Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/03/11/breedready.html
…
4 Likes
27 Likes
I wonder if it’s as sinister as the post paints it. It could be the database of a dating website. “HasVideo” could mean they uploaded a video. “BreedReady” could mean they are willing to have children. (Yeah, I know. It still sounds terrible, but the label could have been written by someone with poor English.)
Even if that’s the case, shitty web security.
13 Likes
I cannot fathom any scenario where it’s not; such a database sounds like a sexual predator’s wet dream.
13 Likes
“One might think that if you were going to track your population through facial recognition and capture information such as breeding age then you might focus on the security of such information. But apparently not.” -Forbes
6 Likes
Well, I mean the intent behind it may not be sinister, relatively speaking. That’s a hell a lot of information for a dating website to collect, but remember China. Everyone’s on Candid Camera and have come to feel that that is just the way of things.
4 Likes
Well, this has certainly made my Monday even more Monday than usual. Fucking hell.
Which I would argue makes the default setting “sinister.” NOTHING about this isn’t sinister.
16 Likes
Doesn’t Facebook do that?
7 Likes
Seriously, The more I think about “The State” having both the interest, and the means, to determine if a woman in “The State” is “BreedReady” is fucking heinous.
3 Likes
The Chinese Edition
21 Likes
What the fuck is that, even?
Women aren’t fucking chattel animals, and IIRC China is a country that up until recently had a 1 child per fam policy, which seems counter to providing info about viable fertility ages.
O_O
You know what they say about even the best of intentions… and this shit sounds ominous as fuck.
Agreed.
Dude… alarm bells are fucking RINGING.
16 Likes
One Child Policy is over. Don’t know if the limit is now two, or no limit, or what.
2 Likes
I did say that it had recently ended; 3 years ago. The limit is now 2 kids, if one of the parents is an only child.
‘Child-bearing age’ is not the same as “breed-ready,” in that former doesn’t dehumanize a woman to the point of being a fucking walking incubator.
I don’t care about any possible poor translation; the fucktastic idea being asserted comes through loud & clear.
6 Likes
“If the BreedReady field is meant the the person has children, it is strange that no one over 39 has a BreedReady value of 1.”
This IS strange, isn’t it.
So strange, in fact, that I must doubt that’s what it means. There may be a value to indicate that a woman already has children, but it also means she is of an age where she can be “bred” whether she already has children or not. And that’s info that they want to know, and track.
6 Likes
IIRC it resulted in a suspicious ratio favoring male children.
3 Likes
Aye, I remember hearing about families doing invitro and taking other measures to ensure the birth of a male child.
Which an overabundance of will eventually lead to a steep population decline; hence the reason they changed the law, if I’m not mistaken.
Regardless, the very existence of such a database is nefarious as fuck; that it had such piss poor security is even more mortifying.
7 Likes
I’ve also heard that there is concern about not enough young people to take care of their elders.
5 Likes
Totally. That said, that has been the case for most states in history. Modern western democracies are the only (marginal) exceptions. I mean, there’s plenty of folks in the US congress who think the state has an interest in whether and how women breed. Go back only a little further and every state had a lot of specific rules (sometimes enforced through its church) that basically amount to “women’s place is to have a whole lot of kids, so the state can send them off to die fighting other states.”
3 Likes
Maybe Tucker Carlson could weigh in on this?
2 Likes
