Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 201–220 | Cite as

Revisiting “The fertilization fairytale:” an analysis of gendered language used to describe fertilization in science textbooks from middle school to medical school

  • Lisa Campo-Engelstein
  • Nadia L. JohnsonEmail author
Article

Abstract

Emily Martin’s (Signs J Women Cult Soc 16(31):485–501, 1991) article, “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male–Female Roles,” was published in Signs over 20 years ago. In this groundbreaking article, she discusses how gender roles are often projected onto reproductive biology, leading to the portrayal of eggs as passive and sperm as active. We were interested in seeing if many of her findings are still relevant today. We analyzed science textbooks from the middle school to the medical school level to determine if fertilization in human reproduction is described in gender-biased language regarding the sentence structure, amount of information provided for female and male processes/parts, and neutrality in describing female and male processes/parts. Although there has been much improvement, there is still a long way to go. Sexist language in scientific textbooks is troubling because it negatively affects both female and male students and undermines teachers’ ability to teach in an accurate and gender-neutral way.

Keywords

Reproductive biology Gendered language Science education Medical education Gender roles 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The following 2010 Oncofertility Consortium summer research interns and teacher fellows participated in the discussions leading up to this study, as well as with textbook selection and an extensive initial textbook analysis: Benjamin Derman, Rosemary Hines, Alicia Howe, Matt Knoepke, Mark Prosise, Ericka Senegar-Mitchell, Ph.D., Kiran Sreenivas, and Becky Swiontek. Additionally, Sarah Rodriguez, Ph.D., provided much thoughtful insight and critique throughout multiple iterations of this study, and Francesca Duncan, Ph.D., and Robin Skory helped write and edit the “human fertilization” section. A final thank you to Teresa Woodruff, Ph.D, founder and director of the Oncofertility Consortium, for her thoughtful insight in bringing together and leading a multi-disciplinary team, for her encouragement and critique throughout this project, and for championing the cause of gender neutral language in science. Grant Funding research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers: 5UL1DE019587 and RL1 HD058296. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. Allen, K. Z., Berg, L. R., Christopher, B., Dusheck, J., & Taylor, M. F. (2005). Animal reproduction. In Life science (pp. 685–694). Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, R. (2000). The language of sex: Our conception of sexual intercourse. In A. Minas (Ed.), Gender basics: Feminist perspectives on women and men (2nd ed., pp. 307–311). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  3. Bartholomew, E. F., & Martini, F. (2007). Development and inheritance. In Essentials of anatomy & physiology (pp. 644–647). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  4. Beauvoir, S. D. (1989). The second sex (H. M. Parshley, Trans.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  5. Berne, R. M., Levy, M. N., Koeppen, B. M., & Stanton, B. A. (2008). The male and female reproductive systems. In Berne & Levy physiology (pp. 785–790). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, A., Hagins, W. C., Holliday, W. G., Kapicka, C. L., Lundgren, L., MacKenzie, A. H., et al. (2007). Human reproduction and development. Biology (pp. 1048–1055). New York: McGraw-Hill/Glencoe.Google Scholar
  7. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2006). Unit 4. BSCS biology: A human approach. Student edition (pp. 477-484). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  8. Bolinger, D. (1973). Truth is a linguistic question. Language, 49(3), 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boron, W. F., & Boulpaep, E. L. (2009). Transport of gametes and fertilization. Medical physiology:A cellular and molecular approach, Retrieved June 28, 2010, from www.studentconsult.net. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier.
  10. Calkins, S., Johnson, N., & Light, G. (2012). Changing conceptions of teaching in medical faculty. Medical Teacher, 34, 902–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron, D. (1990). Demythologizing sociolinguistics. In J. Joseph & T. Talyor (Eds.), Ideologies of language (pp. 79–93). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Taylor, M. R., & Simon, E. J. (2009). Human reproduction. Biology Concepts and Connections (pp. 536–545). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  13. Costigliola, F. (1997). “Unceasing pressure for penetration”: Gender, pathology, and emotion in George Kennan’s Formation of the Cold War. The Journal of American History, 83(4), 1309–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doan, A. E., & Williams, J. C. (2008). The politics of virginity: Abstinence in sex education. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  15. Earp, B. D. (2012). The extinction of masculine generics. Journal for Communication and Culture, 2(1), 4–19.Google Scholar
  16. Eddleman, S. (2007). Reproduction. In Life science (CPO science) (pp. 202–211). New Hampshire: CPO Science.Google Scholar
