When socialist Rene Almeling decided to look into the operations of U.S sperm banks and egg agencies she thought she knew what she would find. She found something very different from what she expected – a market that not only defies conventional wisdom but also the basic law of supply and demand. Her research findings,which appear in the June issue of the American Sociological Review are revealing. She found that, in terms of assisted reproduction:
“Men donors are paid less for a much longer time commitment and a great deal of personal inconvenience,”. They also are much less prepared for the emotional consequences of serving as a donor of reproductive material. Women, meanwhile, are not only paid more for a much shorter time commitment, they are repeatedly thanked for ‘giving the gift of life.’
“ Egg donors are treated like gold while sperm donors are perceived as a dime a dozen.”
In short, sperm donors, from compensation to donor relations, are less valued than egg donors. I think this is wrong. But why is there this double standard? I believe that very few people are aware it exists and we are only just beginning to see yet another facet of the fertility industry.
I find it amazing how blogging about a particular subject can lead you into unexpectedly discovering much more about a related subject. When Timethief sent me this link and I saw the title, I asked myself, even before reading the full article, “Why does this not surprise me?” For it didn’t surprise me that eggs were valued more than sperm, given the prevailing societal trend line being pushed that men aren’t really that important when it comes to either conceiving or bringing up a child. Except when it comes to financial support. A line that I personally believe is a self-serving lie. Society elevates mothers. It (increasingly) devalues fathers and fatherhood.
Since writing my articles on sperm donors and the increasingly far-reaching implications of sperm donation (donor conceived offspring becoming able to find their unsuspecting biological fathers) I’ve been curious as to whether egg donation was looked at in the same light. I know many of you are as well. While this article doesn’t necessarily address all my questions it does reveal some interesting gender based differences, double standards and inequities in how egg donors and sperm donors are valued – and indeed treated – in and by the assisted reproduction business.
Almeling’s thought-provoking research is well worth a read and I encourage you to do so, as I’m only highlighting the immediate things that stood out for me, for example:
- It is not unusual for egg donors to make upwards of $5,000 per donation, whatever the outcome. Agencies also encourage recipient couples to provide female donors with thank-you notes, small tokens of appreciation and even cash bonuses.
- Sperm banks neither pay as well, nor do they receive the same displays of gratitude. Male donors make between $50–$70 per donation, but only when their samples meet the high quality required for freezing.
- Men work much longer for their pay than their women counterparts and are more at risk from being stressed or sick. They are required to provide weekly donations for a year AND refrain from sex for two days prior to donation. In short the men have to reschedule their sex lives for a year if they are a sperm donor.
- Women also have to refrain from sex, however only for six weeks. But they are subject to more complications and a more invasive procedure than are men
- Here’s one that shocked me… women were repeatedly reminded of their generosity in donating eggs, while men tended to be reminded that this was just another job…
“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 said. “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.”
It’s also clear from Almeling’s study that much stereotyping is in play in the valuing of eggs and egg donors above sperm and sperm donors. Think “selfless (and saintly) motherhood” and “distant fatherhood” and the feminine ideas of giving, altruism, nurturing being fully ascribed to the “mother”, but not to the “father.”
It isn’t just eggs being marketed and purchased, but certain stereotypical visions of motherhood, fatherhood and parenting.
I am glad this research (the first of its kind) is being done. I think this gender bias in assisted reproduction is completely wrong and that it further entrenches the idea that only the female half of the process is important, or at any rate, more important than the male contribution.
I don’t think many sperm donors realize just how undervalued they are by the fertility industry, nor that they are quite under-informed when it comes to sperm donation. The message seems to be “well, you’re only doing what you normally do, aren’t you? So you don’t really matter” I find that extremely disturbing, given that without the sperm, when it comes to making babies, the egg is pretty useless.
Coupled with the fact that the offspring might now well be able to find their donor parent, if I were a man considering donating sperm (or,as one donor put it “helping a family to have a baby and giving something back to society”), I would be decidedly less enthusiastic about spreading my seed and DNA around God knows where , particularly if said seed and supplier are so undervalued. And I’d demand that the fertility industry – or at the very least the sperm bank – cease treating me in manner of a mushroom.
My thanks to Timethief for this very interesting link.
Sperm Donors Valued Less Than Egg Donors
American Sociological Association
Who’s Your Daddy? The Search For Sperm Donors
Technorati Tags: Egg donors, sperm donors, gender based differences, donor parent
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
this is an interesting story, sort of similar to the ones that have been mentioned
A woman who gave her eggs to help two childless friends fears she has been left infertile by her act of kindness.
Donna Stickels, 26, revealed her personal ordeal to warn other women about the potential dangers of egg donation.
