ENGL 131: Expository Writing

Major Paper 1
Draft 1

Finding The Divide

Identifying The Fundamental Tensions Between Analyses Through Language
Alex Menendez
January 22nd, 2015
The most definitive method of identifying and exploring pertinent issues is to incite
fundamental analysis of one critical facet of said issues. When attempting to find the divide
between genders and how they function, it becomes nearly impossible to identify one particular
issue; rather, it becomes more efficient to frame ones critical analysis within a certain theme.
While the distinction between male and female may be difficult to make (largely due to
specific factors such as behavior, income, etc.), researchers such as Beverly Gross and Emily
Martin recognize that both genders operate on an equal plane: language. In this regard, it thus
becomes sensible to equate the two genders based solely upon how they use and recognize
language. Gross and Martin thus demonstrate that languagea completely human constructis
arguably the most revealing characteristic of a certain gender; it follows, then, thatcontrary to
popular beliefphysical traits such as strength and reproductive mechanisms are not what
distinguish genders, but rather how certain terms are used and directed. Similarly, I also confront
the possible meanings of big; while the term bears specific spatial nuances, it becomes clear
thatdue to the aforementioned reasonit quite possibly alludes to much more than size and
could furthermore bear sexual suggestions depending upon how the term functions in conjunction
with other words. Thus, as outlined in Language As An Analog For Analysis1, it is discovered that
a word can be sexual by merit of two characteristics: the gender it specifically alludes to, or the
analogous way the word functions in conjunction with other words. With this in mind, it becomes
readily evident that there exists a lingering tension between different linguistic analyses,
specifically those employed by Beverly Gross, Emily Martin, and myself. By identifying such
tension, it thus becomes possible to alleviate the sharp divide existing between genders. Through
the works of Beverly Gross and Emily Martin, we observe that there presently exists tension
between genders; as both authors explain, however, this tension exists solely on the grounds of
language. Identifying this fundamental problem as one that is simply linguistic, it thus becomes
markedly easier to equate the interests of both genders.
As alluded to by Martin and Gross, the modern world is simply a gigantic archive of
scientific data; for example, it is known that the Earth orbits the Sun, rain originates from dense
clouds, and splitting an atom releases energy. In identifying these scientific truths, however, it

Also known as Essay 2.

Menendez

ENGL 131: Expository Writing

Major Paper 1
Draft 1

suffices to say that such data can only be communicated by language. Such phenomena are made
known by Emily Martin in her essay, The Egg and The Sperm: she examines the impact of
cultural ideology on [scientific]2 discourse3. As one would have it, communicating scientific
concepts thus results in a peculiar bias within the data that originates from whoever had given the
data scientific phrasing. In fact, Martin goes so far as to say that, when science is communicated
or taught, it is rather more aptly conveyed as social science: I am intrigued by the possibility
that culture shapes howscientists describe what they discover about the natural world. If this
were so, we would be learning about more than the natural world in high school we would be
learning about cultural beliefs and practices4. Thus, it follows naturally that scienceoften
viewed as neutralis in fact very susceptible to being skewed based upon how it is phrased.
Hence, it suffices to concludeto a certain extentthat all sciences are social sciences, as the
exploration about the natural world uncovers far more facts about cultural phenomena than it does
facts about mathematical, scientific phenomena. On a similar note, such a perspective can also be
readily applied to my aforementioned analysis of the word big. While the term big itself appears
to reference spatial or temporal reasoninga description of certain dimensionsit suffices to
say that it may not, according to the reasoning provided by Emily Martin. While big is used
predominantly as a spatial descriptor, the use of the word within a societal context also exposes
cultural opinions and logical fallacies. For example, it is correct to use the word big in its more
readily known context: That is a big tomato! It is also correct, however, to extend the use of big
to other seemingly unrelated contexts: I am a big fan of the Foo Fighters! Surely one doesnt
literally mean, I am someone who happens to be large in dimensions and loves the Foo
Fighters; ratheras alluded to in Big Guy5the term big can also extend its spatial nuances to
instances of significance or amazement. If one were to say, Abraham Lincoln was a big factor in
determining the Unions success, then the use of the term doesnt allude to its primary spatial
definition; thus, rather than being interpreted as Abraham Lincoln was a large man who was a
critical component of the Unions success, it is rather taken as Abraham Lincoln was
important. Thus, it suffices to say that language, while not only amazingly mutableis arguably
a tool for communicating social phenomena based upon how significant they are perceived to be.
Applying this reasoning to Martins analysis, we arrive at the conclusion that science is not
explicitly neutral, but is written in a manner that reflects the attitude of who had discovered

The actual phrasing is medical discourse, yet her analysis can be extended to all sciences
in aggregate.
3
Emily Martin, The Egg and The Sperm, Contexts for Inquiry, 744.
4
Martin 745.
5
Essay 1.
Menendez

