The recent discovery by scientists at Newcastle University and the North East England Stem Cell Institute that human sperm can be artifically cultivated from stem cells has captured the attention of the British media. It has also served to further strengthen the opinion that unlike the near-universal condemnation of racism, sexism is widespead and broadly tolerated in our society.
“The real ethical issue here is that we do not foreclose the beneficial possibilities of research through prejudice or fear.”
Articles bearing titles such as ‘Men are redundant, but let’s keep them anyway’ and ‘The end of men?’ have appeared in volume suggesting that this scientific breakthrough is an opportunity to eliminate men from human civilisation as it makes them wholly redundant. Of course, even the most cursory look at the research itself reveals that this technology only allows for the production of sperm from embryos derived from male stem cells. Still, the sudden rush to suggest that men are now disposable and the casualness with which this is proposed is troubling for a number of reasons.
These articles posit that the ‘purpose’ of men, if human life has a purpose at all, is solely to allow for the production of children. The suggestion that men could be excised from society now that male sex cells can be produced synthetically leaves its proponents open to the counter that artifical wombs will make women equally redundant as the meiotic processes which underpin reproduction would then be wholly replaceable.
It also shows that the authors of such articles suffer from a deep cognitive dissonance: most people would recoil in horror at the suggestion that some technological advance would mean that, say, ‘blacks could be done away with’ and yet this statement is morally equivalent to suggesting the elimination of men—both create arbitrary distinctions based on biological categorisations. T-shirts bearing the juvenile and sexist slogan ‘boys are stupid, throw rocks at them’ are widely available. How long would an ‘Asians are stupid, throw rocks at them’ T-shirt survive before being recalled? Why the disparity? While the reportage is mostly intended to be tongue-in-cheek and few journalists are genuinely prophesying the downfall of men, the fact that this is even jokingly suggested shows that sexism towards men is tolerated in a way that other prejudices are not.
The media have also for the most part been myopic in their reportage. This discovery could prove to be an inadvertant step on the way to a posthuman future, one in which the limits of gender will be transcended and reproduction will no longer be the privilege of the fertile. The production of artifical sex cells means that same-sex couples could potentially have a child that is genetically their own; indeed, it even allows a woman to be both father and mother of her child.
Arguably, the random realignment of genes which underpins the production of sperm and egg will someday be eliminated in favour of a more egalitarian genesis. Bioethicist John Harris believes that the technology increases human choice by allowing infertile men to recreate their own sperm and so should be heralded as a breakthrough. He astutely points out that women have for many years had the option of artificial insemination and that “the real ethical issue here is that we do not foreclose the beneficial possibilities of research through prejudice or fear.”
9 Comments
This kind of talk always seems to resurface whenever sperm is discussed in the media. I find that it's difficult to know to what extent these journalists are sincere when they equate the utility of sperm to that of men, but either way, it's not really very funny to talk about individuals in such an essentialist way.
But I suspect that the only reason that the media is so fixated on this issue is because it's a way of talking about sex without explicitly talking about it.
Oh, and I note that you're now using DISQUS to power your comments. What do you think of their service? It looks to be a little tidier than IntenseDebate. I'm considering trying them out. Do you know if they allow the admin the option of importing previously logged comments?
I'm sure you're right. It's this idea of sex being ubiquitous to the point of desensitisation and yet still a taboo topic, somehow.
I thought I'd give DISQUS as a go as it seems so much cleaner than IntenseDebate but with similar functionality. It does allow the import of comments, yes. See what you think.
It's pretty rare to find anyone who is prepared to talk about sexism against men sincerely. I have to say that the newspaper reports for this did pass me by though. I have thought for a long while that men are the victims of unfair stereotyping in the media and in society at large. Men are often characteristed as being brutish, egocentric and of course that cringeworthy phrase ” men are only interested in one thing”. Granted this is almost always done in a light-hearted way but unlike what little humour people glean from other prejudice, it is never performed with ironic intent.
I think part of the problem is that men accept and live up to the stereotypes society has set them. Whereas we would no longer praise a woman for becoming some sort of 50s role model and devoting her life to home and husband, men will perhaps find praise for having sex with multiple partners, being tough and so on. I don't believe any of these things are particularly bad in themselves. However, when they become goals or expectations for one gender and not for another then they are offensive to those men who have no desire to live up to the stereotype. Nevertheless men will carry out what has been prescribed for them and the entire operation will become a sort of vicious circle. Stereotypes are set, men are conditioned into doing them, and then the stereotype itself gains credence as men are seen to be acting in accordance with it.
I could go on, but I'll just finish by explaining why I don't believe this circularity will ever be broken down. Unlike with the feminist movement, where there was a genuine oppression of women's freedom, men are not necessarily forced into there roles (although it could be argued that boys are primed for some of these roles as children, but I'd rather not bring nature vs. nurture into this) in fact some men evidently enjoy living up to a stereotype. Now there is nothing wrong in that, but it doesn't bode well for those of us who don't want to be the victims of such ruthless stereotyping. The best that we could ever hope for then is to raise awareness of the issue by writing articles like yours Henry, well done!
