Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction

by Cynthia R. Daniels

Exposing Men examines how ideals of masculinity have long skewed our societal--and scientific--understanding of one of the pillars of male reproductive health. Only with the recent public exposure of men's reproductive troubles has the health of the male body been thrown into question, and along with it deeper masculine ideals. Whereas once men's sexual and reproductive abilities were the most taboo of topics, today erectile dysfunction is a multi-billion dollar business, and magazine articles trumpet male reproductive decline with headlines such as "You're Half the Man Your Father Was." Cynthia R. Daniels casts a gimlet eye on our world of plummeting sperm counts, spiking reproductive cancers, sperm banks, and pharmacological cures for impotence in order to assess the true state of male health. What she finds is male reproductive systems damaged by toxins and war, and proof piling up that men through sperm, pass on harm to the children they father. Yet, despite the
evidence that men's health, as much as women's, significantly affects the vitality of their offspring, Daniels also sees a society holding on to outdated assumptions, one in which men ignore blatant health risks as they struggle to live up to antiquated ideas of manliness.

Genres: Nonfiction, School

276 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Lara Torgesen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cynthia Daniels’ book Exposing Men casts the science and politics of reproduction in a new and different light. Both the science and social politics of reproduction have traditionally been focused on women’s bodies and women’s behavior prior, during, and post-gestation. Only women can become pregnant, gestate, and lactate. So issues related to conception, fetal development, and even nurturing and care-giving for the resulting children have been examined through a gendered female lens. It is fine to view women’s bodies as vulnerable to environmental and human-made toxins as well as to cast women as potentially culpable when something goes awry during fetal development. But an advantage to this inequality is that much attention has been paid to women’s reproductive health and state-mandated protections for the health of potential mothers. Men’s bodies have typically been cast in the light of merely sperm donors. In fact, in the age of modern reproductive technologies, men’s bodies have become highly commoditized. Sperm can be bought and sold; in fact, sperm from men considered to be hegemonically masculine (tall, smart, heterosexual, good-looking, well-built) are considered to be the only acceptable form of “marketable” sperm. Men are presumed to be distant and removed from child-bearing and child-rearing. One of the results of male privilege, Daniels writes, is that we have largely ignored the reproductive health costs for men and the children they father. Sperm counts have steadily decreased over the past several decades, male reproductive cancers have steadily risen, and scientific studies of health hazards to children of fathers exposed to environmental or recreational toxins are disproportionately lacking. Daniels suggests a transformation of reproductive masculinity that would more justly represent men’s true relationship to human reproduction. A more just politics of reproduction would affirm research on male as well as female reproduction. It would address both the vulnerabilities of men to reproductive diseases and disorders as well as more heavily regulate potential environmental and other toxins. Both men and women would be held accountable for the reproductive consequences of their actions. Men and women must be seen as equally essential to human reproduction.

The science of reproduction as well as how people view the science through gendered lenses has always been very interesting to me, so I enjoyed the book. I learned from a class on religion and reproduction that infertility has often been viewed as a “woman’s problem,” yet approximately half of all infertility cases are due to male-factor infertility. One of the worst parts of the lived experience of infertility is dealing with gendered societal assumptions surrounding reproduction: for example, that women should be natural nurturers and desire to bear children, and that men should be naturally “viral” and “potent” men, capable of impregnating a female at any point in time. Another thing I had never considered is the potential role a father might play in fetal development. My own father served in the Marines and was exposed to Agent Orange. He now has a highly aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones. My mom had two miscarriages and a stillborn baby with a three-chambered heart. No one ever really considered whether these things might be related. This helps my research agenda by reminding me that societal assumptions might not always be correct, especially when gendered privileges and rewards are at stake. And in the case of male reproductive health, gender bias and male privilege may come at a high cost to men, children, and the future of our species.

[JD · Rating 4 out of 5]

Found an advance copy of this in the downtown oakland goodwill. Its not the best prose, but its got a good analysis of how our vision of men is detrimental both to humanity in general, and to men themselves.