Sexism in Scientific Writing and School by Wyatt Smith
Sexism in Scientific Writing and School
Earlier this year, my girlfriend introduced me to a paper by Emily Martin, “The Egg and the Sperm”. This paper highlights the underlying sexism in the way biology is taught: specifically regarding fertilization. Biology is thought of as an objective science that human prejudice cannot corrupt. Martin challenges this notion by showing how the backgrounds assumptions of researchers can create skewed discoveries that are then widely spread as objective truth. The wording used to teach science can also create a distorted view. The use of language that has sexist implications in scientific writing directly impacts how this information is taught in schools. This process further reinforces internalized misogyny that is rooted into our culture, and therefore exists in educational institutions.
Fertilization is framed as the journey of sperm as they race to penetrate the egg. The egg is characterized with stereotypical feminine features, while the sperm are characterized with stereotypical masculine features. Martin quotes an article from Medical World News 23 in which this characterization is especially evident. They describe the egg as “a dormant bride awaiting her mate’s magic kiss, which instills the spirit that brings her to life” (Martin 490). This wording pervades the thinking around fertilization, and this bias may have delayed discoveries about the mechanism of fertilization. The characterization of the sperm as the active party and the egg as the passive party is clear in the way it has been taught for years. The sperm are seen as penetrating the egg, while the egg lies dormant. It was not discovered until years later that the two parties are more equally engaged. The sperm are weaker than once thought, and do not rely on mechanical force to merge with the egg. Both cells emit enzymes that allow for fertilization to take place. However sexism doesn’t just exist in textbooks and curriculum. It is a systemic problem, rooted into our culture.
In my Introduction to Teaching and Learning class my instructor, José Ramón Lizárraga, said something during a discussion about practicing Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy that resonated with me. He said that to be conscious and respectful of culture, educators should think of bringing education into culture, as opposed to bringing culture into education. This got me thinking about my background and how I was raised in a white, catholic family. In the culture where I grew up in (and literally every other culture) men are privileged and women are oppressed. And since internalized sexism and misogyny exist in our culture, they also exist in educational institutions, in classrooms, amongst students and faculty.
I think of my friend who is affected by this, Kellie Smith, a senior at Carondelet, an all girls private Catholic school in Concord, California. Just across the street is De La Salle, an all boys private Catholic school, famous for their undefeated football team. Kellie told me she wished she could change the dynamic of the “all girls school” for Carondelet and “all boys school” for De La Salle. “I have seen this kind of culture have negative effects on both schools and I think moving towards inclusivity and awareness would make it a healthier environment for students.” I wanted to know more about the gender dynamic between the gender segregated schools so I decided to ask some other alumni about the culture there.
Carondelet has strict dress code policies and other rules that restrict the young women's self expressions. All the girls are forced to wear a skirt every day and many girls, like Kellie, have been punished by the school faculty for dying their hair. Another Carondelet alumni told me about a specific religion teacher who, “on the first day of class handed out baby fetus models to each student and told all of them that by getting abortions you were killing babies.” De La Salle students have a much different experience than the women at Carondelet. Their culture reeks of toxic masculinity, their football team is praised for their undefeatable record, and the boys are free to be boys. They share images of naked Carondelet students with the entire school without getting punished by school officials. One of the religion teachers at De La Salle preaches to the young men about the “physiological differences between male brains and female brains.” This teacher is brainwashing these young men to believe that women are “more emotional and irrational than men.” Carondelet and De La Salle is just one example of how sexism and misogyny exist in our schools.
If the ways in which women are oppressed in schools is so obvious, why isn’t anything being done about it? If we know that there is scientific writings that deliver subliminally sexist language, why don’t other scholars actively critique this work and why do publishers publish this work. In an article called “Looking Closely: Toward a Natural History of Human Ingenuity” by Ray McDermott and Jason Raley, the authors talk about how people are trained to ignore their surroundings and new ideas. “Think, for example, of employers underestimating workers, men ruling over women, teachers degrading students, and politicians manipulating the facts of public life. Inattention to the intelligence of the people is so institutionalized that it now takes hard work to uncover it. No great lap of intelligence can be found in responses to standard, and standardized, questions.” (McDermott, Raley). I think it is time for educators to examine the texts that they teach to their class and be critical of the language. Teachers must ask themselves about the roots of the content that they teach, whether it is based on facts and intelligence or on gender stereotypes.
Martin, Emily. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 16, no. 3, 1991, pp. 485–501., doi:10.1086/494680.
Mcdermott, Ray, and Jason Raley. “Looking Closely: Toward a Natural History of Human Ingenuity.” The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods, 14 Mar. 2011, pp. 372–391., doi:10.4135/9781446268278.n20.
