Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-10T08:43:08.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Athena Beldecos ,
Sarah Bailey ,
Scott Gilbert ,
Karen Hicks ,
Lori Kenschaft ,
Nancy Niemczyk ,
Rebecca Rosenberg ,
Stephanie Schaertel ,
Andrew Wedel  and
The Biology and Gender Study Group
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biology is seen not merely as a privileged oppressor of women but as a co-victim of masculinist social assumptions. We see feminist critique as one of the normative controls that any scientist must perform whenever analyzing data, and we seek to demonstrate what has happened when this control has not been utilized. Narratives of fertilization and sex determination traditionally have been modeled on the cultural patterns of male/female interaction, leading to gender associations being placed on cells and their components. We also find that when gender biases are controlled, new perceptions of these intracellular and extracellular relationships emerge.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 3 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Feminism and Science, Part 2 , Spring 1988 , pp. 61 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bleier, R. 1984. Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. 1986. Feminist approaches to science. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Boylan, M. 1984. The Galenic and Hippocratic challenges to Aristotle's conception theory. Journal of the History of Biology 17:83–112.10.1007/BF00397503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, J. 1956. The hero with a thousand faces. Cleveland: Meridian Books.Google Scholar
Cason, J. 1966. Principles of modem organic chemistry. New Jersey: Prentice‐Hall.Google Scholar
Cook, P.L. and Crump, J.W. 1969. Organic chemistry: A contemporary view. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Dobbs, B.J.T. 1985. Newton and stoicism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (Supp):109–123.10.1111/j.2041-6962.1985.tb00430.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eicher, E.M. and Washburn, L. 1986. Genetic control of primary sex determination in mice. Annual Review of Genetics 20:327–360.10.1146/annurev.ge.20.120186.001551CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fausto‐Sterling, A. 1985. Myths and gender: Biological theories about men and women. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Figlio, L.M. 1976. The metaphor of organization. Journal of the History of Science 14:12–53.Google Scholar
Freud, S. 1974. Femininity. In Women in analysis, ed. Strouse, J. New York: Grossman.Google Scholar
Geddes, P. and Thomson, J.A. 1890. Evolution and sex. New York: Moffitt.Google Scholar
Geddes, P. and Thomson, J.A. 1914. Problems of sex. New York: Moffitt.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S.F. 1985. Developmental biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S.F. In Press. Cellular politics: Goldschmidt, Just, and the attempt to reconcile embryology and genetics. In The American development of biology, ed. Benson, K., Maienschein, J. and Rainger, R.University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1979. The biological enterprise: Sex, mind, and profit from human engineering to sociobiology. Radical History Review 20:206–237.10.1215/01636545-1979-20-206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. 1984. Lieber Kyborg als Gottin! Fur eine sozialistische—feministische Unterwanderung der Gentechnologie. In Argument‐Sonderband 105, ed. Lange, B.P. and Stuby, A.M., 66–84.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1986. Primatology is politics by other means. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, R., 77–119. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, M. 1929. Verteilung, Bestimmung, und Vererbung des Geschlechtes bei den Protisten und Thallophyten. Handb. d. Verer, II.Google Scholar
Harwood, J. 1984. The reception of Morgan's chromosome theory in Germany: Inter‐war debate over cytoplasmic inheritance. Medical History Journal 19:3–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Heschel, A.J. 1965. Who is man? Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M.C. 1976. Aristotle and woman. Journal of the History of Biology 9:183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, F 1976. The Logic of life. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Jung, C.G. 1967. Symbols of transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Just, E.E. 1936. A single theory for the physiology of development and genetics. American Naturalist 70:267–312.10.1086/280666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, E.E. 1939. The biology of the cell surface. Philadelphia: Blakiston.Google Scholar
Keeton, W.C. 1976. Biological science, 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Keller, E.F. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, M. 1984. The narrative structure of anthropology. American Scientist 72:262–268.Google Scholar
Lenoir, T. 1982. The strategy of life. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Manning, K.R. 1983. The black apollo of science: The life of Ernest Everett Just. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClung, C.E. 1901. Notes on the accessory chromosome. Anatomischer Anzeiger 20.Google Scholar
McClung, C.E. 1902. The accessory chromosome—Sex determinant? The Biological Bulletin 3.10.2307/1535527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClung, C.E. 1924. The chromosome theory of heredity. In General Cytology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, T.H. 1926. The theory of the gene. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Medawar, P.B. 1963. Is the scientific paper a fraud? The Listener (12 September): 377.Google Scholar
Nanney, D.L. 1957. The role of the cytoplasm is heredity. In The chemical basis of heredity, ed McElroy, W.E. and Glenn, H.B., 134–166. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Reil, J.C. 1795. Von der Lebenskraft, Arch. f.d. Physiol. 1. Quoted in The strategy of life. See Lenoir 1982.Google Scholar
Ruestow, E.G. 1983. Images and ideas: Leewuenhoek's perception of the spermatozoa. Journal of the History of Biology 16:185–224.10.1007/BF00124698CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, K.P. 1977. Eastman's expectant motherhood. 6th ed. New York: Little.Google Scholar
Sayers, J. 1982. Biological politics: Feminist and anti‐feminist perspectives. New York and London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Schatten, G. and Schatten, H. 1983. The energetic egg. The Sciences 23 (5):28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. 1986. The battle for human nature: Science, morality, and modern life. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Sonneborn, T.M. 1941. Sexuality in unicellular organisms. In Protozoa in biological research, ed. Calkins, G.N. and Summers, F.M. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. 1974. The lives of a cell. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. 1984. Late night thoughts on listening to Mahler's ninth symphony. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Werskey, G. 1978. The visible college. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Waddington, C.H. 1940. Organisers and genes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar