Cyborgs, Femininity, Nature, and Secrets...A Feminist Critique is Sure to Poke its Critical Head!

Binaries, dualisms, and dichotomies are central to the power structure of Western society. These polarities permeate technology, medicine, science, and nature. This being no surprise, I first became bored with Donna Haraway and Evelyn Fox Keller’s explanations. However, once I actually began to understand their argument and the gendered metaphors from which they were drawing their critique, I began to think a bit differently. I am a cyborg. A consumer not only of this natural world, but of the technological world as well. I stand for the shifting of political and physical boundaries; that is because technology and civilization have become partners. Almost overlapping entities that create binaries that are not only based in human existence and this natural world, but of man-made components. Myself and any other human, if we so choose, have the ability to change our sex by way of genetic engineering or as a woman I am met with mandate procedures to hasten population control efforts. But because I exisit in the natural and cultural realm, I act as a hybrid. Now, there may be some who would argue this point, but if you really think about it, humans of the 21st century are not completely human. Now, of course, I am not saying that we are walking around with minds made of machinery and floating cells and organs, but with the advancement in the technological and medical field, we are outliving our destiny as complete humans. Rather, we are making use of medical inventions (that are made of machinery such as pacemakers, etc.) to extend our life, and in doing so we are challenging traditional binaries. Does this challenge then change the way in which gender is interpreted? Are women able to assume different roles and tap into different sectors of society? Or does this challenge mean that the masculinist forces will find a way to dissolve this “new duality”? I would have to yes. I mean it is quite evident in Keller’s “Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature’s Secrets” that the androcentric nature of western interpretation of human and natural existence has even been ascribed distinct adjectivites usually used in describing an individual’s gender. Nature as feminine or female in description was understood to be dark and secretive before science. Because of this alleged secrecy that nature (or better yet the female) embodied, science was used to lessen the threat of not knowing. Thus, in an effort to demolish this autonomous sphere, medical explorations were concentrated in exposing this supposed female inferiority. But the way to exposure was through research that aimed to learn the secrets of nature that were thought to be inextricably linked to female existence and power. The use of gendered medical language was used to suppress and place females in an inferior position. It is clever I must say. Clever because it was done in a subtle way. So subtle that only those in the medical field would have any actual knowledge being that their findings would be used to construct a social world based on narrow medical research that contributes to the dichotomous nature of human existence. It is most evident that dichotomies stem from science/medical research and then become integral to institutions and systems of power. If only women were able to be some of the first early scientists and biologists, life as we know it would be completely different--that is, gender neutral at least.

My opinions and thoughts on "The Importance of Feminist Critiquie for Contemporary Cell Biology"

Me in addition to "jamrock" being a former Biology major but still wanting to pursue medical school and a medical career the article entitled, “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology” was very applicable to my own experience as a student and for what I dream of m y future career to be. Growing up I had always heard that being African-American and being a woman the sciences, math, and engineering were going to be the place that I needed to go and the path I needed to follow because in order first to be successful in today's "society" that was the way to go also to be able to earn enough money. While following that track I find myself being forced into studying things that I no longer had an interest in; therefore, not performing well. When I read this article I thoroughly found myself being interested in what I was reading for the first time in a long time because it took something that I am passionate about relating to medicine and health in addition to a feminist critique. I could not agree more with "daplaw" when she stated that "The natural sciences are a subject of feminist. The anticipation and fear are based in the recognition that we are a scientific culture, that scientific rationality has permeated not only the modes of thinking and acting of our public institutions but even the ways we think about the most intimate details of our private lives." I remember my first day in Biology class when the professor stated that Biology applies to any and everything that you do in life. While not dismissing that idea I now recognize that everything comes together as a whole to make it a reality.

Within the article I thought it was quite interesting especially during the part of "Sperm going A 'Courtin" when it spoke of the katabolic behavior of adult males (shorter life span, greater activity, and smaller size) in comparison to the energy-conserving habits of females who were described as being (larger, passive, vegetative, and conservative). Saying that the egg lays there docile waiting for the strong sperm that was able to withstand the harsh environment of the women's body and make it to the egg almost as if it were prince charming coming to save her was amusing. It made me think back to and remember growing up when I used to watch the movie "Look Who's Talking" which John Travolta and Kirstie Alley in the beginning of the movie showing an egg laying and all the guys are cheering one another one racing to see who can get to the egg first as a competition.

