In her academic article, “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles”, Emily Martin, explains in great depth the consequences that personifying science will have on society. Martin describes the inequalities between men and women that are displayed in science textbooks. The imbalances are shown most often when describing the scientific explanation of conception. Martin analyzes numerous scientific works and identifies numerous differences between describing female and male natural bodily functions, including sperm production, menstruation, conception and many other natural occurrences. Martin uses several logical fallacies and the Aristotelian appeals to solidify her argument, which
…show more content…
Martin reveals the raw feelings of the science textbook authors behind the completely natural process of menstruation. Martin goes into detail about how women are viewed as baby producers and if they fail to accomplish that task, according to the textbooks, they have failed to fulfill their womanly duty (486). Martin provides a clear example of a women feeling inferior, when she says “In the case of women, the monthly cycle is described as being designed to produce eggs and prepare a suitable place for them to be. Fertilized and grown-all to the end of making babies. But the enthusiasm ends there” (486). Martin’s language easily invokes the feeling of inferiority by explaining the idea that women are only on this earth to create babies. Martin’s claim is easily supported by invoking her use of pathos, making her argument significantly …show more content…
Martin uses the logical fallacies of scare tactics and overly-sentimental appeals making her argument notably better. The use of both fallacies is evident when Martin mentions that because science is mirroring society and placing identities upon inanimate objects, such as cells, there are going to be long lasting detrimental effects to society (501). Martin’s explanation of how personifying objects is causing damage to the current society is when she says “This will likely lead to greater acceptance of technological developments and new forms of scrutiny and manipulation, for the benefit of these inner "persons": court-ordered restrictions on a pregnant woman's activities in order to protect her fetus, fetal surgery, amniocentesis, and rescinding of abortion rights, to name but a few examples” (500). Martin is suggesting to her audience that by allowing this clear gender bias to continue that there is going to be major limitations on women’s rights. Martin uses both the scare tactic and the overly-sentimental fallacy effectively by inducing feelings that hit close to the reader’s heart. By mentioning these emotionally charged subjects, Martin is subjecting her audience to really think about the consequences of gender biases in science making her argument far more
Martin reveals the raw feelings of the science textbook authors behind the completely natural process of menstruation. Martin goes into detail about how women are viewed as baby producers and if they fail to accomplish that task, according to the textbooks, they have failed to fulfill their womanly duty (486). Martin provides a clear example of a women feeling inferior, when she says “In the case of women, the monthly cycle is described as being designed to produce eggs and prepare a suitable place for them to be. Fertilized and grown-all to the end of making babies. But the enthusiasm ends there” (486). Martin’s language easily invokes the feeling of inferiority by explaining the idea that women are only on this earth to create babies. Martin’s claim is easily supported by invoking her use of pathos, making her argument significantly …show more content…
Martin uses the logical fallacies of scare tactics and overly-sentimental appeals making her argument notably better. The use of both fallacies is evident when Martin mentions that because science is mirroring society and placing identities upon inanimate objects, such as cells, there are going to be long lasting detrimental effects to society (501). Martin’s explanation of how personifying objects is causing damage to the current society is when she says “This will likely lead to greater acceptance of technological developments and new forms of scrutiny and manipulation, for the benefit of these inner "persons": court-ordered restrictions on a pregnant woman's activities in order to protect her fetus, fetal surgery, amniocentesis, and rescinding of abortion rights, to name but a few examples” (500). Martin is suggesting to her audience that by allowing this clear gender bias to continue that there is going to be major limitations on women’s rights. Martin uses both the scare tactic and the overly-sentimental fallacy effectively by inducing feelings that hit close to the reader’s heart. By mentioning these emotionally charged subjects, Martin is subjecting her audience to really think about the consequences of gender biases in science making her argument far more