The Importance of Feminist Critique in My Life

While reading "The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology", a couple of naive questions came to mind, which actually stopped me in the middle of the reading. First, why has this society gotten to a point, or always been at a point where a seperate, feminist view is needed...in science? Is it that serious? Second, if the founding fathers of science were founding mothers, would the need for a feminist critique be replaced for a masculinist critique? Along with Women's Studies, I am also taking science classes. Having already learned about reproduction and fertilization processes, I do recall the egg being referred to as patiently waiting for the sperm to make the dangerous journey up the uterus and through the fallopian tube. Perhaps because I had a female teacher, I did not get the version about the sperm being " a hero who survives while others perish, a soldier, a shard of steel, a successful suitor, and the cause of the movement in the egg". I was under the impression that the egg was a very vital part in the reporductions process, while the sperm's only job was to get to the egg; nonetheless that view is still biased, which doesn't make right. I initiatlly wondered how the authors of this article would present their argument for the egg It didn't occur to me that I already knew the answer. The authors of this article made some very valid points, and I truly admire the fact that their goal was not to disregard the work done by the sperm in hopes of uplifting the work done by the egg. Since our society is so set on having "scientific proof" for everything, it was very smart of the authors to provide some scientific basis for their reasoning. After reading this article I decided to take a better look at the things that I learn in my science classes, as well as in life. By doing this, I can provide my own version of a feminist critique toward situations in my life, and hopefully open the minds of people around me. My goal in applying a feminist critique to aspects in my life is not to bash men, but just provide more information as it relates to women in order to create a more objective view.

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.