A look at this article again only showed me the type of society that we live in and how society thinks about women in the comparisons that it makes of our bodies to other things such as something being in a vegetative state. Thus only leaving more room for change!

The Importance of Feminist Critique even in Cell Biology

While I thought I had a pretty sound consciousness of the distortions of history that adversely affect succeeding generations, I was unaware of the ridiculous interpretations derived from biology. From the reading, I was enlightened on how surprisingly even the testable science of biology is deeply embedded in patriarchy. The reading explains, beginning from the Aristotelian philosophy, the notion of female passivity versus the active male both deriving from the "observation" of the link between egg and sperm in fertilization. Comparable to the idea of the ideal male hunter, the sperm's rigor to implement the egg signifies the male aggressive and heroic nature as if the female is in search of being rescued. The article made reference to the female inherent seduction that is said to be the downfall of the male as she, like her ovum, is supposedly a magnetic force that is irresistible to the man until his urge forces him to "attack." Interestingly enough, this linkage between sperm and egg was parallel to this false sense of justified acts of rape while the female, in this case egg, was referenced to be the whore attracting the an army of soldiers in desperation to be relieved from a dormant lifestyle. I find this interpretation to be quite disturbing simply because our society still, even after advancement in research capabilities, conducts itself under this idea and it is apparent in far too many dismissed rape and assault charges. Whats frustrating is after theories such as these are publicized many are unmoved to conclude the truth allowing myths to bombard their perceptions and lifestyles. Fortunately, investigators such as Schatten have put their efforts in looking at other possibilities other than what is accepted by the vast majority in "his"story as the struggle for dominance in this male vs. female war prevails. While these attempts are being made to better understand the actual truth in learning about the the biology that we once believed to be true without question, we must understand as pointed out in the article that the science of biology is heavily shaped by history, social conditions/norms, and traditional views. Therefore, I am appreciative of literature such as this to critique and theorize on subjects concentrated in gender bias that would obviously distort what is true.

The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology

One of the things main themes that really stuck out in this article was the correlation between the patriarchal concept of the female gamete and how it related to conceptions of women. A key fact that was not mentioned in the article is how the XY chromosome is actual considered to be a mutation from the XX chromosome. It actually makes a lot of sense. It is a known fact that at one point the XY chromosome highly resembled the XX chromosome. In order to maintain the reproduction of the human species, one could argue that the process of natural selection occured which caused for the XX chromosome to adopt to the environment that would be suitable for the continuation of homeo sapiens. Recently, in the area of genetics, a new piece of information has stated that in many years to come, the XY chromosome will almost become extinct. Such a statement would lead people to believe that the end of the XY chromosome would mean the end of the human speicies, but the concept of natural selection/evolution would beg to differ. Of course, as a result of adopting to an environment without the XY chromosome would cause many XX chromosomes to die out. However, the few that remain would eventually have evolved and have adopted a way to reproduce without the XY chromosome. (Hint: Survival of the fitess). It is no wonder why the patriarchal system is doing everything in it's power to maintain control and interpretation over women's bodies.

I was very content to read the excerpt in the piece that described the actual physiology and mechanics of the egg in relation to the sperm. It is very profound to understand that the reason that the sperm have such a high level of mobility when ejaculated into the vagina is because the egg is sending all of its defenses to kill the sperm. The sperm is seen as an invader, so quite frankly the sperm are "swimming" to avoid being killed. It does not make sense for someone to say that these "heroic" sperm are the soldiers who are rescuing the "damsel in distress" (egg)-well unless you mean heroic as in the FIRST TO DIE. I was even greatly satisfied to read the actual mechanics pertaining to the relation of the egg and sperm once the one sperm is inside the egg. The author could not have articulated the action more clearly. To understand that the microvilli of the egg has attached itself to the sperm to pull the sperm in is very powerful for it indicates that the egg is the one who is in control. I would also articulate this as that one sperm who has passed the test, and is now deemed worthy by the egg to be selected-ON HER OWN TERMS, OF COURSE. Often times in the society that we live in, a woman's body is deemed as the one that is supposed to be penetrated, while the male is the penetrator-and thus a high indication of his manhood. It symbolizes him having conquered something.

