Emily Martin's Reproductive Narrative

Emily Martin's article on the reproductive biology of males and females really opened my eyes.  When reading a textbook, magazine article or encyclopedia one never thinks about how something might be degrading them in a passive aggressive way.  Many texts discuss the woman creating the egg, producing a place for it to be fertilized and then grown but after that you never hear of the female reproductive system again.  It seems as if that scientists or writers see a woman's reproductive cycle for one sole purpose, but what if you're reproductive system doesn't carry out this sole purpose?  Is it altogether useless?  These texts certainly depict that.  One text also referred to a woman's uterine lining during menstruation as "debris".  If this isn't offensive, I don't know what is.  Debris is looked at as meaningless trash.  I certainly don't think that what happens during my menstruation is meaningless trash.  But when one looks at how the male reproductive system is depicted it's almost looked at as an amazing act that men can do.  One author writes that is a "remarkable cellular transformation".  Writers use words such as "shed" for women and "produce" for men.  These small connotations make a big difference.  To some people this might not be a big deal.  The author just has a varied vocabulary or thesaurus.com gave him/her some bad suggestions.  But could it be that authors have that voice in the back of their head that is slightly biased in a way?  It seems puzzling that women's reproductive systems are continuously shown in a negative light.  One author wrote that an ovary looks like a "scattered, battered, organ."  Ovaries are one of the most essential things about the female anatomy in that they produce multiple hormones and store the eggs which are essential for life.  It's hard for me to understand why people would call an ovary a "battered organ" when an ovary helped produce the human who wrote that very phrase.