Science has changed the ‘eternal law’ that says the existence of a man is inevitable in a woman’s life.
A team of scientists has announced recently that they have made artificial sperm from human bone marrow.
Gregory Stock, director of the program on medicine, society and technology at the UCLA School of Medicine and the CEO of a biotech company called Signum Biosciences, said that this discovery does not represent radical scientific advancement. According to him, the media hype about the ‘artificial sperm’ is not contextual at all. Experiments have been able to create eggs and sperm, so-called ‘artificial gametes’, from embryonic stem cells and other cell types for quite some time now, though success was limited in these experiments. Thus, the bone marrow discovery is nothing new.
But the very concept of reproducing through artificially manufactured sperms is definitely a radical concept in the history of human civilization. It questions the basic structure of human society, the age-old man-woman relationship, and the familiar process of reproduction by sexual intercourse.
With this discovery, a man could really seem ‘not so necessary’ from the point of view of a woman. A woman choosing not to have a man in her life and yet wanting to reproduce, can actually produce the much required sperm from her own bone marrow, and fertilize the eggs of another woman.
The alternative procedure of reproduction through artificial sperms has till date proven to be effective.
According to David Magnus, director of Stanford University’s Center for Biomedical Ethics, –
It is easy to see how stem cells could go from just being used for research purposes to being used to have kids. Of course you have the dilemma of needing human experiments but looking at the history [of IVF], that hasn’t stopped people and so far it has worked out pretty well.
The mainstream media is booming with the revelation and has apparently written off the male gender as ‘unnecessary’.
‘Men could be completely sidelined’
– said Britain’s Daily Mail.
‘Women to Self Create’
– remarked Australia’s Daily Telegraph.
‘Men beware!’
– warned a U.S. news website.
Brian Alexander has written an article in the MSNBC, which, with a sympathetic approach towards men, has partly denounced the theory. Brian’s article expresses a sense of being threatened by this scientific discovery. The article seems desperate to prove the point that men are, after all, ‘necessary’, even if partially.
He tries to find consolation in the idea –
As long as sex feels good and remains no more expensive than dinner and a bottle of wine, most people will use natural-grown sperm.
So after all, if we look at the whole picture from the point of view of reproduction, the entire population of women on this planet would do absolutely fine without men.
However, Stock, author of the book ‘Redesigning Humans’ says, –
The importance is just the idea of two women having a child, one creating sperm and other having an oocyte [egg]. Well, what does that say about marriage laws? About whether men are needed? There are all sorts of ways that play into our psyche, who and what we are, what relationships are all about, the limits of the technological vision of ourselves.
Despite all protests and counter-theories, this is definitely good news for lesbians. At least it changes the fact that homosexuals are always ‘deprived’ of the satisfaction of having children. Lesbians are the women who have already taken the decision that men were not ‘necessary’ in their lives. The idea of making sperms from bone marrow at least opens a new window for them.
As for heterosexual women, hardcore feminists may see the theory of reproduction through artificial sperms as an absolute triumph. After all, the days of feeling like an ‘outcast’ or ‘abnormal’ without a man is over at last for women. Bridget Jones does not need to go ‘man-hunting’ any more. She does not have to put up with alcoholic, commitment-phobic, sports-addict men any more.
However, the whole idea involves the idea of seeing men as either a ‘tool for reproduction‘ or a ‘tool for sexual pleasure’. Exactly as women have been seen and treated by men and the patriarchal society all these days.
‘So what? Serves them right.’- most feminists would say. However, there is a bug that bothers me when I attempt saying the same.
If we become the very thing we are fighting, does it help? If a matriarchal society is the alternative for a patriarchal society, does it just mean a change in the gender of the dictator?
How do we justify the hope for a better world with women in control, if the basic rules and viewpoints of a patriarchal society don’t change but are applied with equal cruelty to the opposite sex?
Via : MSNBC
Image Credit : MSNBC