  17. Ehrlich, S., & King, R. (1994). Feminist meanings and the (de)politicization of the lexicon. Language in Society, 23, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 941–982). New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Frazier, N., & Sadker, M. (1973). Sexism in school and society. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert, S. F., & Fausto-Sterling, A. (2003). Educating for social responsibility: Changing the syllabus of development biology. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 47, 237–244.Google Scholar
  21. Irvine, J. (2002). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jervey, E. D. (1987). The phallus and phallus worship in history. Journal of Popular Culture, 21(2), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahle, J. B. (1985). Retention of girls in science: Case studies of secondary teachers. In J. B. Kahle (Ed.), Women in science: A report from the field. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kane, E. W., & Schippers, M. (1996). Men’s and women’s beliefs about gender and sexuality. Gender & Society, 10(5), 650–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kolodner, J. L., Krajcik, J. S., Edelson, D. C., Reiser, B. J., & Starr, M. L. (2009). Genetics. In Project-based inquiry science (pp. 192–193). Armonk, NY: It’s About Time.Google Scholar
  27. Laqueur, T. W. (1990). Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lawrence, S. C., & Bendixen, K. (1992). His and hers: Male and female anatomy in anatomy texts for U.S. medical students, 1890–1989. Social Science and Medicine, 35(7), 925–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leaper, C. (1995). The use of masculine and feminine to describe women’s and men’s behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Livia, A. (2000). Pronoun envy: Literary uses of linguistic gender (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based stereotypical male-female roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(31), 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mast, C. K. (2001). Sex respect: The option of true sexual freedom. Student workbook. Bradley, IL: Respect Incorporated.Google Scholar
  34. Metoyer, A. B., & Rust, R. (2011). The egg, sperm, and beyond: gendered assumptions in gynecology textbooks. Women’s Studies, 40(2), 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore, L. J. (2007). Sperm counts: Overcome by man’s most precious fluid. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Moore, L. J., & Clarke, A. E. (1995). Clitorial conventions and transgressions: Graphic representations in anatomy texts, c1900–1991. Feminist Studies, 21(2), 255–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore, K. L., & Persaud, T. V. N. (2008). Transportation of the gametes and fertilization. Before we are born, Retrieved June 28, 2010, from www.studentconsult.net. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier.
  38. Niemi, S. (1987). Andrology as a specialty: Its origin. Journal of Andrology, 8, 201–203.Google Scholar
  39. Nowicki, S. (2008). Human biology. McDougal Littell biology (pp. 1024–1049). Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.Google Scholar
  40. Oudshoorn, N. (1990). Endocrinologists and the conceptualization of sex, 1920–1940. Journal of the History of Biology, 23(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oudshoorn, N. (2003). The male pill: A biography of a technology in the making. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. PBS. (1999–2002). American Experience, “Timeline: The Pill,” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/timeline/. Accessed January 14, 2013.
  43. Potter, E. F., & Rosser, S. V. (1992). Factors in life science textbooks that may deter girls’ interest in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 669–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhoades, R., & Tanner, G. A. (2008). Fertilization, pregnancy, and fetal development. In Medical physiology (pp. 705–708). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  45. Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles, 9(3), 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sadava, D. H., Heller, C., Orians, G. H., & Purves, W. K. (2009). Animal reproduction. In Life: The science of biology (pp. 901–903, 910). New York, NY: W H Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  47. Silverthorn, D. U. (2007). Reproduction and development. In Human physiology: An integrated approach (pp. 822–849). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  48. Spencer, D. (1990). Man-made language. Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora Press.Google Scholar
  49. Stanfield, C. L., Germann, W. J., Niles, M. J. & Cannon, J. G. (2008). The reproductive system. In Principles of human physiology (pp. 630–655). San Francisco, CA: Pearson/Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  50. Sutherland, K. (2009). Girl power/Grand Prix: Sex, speed, and the motorcycle racer. Canadian Literature, 202 (Autumn), 66–78.Google Scholar
  51. The Biology and Gender Study Group. (1988). The importance of feminist critique for contemporary cell biology. Hypatia, 3(1), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wassarman, P. M. (1999). Mammalian fertilization: Molecular aspects of gamete adhesion, exocytosis, and fusion. Cell, 96, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wynne-Edwards, K. E. (2001). Hormonal changes in mammalian fathers. Hormones and Behavior, 40(2), 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zittleman, K., & Sadker, D. (2002). Gender bias is teacher education texts: New (and old) lessons. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations