Feminist Biology and Sexual Reproduction

'Feminist science'. A term for failed academics that can't comprehend complex scientific theory without first injecting their biased narratives all over it. You would assume that ideological lenses were thrown aside in the world of science, but unfortunately subjective political movements are sects that are getting more and more attention in the academic sphere, with significant works even being used by leading universities as core text reading. A typical example would be 'The Egg and The Sperm' from Emily Martin, which aims to persuade the reader that science has artificially constructed the process of sexual reproduction based on typical male and female roles in society. Let's have a look at the solid science behind this PEER REVIEWED article, and what roles it could possibly have in modern day science:
____________________________________________________
https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/Martin1991.pdf
____________________________________________________

THIS crap constitutes a science now apparently. The whole argument here is just putting words in other people's mouths. No scientist is calling menstruation a failure, because that's a subjective term that doesn't relate to science. I guess you could refer to menstruation as an evolutionary flaw, as destroying the lining of the uterus isn't exactly what you would call evolutionary advantageous, but that still doesn't imply it's a failure. Evolution does not predict the future or follow a predetermined path, so the term 'failure' should never be used here. It also makes perfect sense to view systems of reproduction in terms of productive output, because after all they're methods of production. I would of thought the word 'productive' in the term 'reproduction' would have given that away.

I just don't understand the premise of this paragraph. Is the argument that scientists should be forced to glorify tissue dying? I'm sorry if the thought of tissue dying is a hard truth to swallow, but what would be the purpose of scientists blatantly misrepresenting biological processes? Your explanation for this argument is that menstrual waste has a purpose. What purpose? Are you gonna fry your vaginal walls into a slap up lunch for the family? I've seen some pictures on the internet, but there's no way you can view the body destroying its own uterus lining as anything other than disgusting. A quick reminder that lying to yourself isn't empowering. However, she continues:

I do not want to meet any scientist that shows 'intense enthusiasm' at female bodily processes. I imagine them to be some replica of Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. Please remember you're referring to scientific journals and not holiday brochures. Nobody gives a flying fuck if scientific descriptions don't show enthusiasm. I will happily admit that I think it's pretty amazing how both sexes produce gametes, however I would argue that the production of sperm is actually seen as less impressive in the academic field as the process typically requires less resources to create when compared to ovulation. This is why so many spermatozoa are produced, therefore making each individual less valuable. That's an observation based on scientific theory, which is far more valid than relying on biased interpretation. The bottom line however is that anecdotal interpretations are irrelevant to the sciences, and the fact that two different processes illicit two different responses is hardly surprising, or for that matter harmful. You could just as easily make the argument that altruistic sperm trains in wood mice are viewed far more favorably than human reproduction methods, which in turn indicates some sort of systematic oppression. Actually to be fair to my ludicrous example it's almost as mental as this next segment:

Aren't both reproductive systems already viewed as homologous? I think you're getting the terms 'homologous' and 'identical' mixed up. I also don't think you know the difference between 'negative' and 'oppressive' either. These aren't terms you can just use interchangeably. In any case, this is purely your interpretation of various studies. Once again you're ignoring any sort of context and forcing words into other people's mouths. Your scrutinizing these papers with a moral ideology that has no business being applied to objective scientific papers. Nobody should be forced to give a fuck about negative connotations when you have no evidence this is reciprocated in society.

For fuck sake, why the hell do you need credit for a naturally functioning process. What else do you want, a sticker every time you take a breath? But God help you if you fucking dare speak positively about male reproductive processes. That would just make you an oppressive asshole. Here ladies and gentleman are the teachings of feminist biology, which I'm repeatedly told is a movement dedicated to gender equality. Only with this movement can we destroy those damn scientists reporting facts like the oppressive class they truly are.

It's yet another edition of 'where's the fucking argument'. I sure as hell can't find a valid one anywhere. There's whinging over a turn of phrase, and whinging over the wording of a caption in a single image. Fantastic. Since when does a single image describe a trend? Here's a little suggestion: Maybe the sperm was the focus of the fucking picture. If not then surely this is just an example of a poor caption, and not fucking systematic oppression.

Guess what? I followed up your sources, and you're a lying scumbag. 'A Portrait of the Sperm' is the title of multiple images and not the caption of whatever one of the pictures you're referencing. Funnily enough I was correct in my earlier assessment, and actually The reason why the sperm is being portrayed is because THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE FUCKING PICTURE. Each image is clearly labelled with succinct scientific wording, so fuck you for trying to manipulate and drag this man's work through the dirt just so you can bullshit about made up issues, you entitled whore. The only defense you have for this pitiful claim are that portraits are associated with the wealthy. Fuck you and your shitty word association games. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the scientist who authored that quote believes that solely male sex cells should be seen as wealthy and powerful? I've seen people in mental asylums jump to better conclusions than this lunacy. It's also not truthful to say that sperm images are depicted as portraits. The term 'portraits' is plural, and therefore implies there are multiple examples, whereas a quick search on Google Scholar will show you there is only the single sperm portrait published in the academic sphere, which just so happens to be the one you've referenced. A SINGLE IMAGE DOES NOT REPRESENT A TREND, ESPECIALLY IF THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. If you can't work that out then why the fuck are you writing scientific papers?