It is very interesting how there are always two sides to a story, and the side of the women as being powerful and as the aggressor is never told. It is also very interesting to see how just the mechanism of fertilization is utilized from a patriarchal point of view to validate the "inferiority of women."

The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology

Both of the articles, “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology” by The Biology and Gender Study Group and “From the Woman Question in Science to the Science Question in Feminism” by Sandra Harding focus on the impact a feminists’ analysis will have on biology and sciences. The Biology and Gender Study Group go into grave detail about male scientists from the beginning of the eighteenth century who caters the facts about biology in favor of men. There is a manipulation of the facts to capture males as the strong and aggressive type while women are characterized as weak and docile. A lot of gendered analysis derives from biological differences and interpretations from male doctors and scientists. In the article, male scientists such as C.E. McClung and Campbell use the biological relations of a sperm and egg to determine how women and men behave in a general matter. Scientists and doctors also have held biases in biological differences that determine the marital roles of men and women in society.

The significance of science is highlighted in the article by Sandra Harding. She explains that America has a scientific culture and when a feminist perspective penetrates the mainstream scientific thought it will make a considerable difference in science. Harding outlines the steps that women can take in science to discredit the bias views of biology. This article illustrates the challenges women may have in the field of science but offers suggestions to influence the world of science.

I believe that women should explore science and discover the biological differences that reveal the truth with accuracy about men and women. I think that women can radically change the way biology and gender is perceived today by popular culture. There is a tremendous need for women’s research and scientific opinion on biology because it is the foundation of truth and reality of the American culture.

Gender Hierarchy even at Conception

The article “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology” was quite an eye opener and very comical at times. It only makes since that the miracle that is conception has for years been a scientific debate determined to create a hierarchy between the sexes. The determination of some biologists to devalue the role of the women during conception is relentless and disturbing. The most upsetting aspect touched upon in the article was the stubbornness of many biologists to accept or even entertain the idea that the egg is not as passive as originally perceived. This hypothesis that a woman’s egg is “inactive” correlates with the idea of the ideal woman of the 19th century. The perfect and most desirable woman during this time was one that was dependent and passive. It pleases me to read of articles like “The Energetic Egg” that cast the woman’s egg as a main character rather than an extra.

The article was indeed comical as it shared various “sperm tales”. At times the sperm was the hero “struggling against the hostile uterus” (3) and other times the sperm was prince charming conquering the task of “awakening the slumbering” (5). All laughing aside, these stories all contribute to the gender roles currently corrupting our society. The patriarchal system we live in today refuses, even when discussing conception, to believe that a partnership, like British socialist C.H. Waddington, between egg and sperm is possible. The idea that the egg allows the sperm to enter the egg is overlooked. The idea that without the help of the egg’s secretions, the sperm would meet the same fate as the other 99+million sperm is disregarded. The fact that some biologists aren’t even willing to consider the possibility that the egg is vital and active, although backed up by research, says a lot about the society we live in.

Questioning Masculinist Assumptions

Reading “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology” reminded me that science like all other fields should be understood and examined in context. Considering the history behind science as an academic field of study, it is important to take into consideration the findings of Aristotle reflect a particular sentiment during that time. What is startling is that the biological theories introduced many years ago almost never go challenged. For example, the theories behind egg fertilization reflected ideal male/female relationships. The male and his sperm are perceived as active and aggressive in their pursuit of the egg, while the egg appears passive, waiting for the sperm to fertilize her.
In fact, I even remember the opening scenes of Look Whose Talking starring John Travolta in which the sperm is involved in a long journey through the vagina in a fight for first admission into the egg. The fact that this theory has been repeated in stories and animated in movies illustrates how embedded this idea is in society. The problem with these theories and their dominance in the scientific field is that it becomes difficult to incorporate new findings not based on the ones introduced by Aristotle. Embracing certain views makes us ignorant of alternative views. This article illustrated the significance of feminist critique in science. It enables scholars to look into different studies and findings and find better ways of explaining biological processes without by rejecting masculinist assumptions.

