Since the 1960s, the predominance of modern contraceptive drugs for women has disciplined men and women to delegate responsibilities for contraception largely to women. Consequently, contraceptive use came to be excluded from hegemonic masculinity. The weak alignment of contraceptive technologies and hegemonic masculinities constitutes a major barrier for technological innovation in contraceptives for men. Based on an analysis of two large-scale clinical trials of hormonal contraceptives for men organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the article shows how the development of new contraceptives for men requires a renegotiation of masculine identities. Technological innovation in contraceptive technology is, thus, not only a story about the making of a new technology, it is also a story about constructing masculine identities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akrich, Madeleine. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205-244. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Annandale, E., and J. Clark. 1996. What is gender? Feminist theory and the sociology of human reproduction. Sociology of Health & Illness18 (1): 17-45.
3.
Anonymous. 1984. Gossypol Prospects. The Lancet8386:1108-1109.
4.
Arlidge, J. 1997. First man on the pill “can’twait to start.” Manchester Evening News, October 6, p. 8-8.
5.
Bain, J., Val Rachlis, Elena Robert, and Zoya Khait. 1980. The combined use of oral medroxyprogesterone acetate and methyltestosterone in a male contraceptive trial programme. Contraception21 (4): 365-379.
6.
Belkien, L., U.A. Knuth, E. Nieschlag, and T. Schrmeyer. 1984. Reversible azoospermia induced by the anaboloic steroid 19-nortestosterone. The Lancet(February 25):417-420.
7.
Bijker, W. E., and J. Law. 1992. Shaping technology—Building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Bijker, W., T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, eds. 1987. The social construction of technological systems: Newdirections in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
9.
Butler, J. 1995. Melancholy gender/refused identification. In Constructing masculinity, edited by M. Berger, B. Wallis, and S. Watson, 21-37. London: Routledge.
10.
Clarke, A. 1998. Disciplining reproduction: Modernity, American life and “the problem of sex.” Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Cockburn, C., and S. Ormrod. 1993. Gender and technology in the making.London: Sage.
12.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Gender & power. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
13.
Davidson, Andrew R., K. Choon Ahn, S. Chandra, R. Diaz-Guerro, D. C. Dubey, and A. Mehryar. 1985. Contraceptive choices for men: Existing and potential male methods. Report presented at the Seminar on Determinants of Contraceptive Method Choice, EastWest Population Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 26-29.
14.
Davis, K., ed. 1997. Embodied practices. Feminist perspectives on the body.Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Duden, B. 1991. The woman beneath the skin: A doctor’s patients in eighteenth-century Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Fisher, K. 1998. Conflicting cultures of contraception: Birth control clinics and the workingclasses in Britain between the wars. Paper presented at the Workshop Cultures of Medicine, Welcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London, June.
17.
Foegh, M. 1983. Evaluation of steroids as contraceptives in men. Acta Endocrino LogicaSuppl. no. 260:1-45.
18.
Franklin, S., and H. Ragone. 1998. Reproducing reproduction. Kinship, power, and technological innovation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
19.
Garschagen, O. 1998. Amerikanen in de rij voor “penispil.” Volkskrant, May 1, p. 6.
20.
Gilbert, G. N., and M. Mulkay, eds. 1984. OpeningPandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientific discourse.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Glander, H. J. 1987. Bemerkungen zur nichthormonalen reversibelenKontrazeption beim Mann. Hautartzt 38 (6): 321-26.
22.
Goldstein, L., ed. 1991. The female body: Figures, styles, speculations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
23.
Guerin, J. F., and J. Rollet. 1988. Inhibition of spermatogenesis in men using various combinations of oral progestagens and percutaneous or oral androgens. International Journal of Andrology11:187-199.
24.
Guille, J.L., D. le Lannou, B. Lobel, and F. Olivo. 1989. Contraception inmen: Efficacy and immediate toxicity, a study of 18 cases. Acta Urologica Belgica57 (1): 117-124.
25.
Handelsman, D. J. 1991. Bridging the gender gap in contraception: Another hurdle cleared. The Medical Journal of Australia154 (4): 230-233.
26.
Hubbard, R. 1981.The emperor doesn’t wear any clothes. The impact of feminism on biology. In Men’s studies modified. The impact of feminism on the academic disciplines, edited by D. Spender, 213-237. Oxford: Pergamon.
