The Commodification of Sperm
June 21st, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Most sperm banks will not accept donations from men who stand under 5' 11" in height.
From there, Barbara Kay is off and running. It is, as she says, a fascinating tidbit of information and one I certainly didn't know. And, is so often the case, Kay's take on it is spot on. She pegs it for what it is - the interface of the woman who is too independent (i.e. not good at relationships with men) to have a man in her life, and the ages-old desire for a big, strong protector.
Kay goes on, and her words are better than mine:
Whether childless because of sexual orientation, a ticking biological clock aligned with bad luck in the marriage market, or principled misandry, they view their future child's fatherlessness with sanguine confidence and a clear conscience.
Amongst such committed egalitarians in all other gender-related matters, then, logic would suggest a willingness to accept height parity, or at least diversity. So why are these father-cleansing feminists choosing to "mate" with a stereotypically patriarchal symbol of physical dominance?
Because deep inside, they aren't buying the utopian theories they've superficially endorsed. Freed from the hassle of meeting Mr. Right, and at liberty to conjure up Mr. Right DNA, even women mate-free by choice want to perpetuate via their future child's hologram sire the same symbols of male strength and protectiveness women have prized since time immemorial. Their decision to " disappear" their child's father says manliness isn't important; their atavistically-driven entries on the sperm bank checklist say it is.
And, I might add, the decision to "disappear" their child's father says that they think far more of themselves than they do of their children. It's all about them and their desires and fears. Do children need fathers? That's their problem.
Read the whole piece here (National Post, 6/17/09).
Thanks to Jeremy for the heads-up.
"));
19 queries. 0.364 seconds.
June 21st, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Incidentally, if this whole vexed question of female ownership of children isn't settled, there is an alternative for men who would like children of their own, free from the potential dangers of a state-empowered mother.
The Rotunda Clinic in India provides egg-donor and surrogacy services for less than $10,000. All that's required is a single shipment of sperm via DHL to India and a 9 month wait. For full insurance against liability, choosing an egg-donor that has subsequently died is probably wisest (fills in the requirement for a mother's name on a birth certificate, thereby closing out the surrogate mother as a later claimant on you and your children).
If this strikes you as a cynical turn for the worse, consider the gender reverse of this that has already been with us for over a decade, and is now morphing into 5'11" designer babies.
June 21st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Thanks MC!
I am going the surrogate route also, in a couple years. India definitely looks like a good place for the procedure (although I wouldn't mind flying there, rather than shipping the swimmers :)
June 21st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
What was that Monty Python song again? Every sperm is sacred ... ;-)
June 21st, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Barbara Kay has written the most concisely to the point article on women's privlege, and men's subservience to it, I have ever read.
Feminists, who have billed themselves as liberationists for women, have encouraged indolent self centered behavior on the part of women at the direct expense of the children they bear and indirectly on the real and valuable contributions men make as human beings to society.
It's time for men to stop letting feminists define who we are as human beings and stand up to the incessant misandry they spew.
June 21st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I like the paradox between the notion of women being liberated via income and then turning around and seeking the traditional male protector. Her statement that the women were "unlucky" in the dating market is an excuse. The fact is that successful women who do a reasonable amount of footwork similar to their job skills could find a decent husband even today but, once again, they may not want to date too down either literally or figuratively.
This whole syndrome reminds me of another fad during the 1990's: Lonely career women buying themselves diamond rings. They couldn't find a man so they bought their own. But showing them off quickly lost it's luster. I coined the term "shopping masturbation."
If a woman gets sperm from some tall guy to have a kid, at her expense, isn't that a rather empty experience? It's similar to a woman having sex with a great looking, tall guy. I know women who did this and they were angry that... all he wanted was sex! I am NOT making this up! In the words of Pretty Woman: Women want the fairy tale. If they can afford a home and a kid and then get saddled with all the bills like a man, aren't they, well, just like a man without a girlfriend and not really a woman either?
Never underestimate women's psychology in social trends. After all, despite several decades of women earning as much or more than men, they still continue to marry up close to the same rates as 30 years ago.
June 21st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
mc,
Don't assume that is a easy ride. Its better, but it definitely isn't all great. Note that this is a place where extortion by the law enforcement is legal. Not saying that the service doesn't exist - although that too is a possibility.