ENGL 131: Expository Writing

Major Paper 1
Draft 1

and/or explored it. It follows, then, that the individual who had deduced a certain scientific truth
falls into one of two distinct categories: man or woman. In this regard, it becomes clear that
Martins reasoning is justified when we consider the notion that science is charged with sexual
meaning depending upon whether it originated from a male or female source. The lingering
question, naturally, is then how deeply does gender bias permeate scientific reasoning? Martin
produces an answer to such a question by explaining that [The female system is] a reproductive
enterprise...menstruation must necessarily be viewed as a failure. Medical texts describe
menstruation as the debris of the uterine lining, the result of necrosis, or death of tissue6. She is
quick to include, however, the fact that Male reproductive physiology is evaluated quite
differently. One of the texts that sees menstruation as failed production employs a sort of
breathless prose when it describes the maturation of sperm: The mechanisms which guide the
remarkable cellular transformationremain uncertainthe most amazing characteristic of
spermatogenesis is its sheer magnitude7. Making it distinct that the same hopeless, disgusted
description of menstruation is the same one that praises the evolutionary triumph of
spermatogenesis, Martin suggests that the author of said medical text does, in fact, value one
process more than the other. In fact, it would be reasonable to conclude that it is not a matter of
unfair evaluation, but is a matter of choosing ones favorite process. Provided that the praised
mechanism is that which belongs to a male, it suffices to conclude that her textual evidence had
come from a male source. If it were to originate from a male source, it then suffices to say that the
logic provided in the medical text is skewed toward male phenomena; this brings usin a rather
circular fashionback to Martins initial claim that science is polarized by gender bias.
Not only is gender bias instilled in scientific language, but it also suffices to say that the
collection of words itself has a specific gender, depending on its predominant function. It is
reasonable to assume that, because language is a framework for communication among human
beingswho are autonomousit is sound to assume that language itself also possesses a similar
autonomy. In the same fashion that different human beings mingle within a closed ecosystem,
words also mingle within a similar ecosystemlanguage; hence, the function of a specific word,
as well as its status as noun, adjective, or verb, can determine the gender of a given word, and
furthermore allude to which gender exploits that property. In my previous paper, Language As An
Analog For Analysis, I identify the possibility that words can bear certain genders depending
upon how the word functions in conjunction with other words; for example, an adjective is a

6
7

Martin 745.
Martin 745.

Menendez

ENGL 131: Expository Writing

Major Paper 1
Draft 1

sexual term, given that it can only function when succeeded by a noun. If one were to say
Wow, that is an ugly! the impact of the term is lost, as there is no noun toward which the use of
ugly is directed. The problem can easily be alleviated, however, by inserting a noun: Wow, that
is an ugly cloud! In conducting such analysis, however, we confront statements that are
seemingly correct without the use of nouns, such as: It is wet. Although there is no explicit
noun, the use of the term is correct; the nagging question, then, is why? The correct use of the
adjective without an explicitly defined noun to correspond to is due to the fact that it is justified
by the use of the word it, which is a noun. Furthermore, one would not state, It is a wet, as that
would mandate the presence of a specific noun, such as It is a wet day outside. Thus, it suffices
to conclude that adjectives are sexual terms in that they cannot correctly function unless the
presence of a noun is facilitated. Exploiting this fact, we can go further in our analysis and even
identify which gender a certain word is. An author such as Beverly Gross would likely contest
that words like bitch are female, as they are used towards women; I claim, however, that a
female word is that which is acted upon. In the sentence, The bird sat on the power line, line
is the female word, as it is being acted upon by bird; by the same token, bird is the male word, as
it acts upon line. Thus, giving words genders based on their functions eliminates the implication
that the word is perhaps meant to target a specific gender. For example, as Beverly Gross explains
that the word bitch is female by merit of how it is directed, I claim that bitch is a female word due
to the fact that bitch is a word that is acted upon. Thus, by giving words autonomy similar to that
of their human creators, the labeling of words by their primary uses is functionally eliminated.
Furthermore, by equating words to their human counterparts, the notion that language is a purely
human construct is thus solidified.
It is also worth mentioning that both Gross and Martin begin their analyses with a casual
mention of their position within the scientific community. Gross unequivocally states that she,
herself, is a professor of English literature: We were discussing Mary McCarthys The Group in
a course called Women Writers and Literary Tradition8. In doing this, Gross is quick to restrict
her analytical framework to one that is literary; this is especially appropriate given that Grosss
essay focuses solely upon semanticsthe study of how a word functions within its given context.
It seems, then, that Gross would agree that the best method of identifying and exploring an
imminent issue is to begin by separating oneself from all but one context through which the given
inquiry is established9. It follows, then, that the same principle should hold within Martins

8
9

Beverly Gross, Bitch, Contexts for Inquiry, 627.