27.
Keuken, D. 2000. De zoektocht naar eenHIVvaccin. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam.
28.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
29.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Lissner, E. A. 1992. Frontiers in nonhormone male contraceptive research. In Issues in reproductive technology I: An anthology, edited by H. Bequaert Holmes, 53-69. NewYork: Garland.
31.
Mamo, L., and J. R. Fishman. 2001. Potency in all the right places: Viagra as a technology of the gendered body. Body and Society7 (4): 13-37.
32.
Moore, L. J., and A. Clarke. 1995. Clitoral conventions and transgressions: Graphic representations in anatomy texts, c. 1900-1991. Feminist Studies21 (2): 255-301.
33.
Morgan, D. 1992. Discovering men. London: Routledge.
34.
Noble, D. 1986. Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation. New York: Knopf.
35.
Oudshoorn, N. 1994. Beyond the natural body. An archeology of sex hormones. London and New York: Routledge.
36.
Oudshoorn, N. 2003. The male pill. A biography of a technology in the making. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.
37.
Paulsen, C. A., W. J. Bremner, and A. M. Matsumoto. 1994. Male contraceptive development. Unpublished paper distributed among the men who participated in the clinical trials of male hormonal contraceptives of the Population Center for Research in Reproduction of the Department of Medicine, University of Washington and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Seattle.
38.
Pfeffer, N. 1985. The hidden pathology of the male reproductive system. In The sexual politics of reproduction, edited by H. Homans, 30-44. London: Gower.
39.
Rabinow, P. 1992. Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In Incorporations, edited by J. Crary and Standford Kwinter, 234-252. New York: Zone.
40.
Ringheim, K. 1993. Guidance for future social science research on hormonal methods for men. Findings from follow-up questionnaires and focus groups discussions with former clinical trial participants. Unpublished report to the steering committee of theTask Force on Methods for the Regulation of Male fertility.
41.
Ringheim, K. 1995. Evidence for the acceptability of an injectale hormonal method for men. International Family Planning Perspectives21 (2): 75-80.
42.
Ringheim, K. 1996a. Male involvement and contraceptive methods for men, present and future. Paper presented to the APHA session Towards Gender Partnership in Reproductive Health, New York, November 19.
43.
Ringheim, K. 1996b. Wither methods for men? Emerging gender issues in contraception. Reproductive Health Matters7 (May): 79-89.
44.
Sabo, D., and D. Gordon, eds. 1995. Men’s health and illness: Gender, power, and the body. London: Sage.
45.
Saetnan, A., N. Oudshoorn, and M. Kirejczyk, eds. 2000. Bodies of technology. Women’s involvement with reproductive medicine. Columbus, OH: Ohio University Press.
46.
Schearer, S. B. 1977. Pharmacological approach to contraception in men. Drug Therapy, 5 (2): 72-77.
47.
Setchell, B. P., ed. 1984. Male reproduction. In Benchmark papers in human physiology. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
48.
Skoglund, R. D., and A. A. Paulsen. 1973. Danazol testosterone combination: A potentially effective means for reversible male contraception, a preliminary report. Contraception7 (5): 357-365.
49.
Stokes, Bruce. 1980. Men and family planning. Worldwatch Paper41 (December): 5-47.
50.
Timmermans, S., and V. Leiter. 2000. The redemption of thalidomine: Standardizing the risk of birth defects. Social Studies of Science30 (1): 41-73.
51.
van Kammen, J. 2000. Conceiving contraceptives. The involvement of users in anti-fertility vaccines development. Amsterdam: Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
52.
World Health Organization. 1996. WHO completes international trial of a hormonal contraceptive for men. Press release. Geneva, Switzerland, April 2.
53.
WHOTask Force on Methods for the Regulation of Male Fertility. 1996. Contraceptive Efficacy of Testosterone-induced Azoospermia and Oligospermia in Normal Men. Fertility and Sterility65 (4): 821-829.
54.
Woolgar, S. 1991. Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination, edited by J. Law, 58-90. London: Routledge.
55.
Wu, F. C. W. 1988. Male contraception: Current status and future prospects. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology29:443-465.
