Morning Call: pick of the comment

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Once again, a nation walks through fire to give the west its "democracy" (Independent)

Robert Fisk discusses the Iraqi election, saying that democracy doesn't seem to work for countries occupied by western troops. This election is likely to enshrine the very sectarianism that flourished under Saddam Hussein.

2. The two faces of Iraq (Times)

The Times leader is more optimistic, saying that although the elections in Iraq were marred by violence, it suggests a brighter future that millions of Iraqis risked their lives to register a vote.

3. Cuts rhetoric won't boost Labour hopes (Guardian)

"Why have swingeing cuts been so widely accepted as necessary?" asks Madeleine Bunting. This is territory long colonised by Thatcherite Tories, and would draw blood among women and the low-paid.

4. Forget the prophets of doom -- I'm proud to be a baby boomer (Daily Telegraph)

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, takes issue with the argument of David Willetts's book The Pinch. Johnson maintains that the world is a happier place thanks to his generation, and that the next will look after itself.

5. How banks can help the world's poor (Financial Times)

We need to stop separating investment decisions from philanthropic giving, says Alexander Friedman. Bringing together the building and giving away of wealth will bring about a huge increase in capital flowing to the social sector.

6. Lib Dems should refuse a coalition (Guardian)

The Liberal Democrats are getting boxed in to vagueness about what they would do in a hung parliament, says Jackie Ashley. They should be bold, and say they will back the party with an economic plan closest to their own.

7. The pound will rise as the euro heads south (Times)

Political uncertainty is holding back sterling, says Bill Emmott. But it is certain that the eurozone has a rough time ahead, making the prospects of a British recovery look stronger.

8. Why the euro will continue to weaken (Financial Times)

Wolfgang Münchau agrees that there is trouble in store for the euro -- we have always known a monetary union cannot exist without political union in the long run, but perhaps the long run has arrived sooner than expected.

9. Icelanders deserve our empathy, not bullying (Independent)

The Icelandic people object to the punitive terms of their repayment of £3.4bn to the UK and the Netherlands, rather than the repayment itself. The Independent's leading article says we need a fair settlement that reflects Icelanders' ability to repay.

10. The painful limits of localism (Guardian)

Julian Glover argues that the Tories have taken an important step towards designating the dividing line between national and local. As Labour's high-speed rail proposals show, this is essential.

Sign up now to CommentPlus for the pick of the day's opinion, comment and analysis in your inbox at 8am.

Flickr/Zappys Technology Solutions
Show Hide image

Is "successful" sperm really the measure of a man's masculinity?

An advertising campaign challenging men to "prove your worth" is being proposed to increase dwindling numbers of sperm donors – will the myth that only "real" men have potent sperm ever die?

Are you a superman? By which I mean, do you have the kind of sperm that would be accepted by the UK Sperm Bank, currently stuck with only nine donors on the books? Laura Witjens, chief executive, is currently launching a drive to recruit more donors. Her secret weapon? An appeal to male vanity.

Speaking to the Guardian, Witjens claims that if she advertised saying, “Men, prove your worth, show me how good you are”, it would be a route to gaining “hundreds of donors”. The implication is that beta males need not apply; this is for “real” men only. And what better way to demonstrate one’s manly credentials than through the spreading of one’s super-strength, 100 per cent proof, ultra-potent seed?

The proposed campaign approach serves to remind us of two things: first, the male ego is ridiculous, and second, reproductive ability is still treated as an indicator of whether or not one is a “successful” representative of one’s sex. However much we claim that biology is no longer destiny, certain expectations linger. “Real men” have high-quality sperm and want to see it distributed as widely as possible. “Real women,” on the other hand, only end up unable to reproduce if they have “left it too late” (that is, spent too much time in what is still seen as the world of men).

That fertility is primarily linked to luck rather than sexist morality tales is something we’d rather not admit. After all, far too many cultural edifices have been built around the idea that the opposite is true.

