Analysis Of The Egg And The Sperm By Emily Martin

A stereotype is a widely adopted idea about a certain group of individuals, which can sometimes take form of sexism as well. According to Emily Martin (1991), a renowned anthropologist, feminist, writer, and currently a professor of Anthropology at New York University, language in scientific literature is often ignored in terms of its misogynistic remarks and gender biased descriptions. Martin (1991) argues that it creates false perceptions of the female body. In her article, ‘The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles’, published in 1991, she addresses fertilization from a feminist point of view mainly building upon the issue of language when describing the role of male and female

On the other hand, characteristics of the male cell are portrayed as more heroic and dominant. This makes it seem as if the sperm plays a more active role in fertilization whilst the egg is pushed in the background, much like stereotypical male-female roles in daily life. She divides her argument under three different headings; the first one being, ‘Egg and sperm: A scientific Fairy tale’ in which the primary focus is on giving the reader a thorough introduction to how science evaluates ovulation and spermatogenesis, and to what extent the former is considered “wasteful” (p. 488). She presents her readers with the negativity associated with menstruation even though it is an important part of reproduction and emphasizes on metaphors used to describe the process, for example, “death of tissue” (p. 486). Although both Male and Female cells combine to form a wholesome reproduction process, Martin (1991) displays her unpleasantness over the unfavourable and seemingly unfair associations formed with the female involvement in the process by carefully selecting appropriate examples from scientific sources. In the second part of her argument, ‘New research, old imagery’, Martin (1991) describes a research conducted at John Hopkins’s university which gives the egg a more active role and identifies the sperm as “extremely weak” (p. 492). She compares this research to a similar one conducted by Paul Wassarman. Although Wassarman also credits the egg as more active, Martin (1991) argues that the role is “drawn stereotypically”, elaborating that despite having evidence to support the active role of the egg, the researchers continue to write their findings with a gendered view where the sperm is viewed as the dominant force. Her final part, ‘Social implications: Thinking