Emily Martin's essay provides some part of an explanation for the stereotype of women as passive, dependent creatures. If something as "exact" as biology present female's in this light, doesn't it make sense that cultural norms would assume this same notion of women? Both Larkin and Briggs show how this stereotype actually plays out in a cultural context. On the issue of reproduction, women (like the passive, dependent egg) sit around waiting to be controlled and manipulated by outside forces. Martin attributes this control to large international organizations, and Briggs questions whether this is the case on the issue of sterilization in Puerto Rico. Were big US policy-making organizations really to blame for the forced sterilization? Or, as Briggs argues, it is equally valid to claim that women actually ask for the ability to control their ability to reproduce (or not)? My question is, why does it have to be one or the other? Why is it always a matter of "victims" being forced to do something when sometimes, people are actually lobbying to make that happen? It all comes down to choice: if some people want to reproduce a whole bunch, let them! And if some people don't want to at all, why not? This seems to be the core problem with most political issues: gay marriage, abortion etc. How do we begin to create a government in which choice is the ultimate agenda?