In previous years in learning about taxonomy and phylogeny, I never thought twice about the origins of the term Mammalia. I had always associated it with a group of related organisms that had hair on their bodies and nursed their young. Shiebinger's "Taxonomy for Human Beings" delivered surprising reasons for Linneaus' rejection of other logical terms in favor of Mammalia. The article definitely helped sharpen my eye towards noticing how other aspects of science may indeed include biases depending on the perspective of the scientist. Linneaus coining the term Homo sapien, meaning "man of wisdom" creates an interesting contrast with Mammalia which Shiebinger highlights. This revelation makes one wonder if Linneaus had deliberately decided to use females to symbolize a group that includes animals. It must be noted though, that the term Mammalia has become engrained in taxonomy throughout the centuries. Many learn the word without ever hearing of how or why Linneaus decided to use the term. It will be interesting to see if the system of taxonomy will ever be changed since even today, much more than in the days of Linneaus, women have an ever-increasing involvement in the sciences. Today, they write the textbooks, too.
Lynn Segal's "Body Matters: Cultural Inscriptions" created a unique perspective on the diction used in the past when describing reproduction. Although it is true that the vaginal canal is quite acidic in some areas and as such, is not always the best place for sperm, the process of reproduction was often personified. Sperm were given agressive, man-like qualities, while the female egg was passive. The article also hit on the contrast with feminist ideas in the 60's and 70's and how penetrative sex was avoided. Also, the article worked to deconstruct the stereotypes regarding the male penis. It exposed how men were not always ready to have sex; in fact at least 50% of males seemingly had some issue with impotence or erectile dysfunction (ED).
On the subject of ED, it was interesting to see the differences in marketing between Viagra and Lyriana. At first, it seemed as though the commercials differed due to differing audience. Viagra's main audience was men, while Lyriana's was women. But almost seemed to me that Viagra just had a better way of marketing their product. It makes much more sense to show how happy men with ED could be, AFTER they take Viagra. A man's reaction to ED would almost be no different than a women's reaction to having female sexual dysfunction. Especially in a society where man is supposed to be agrressive and always ready for sex, a man realizing he has ED would be devastated emotionally. Viagra just simply chose to target this insecurity and show how happy men with ED could be if they paid for box of Viagra.