I hope you guys don't find yourself explaining to a ultra-chivalrous, ultra-xenophobic and ultra-corrupt policeman (or should I say gunman?) how you should not be prosecuted for desiring to collect a child you believe is yours? Do note "prosecute" means a whole different thing in India than what you might imagine.
Go - try your luck, but try to prepare yourself to deal with what to expect.
As for sperm donors above 5'11" - I think that is a very low threshold. It should be raised to 8' ft or maybe 18'. That would help - a lot! On the other hand, this is giving me a lot of ideas.
June 21st, 2009 at 10:39 pm
PK,
What worries me is that in a few decades, the products of these "its-all-about-me" types are going to be walking among regular folks. And hurting children is being normalized for tomorrow - using a "woman as victim" paradigm today. After all how many kids can understand the value of the fathers they never had? They may "want" fathers, but you got to have a good father to value one.
On the other hand, this isn't as revolutionary - infact it is a bit relieving for the men. Now they can produce offspring and not be made to pay for them. If evolution is an predictor, males coming out of the sperm-bank culture are going to be genetically predisposed to free-loading. Folks that are complaining about selfish males should just wait till this new man comes around.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 am
The funny thing about sperm banks is that if you believe all the hype about the number of deadbeat men out there, why do sperm banks even need to exist?
Think about it. If there are vast hoards of men only too happy to knock women up and then abandon them without even caring about their children, there would be little need for women to have sperm banks to facilitate single parenthood by choice. They could simply wait for their feckless man to come along, do the deed, and then leave them to it. Or wait for the milkman's next delivery.
The mere existence of sperm banks suggests that there is more demand from women for the tadpoles of men with no desire to be fathers or husbands than there are such men prepared to even get women pregnant through conventional means.
What a sad and pathetic commentary on modern womanhood!
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:34 am
This seems troubling, but I wouldn't worry about it.
In England, when the government decided kids of sperm donors had the right to know their bio-dads when they turned 18, the sperm banks dried up. In the US, the same thing is bound to happen.
What's happened (and you can Google this) is all these kids are starting to grow up and band together and form groups. Their natural instinct is to find their dads. Where will this lead?
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 am
This is one step towards the creation of designer babies. If Glenn will forgive me in this context, when the Nazis did it ,it was called eugenics.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 am
Not to suggest something devious, but don't the current laws favor the sperm-donor dad more than the so-called sperm donor (usually also with choice adjectives) dad? Where is equal treatment under law? Either that, or the responsibility is not related to the genetic heritage of the child, but is directly seen as a price for the male-female intercourse in the case of later. Can other fathers also get the same respect as sperm donor dads, if they agree to use turkey basters too? Please?
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:16 am
Men have no rights only responsibilities...
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 am
It's a bit off to compare a male sexual trait (men being taller than women) with a health trait that is shared (being overweight). And you have to wonder - what do women from ethnic groups that aren't that tall do?
I'm curious as to where the 'no one under 5-11' rule came from. Is it universal? The practice of a big chain? Is there a guideline set by some governing body?
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
The same women who label men with so-called "trophy" wives as "shallow" and "disgusting" think themselves "prudent" and "empowered" for purchasing only sperm with stereotypical masculine traits.
Despite all their bellyaching that biology -- that testicles and the Y-Chromosome itself -- are unimportant in forging maleness -- that only socialization and culture matter -- their own sperm selection proves their self-deception. Even they admit men and women are very different, if only in the secret cloisters of sperm banks.
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
what women judge men based on physical traits? this is news to me....only men do that thought....in fact I thought women didn't judge people at all....they are just paragons of virtue who love everyone for who they are.......
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:07 am
Barbara Kay wrote: Most sperm banks will not accept donations from men who stand under 5' 11" in height.
I'm skeptical about this Barbara Kay's assertion.
Within just a few moments, I searched a sperm bank online and found 127 matches for donors with heights between 5' 5" and 5' 10" (inclusive).
Another quick search at another sperm bank found several donors whose height was less than 5' 11".
Still another quick search at yet another sperm bank found 47 donors whose height was less than 5' 11".