Her story began seven years ago when she offered to help a married friend who was desperate to start a family after years of failed fertility treatment.
Donna’s generosity resulted in the delighted woman giving birth to twin boys and she later became their godmother.
A second donation of eggs to another friend failed to result in a pregnancy, but the woman later conceived naturally.
Although both childless women realised their dream of becoming mothers, the fertility treatment appears to have had tragic implications for Donna.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=453507&in_page_id=1770
I would say that the similarity as related to the research on the fertility industry is that the overall tone of the story is “The saintly theme” that runs throughout the daily mail stroy. In donating her eggs twice, she is described as “generous” portrayed as “self-sacrificing” “nurturing” (of course), “long suffering” and the woman, who, in her own words, “couldn’t say no” and “didn’t want to be the person responsible for [the other woman] being childless!! By this time I was looking in earnest for the puke bucket. I gather we are supposed to think ah, poor woman who is never going to be able to conceive.. and feel really sorry for her, but hang on – she is a single mother of one according to the article.
Personally, I don’t buy the self-sacrificing line. She really should have had more sense than to keep donating her eggs, in spite of the risks (she was warned). But suppose it must have been a heady feeling for her to be “giving life” and “helping two little lives into the world” and the story makes her out to be almost a saint. Spare me.
Now, even though she can’t have any more of her own she has at least two women and at least two kids who will be eternally grateful to her for “giving them life.” Of course, going back to my original post on the research, no surprise that I see no mention of the male half of the donation story… At any rate it’s all about the eggs – the egg donor and giving someone a chance to have a baby.
It is interesting that sperm and their importance are so misunderstood. It is the age and quality of the sperm donor and his genetic background that carries the difference for the child’s health. If the sperm donor has no serious genetic illnesses in his background and he is between 24-and 31 his sperm are worth much more than gold to any child produced. If the donor is 35 or over beware. People have no idea that sperm are responsible for introducing all kinds of disorders and genetic disease when the father is over 34. It gets worse with age so men who are in their mid 20s and very healthy should be treated as if they are donating pure gold.
exactly britgirl, thats the similarity i meant, but its not only just the sperm, its also the egg quality, its known to degrade over time, so its a combination of the both..
Britgirl: I read the article mentioned by Mercurior about a week ago and had pretty much the same thoughts as you did.
Women are treated well because if they were treated like crap for undergoing fertility treatments and invasive procedures to help other people they would leave. Egg donation isn’t nearly as easy as sperm donation.
Lemur – no-one is advocating women being treated like crap. They should be treated well. And yes, egg donation is much more invasive than sperm donation. It still does not account for the double standard uncovered by the researcher. Both men and women should be treated with equal respect in terms of donation.
Leslie – I wouldn’t be surprised if even the sperm donors themselves were unaware of the value of their sperm. The lack of information is quite astonishing.
lemur, why must people be degraded to have equality, women treated like crap because men are treated like crap, shouldnt it be treat men and woman the same is it easier to put women down than boost men.
thats one of the biggest problems, the difference of men and women, its all well and good talking about equality, but in reality women are treated better than men. mothers are treated better than childfree women.
look at the divorce rates, the pro woman laws, the vawa, the battered womens shelters, am i saying we shouldnt have them.. no. what i am saying is treat men the same, battered mens shelters, best interested of the child in divorces not automatically making the woman the sole parent and expect the man to pay.
why must people become less to be equal, why not boost other to become equal. it may be harder but much more rewarding
I’m the donor in the daily mail story and having read your comment I would like to stress that I’m no saint…and I’m not looking for sympathy…I was warned of side effects but infertility was not one of them at the time. I appreciate that you have an opinion on the subject but really my aim was to hopefully warn other women that their own fertility is at risk when donating eggs. I have got a child and I’m very lucky but I had my child when I was 18 and would have liked to have the choice to have more children in the future. But having the child I have, I appreciate how lucky I am. What’s not ok is the 6 operations I have had since the IVF treatment and the pain resulting from the treatment and my 6 monthly scans and meetings with my consultant, quite frankly it’s not life threatening but it’s definately life affecting. I’m quite sure no other woman donating their eggs would want this and I strongly urge women considering donating their eggs to consider all the risks carefully. I’m no saint believe me I was just trying to give my friends the chance to have a family. As for the sperm donor..it wasn’t mentioned as it wasn’t relevant.
thats the way the story seemed to be slanted. at least to us.
it was nothing personal towards you. its the way the writers put it.
I think you did a thing for your friends that not many would consider, even though it ended badly. i am sure those people you donated the eggs to would be great parents.
So if anyone is to blame for angling it into the sympathy side its the reporters, we agree people should know everything, but a lot are told.