The G word

Gender!!!!! Ahhhh!!! Why is it that gender must always serve as a constant reminder to me that society sees my place in a kitchen and a man's place at desk running a major corporation? Gender tells me that my favorite color is pink, I must wear dresses and play with dolls! Why is it that science still can't understand the difference between gender and sex? Yes I am a female and biologically speaking I have a different make-up than that of a man but my gender is socially constructed.... Science and Society are two totally different things. When society decides to name a hurricane Rita instead of Robert will that hurricane be more sensitive to those that it damages in the process? Or will the hurricane take on a pinkish tint? Of course not! One of the most important things that I got from this article is the continued notion in my studies that Gender is apart of the interlocking forms of oppression known as Race, Class and Gender on page 406 it states "that gender is also always a racial category and race a gender category... That is, sexist public policies are different for people of the same gender but different race, and racist policies are different for women and men of the same race". It becomes even more important for Black feminists to continue to challenge and charge these beliefs of gender as scientifically constructed because it affects not only on a sexist level but on a racist level as well! 

Weird Science

As a former Biology major the article entitled, “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology” was very relevant to my own experience as a student and developing researcher. While I was not personally aware of the lack of feminist critique in the laboratory at the time, I distinctly remember a diagram from my introductory biology course my freshman year which gave a brief description of fertilization theories over the centuries. The diagram was of a sperm cell which had, encased in it, a microscopic human complete with all fingers, toes, eyes and nose next to the nutrient rich yet passive ovum.
Personal experiences are guided by societal ideals and norms which are influenced by a number of areas of study that are seemingly objective. This is a concept that is readily acceptable. However, because certain areas of study are valued and respected because of their objectivity, such as natural sciences, they are thought to not fall victim to stereotypes or a modern society that is subject to the media as well as a culture that has been dominated by hegemonic masculinity. This article shed light on how the development of scientific data and concepts was and still may be skewed by society and how these theories, in turn, reinforce societal perceptions of masculinity and femininity. This idea was new to me.
What I found most interesting was the parallel between concepts of fertilization and the narrative of Sleeping Beauty. Fertilization, in some instances, is explained in scientific writings as one might retell a beloved childhood fairytale. And in most cases, these are supposed to be anatomical and physiological comparisons using fancy scientific lingo. Fertilization is one of the most natural processes known to the living and need not be glamorized as a fairytale by some so-called objective scientists. The article was most effective in reinforcing the idea that words, even those coming from men and women in lab coats, must be reexamined again and again in order to truly appreciate the content.

Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science

So As I read the article I find that the article deals with (1) Feminist standpoint theory (2) feminist postmodernism and (3) feminist post modernism and feminist empiricism. Which deals with the different conceptions of how gender situates knower also inform feminist criticisms of science and feminist science, defining the proper roles of social and political values in inquiry, evaluating ideas of objectivity and rationality, and reforming structures of epistemic authority. The article in detail layout the important and reasoning for feminist theory however outside critics have and in my opinion ALWAYS will feel that points these points made here corrupts the truth that has been taught to us all.

FROM THE WOMEN QUESTION IN SCIENCE TO THE SCIENCE QUESTION IN FEMINISM

The article state that Feminist scholar have studies women, men and social relations between the genders within, across, and insistently against the conceptual frameworks of the disciplines. The natural sciences are a subject of feminist. The anticipation and fear are based in the recognition that we are a scientific culture, that scientific rationality has permeated not only the modes of thinking and acting of our public institutions but even the ways we think about the most intimate details of our private lives. We have always placed an important focus on Biology because it is a crucially important science not only for giving us theories about how the living world functions. Biology has always been in a unique position to define race, gender, and humanity, to determine what is normal or abnormal behavior, what is normal or abnormal sexuality, and so forth and most of us listen and learn for it. Biology tells us who we are, how we think and how we should think. Biology is bias toward men and in fact marginalizes women and the world just follows this theory. This is the reason why scholars have a problem with the theories of feminist scholars.

