The Egg And The Sperm Analysis

In “The Egg and the Sperm”, Martin explains how societies predisposed views can interfere with real scientific research. However, she starts with posing no opinion, saying she is “intrigued by the possibility that culture shapes how biological scientists describe what they discover about the natural world” (845). It’s not until the next page she acknowledges the harmful effects by pointing out that “the stereotypes imply not only that female biological processes are less worthy than their male counterparts, but that women are less worthy than men” (846). Martin goes on to explain why this idea that the male's reproductive system is superior to females is so deeply ingrained in our minds. She talks about how menstruation is seen as a failure,

and how because women stop creating eggs after birth, it is seen as inferior. She points out that eggs are immobile, and how that gives them the appearance of being “damsels in distress”. Next, Martin begins to point out new discoveries that should have overcome these stereotypes but did not. She starts off by pointing out that “scientists presumed that the sperm used mechanical and chemical means to penetrate the egg” (853). This was a combination of how the sperm’s thrashing tail is used to penetrate the egg, and the discovery that the sperm releases digestive enzymes that mechanically break down the egg. However, scientists began to challenge these ideas, Now, it is known that “the forward thrust of sperm is extremely weak” (853). Also, it is known that the egg is actually the active party, producing an adhesive that draws sperm in once they've made contact. Martin makes many points like these, including how the eggs nearly impenetrable coating, once seen as a deterrent to reproduction, is actually a selection tool to find the best sperm. Martin ends the reading, talking about the social implications of asserting culture into scientific facts and asks “this process could ultimately have the most disturbing social consequences” (862).
Rethinking Common Knowledge
Martin wants us to rethink what we learned and the way we learned it because the topic of her paper is much broader than just the sperm and the egg.

How can women overcome the gender pay gap if they are inherently seen as less than men, as damsels in distress? The cultural impacts that this essay could have is tremendous. What Martin writes about at its core is how we think of men and women; if something as seemingly insignificant as how we view reproductive systems by gender could be replaced with a viewpoint of equality, that would bring humanity one step closer to a world of egalitarianism. The potential of this change makes it clear why Martin wrote this essay, but asks, “can we envision a less stereotypical view?” (860). Additionally, if we insert these views into biology, we effectively assert gender roles to sperm and egg, making them seemingly living. This leads to an abundance of problems causing complication when it comes to the topic of abortion and when life really begins. Although Martin doesn’t comment on that factor of her essay, it is still prevalent. The main topic of the essay is human reproduction and biology, something that is taught to

everyone.
Martin Versus the World
Martin takes clear stances against many scientists.

Overall, she is critical of the scientists that replicate pre-existing ideas. First, Martin talks about a study done by the biophysicists at Johns Hopkins University. In an attempt to develop a contraceptive for men, the scientist discovered “that the forward thrust of sperm is extremely weak.” “They concluded that the sperm and egg stick together because of adhesive molecules on the surface of each” (853). These findings that surely break through cultural expectations, would lead to some amount of change in the way people think then, right? Wrong. Unfortunately the “the researchers who made the discovery continued to write papers and abstracts on as if sperm were the active party who attacks, binds, penetrates and enters the egg” (854). One might say that yes, the nature of sperm suffered a blow in that sperm is now seen as slower, and, therefore, weaker, be that as it may, one should think that this discovery would knock the stereotype down and that the sperm and the egg would be seen as equals henceforth. Even scientists who proclaim they are against stereotyping biology seem to be mendacious. Martin talks about Gerald Schatten and Helen Schatten, two scientists who had seemed to be proponents to the cause later proved to actually be impeding on it. Schatten and Schatten describe how “the sperm and egg first touch when, from the tip of the sperm’s triangular head, a long, thin filament shoots out and harpoons the egg”

(856). Martin goes on to explain that the process is much less of a ‘harpooning’ and much closer to ‘building a bridge’ or throwing out a line’ and that saying that it is like ‘harpooning’ gives contributes to the ascendancy of the sperm over the egg. Martin is constantly sticking up for women’s rights because she wants to be fair and advocates for a different way of understanding biology.
Martin Changing The World
Martin’s purpose for “The Egg and The Sperm” is as an educational piece, to hopefully influence some people to change their minds about the societal views implanted in the science of men and women's reproductive systems. Martin really spells it out for us, saying that “part of my goal in writing this article is to shine a bright light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology. Exposed in such a light, I hope they will lose much of their power to harm us” (846). Martin shines this light she refers to on many aspects of the topic. She starts off by listing the characteristics of the sperm and the egg and the implanted social imagery that goes along with it. Next, Martin provides examples of studies that did not overcome these stereotypes, substantiating the assumed claim that these conventional images will not be easy to subdue. Finally, Martin finishes by explaining the “disturbing social consequences”, of it all, and provides a “feminist challenge to wake up sleeping metaphors in science, particularly those involved in descriptions of the egg and the sperm” (862-863). Hopefully, these messages were conveyed clearly and made an impact on the readers.
The Evolution of The Audience
With a little help from the dictionary, the average reader who is interested and wants to think outside the box can read this article and hopefully contribute to the cause. However, In 1991 when “The Egg and The Sperm” was first published in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, it was intended for the academic. As “Signs” is an academic journal, this point becomes quite clear. Especially with the scientific phraseology seen here; “one could argue that menstruation and spermatogenesis are not analogous processes” (847), and when she mentions the words “homologous”, “spermatogonia”, “oogenesis”, and “oocytes” (848), all in just half a page. This highly sophisticated talk shows beyond a doubt, just who the intended audience is. More specifically, with the inserted challenge for feminists, one could make the argument that the intended audience is for the feminist academic. However, one might also say that because of the uphill battle nature of the topic, Martin wouldn’t want to convey her messages to such a limited audience. Thankfully, over the years Martin's article has gained some traction and became very popular. It is one of just two referenced on her Wikipedia page.
The Awareness of a True Research Paper
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the article, it would be exceedingly difficult for the layman to learn as much from the article as the academic. To fully grasp every ounce of knowledge in this article, one would not only have to be able to comprehend it, but one would also have to fully understand and research the footnotes. To simply take Martin’s word would be a mistake, one would have to see where she collected this information from and understand those resources in addition to Martin’s essay. This is why I believe Martin wrote this article assuming people would take her word, and trust her research in the points of all 71 of referenced footnotes. After all, Martin is a professor of anthropology at NYU, and more importantly, she is the founding editor of Anthropology Now, most people would think these credentials qualify her to earn the reader's trust. If Martin chose to simply post this article to her Facebook, the average reader would say “too long; didn’t read”. However, if Martin composed some sort of brief synopsis, maybe she could expand her audience, and overcome the language barrier.