I'm just answering out of my memory without books to hand,
but I'd say the fertilization story you cite is more an
example of bad textbooks than of ingrained sexist assumptions.
Things I've read (and discussed in class) about fertilization
include the idea thatthe sperm must attach to specific receptor
sites on the egg (hence species specificity) and that the egg then
"fires" in a way analogous to a nerve cell, resulting in a change
in shape of the receptors so that no more sperm can attach.
I foundthe book this is from - it;s Tepperman & Tepperman,
"Metabolic and Endocrine Physiology", Year Book Medical Publishers
1987, p.104.
Anyway, this doesn't fit the "passive egg" model, though they do
talk about interaction with the sperm "disinhibiting" the egg,
causing it to do the things it was always capable of doing.
I suggest you look at the works of Bruno Latour for good examples
of analyses of scientific writings. i respect his work because it
seems so strongly grounded in thorough literature review and shows
an understanding of the arguments between scientists that he is trying to
explain. The Latour book I like best is:
Latour, Bruno, 1987. Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
Anyway, I think the passive egg argument has been made by several
critics of science - as I wrote in my e-mail to you, what I think
we really need is work on what scientists believe now. What gets in
textbooks, especially general textbooks, is usually many years old.
I know, because my field had a paradigm shift while I was doing
my doctorate, and it's hardly appearing in the textbooks at the
freshman level - and I'd hate to tell you how many years ago that
was!
Has anybody sent you references for articles criticizing feminist
critiques of science? I have several recent ones, and will e-mail
the references to you from work if you need them. - Pat Bowne
