Sperm stories: Policies and practices of sperm banking in Denmark and Sweden

European Journal of Women's Studies

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 393-411

  Adrian, Stine Willum ^a,b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

feminist science studies; masculinities; multi sited ethnography; narrative analysis; reading out of context; sperm banking; sperm donation

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149393441     PISSN: 13505068     EISSN: 14617420     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1350506810378078     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Adrian S. (2006) Nye skabelsesberetninger om æg, sæd og embryoner. Et etnografisk studie af skabelser på sædbanker og fertilitetsklinikker, Linkäping Studies in Arts and Sciences No. 370. Linkäping: LiU-Tryck.
2. Becker G. (2000) The Elusive Embryo: How Women and Men Approach New Reproductive Technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Bryld M. (2001) The infertility clinic and the birth of the lesbian: The political debate on assisted reproduction in Denmark. European Journal of Women's Studies 8(3): 299-312.
4. Bryld M. and Lykke N. (2000) Cosmodolphins: Feminist Cultural Studies of Technology, Animals and the Sacred. London: Zed Books.
5. Carlsen EM (2003) Giftig sæd I banken. BT, 24 October, p. 2.
6. Daniels C. (2006) Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Daniels C. and Golden J. (2004) Procreative compounds popular eugenics, artificial insemination, and the rise of the American sperm banking industry. Journal of Social History 38(1): 5-27.
8. Franklin S. (1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Reproduction. London: Routledge.
9. Franklin S., Lury C. and Stacey J. (2000) Global Nature, Global Culture. London: Sage.
10. Goggin ML and Orth D. (2004) The United States: National talk and state action in governing ART. In: Bleiklie Iet al.(eds) Comparative Biomedical Policy: Governing Assisted Reproductive Technologies. London: Routledge, 82-101.
11. Haimes E. (1993) Issues of gender in gamete donation. Social Science and Medicine 36(1): 85-93. Haraway D. (1989) Primate Visions: Gender Race and the Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.
12. Haraway D. (1992) Ecce homo, ain't (ar'n't) I a woman, and inappropriate/d others: The human in a post-humanist landscape. In: Butler J and Scott J (eds) Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge, 86-100.
13. Inhorn M. (2003) Local Babies, Global Science: Gender Religion, and in Vitro Fertilization in Egypt. New York: Routledge.
14. Kroløkke C. (2009) Click a donor: Viking masculinity on the line. Journal of Consumer Culture 9(7): 7-30.
15. Lalos A., Gottlieb C. and Lalos O. (2007) Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: A study of parental thinking. Human Reproduction 22(6): 1759-1768.
16. Liljestrand P. (1990) Rhetoric and reason: Donor insemination politics in Sweden. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Francisco.
17. Liljestrand P. (1995) Legitimate state and illegitimate parents: Donor insemination politics in Sweden. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, and Society 2(3): 270-304.
18. Lund H. and Christensen B. (2003a) Hans gener spredt over hele verden. BT, 24 October, p. 4.
19. Lund H. and Christensen B. (2003b) Sædbank kan ikke undgå psykopater. BT, 24 October, pp. 6-7.
20. Lund H. and Christensen B. (2003c) Overlæge: Jeg ville overveje en abort. BT, 24 October, p. 7.
21. LÜtzen K. (2000) Nogle ideologiske-moralske rødder til velfærdsstatens familiepolitik. Arbejder Historie, Tidsskrift for Historie, Kultur og Politik 4: 4-16.
22. Nyboe Andersen A., Gianaroli L., Felberbaum R., De Mouzon J. and Nygren KG (2006) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 21(7):1680-1697. Available at: www.eshre.com/emc.asp?pageId=496.
23. Polkinghorne D. (1988) Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24. Polkinghorne D. (1995) Narrative configuration in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education 8(1): 5-23.
25. Schmidt M. and Moore LJ (1998) Constructing a 'good catch', picking a winner: The development of technosemen and the deconstruction of the monolithic male. In: Davis-Floyd R and Dumit J (eds) Cyborg Babies: From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots. New York: Routledge, 21-39.
26. Socialstyrelsen (2009) Bilaga 3: Assisted Reproduction Results of Treatment 2006. Available at: www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/8316/2009-125-5_bilaga3.pdf.
27. Stormhøj C. (2002) Queering the family: Critical reflections on state-regulated heteronormativity in the Scandinavian countries. In: Sädersträm G and Magnusson J (eds) Farväl heteronormativitet. Stockholm: Lambda Nordica Färlag, 38-56.
28. Strathern M. (1987) Out of context: The persuasive fictions of anthropology. Current Anthropology 28(3): 251-281.
29. Strathern M. (1992) Reproducing the Future: Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
30. Thompson C. (2001) Strategic naturalization: Kinship in an infertility clinic. In: Franklin S and McKinnon S (eds) Relative Values, Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 175-202.
31. Thomson C. (2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
32. Waldby C. and Mitchell R. (2006) Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33. Williams L. (1989) Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the 'Frenzy of the Visible'. Berkeley: University of California Press.