The fertility industry discriminates against sperm donors, says US sociologist Rene Almeling. Her article this month in the American Sociological Review (pdf here) describes striking inequities in the market for eggs and sperm which, she says, reflect “gendered stereotypes of selfless motherhood and distant fatherhood”.
“Staff at egg agencies constantly thank women and encourage them to think about what a wonderful difference they’re making in the lives of recipients,” Almeling says. “The sperm bank staff is appreciative, but men aren’t told how amazing they are and what a great gift they’re giving.
They’re treated more like reproductive service workers. They come in. They clock in and out. Their sample is checked for quality. And they’re only paid when they produce an acceptable sample.”
In the market for American gametes, men are typically paid between US$50 and US$75 per donation, while women are paid around $5,000, along with bonuses and thank-you cards.
While it is commonly believed that sperm donors are readily available, in fact, few potential male donors meet the standards required by the clinics, while there is an oversupply of women donors. Almeling is investigating why the laws of supply and demand do not appear to work in the gamete market. News-Medical.Net, May 27
http://www.familyscholars.org/
I think the above comments can be placed under a new category I might create which will be called "stupid questions with obvious answers trying to pose as research"...
There is no 'discrimination' against men by the medical industry vis-a-vis sperm donations. The discrimination, if you wish to call it that, is from evolution, God, nature, whatever. Which has deemed womens' contribution to be the more significant one in creating life. Men's role is perherial to the processs as men invest, contribute, risk practically NOTHING with their sperm donation.
I mean I used to own a cocker spanial and I'd walk him around the block. He'd lift his leg and urinate every now and then against a car or a building, I'm sure leaving some genetic material behind every so often. Following the logic of this person posing as research, my dog should have been given title to a few cars and buildings around the city because he deposited some genetic material here and there.
What nonsense.
It's ridiculous to compare a sperm donor with an egg donor (never mind a surrogate mother). The process to donate eggs is far more painful and labor-intensive (also potentially long term damaging to the ovaries) for women then for men and that's what the differences in pricing reflects...as well as the differences in staff treatment of women, who are actually risking themselves as well as their potential for having offspring later, if an injury should occur to them during the donation process.
Men risk absolutely NOTHING. They read a magazine and eject into a dixie cup. It's ridiculous to try to compare the two levels of contribution/risk and claim discrimination.
Probably the reason there are fewer sperm donors anymore is that they've been chased away by fear of being hit up for child support at a later date if the laws should change. $75.00 per sperm donation is simply not enough money to risk that.
Why do people publish, no why do they even think such nonsense...that's the real question?
13 comments:
In no other form of human endeavor would this "inequality" of compensation even be considered worthy of commment.
Would the line editor who spent 8 hours editing the book you spent 8 months writing have the same right to have his name on the book cover with his share of the royalties? Any line editor who even entertained the thought would be laughed at.
Would two women going into business as partners, but with vastly different levels of time and financial investment, necessarily expect that only a 50% split would be fair when the business partnership splits up?
But suddenly, when the one investing more is a woman and the one investing less is a man, the woman's contribution is devalued accordingly so she gets less return for her investment. While the man gets disproportionately more. You see it in the infertility industry as you mention here. You see it in custody. You see it even in marriage laws which devalue anything a woman brought into the marriage. Same old, same old.
The sad part is its mostly women pushing this crap, devaluating motherhood and the contributions that go into it...
Believe it or not, I can understand men wanting to get more then their share.
Men wouldn't be men, if they weren't trying this...the most aggressive being on the planet who has confiscated every single resource for their own benefit and use.
That's the history here, totally predictable behavior.
BUT the women who do this, that's what aggravates me. The researcher on this is a woman.
Wait, don't you understand?!? That's the sacred SPERM we're talking about! ;-)
But seriously, many excellent points there Silverside...
Or so men THINK it's sacred...
DonorMisconception, the donateds' campaigning umbrella organisation on Yahoo shows the true cost of donorship from the child's point of view.
And it needs to be said that however well-meaning donors are, female and male, they may do better to help the homeless, because the emotional caualties who are supopsed to feel good to be alive just don't.
To be open, women may well get the urge to experience pregnancy nad impotent men may find impotence a shaming thing, but in any event the last word should go to the next generation, the donateds.
Compared to every other citizen, including all the adults invovlved, recipients and donors, they get a bad deal as medical histories are held as secrets, and so they suffer from identity crises due to being left wondering who they take after...
In theory what you say sounds good giving the 'next generation' a voice in whether or not they wish to be born. However in reality we would have gone extinct eons ago following that logic as how many people would have wanted to be born into the world throughout most epochs of human history? Very few, I dare to say.
Taking these relative minor aspects of the human condition such as not knowing a sperm donor's medical history as in: how old his father might have been when he died, whether or not he had high blood pressure or high cholestrol, etc., and then attempting to make that the entire basis for deciding whether or not someone should exist is just ridiculous. I see it as another phony attempt to try and convince women to continue allowing men a far larger role then they actually merit by their relatively small contribution to creating life...
Children born to two married but poor parents living in a trailor park somewhere in the heartland of the US probably have a greater chance of having a bad life then do the children of the women who use anonymous donors to create families. The process alone of getting pregnant in this manner costs a minimum of $10,000, most of it not covered by insurance. The woman doing this are generally the 'elite' of our society, well-educated, career women who have probably just given up on meeting Mr. Right and decided they don't wish to deny themselves a family just because there are so many assholes out there posing as responsible men.
This is propaganda that those children will grow up any worse then the children of a Brittany Spears and a Kevin Federline...
Total propaganda.
I CAN SEE AND ALSO APPLAUD THE FEMINIST STANCE BUT...sorry, you don't really seem child-focused, and donorship is about children, isn't it?
They are the only group of people who cannot FREELY trace thier roots - including all the respondents here.
Medical reasons alone give the donor-conceived enough reason to want to know about thier true DNA. Let alone squaring identity crises due to having absentee parents - life-long COMPULSORY absentee parents at that.
Seveteen out of twenty adoptees went to traced, which shows how popular tracing is.
The donors' family trees are bogus,they do not comprise fully of thier real relatives. They are supposed to live a lie, in order to disguise fertlity problems.
The donatiom of egg and sperm is human trafficking and contravenes a fair few Human Rights Acts.
Sorry, but it's true, and whether you want to unfavourably compare a poverty stricken trailer park family to well-educated career women or examine tbe quality of life in other epochs that were maybe undesirable comapred to today
(extinction is unlikely, in fact unheard of recently even as a concept except on this blog)...
Will the best will in the world, the donor-conceived have the right to be told the whole truth about themselves, and not just the part people like you do, for your own sense of political correctness.
Why can't they just adopt? At least adoptee roots' tracing is acceptable.
"Tracing your roots" is a red-herring. Trying to stop women from having children through artificial insemination is NOT because people are concerned whether or not kids can "trace their roots" It's a totally bogus side issue from people who don't have the wits or the guts to admit why they don't want women to conceive this way.
The real motivation behind this is because it makes men MARGINAL to the life-creating process and puts WOMEN and CHILDREN front and center which is right where we are supposed to be.
That's what men don't like about it.
Male contribution to creating life is minor.
Sorry that's just the way it is.
Not planned or implemented by women, but by God, evolution, nature, whatever you want to label it as.
AND unless men can graciously accept this reality western civilization is headed the way of the dinosaur.
AND many civilizations have gone extinct. Open a history book and you'll see it littered with the ruins of civilizations that no longer exist.
Boohoo for the poor men jerking off in a cup, eh? What a laughable argument that egg donation and sperm donation are the same.
As for the right to a biological history, that is not a red herring. I have read and spoken with adoptees who have a deep desire to know their biological histories. That is what motivates them. They have a need for a sense of roots...not all donor conceived children, of course, but a significant number.
And there is much concern for me about the possibility of procreating with a half sibling given the numbers of donor conceived children without any records. Thats a bit horrifying to consider. I support these individual's rights to their records.
No one is against people having a right to their records. So that is a false issue...what I'm against is people blowing the right to information so out of proportion that it superceeds every other right including womens' right to have children w/o a male overseer in charge of her.
Where are the men telling us to stop all this talk? Too busy at pole-dancing clubs getting there rocks off there to talk to us here?
Could be...
I think unless the men lose their heightened sense of machismo with the presently fashionable and indulgent sensitivity over firing blanks, then we may well look back at this era as the one when feminism failed because virility as an issue should be treated as the problem. These men need therapy.
"The real motivation behind this is because it makes men MARGINAL to the life-creating process and puts WOMEN and CHILDREN front and center which is right where we are supposed to be."
Damn I can't image being your son. Being raised to believe that men are marginal to life creating process. And told that women and child are in front. No wonder they're single mothers. Image being raised to think you are worthless.
Well I don't have a son, so I don't know if I would feel differently if I did and shade the truth trying to spare his feelings...
Don't blame me for speaking the truth...men have pushed me into this through their ongoing propoganda campaigns against mothers...
Action = Reaction...
Post a Comment