(PS: I thought this high brow article required my attempt at a high brow response, so I hope I haven't made too much of a fool of myself).
Chris, I hope you'll forgive me for butting in.
Sexism against men is, as you say, something of a taboo subject. In fact, sexism as a whole seems to be a topic which most people will avoid discussing if possible. However, the concern you raise about heteronormativity in attitudes towards masculinity is certainly a salient one. Whether the spin be positive or otherwise, the assumption that men are predisposed to prefer casual sex and aggressive chauvinism is, still, just as prevalent as it is harmful.
But I must concede that I found the pessimism in your final paragraph alarming. Surely, if the assumption that men behave in certain ways by default is a cultural imposition, as you imply that you believe, then it is, by definition, a problem which can be overcome? If the chauvinistic behaviour of some men is a mechanistic phenomenon, then we have every chance of excising it from our society. After all, we created it. Your defeatism, then, is misplaced.
I think I'm going to use DISQUS from now on, too. It's certainly less aesthetically aggressive than IntenseDebate, and I think there's a little more visual customisation to play with.
There was an article in the T2 the other day which was something along the lines of '101 uses for a man' and included such things as “opening the lids on jars”, “drinking lukewarm fermented hops” and what have you. It is a little alarming that The Times would print something which unimaginatively confirms all the stereotypes of masculinity; there is no way that they would print the equivalent article regarding women (101 uses for a woman: “needing a man to open jars”, “not understanding the offside rule” etc).
It is sexist but it's also tongue-in-cheek. Also as Chris implies in his previous comment the fact is that many people embrace the perceived gender role that society prescribes to them – being a 'feminine' man or a 'masculine' woman is considered contrary to the norm. One might assume these people to be homosexual, purely because of their apparent adoption of the character traits stereotypical to the opposite sex.
I think I perhaps misspoke when I said we will not be able to break down the circularity. Rather, I was trying to argue that although we may never be able to rid ourselves of the stereotypical behaviour, society can certainly rid itself of the stereotype. To again draw a parallel with the feminist movement, although feminists may have ridden society (for the most part) of unfair stereotyping of females, they have not gotten rid of housewives or any other stereotypical female behaviour which existed prior to their campaign.
I am unsure if it is actually possible or desirable to rid society of what we may call stereotypical male behaviour. I tried to skirt around the nature versus nurture issue for this very reason, I am simply unsure on which side of the fence this type of behaviour belongs. If it is at least in some part a product of environment, then I certainly think that removing male stereotypes would lower the expectation on males to act in certain ways. However if there is some sort of evolutionary tendeny for males to act in accordance with the stereotype, removing it would prove a difficult task. Even if we could, I do not believe that this sort of behaviour should be forcibly removed. As I stated earlier, I have no qualms with stereotypical male behaviour for the most part, only the assumption that all men must conform to it.
Chris, thanks very much for the comment—I'm chuffed to see I have a readership!
I think you're definitely right that, in many cases, men are happy to fit into the cookie-cutter stereotype made for them. Indeed, the tagline of archetypal lads' mag Loaded is “for men who should know better.”
That said, I think there's an even greater reinforcing effect than the one you stated: not only do some men conform to their stereotype and in so doing reinforce it but in many cases very 'masculine' men are *rewarded* for being so. You suggest that there's perhaps an evolved reason for macho behaviours, and I imagine that in addition people's (evolved?) biases might reward them for such behaviour, which is more problematic. More assertive people tend to earn more then their less assertive peers (though that may simply be because they ask for higher pay), but the same is true for extroverts over introverts, more attractive people over less attractive people, taller men over shorter men. It might, therefore, not be enough to simply assert that 'not all men fit stereotype X' because men would still be under pressure to conform to a certain stereotype if they want to succeed in certain roles in life. How to excise this bias from society, I do not know; as you suggest, if it is evolved then it may be difficult to isolate.
While I think you're right not to seek to remove macho behaviour from society I reckon there is something to be said for maintaining a certain environment in offices, say—people report 'lad culture' infiltrating workplaces and making them stifling places to be, and I think there are many people who would find ultra-masculine behaviours at work would make their jobs unbearable, but I suppose that would fall under more general laws about having a right to a non-threatening workplace.
I'll be writing a follow-up to this post that looks at the misandrist bias in scientific literature which has the potential to be very damaging indeed as it claims to empirically document gender differences where none exist, and I'd love your thoughts on that when it appears.
The “put down men” phenomenon is but a feeble drumming of tiny fists against an all powerful world order ruled by men. Business, the military, science are all male dominated. The most powerful religions of the world specifically exclude women from positions of power – think of the bigotry of the Church of England with a titular female head (a female pharaoh with a beard) but fighting tooth and nail to minimize or exclude priestesses in positions of power (and we won't mention the Catholics, Muslims, Jews, baptists etc!).
The question isn't about whether we guys feel aggrieved that we're not “appreciated”, it's about what we, as men, are going to do about the disparities of power driven by misogyny.
Mike