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
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.
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?