a heterosexual human couple is projected onto cellular functions, where the roles of both sperm and eggs are idealized in a way that defies egalitarian meanings. In this context, biological knowledge neither remains “uncontaminated” by negative connotations of culture nor statically conveys the absolute truth. It is lodged in and actively constructed and deconstructed by cultural praxis with implicit bias. Biased and gendered stereotypical descriptions of fertilization do not only generate and reinforce biological stereotypes about gender binaries and roles but also impede advanced scientific studies regarding this topic.
One may touch upon the very epistemological question about knowledge itself: does this mean scientific knowledge is merely a cultural construction, dismissing any objective values? The key issue orbiting around this question is whether objective knowledge can be gained, and if there is “objective” knowledge per se. In Martin’s arguments, she neither intends to devalue any scientific knowledge nor claims that truth does not exist at all. Rather, the radical critiques of gender-stereotypical representations of knowledge are powerful. What is more important is the process of teasing out those stereotypical imaginaries people have bestowed in their everyday use of language. Everyday details ultimately lead to social consequences, which can reinforce certain existing inequalities. These require our attentiveness, sensitivity, and courage to speak up in a discursive field.
Schiebinger (2000) concludes that reevaluating stereotypical attitudes towards both males and females has led to significant changes in the fields of biomedicine and primatology. Scientists have begun to routinely highlight the active role of the egg cell in producing the proteins or molecules necessary for adhesion and penetration. Widely used English textbooks in the United States have rephrased and re-defined fertilization as a more egalitarian process.
Nevertheless, from a global perspective, to what extent has the imported gendered knowledge from the Global North influenced the Global South? This inquiry necessitates examining how these gender norms and theories have been assimilated, resisted, or adapted within various cultural contexts in the Global South. How do we grapple with global and domestic epistemic inequality as we consider making revolutionary changes to facilitate gender-critical knowledge production?
The challenge lies in addressing the entrenched power dynamics that privilege knowledge from the Global North while marginalizing local knowledge systems in the Global South. The myth of scientific knowledge still possesses legitimacy in suppressing alternative knowledge in post-colonial contexts. Martin’s article may provide a starting point for these discussions, offering a critical lens through which to examine these issues. However, there are still many questions regarding the relationship between power and knowledge that scholars must continue to pose. For instance, how can we ensure that gender-critical knowledge production is inclusive and representative of diverse embodied experiences for women with different backgrounds? Feminist scholar Donna Haraway proposed the concept of “situated knowledges,” asserting that science is not value-free and that any knowledge should be understood within its historical and social context. As we strive for more equitable knowledge systems, it is crucial to remain vigilant about the ways in which other forms of power, including but not limited to gender, influence whose knowledge is valued and whose voices are heard.
Access to the original article: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/494680
References:
Martin, E. (1991). “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(3), pp. 485–501.
Haraway, D. (2016) “Situated Knowledges: the Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, ” in McDowell, L. and Sharp, J. (eds) Space, gender, knowledge: Feminist readings. London: Routledge, pp. 53–72.
Schiebinger, L. (2000). “Has Feminism Changed Science?” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 25(4), pp. 1171–1175.
Keller, E. F. (2004). “What impact, if any, has Feminism had on Science?’” Journal of Biosciences, 29, pp. 7–13.
Image 1:https://www.cloudninecare.com/blog/sperm-meet-egg-the-process-of-fertilisation
Image 2: https://www.britannica.com/science/fertilization-reproduction
Christina Xu is a Content Writer & Researcher for the JISJ. Christina is currently a Masters Candidate in Sociology and Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh.