Abeer Shrivastava Week 1

Opinion on "The Egg and The Sperm" by Emily Martin and "Night to his Day" by Judith Lorber 

Science is widely regarded as the most rational discipline of all. The field itself boasts about how its practitioners are allegedly more logical than the average joe. However, in my opinion, there is a gulf of difference between technical knowledge and empathetic logic. These two articles talk about how the science of science is flawed when it comes to putting things with respect to a gender perspective. Emily Martin argues that the sperm, any male character, is portrayed as a chivalrous knight who ventures across oceans to aid a damsel in distress or better known as the egg, or any female character. I believe that stories and concepts change dramatically when the viewpoint of a character involved in those is switched with that of another. It is similar to how the Prince is lauded in every version of the tale for 'rescuing' Rapunzel from her misery when she was locked in a tower but everyone fails to recognise that if it wasn’t for Rapunzel’s magically long hair falling off out of the window, the Prince would have had his chips. The female perspective is systematically being shadowed. Another flaw of science tackled by Judith Lorber deals with gender identity. She argues that gender is a process and not a label or a position inherent in a human. She challenges the general notion of hormones being the deciding factors of gender and/or sexuality when they are not related. Hormones are solely responsible for developing physical sexual maturity while gender is something that is taught.  Since childhood, certain clothes, certain skills/art forms, certain aspects of general demeanour are being attributed to humans with their sexual organs being the foundation of such distinction. To unlearn patriarchy, it is imperative that it is not taught in the first place.