(In each case, I selected a maximum height of 5' 10" and made height a "Must have" requirement.)
I'll be the first to admit that the above examples are anecdotal, and perhaps by chance I just happened to find three sperm banks that do accept men with heights less than 5' 11.
But where is Barbara Kay's evidence -- she provides none in her National Post column -- and is her "evidence" any more comprehensive than my quick anecdotal searches?
So until I see more credible and comprehensive evidence in support of Barbara Kay's claim, I will remain skeptical.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
...I wouldn't meet the so-called height requirement. But if a a genie in a lamp appeared and gave me 50 wishes, I don't think being taller would make the list. Oh well...
"Attention SperMart shoppers. Sale on major college basketball player sperm today in Aisle 4! Don't miss this chance to give your child the height accessory that will make you proud!"
"Attention SperMart shoppers! Sale on CalTech sperm today in Aisle 5! Don't miss this chance to make your child a math whiz!"
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 am
I guess I'm not that surprised, really.
I mean a sperm bank is, by definition, commodified reproductive material. So in that setting, of course women will try to select the "best genes" they can find, in a rather detached, bottom-line way.
Selecting for height makes sense, not in terms of protection, but in terms of future propagation of the genes. If the child created is male, it's very advantageous for that male, in terms of his own possibilities for replication, to be taller rather than shorter. Short men are genetically disadvantaged in the mating market because women almost all prefer men who are taller than they are for mating. So short men can find mates, of course, but the likelihood of replication is higher for taller men. So on that basis alone, it makes "sense" for a woman to select sperm from taller men (regardless of whether the bank limits other men from donating sperm or not).
As Amy Aikon herself admits, short men are going to have difficulties in the mating market, without question.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
"In England, when the government decided kids of sperm donors had the right to know their bio-dads when they turned 18, the sperm banks dried up. In the US, the same thing is bound to happen."
What is more likely to happen in America is that the mothers will be given the right to sue the sperm donor for support. Once that happens, the sperm banks will disappear overnight. Somebody in Massechusetts already tried this last year -- the legislature put a stop to it, but that won't last forever.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Cousin Dave: seems very likely that one day a state will go after money from sperm donor dad after the liberated mom files for welfare.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
"Selecting for height makes sense, not in terms of protection, but in terms of future propagation of the genes. If the child created is male...."
But what if the child is female? Height is a disadvantage for women, in that every inch a woman gets over the average of 5'4", the less chance she has of reproducing.
So this won't be of any advantage if the women have sperm-donor daughters.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
"So this won't be of any advantage if the women have sperm-donor daughters."
Do you really think these mothers care how their offsprins will fare in the world? Besides, the daughters of these women can always follow in their mother's footsteps. As long as sperm is cheap, this is going to go on.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
"But what if the child is female? Height is a disadvantage for women, in that every inch a woman gets over the average of 5'4", the less chance she has of reproducing.
So this won't be of any advantage if the women have sperm-donor daughters."
That's partially true, but women run that risk every day by relentlessly preferring tall men. And I'm not at all convinced that height in a woman is a disadvantage unless the woman is truly very tall. I was at a community pool this weekend and one of the lifeguards -- a female college student -- was about 5'9" in her barefeet and completely stunning. I'm sure that her height (in heels she would be quite tall) will not hold her back very much.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
re: What's happened (and you can Google this) is all these kids are starting to grow up and band together and form groups.
...So these kids actually start to yearn for information about the stranger who provided half their identity? About the stranger whom they might resemble 100%? Who'd have thought it?...
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Novaseeker,
You should know better than to offer an anedcotal evidence to make an argument. This study finds that men who are taller on average and women who are shorter on average have better reproductive success.
I don't care how nice looking your lifeguard is. The taller men will select the shorter females over her to breed with because men prefer women several inches shorter. Here is a link to the study:
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/procroysoc.pdf
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Days of broken arrows:
Regarding your astute observation about tall females resulting from sperm donor contributions the answer is easy:
(I will simply parrot Mr. Franklin's sentiment about the child not knowing their father): That's the child's problem. Mom doesn't have to worry about the daughter being alone for substantial periods of her life (or potentially childless). It's *the daughter's* issue.
