Even Before J. Marion Sims Women's Bodies and Even Internal Structure Was Distorted by Androcentric Views

"History repeats itself."  It is a quote that is heard all the time, but does the majority really believe it?  Does the majority believe that androcentric thinking still governs society over 4 decades later?  I would have to argue certainly.  If one digs deeper into the process of fertilization, it is evident that women have long been presented as menial, passive beings.  From this stance that would mean that women and men are dichotomous and created in such a way as to uphold their differences.  Differences so deep that even fertilization falls victim to the male-centered analysis of Early and Contemporary Doctors. In the article, "The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology" women are presented as victims of "masculinist social assumptions."  Assumptions that permeate current society's notions and beliefs about male and female existence. This is no surprise. Although, before reading this article, I did wonder how women's and men's position in society was inscribed. Of course, I was knowledgeable that women were domestic and men were to be outside, yet I always thought that there had to be more evidence that supported or created these masculine and feminine notions.  Consider the 20th century, when men went off to war and women were to stay at home and assume the dual roles of worker and housemaker.  Even such a feat by women was seemingly swept under the rug or meet with a nonchalant attitude in comparison to the men who were out fighting, engaging in so-called "manly" activities.  Now that I think about it.  Men have been regarded as conquerors before they even physically existed on earth.  It is quite obvious in the way the sperm is described in the fertilization process by early doctors.  I now realize that men have gained their status in society early on.  

The sperm as the "conquistador," the "victor," the "winner," the "champion."  Basically, the sperm as the conquering hero. The egg as the "submissive one", "the unassertive one", "the inactive one."  It is not only until the egg is penetrated that it becomes active and is resistant to all other sperm in quest.  A feminist critique points out that fertilization described in this way is suggestive of a "marital gang-rape."  At first, I thought such an account to be a bit extreme.  My mind felt tainted because of these androcentric accounts, and so, I tried to think of the fertilization process without a male narration.  Rather, a process that nature intended--a biological process.  After doing so, I thought that both descriptions were absurd and lacked biological language.  Rather, it seemed as though the fertilization process had been relegated to a cultural norm or a debate between a man's exertions of masculinity and an alleged woman's passive demeanor. As I was reading, I almost forgot what was being described was the fertilization process.  It must be the American way--a need to divide. A division necessary for there to be an oppressor and oppressed to exist.  A division necessary to establish lines of power. Power even within the human body. 

Both the article aforementioned and excerpt from Sandra Harding's book, From the Woman Question in Science to the Science Question in Feminism, points out that scientific descriptions have been informed by social constructions of men and women as well as their interactions.  This is exactly what I had been thinking.  Scientific culture stems from social norms, meaning that scientific descriptions will mirror dichotomous relationships to support the gender dualities that are prevalent in society. However, I have come to adopt a feminist way of knowing and realize that these descriptions are limited and do not present a holistic understanding.  I understand that everyone has their own way of knowing, but when barriers present a distorted reality, then the necessary observations to inform an individual's empiricism is diminished.  A Feminist critique or way of knowing is necessary to expose a complete understanding, rather, than presenting a partial and bias understanding fuel by a man's gender and position in society.