For something that resembles runny PVA glue, sperm has done well for itself. Throughout history, men have been obsessed with their precious seed and what it means for their status as the dominant sex. Since it is women who get pregnant – women who perform the actual task of gestating and birthing new human beings – there has always been a need to inflate the importance of semen, lest men should be sidelined completely. Whereas for women reproduction is a continuous process, for men it is more disjointed and conceptual. Hence it is important to have something to rely on. In sperm we trust.  

Otherwise can a man ever be sure – really, really sure – that a baby is his? For biological mothers, maternity is never in question. For biological fathers, paternity needs to be established. There are various ways of achieving this: heterosexual marriage, compulsory monogamy, the policing of women’s sexual choices, the withholding of material resources from women in return for sexual exclusivity, the threat of an appearance on Jeremy Kyle.

And then there are the various myths regarding how magical and special your own sperm is. It had to be you, didn’t it? He shoots, he scores. How else would the phrase “Who’s the Daddy?” have come into its current usage? The “skill” of impregnation is linked to manliness. If you’re a real man, the implication is, then you’ve nothing to fear.

The “superman” theme proposed by Witjens harks back to the various ways in which men have sought to position themselves and their sperm right at the centre of human reproduction, believing, for instance, that it already contained human beings in miniature, or that women merely provided the passive matter that would bring their active principle to life.

The biology I learned at school still played on the narrative of the hardy, valiant sperm battling against all odds to reach the passive, if somewhat capricious, egg. Sex education met gender indoctrination; it even seemed to be implied that the egg, in closing off entry to all other sperm once the “victor” had penetrated her boundaries, was being a bit of a tease (she’d already set off down the fallopian tube, what did she expect?). Pregnancy itself, we were led to believe, could never match the creativity, risk and drama of that one initial shag.

To respond to such myth-making with “but it’s only sperm and actually it could be anyone’s” seems positively mean. Women are supposed to worship it. Our effluvia – vaginal discharge, menstrual blood, breast milk – might be seen as disgusting, but when it comes to a man’s cum, it’s considered rude not to want to swallow it. People who respond with outrage when a woman suckles her baby in a crowded café think nothing of the idea that a real woman should want to gulp down semen with gusto. Patriarchal semiotics tell us that what comes out of men is life-giving and hygienic; women, on the other hand – popping out babies and sustenance – merely leak. It takes a brave woman to say, “hang on, is semen really all that?”

In the UK at least, it would seem that it isn’t. According to Witjens, getting one’s sperm approved for the UK Sperm Bank is exceptionally difficult because of how strong the product needs to be to survive the freezing and thawing process: “If 100 guys enquire, ten will come through for screenings and maybe one becomes a donor. It takes hundreds of guys.” Meaning most men don’t actually measure up to “superman” standards (without even considering what this approach says to men with a low sperm count, of whom it is suggested that the manhood test has been well and truly failed).

Her advertising strategy may be one that works. But it would be nice if, in a society that increasingly favours a politics of acquisition over one of care, we could be a little less focused on the potency of the mighty seed, looking instead at this particular form of donation as part of a broader process of creating and caring for others. Perhaps appeals to male vanity just work better than appeals to altruism. Even so, it’s a pity that it has to be so.

The aftermath of sperm donation can be complicated. Once one gets beyond the cash and the ego trips, the process can lead to real children with a real need to know the identity of the donor. Whereas in the past social convention allowed men to define ownership of children on their terms, nowadays globalisation and reproductive technology have led to a splintering of roles. Is it care or biology that makes a parent? What is it that shapes an identity and makes a person?

For most of us, the humane position is that nurture – the act of being there – must trump any biological contribution. To think otherwise is unfair on those who devote years of their lives to the raising of children. But for many donor-conceived adults, the donor is still needed to complete the picture of who one really is. And he will not be a superman. He will be a person who gave something small that nevertheless contributed to the creation of something miraculous: a life. And shouldn’t that be enough?

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of two who works in publishing.