The Importance of Feminist Critique for Cont. Cell Biology

According to Aristotle, males are more aggressive because biologically, the sperm must seek out the egg. Likewise, women are more passive because their eggs must simply wait passively for a sperm cell to penetrate. While I do not agree with this theory, I must admit I find it extremely interesting and can see the logic behind the theory. Yet, I must agree with Freud's take on the theory in that it is false. However, if I did hypothetically agree with Aristotle's theory, when combined with McClung's theory that the "egg is able to attract" the sperm cell, and that "the ovum determines which sort of sperm shall be allowed entrance into the egg substance," I believe the female would ultimately be the more dominate/aggressive gender. For example, to put into a difference scenario, men and women both attend social events such as parties or banquets. At an event, though more often than not the man approaches the woman (the sperm seeking out the egg), she initiates the "flirtation" using body language such as frequent looks or smiles. This initiation is representative of the egg enticing the sperm, which then reacts. While it is true the sperm/male does physically move, it is not without first garnering approval from the egg/female. Furthermore, as McClung states, the ovum chooses the sperm that will be allowed to reach the egg which suggests that although the sperm may seek out the egg, it is ultimately up the to egg to determine what acts as a fertilizer. Therefore, to critique Aristotle's theory, while the sperm may physically seek out the egg, it does not do so without the approval of the egg suggesting the woman is in fact the dominate gender.

The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology

I must say that as a Women's Health major, I was not as surprised as everybody else about the injustices concerning these articles. The one I guess I'll address is the one concerning the contemporary cell biology. I really do not get how people do not expect the same gender bias within the science world, it is one of the reasons why there are so many health disparities today, specially among black females. The article talked about how females were "incomplete males." It was just a reflection of any other male dominated ideology in my opinion. I hear feminist continuously talking about "taking back history" or "herstory." Why do people think that this stops within the historical contexts of life? Biology and science affects not only our history, but our physical well beings. This is exactly why classes like "biology of women" are needed, so that we can get a better grasp of our physical bodies, and understanding for why we are undervalued as females, specially black females. The article talked about the act of fertilization, and it just reminded me of how males think they are the true gift to women, being able to create life. When in reality, sperm is basic, and the vagina is acidic, procreation doesn't even make sense without the women. The sperm slowly dies off as it travels through the uterus, decreasing the number of sperm dramatically. If it wasn't for the design of the female body, and the aid of it's aromas/egg, the sperm would never even make it to the egg. I think the reeducation of the female anatomy is strongly needed. If anybody is interested in more reading about the charge for a more diverse strategy for research, I read this article last semester that was really interesting.

The article “Intersectional and Women’s Health: Charting a Path to Eliminating Health Disparities” discusses the need for change within the world of women’s health. This article asks for a serious reeducation of the processes researchers use towards data used in case studies. Weber and Parra-Medina explain this by saying scholars need to “[expand their] knowledge of health disparities and of identifying new ways of going about eliminating the persistent and pervasive social inequalities of race, class, gender, and sexuality as well as the health disparities”, ( 2003).The authors suggest that the process in which people gather information and the subjects that they discuss are merely skimming the surface of these health disparities.
The authors clarify this saying that to “understand the health disparities it requires that we examine the broader social, cultural, economic and political processes of social inequality that control or influence the nature and extent of disparities” (Weber et al., 2003). This means that we would have to take our level of examinations to include more dimensions, to be able to include other factors like race, class and gender as factors contributing to large health disparities. These ideas about more inclusion in the world of health would not only benefit health outcomes, but the percentage of black women are affected. If these factors are included address the situation, changes in our social and physical well being could be improved.

Not much of a science person but...

I thought I had heard all the myths about the process of sexual intercourse and fertilization. Clearly I was mistaken. In reading the "The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology", I discovered how appalled I am with science's view on we came about.
As I read the progressive opinions of the roles of the egg and sperm, I realized I have no clue what really goes on during the process of fertilization. I sat here questioning all I had ever been taught about the sperms' "journey" and the egg's ability to wait patiently to be pierced. Even as I reflect, I am unsure if the sperm is really the egg's "Knight in Shining Armor" or the hunter seeking his prey. Although I am definitely not a science person, I managed to finish this reading. I was slightly confused with the explanation of the two types of metabolism that inevitably determine the gender of the fetus. However, the Women's Studies scholar in me looked beyond the scientific terms and focused on the ideas of the egg (like her female owner) being a passive participant in the process of fertilization. I appreciate the evolution of these ideas that recognizes the egg and the sperm as active participants. However, this model bothered me because it made the egg seem "whore-like" because she was a magnet attracting the sperm.
It is also interesting to me that the way one views fertilization may also affect the way the individual views masculine and feminine norms. Descriptions the sperm as the hero or the hunter truly reflected the "male libido".