The feminists are becoming hoarse with their constant banshee screeching "It's for the children!" and the machinery built around this concept (designed to beat dads into the ground) is breaking down. As MRA's influence grows so too does editors and publishers daring to challenge the common "man bad, woman good" mantra.
In the past 3 years I have seen a veritable explosion (comparatively speaking) of pro-father / pro-male / pro-boy articles.
It it's "for the children!" (and it's demonstrably proven single motherhood is statistically the most dangerous environment for kids) then there is no reason for feminists to fight presumptive shared custody. If it's "for the children" then there is no reason to hide paternity fraud. Their message is coming back to haunt them.
The fact that feminists fight tooth and nail to maintain female/mother privilege at the cost of *CONTINUED GREAT HARM TO CHILDREN* shows quite clearly it was NEVER about the children.
Things are reaching a tipping point not so much in the legal world, but in the court of public opinion. My hope is that the courts will soon follow behind the swinging public sentiment.
Check this article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/girls+smarter+than+boys/1714893/story.html
It's about the apparent boy disadvantage in education. It's phrased as a question: "are girls smarter than boys?" But look at the comments! Almost every single one blames the educational establishment and shames critics of helping boys for trying to blame boys ("blame the victim").
Here is another article:
http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/national_wane_washington_bayh_proposes_fatherhood_legislation_200906191257_rev1
Again read the comments. Many (even women) are indignant at the reduction of NCP dads to walking wallet and beg the question: what about mothers who interfere with access? What about NCP mothers who don't pay support?
The winds of change are blowing. The feminists can smell the change in the air, and it makes them nervous.
I think that's a partial explanation to all of the new trolls popping up here lately.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
''Never underestimate women's psychology in social trends. After all, despite several decades of women earning as much or more than men, they still continue to marry up close to the same rates as 30 years ago''
But this can't go on - society will break down as men can only get the money to impress women through easy credit. Hence the credit crunch- blame 2 faced womanhood....
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Men do prefer women who are several inches shorter.. well not several, but a zero-few will do just fine. "Taller than me" only seems to be a initial issue - probably something ingrained in human male nature to seek females that are shorter than themselves. Maybe there is a bio-evolutionary reason, who knows!
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
"You should know better than to offer an anedcotal evidence to make an argument. This study finds that men who are taller on average and women who are shorter on average have better reproductive success."
But as I said, Days, women run this risk by selecting tall men even when they are not doing it at a sperm bank. It makes perfect sense for women to select male criteria at the bank that they would in the flesh.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
I noticed that nobody addressed Knock knock's statement about the availability of sperm from donors under the claimed "regulated height." There's a good reason why that sperm is available and yet not accepted by the banks: there is not enough demand on it that they're required to regularly replenish the supply as they are with the sperm donated from taller men.
As far as personal preference vs. actual outcome, I can say from personal experience that the women I have found most success with romantically were not those that I would physically consider ideal. I'd dare hypothesize that, psychologically, the trend would be for emotional connection to be a greater factor in long-term compatibility than physical attraction. The sperm bank, unfortunately, removes this aspect from the equation. I guess the words of Jimmy Soul have gone unheeded for far too long...
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
Pursuit of Happiness
Regarding the observation made by DaysofBrokenArrows and Pankaj about the anti-Darwinist effects of these women's preferences for tall men's sperm on their daughters' chances of marrying, it got me thinking about women's mate selection choices in general. It explains why young marriages often don't last: The good looking football captain whose allowed to slide through math class often winds up being a used car salesman later in life. (Nothing against used car salesmen) and these women wind up dissatisfied later with their youthful choice.
There's also the wierd relationship of the unwed mother with her sperm donor. She wants a patriarchal protector based yet consider the guy's actions: He was paid 100 bucks or so to do his business into a cup for a stranger. Doesn't that sound like a deadbeat?
The author of the column made a number of intersting points but she didn't touch on the fact that unwed-mother-by-choice families are partly incestuous. The mother is unable to form relationships with men for decades and decides, for companionship, to make someone she has control and dominion over. Doesn't that sound messed up? It reminds me of bride of Frankenstein.