This was a shameless plug for the title of the textbook.

Menendez

ENGL 131: Expository Writing

Major Paper 1
Draft 1

analysis, as well; in beginning her exploration, she begins by stating, As an anthropologist10,

so as to identify herself as operating within a certain analytical framework just as Gross does.
What is noteworthy, however, is the fact that Martins analysis is markedly more scientific than
Grosss; while Gross scrutinizes the semantics of language and its broader impacts upon women,
Martin does the same, but rather identifies the victims as anybody exposed to scientific writing.
Thus, it is clear that Grosss analysis is concerned with the dignity of human femalesthat is not
to suggest that Martins analysis is not; in fact, her analysis also concerns females, with the
exception of female extending to broader sexual meanings than those which are explicitly
human. More generally, what Grosss analysis does is defend dignity of women, while Martins
analysis seeks to defend the dignity of science in general; it seems that, by restoring the dignity of
science, Martin will have accomplished what Gross seeks to do while accomplishing much
broader results. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Grosss goals are included within Martins
goals; hence, we observe that, when weighing which one of the authors analyses serves as the
best proxy for social change, then it is logical to choose Martins, as she seeks not only to restore
individual dignities to human beings, but to all of science. This is demonstrated by the notion that
Gross aims her analysis specifically toward women, while Martins analysis is aimed at society in
general; naturally, Martins method of reaching broader society is to first improve science. In
Bitch, Gross continually uses the term woman, while Martin rarely ever refers to a woman, but
rather uses the term culture. Furthermore, the manner in which both authors identify women as
members of society differs through their analytical frameworks; Gross immediately places
women in the role of the victim, [The words] longevity is perhaps attributed to its satisfying
misogyny11, while Martin places women into the role of a dissatisfied observer: Further
research would show us exactly what social effects are being wrought from [scientific]
imagery12. Interestingly enough, in doing this, each author is not only able to cater their
analysis to either a broader or narrower audience, but is also able to discuss largely the same
social issue with more or less biting consequences. In recognizing this, we see that the
consequence identified by Gross is verbal mistreatment of the female gender, while the
consequence studied by Martin is an indirect mistreatment of society through skewing scientific
data toward a specific gender.

10

Martin 744.
Gross 629.
12
Martin 754.
11

Menendez

ENGL 131: Expository Writing

Major Paper 1
Draft 1

Despite the analyses of Gross and Martin being fundamentally different, the two authors
write with the intention of restoring a certain lost dignity to a certain group. Gross concludes her
analysis with a simple message: This act of appropriation, I predict, will embolden others with
what consequences and effects it is impossible to foresee13. Similarly, Martin urges her readers
to also be cognizant of the effects of language use: Waking up such metaphors, by becoming
aware of when we are projecting cultural imagery onto what we study, will improve our ability to
investigate and understand nature14. It is noteworthy, however, that Martin includes a corollary
to her closing statement: Waking up such metaphors, by becoming aware of their implications,
will rob them of their power to naturalize our social conventions about gender15. Thus, we
observe that both authors remind the reader of the sheer power of language as an analytical tool,
while also cautioning that tension can easily avoided if such words are used correctly and/or
received properly. Martin, however, goes further to state that language in the context of science
should be taken at face value; if any metaphor is to be inadvertently drawn through peculiar
language use, then tension becomes apparent, as she warns. Hence, it is sensible to conclude that
both authors would agree that language is perhaps the most powerful tool within our possession,
but has the capability to be the most dangerous, if used incorrectly or misinterpreted.
The analyses of both Beverly Gross and Emily Martin agree on the conclusion that an
efficient description of the modern world is ultimately gauged by how it utilizes language.
Through both authors analyses, it becomes apparent thatjust like its human creatorslanguage
is innately flawed, and is thus subject to misuse or misinterpretation. Either of these actions,
according to Gross and Martin, results in stinging consequences, most notably the creation of
sharp tension between demographics. Thus, while scientific descriptions seek to unify all aspects
of life and thus implicitly unify the genders, such misuse and misinterpretation has the capacity to
render this unity null and void, resulting in widespread disagreement between groups, whether
this occurs between men and women, scientists and non-scientists, et cetera. Oddly enough, we
find that both authors conclude that, while it is possible to identify flaws within culture through
language, doing so relies upon language itself; hence, we can go no further than identification,
thus leaving the prospect of a solution just as far away as the unity we, as a culture, seek to find
within language.

13

Gross 634.
Martin 755.
15
Martin 755.
14

Menendez

ENGL 131: Expository Writing

Menendez

Major Paper 1
Draft 1