Princess Eggs & Courageous Sperm
How Education Perpetuates Gender Stereotypes
Between calling beauty pageant queens “Miss Piggy” and claiming that Hillary Clinton couldn’t be president because she didn’t “look presidential” during his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump single-handedly revived the fear of misogyny among Americans and in front of a global audience. The man who gave interviews in support of overturning Roe v. Wade and punishing women for pursuing abortions, as leaked footage emerged of him bragging about grabbing women “by the pussy,” became the 45th President of the United States, all while claiming to have “the most respect for women.”
Immediately following his election as the Leader of the Free World, backlash against Trump and his lewd and condescending comments about women emerged in the form of protests. In a worldwide display of solidarity on January 21, 2017, the Women’s March on Washington became the largest single-day demonstration recorded in United States History, with over 5 million people protesting across all seven continents against Trump’s anti-women comments and policy agenda.
Now, over 200 days into the Trump presidency, the protests have continued online, at home, and within the journalism community. Women and their allies are becoming more emboldened to address misogyny with their friends and families and to publicly “call out” those that circulate anti-women views on social media. More and more citizens are calling their elected representatives to demand their support of legislation that doesn’t hinder women’s health or restrict their access to contraception. Journalists are even keeping track of every misogynistic comment made by President Trump dating back as far as the 1980’s, and have sadly had their hands full with updating it on an almost weekly basis since the inauguration.
So, how did we get here? How did the country that prides itself on democracy and freedom elect an unabashed misogynist to the highest office of the land? And more importantly, what can be done to curtail the spread of male and female stereotypes responsible for perpetuating misogyny? The answer, according to Emily Martin, lies within our textbooks.
In “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical MaleFemale Roles,” Martin describes how the relationship between egg and sperm leading up to fertilization are often described by scientists within the confines of stereotypical gender roles, and are ultimately published in textbooks and scientific journals. She begins her argument by first comparing how male and female reproductive physiology are described among scientists, and then comparing descriptions of the reproductive process itself between the genders.
“By extolling the female cycle as a productive enterprise, menstruation must necessarily be viewed as a failure. Medical texts describe menstruation as the “debris” of the uterine lining, the result of necrosis, or death of tissue. The descriptions imply that a system has gone awry, making products of no use, not to specification, unsalable, wasted, scrap.” -Martin, 1991
Martin asserts that the “enthusiasm” with which the female reproductive physiology is described ends after its depiction as a monthly cycle which produces and protects eggs with the intention of creating babies. Menstruation, she states, is depicted across medical texts as a “chaotic disintegration of form,” often marked with adjectives such as “ceasing” and “dying.” Meanwhile, the male reproductive physiology is described with marvel, as being “produced,” “valuable,” and the opposite of the female’s “overstocked inventory” threatened by a biological clock.
“Whereas the female sheds only a single gamete each month, the seminiferous tubules produce hundreds of millions of sperm each day” (emphasis mine). The female author of another text marvels at the length of the microscopic seminiferous tubules, which, if uncoiled and placed end to end, “would span almost one-third of a mile!” She writes, “In an adult male these structures produce millions of sperm cells each day.” Later she asks, “How is this feat accomplished?” None of these texts expresses such intense enthusiasm for any female processes. It is surely no accident that the “remarkable” process of making sperm involves precisely what, in the medical view, menstruation does not: production of something deemed valuable.” -Martin, 1991
It is within this comparison that gender roles become the most obvious. A women’s ovulation cycle is purported as delicate, limited by time, and consisting of a set amount for life. Conversely, men are considered “producers” which produce millions of sperm daily. These gender roles mirror the ones we see in society today: women are deemed too fragile to hold certain occupations, and when they do, are valued less, earning 79% of men’s average hourly wages. Meanwhile, men are seen as the backbone of their families, and are expected to “produce” and provide for their fragile women and offspring.
Martin continues her comparison of gender stereotypes in scientific outlets, retorting that while one scientist remarks that it is a mystery why many eggs are formed that end up dying in ovaries, “the real mystery is why the male’s vast production of sperm is not seen as wasteful.” She goes on to remark that like the reproductive physiology, the biological system leading to conception is also described using male and female stereotypes:
“It is remarkable how “femininely” the egg behaves and how “masculinely” the sperm.’ The egg is seen as large and passive. It does not move or journey, but passively “is transported,” “is swept,”’ or even “drifts” along the fallopian tube. In utter contrast, sperm are small, “streamlined,” and invariably active. They “deliver” their genes to the egg, “activate the developmental program of the egg,” and have a “velocity” that is often remarked upon. Their tails are “strong” and efficiently powered. Together with the forces of ejaculation, they can “propel the semen into the deepest recesses of the vagina.” For this they need “energy,” “fuel,” so that with a “whiplash-like motion and strong lurches” they can “burrow through the egg coat” and “penetrate” it.” -Martin, 1991
Described as “passive,” the egg is described as something that is acted upon and lacks personal autonomy. Martin details how sperm is depicted within a patriarchal sense by exercising power over a “passive” egg to “streamline” and “activate” the egg’s development. This depiction reflects Mirkin’s Theory of Patriarchy, in which males are seen as having control over institutional power, and exercise such power in a way that prioritizes their needs at the expense of an oppressed class of women.
Suggestion of female lack of personal autonomy is further depicted as Schatten likens the egg’s role in reproduction to that of Sleeping Beauty:
“a dormant bride awaiting her mate’s magic kiss, which instills the spirit that brings her to life.” -Martin, 1991
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support Martin’s claim of the existence of gender role stereotypes in the scientific texts related to reproduction and related physiology. Gender role stereotypes have somehow transcended political discourse and civil rights movements, despite efforts to the contrary, and landed within the textbooks we use to educate future generations.
If there is to be any expectation that these gender stereotypes end, we must turn our attention to the language used in textbooks and exercise caution over using gender tropes to describe scientific processes. Teaching students about princess eggs and courageous sperm will only serve to widen the gender pay gap and perpetuate the notion that males and females differ in their value and worth. The #resistance must include education just as much as it involves politics and protests if it expects to be successful in its elimination of damaging stereotypes.