I should just note that one of the sources provided in this article is just as laughable as the actual content. This particular citation is just listed as some unspecified research from a random graduate student. If I sourced like that for my university work, yet alone an academic study, I would be brutally beaten by every member of the faculty. How the fuck did this piss poor referencing get through a fucking peer review?

I only added this part because it perfectly displays the dreadful quality of argument. I genuinely have no idea how you can conclude that sperm are efficient at escaping cells when you've just been analysing a study that states in your own words that sperm are optimised to penetrate the egg in the most effective method possible. Instead of writing the term 'escaping' in italics, why can't you just admit your argument is full of shit. She later goes onto say this research shocked some apparent cultural norms, providing zero evidence of this apparent outrage. I think at some point we're going to have to cede that this is just ideological rhetoric rather than a serious scientific argument.

So hang on the method described is now suddenly fine, but it's just the wording that's now at fault. I mean come on, is there any limit to your whinging? Earlier on she was banging on about how the word 'harpoons' should be censored because that indicates harm, and now it's the turn of seemingly harmless and innocent models. It's becoming rather apparent that it's an ignorant attitude rather than the scientific community at fault in this debate.

Yet again this argument is more bullshit. This lock and key model comes from the visual representation of fertilisation rather than the precise actions involved. We can also find this model in the lock and key hypothesis for enzymes, where it is the passive substrate that is assigned as the lock because of its visual appearance, and not its sexual orientation. Are enzyme models now sexist too? Just a reminder that it's not a very good visual representation if the model is grossly untrue. In any case, this must be the most pointless issue I've ever encountered in an allegedly scientific paper, and clearly has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. But wait, even when the egg is given an active role that's problematic as well:

Yet more pointless wording issues. How is any of this shit productive? Again, who is making the assumption that an egg is described as stereotypically feminine? Only yourself, you fucking idiot. It's YOUR PERSONAL interpretation of the language used, and not a scientific argument. And anyway, wasn't this wording literally your whole solution in the last paragraph? Even in your own warped logic this predicament cannot possibly be resolved without some meaningless cries of sexism.

For fuck sake, sociobiology has nothing to do with the idea of women becoming servants. You just plucked that conclusion out of thin air. This reductionist argument blatantly ignores the plethora of sexual and social relationships in the natural world. The fact that your shitstain of a brain felt the need to smear your agenda over complex and sophisticated areas of science is a testament to your anti-science viewpoint. You're right that female choosiness and greater parental investment are key trends in many species worldwide, including humans. That's widely proven scientific theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with your metaphorical analysis here. The irony in this statement is that if there's any scientific viewpoint that's blatantly fueled by ideological views it's feminist biology. We're now resorting to passing the blame onto other scientific fields without any evidence. Real fucking classy. Such an inspirational academic.

Oh for fuck sake, now it's female sex cells being a dangerous threat that's the issue. What do you want from me? Shall we just portray eggs with STEM degrees that own their own successful business? How the fuck is any of this productive dialogue? Who thinks turning objective facts into moral minefields is a positive thing? Grow up. Why can't we just let scientific papers be descriptive? Stop living in an English literature seminar and address the argument from a scientific perspective.

There is a key point to be made here. I mean just look at this sexist language. 'Interrupt'. 'Sudden'. 'Swift'. It's like we're back in the 1950s again. It's such a huge issue that I would even go as far as comparing these monstrosities to fictional literature, because that's certainly a valid comparison. Admittedly we do finally get a solution. A solution that perfectly exemplifies how little this writer understands science. Maybe, and here's an amazing suggestion, the cybernetic model shouldn't be applied to sexual reproduction because there's absolutely no reason for it to be. I would love to hear the explanation on how cybernetics could possibly erase the wording problems you keep banging on about whilst still maintaining scientific accuracy. Your referring to papers on physiology, yet your complaint is that they don't apply this physiology to certain models of another field. What makes you think your anthropological view is more qualified than these scientists? By all means feel free to apply this information to different fields of science, but blindly screaming sexism is not a valid argument in any field of science.