Im not surprised on what Science had to say

After reading the essay by Sandra Harding" From the woman question in Science to the science question in feminism" I was further educated on the racist and sexist scientific world, yet I had already believed this to be true. Harding talked about the forefathers of science on how woman struggled to break into science and thus had little impact on the earlier stages of science. Science and health has regarded the female body as the other, and is compared to the male body, the perfect model. All in all we know that women have always and will continue to be ignored by society and especially when being compared to men and whatever nature calls perfection.
Looking back on history this essay reminds me of the "Hottentot Venus" aka Sartaje Baartman whose body was put on display as a freakish specimen. Baartman was coerced into a exploiting her body in order to survive and support her family. Yet scientists decided to take this into their own hands making her a case study of the "othered" female body. This was a prime example of what Harding refered to as "racist sexism".

The Importance of Feminist Critique.......

This article challenges ,in some form, the masculine views that are not only effecting women socially but biologically as well. I feel the authors do a good job in playing devil's advocate in critiquing the ideals of a the many masculine favorite theories that have troubled science for years. Through reading the many sub-stories and assumptions /notions that delegate men as being forceful and aggressive due to the activity of their spermicide ("Sperm tales") depletes the value of the female organism and personally resembles a "cave man theory". To read a sperm story as a heroic accomplishment is just the same as giving a man a cookie for being able to use the bathroom standing up. For example, in "the sperm saga" the authors take an excerpt from one of the textbooks stating how through millions of sperm released "many die along the way or become infertile," and after a long " hazardous" journey, one sperm (the heroic one) penetrates and "awakens the slumbering egg" . I found this story, as well as others of the same origin, no different from Disney princess characters teaching little girls to wait in "hazardous" conditions for our "one true love" or our "knight in shinning amour" to come "awaken" and rescue and them from a burning building.
It troubles me and seems quite ironic that theiories are what we are taught to be some what "truths" but if interpretation changes the anaylsis behind a theory what really is true? From the different views analyzed and documented throughout this arcticle the thought of equality was definently a hard concept for many male sccientists and theorists to grasps. But why is that?it was said that even after plenty of debate that one arganism still must bethe "defult," but which one is it. The story of the "energetic egg" does a fair job in trying to show the female organism as strong and a massive part in the reproduction process but it still seems passive in itself. The female as an egg, organism, and person seems to always fall into the category as the provider or the encourager to the sperm. However, why is there still a fight for women to be recognized as a backbone of and/or base of an organism and organization. In society it has gone past the point where women are dichotimized in society strictly by their race, class, or gender but biologically as well.

The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology

The article, "The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology," exposes the pervasiveness of societal constructions. It reveals that even a subject area that is deemed the most objective, based in theories and fact, and supported by pure experimental data can be tainted by the beliefs of man. That this is possible serves as an implication for other subject areas--religion, history, the arts, etc. If feminist critique offers new theories and leads to new discoveries in contemporary cell biology, then what does this mean for other subject areas. Is it possible that we are limiting our knowledge in all areas by failing to let go of socially constructed beliefs?





This article offers that even those who were highly trained specialists in their disciplines were still impacted by their beliefs and their personal experiences in developing new theories and that the inclusion of these beliefs and experiences in any way is a source of error. Reading this, I couldn't help but to reflect upon my experience as a student majoring in biology and the tendency for me to accept the theories of the founding fathers of biological science as complete truth. I never thought that the cell theory could have been impacted by beliefs about how men and women should interact in relationships. In the second paragraph under the section titled "A Nuclear Family: The Sexualization of the Cell," the authors present these relationships. In Germany, where autocratic families were prevalent, the model of the cell included a nucleus that served as a dictator to the cytoplasm. American scientist, T.H. Morgan, modeled his cell theory after American-like families; the nucleus and the cytoplasm conferred, and then the nucleus told the cytoplasm what to do. Waddington, a British socialist who viewed his marriage as a partnership, modeled his theory with the nucleus and the cytoplasm interacting in a partnership to carry out life functions. Lastly, E.E. Just, a Black American who felt he was a servant to his lover, created a model where the cytoplasm dominated over the nucleus.

It's amazing to me how their theories were so closely related to their experiences/beliefs. It definitely has made me begin to start questioning a great amount of things that I just took to be fact. I definitely agree with the article that feminist critique is needed to reduce error in biology, but I would add that all sorts of critiques are needed for several different subject areas. It would lead to a more informed and less restricted body of knowledge.