5'9" tall lifeguard women can probably still find taller men (the latest generation of men are on average that tall or more) but DaysofBrokenArrows has a point that men will prefer women shorter than them even if not necessarily out of personal preference, but also because such women will probably prefer men several inches taller than them.
Personal ads from such women usually state that they like to wear heels when dancing and enjoy the taller man experience so a 5'9" woman will only get really turned on if the guy is at least a 6 footer (one woman even snyly said that in her ad: "At least 6 feet!" and then griped that these guys were dating shorter women.) The supply of those guys with a decent income and no drug habits, etc, is rather low.
Where am I going with all of this? The conclusion appears to be that women live in a universe where there are few guys that turn them on and exist in a state of perpetual dissatisfaction. The guy should be ultra tall, succe$$ful, great personality, sensitive, strong, chivalrous, experienced, but no baggage. Happiness, for what it's worth, is for these women to "settle" (the bad word they hate to hear) but that's reality. On the other hand, not settling means an Oedipus complex....
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
20
miles Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Cousin Dave: seems very likely that one day a state will go after money from sperm donor dad after the liberated mom files for welfare.
============================================================
MIles,
From last year, there is This story. He was ordered to pay support with back support owed. at least it was overturned.
This kind of thing is already happening. I wonder how long it will be before they go after the sperm donor of Octomom?
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
"This kind of thing is already happening. I wonder how long it will be before they go after the sperm donor of Octomom?"
I've been wondering that too; it seems to be the only means of exploiting her children she hasn't tried yet. I wonder if that guy would have donated if he'd known how it was going to be used?
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
"It explains why young marriages often don't last: "
PK, I vehemently disagree! Young marriages that are not corrupted by distorted ideas of status don't last long. But its not because they are young - its about the distorted view of status. For example, John Moses Browning would have been a catch even at 15. What has changed is the idea that working has to be limited for adults. (Think of it as adult unions keeping out "scab" youngsters - using police force against those that would hire youngsters). Also, the idea of male disposability has been enhanced by welfare statism. Today, young women need not put in as much thought in the kinds of men they associate with - so "fun" is a good enough criteria.
Again, I am not suggesting that this is the way things need to be once again - just trying to explain that there are very significant environmental factors that have changed that usually go unnoticed and the wrong things get blamed!
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
"Young marriages that are not corrupted by distorted ideas of status don't last long."
correction -
"Young marriages that are not corrupted by distorted ideas of status DO last long."
E.g. marriages before welfare statism, public education (that misinforms youngsters about real nature of status) and state control over marriage and divorce.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I don't think Days of Broken Arrows point about these sperm-buying moms-to-be selecting tall men is invalidated necessarily by the fact that dating women prefer taller men.
The difference maker is that when a women is courting a father of her children her choices are mitigated by the choices of men who will have her.
I've noticed that men (and this is by **no** means scientific--but I'd like to hear other's thoughts) who are 6'1" to (say) 6'4" tend to marry women a *good* 4-6 inches shorter than themselves. I also notice a lot of women who are 5'2, 5'4 stating they won't date a man less than 6'. I think there may be something ingrained in exceptionally tall men to go for a semi-extreme height advantage.
I would imagine that exceptionally tall lean women would have narrow hips and may have birth complications. So there may be a averaging affect in which short women and tall men are attracted to each other.
A woman who is 5'9" may want to date a man 6'1"-6'3", but they are all taken by 5'4" & shorter women with wide hips and have to settle for a man 5'10" - 5'11". So, you have average couples (with the man only marginally taller) and balancing couples which tend to average out the population (is my theory--which is mostly conjecture).
The sperm has no choice who uses it. So this affect is non-existent with fertilized moms.
There is nothing to prevent test-tube mommy who is 5'10" from selecting a "mate" who is 6'2" (where normally the best she may have been able to do face-to-face was 5'11") and having Amazon children.
Height is seen as a leadership quality and seen as good for men, but not necessarily good for women (maybe good for being in the boardroom, but not for mate selection).
So, I agree that this is overall probably a bad thing for the daughter's of these fertilized moms. But, it's also a hardship that millions of women have to navigate anyway.
But, it does put one more nail in the coffin of the selfishness of these moms.