I hate to bring this up again, but please could you actually bother to give examples of how this imagery is negative. You perceive it as negative. YOU. Why should the objective fields of science bow down to your ideology you self centered bitch? Here's some food for thought: Not everything in science must be described as a rose garden, and there is nothing damaging about using certain suggestive words. Welcome to the real fucking world. This is an argument I might expect from a spoiled child, not an academic.

Fucking hell, even this cybernetic model is sexist. I give up. What isn't sexist? This was your solution, with the whole point being it would cease stereotyping. Turns out that wishful thinking can't solve my non existent issues. This segment is just more vague waffle. Not that the rest isn't, but this bit in particular seems to serve no actual purpose. She's just debating with herself now, which really serves up a similar experience to someone who's bipolar arguing with themselves about what cheese to get for lunch. I think the overriding message is meant to be that these studies are designed to purposely discriminate and justify a patriarchal view of sexual reproduction, as is the message of the whole piece. I know, it's fucking bonkers. How with the pitiful evidence you've provided can you come up with a conclusion like this? The logical leaps needed for this to make any sort of sense are bewildering.

Then we get to the usual progressive bollocks on how much of an asshole Charles Darwin allegedly was. Of course to conclude this would have to drastically misrepresent the man's influential work. Darwinism certainly was imported into social sciences over a hundred years ago at a drastically different period in scientific understanding. Evolution on the other hand had been a prevalent idea in natural sciences for decades before Darwin's arrival, so to pin these allegations on one man is grossly unfair. Darwin's observations were based on facts, he was only inspired by the use of population dynamics in Malthus' work, and not the message of social class. Darwin has fuck all to do with constructing narratives around sexual reproduction, as do the sources you've provided. I think you're confusing Darwin with social science idiots such as yourself. In any case, are you seriously suggesting to me that these papers on sexual reproduction are going to be as influential as the most important work in the history of biology? I think not. This is just flat out hysteria with only revisionist arguments provided as examples.

Later this crazy lady evolves into Nostradamus, just in case you didn't think she was crackpot enough already. For some reason she starts proclaiming that future research would prove her right. Except that's not how this works. You're the one making accusations that all this negative language has adverse effects. You can't just base this whole argument on a hunch. Really it is amazing why you're not viewed as a serious scientist. Imagine if people used this extraordinary line of justification for any form of accusation. "Well I predict that the person could possibly murder me in the future, so therefore they're guilty of murder."

Oh come on, can we all just admit this is one big joke. How fucking arrogant do you have to be to claim 'we' should be substituting more metaphors in serious scientific papers. We're discussing science, so nobody gives a fuck if metaphors are used poorly. You remember earlier when you were complaining that the role of the egg was purposely underplayed, and that scientists were concentrating on a relatively minor thing instead? Yeah maybe your source for that should of been some crazed lunatic complaining about the use of metaphors in scientific papers. You on the other hand should never be allowed anywhere near a scientific paper, but instead you just expect other people to bow down to your unfounded whims when they're the ones doing the grafting. That's a deplorable attitude, and one born of ignorance over scientific methods.

How dare scientists try and make science relatable to an audience. I never realised that installing personalities in cellular objects was so damaging. Turns out that watching Osmosis Jones as a child has turned me into a monster. In this deluded woman's mind I think she genuinely believes this language used purely exists to support the patriarchy. Tell me this: If the science of reproduction is inherently sexist towards women why are the majority of biology students female?

And then just when you thought you had heard everything we get a lecture about waking up sleeping metaphors. Congratulations madam, you've displayed a new type of stupid I never knew existed. Somehow I doubt that policing language will have a positive effect on scientific methods. That's a fucking bold claim that you've backed up with precisely zero evidence. You have no reason to suggest this, and have little to no experience in the field, so why the fuck should I just blindly believe you're totalitarian rhetoric?

The whole paper is SEVENTEEN pages. I'm not sure in the history of me analysing this sort of rubbish I have ever read so much shit that translates into such meaningless rhetoric. More importantly what serious biologist actually gives a single fuck? Who honestly gives a shit if egg and sperm cells are given equality? Just blindly chanting sexism without qualification does not constitute an argument. Here you're just constructing this false narrative that biologists are sexist pigs, and that's purely derogatory slander. This is not a scientific discussion, this is ideological nonsense masquerading as a serious scientific piece. In actual fact it's done such a good job in its disguise that I'm sure many have happily bought into this obvious facade. Since when has this scientific dissonance become acceptable? Maybe I would be more sympathetic if this was a paper that proposed pragmatic solutions or suggestions, but it simply never does this. The lack of evidence and verbal reasoning indicates this is merely a promotion of women's rights, and nothing more. This is not a progressive attitude towards an archaic subject, it's counterproductive propaganda trying to force an ideology into an area it doesn't belong.