The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology

In the introductory sentence of this article it reads, "Biology is seen not merely as a privileged oppressor of women but as a co-victim of masculinist social assumptions."  When reading this quote I realized how masculinist assumptions reduce biology as a whole by focusing primarily on certain problems rather than others.  Many inflictions upon women are the result of biology. Prior to reading this article I had never looked analytically at biology.  I viewed biology as factual without question, but exploring feminist critique of biology opened my eyes to a bigger picture.  

My understanding of fertilization before reading this article was very limited.  To begin my definition of fertilization was not only the requirement that a sperm and egg fuse, but that not more than one sperm fuses with the egg.  After reading this exploratory article I looked at fertilization as a fairytale story in which the sperm and egg interaction was similar to male and female relations.  Fertilization, like biology was something that I didn't question I simply inherited.  The cause of my understanding is similar to the banking concept introduced in ADW.  Accepting topics and subjects such as fertilization and biology without questioning is unfulfilled. Theories affect individuals' understanding, therefore implementing feminist critique improves the understanding of topics.  

Expanding on the quote presented above, I related this subject of biology as an oppressor and victim to hip-hop.  Since biology is a theory about life it does affect the way people view life as a whole.  Some can take it as fact or look at the subject from an analytical viewpoint.  But at the end of the day a person believes what they choose and therefore become what they think.  If we accept what biology tells us is truth without analyzing it, this will also occur in other facets of life.  Hip-hop for example is a lot of times scrutinized for its oppression towards women.  Not all hip-hop artists fall in this category but not all are safe either.  There is a perception of what masculinty is and how it should be executed.  This sometimes resorts in the oppression of women in music videos and lyrics.  Biology is sometimes perceived with gender bias just like hip-hop but the only way these two can prevail is if we are anti-sexist in both industries.  Theories of biology and hip-hop are constantly circulating but at the end of the day, it is the individual who makes the decision about their own self-worth.  Eliminating gender biases on all playing fields will allow for different relationships between men and women to occur.  

The Importance of Feminist Critique - Cell Biology

The title of this article should be “Who’s on Top?” the battle for dominance.

Page six, paragraph 4 reads, “A feminist critique of cellular and molecular biology does not necessarily mean a more intuitivistic approach. Rather, it involves being open to different interpretations of one’s data and having the ability to ask questions that would not have occurred within the traditional context.” The five preceding pages took the legitimacy of this statement away. The six pages that followed only continued to deconstruct the statement’s legitimate point. The point being that a feminist critique allows different interpretations of data and asks non traditional questions.

The first statement of deconstruction occurred on page 1, paragraph 1. The article states that "when gender biases are controlled, new perspectives emerge." However, when the masculine perspective is countered with a feminist perspective the only new perspective that emerges is that the dominant cellular construct is female instead of male. For example, the Aristotle sex determination model, where the “active” sperm is the hero and “passive” egg is the victim waiting to be rescued is countered with the feminist prospective of Gerald and Heidi Schatten. The article states that the Schattens describe the egg and sperm as “mutually active partners.” However, further reading reveals that the Schatten's viewpoint only reversed the roles. They placed the egg in the central and more valued role of determining sex. Equality is not introduced.

The second deconstruction statement occurred on page 1, paragraph 4. The article states that “ masculinist assumptions have led us to make particular interpretations when equally valid alternative were available.” The only alternative produced in this article is that feminist critique simply takes the masculine point of view and converts it into the feminist point of view. For example, pages 9, last paragraph and page 10 1st paragraph, the alternative to Small's "Sperm War" story is Emily Martin's "Sperm War" story. His version depicts the sperm as the agressive foot soldier while her version depict the egg as the forceful attractant. This is not the creation of a better standpoint it is only reversing the role of the traditional standpoint of dominance.

Feminist critique is a development of feminist research. Feminist research is constructed to liberate the paradigms of research from the oppression of dominant male interpretations of what is authentic knowledge. Feminist critique dismantles the tools of exclusion by questioning authority, not switching roles with the authorities. This article did not provide me with information to dismantle the male dominated knowledge of “cell biology.” Instead it marginalized the effectiveness of the feminist critique of traditional data for “cell biology.”