Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I think men are paid a paltry sum for their DNA at sperm clinics. That is atrocious.

It makes no sense. Their DNA is devalued because of the rapid mechanism that expels it? The bias that devalues male dna?

Everything is upside down in this industry. It’s also not fair to men either to have 50 half siblings as off spring.

Repetitive, repeatable, high volume tasks are paid less in capitalism. One man can impregnate hundreds.

The creation of new ideas/things that add value to the economy are always paid more. One woman can only safely have a few babies in her lifetime. Generally, the Health risks go up with each subsequent baby.

Right or wrong, It is fairly analogous to role in reproduction. Men who require a few minutes are paid $50 and women who gestate for 9 months and give birth are paid $50K.

Once again, women severely underpaid for doing more work and more dangerous work. The guy is doing something he'd enjoy doing every morning anyway; the woman is risking her life and altering her entire body tremendously.

Apologies the thread was started by
“Sperm donor conceived adult here“

See also “realties of donor conception “ thread on Parenting - Special concerns. DCUM

some guy with first hand experience wrote some spectacular stuff there. He is a donor child.

“The article compares the social and physical traits of 1,515 sperm and egg donors to national averages for males and females to illustrate the ways in which donor selection and marketing practices perpetuate stratified norms of gender, race, and class.”

Others are going through registries/databases.

Just read the journals.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/662964?journalCode=signs#:~:text=Challenges%20to%20gendered%20eugenics%20also,of%20human%20value%20and%20worth

Anonymous wrote:Look at the children who are being produced. Look at the sibling bank. Look racial make up of this corporate-assisted population
and who is “selected.” It’s intentional. Money is involved. That is the definition of corporate eugenics.

The Stats speak for themselves.

OP here. What is the racial makeup? I've casually browsed the donor profiles of an online sperm bank, and there were donors of all ethnicities. It's not the corporations' faults which donors end up getting selected.

I posted this because there's a top athlete (who will remain unnamed here) who's father produced 5 kids with an egg donor and surrogates. I also know many men and women in their early to late 30s who are single but want kids. Some of the men and the women are still turning down eligible suitors who want the same thing, and half of the women have eggs frozen.

Look at the children who are being produced. Look at the sibling bank. Look racial make up of this corporate-assisted population
and who is “selected.” It’s intentional. Money is involved. That is the definition of corporate eugenics.

The Stats speak for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:Sperm banks are an American eugenics program. Other companies are part of the production program.

In practice and by design.

I have problem with that.

Can you expand on this? Curious if you’re thinking of the racial breakdown of donors or the cost of access or something else.

Anonymous wrote:No. (Straight) Men who are the type to actually put in the work and be hands-on parents are going to be able to find someone to have kids with. The difference is the men who want kids and a wife but don’t want to have to pull a second shift may not be able to find someone but they also won’t be willing to spend the money and time to parent solo.

They will still be able to find women to have babies with because they will lie about their interest and their willingness to do the work, as they have always done. Then when the baby arrives, they will not contribute, as most have always done, hoping the woman sacrifices herself for the sake of an intact and more financially stable arrangement for the kids.

Until we have a legal system that truly requires the male parent to pay the full share of parenting cost proportionally according to income (not the pittance that is current child support) and a culture that socially penalizes men who are not equal parents, men will continue to lie to get women to do the work of child-raising.

Women have no way of reliably culling the liars prior to the arrival of a baby. And until there is paid maternity leave (6mos+), affordable high quality childcare (from birth), medical care and college for all, women will continue to make the choice to stay with the liar due to finances.

Sperm banks are an American eugenics program. Other companies are part of the production program.

In practice and by design.

I have problem with that.

Men had sex. They didn't have children. I have no idea what this post is trying to say. It's more unclear than the one that it's responding to

When a person writes, "Your Dh doesn’t match the biological norm of like 300,000 years of human and pre human (sic) behavior," they need to tell the reader how they know what "300,000 years" of "human and pre-human (sic) behavior" was and is.

Were you alive 300,000 years ago to observe human behavior? No.

You cannot understand what you have read and should STFU until you can.

Anonymous wrote:This is decision driven by the need to make money and succeed independently (like men)

Women should be paid for their time off to have children. Paid a uniform amount, in addition to what their jobs pay them.

It should be called “American Future Worker” Act.

See what canada does. And we should do it better. That will get things back on track.

Yes - wholeheartedly agree with this! Or look at Scandinavia where women are literally paid for being just mothers.

This is where giving women the real power begins. It’s a shame the US doesn’t have protections for pregnant women and young mothers like Europeans

Anonymous wrote:

Your Dh doesn’t match the biological norm of like 300,000 years of human and pre human(sic) behavior.

Do you have any proof to support this statement? And I mean scientifically supported evidence regarding the "biological norm" of 300,000 years of human and pre-human behavior.

+1 the vast majority of men do not want the actual physical responsibility of caring for children. I have stated on here many many times, most men should not have children. The only reason why they do is because the wives are willing to take on the burden. But that's changing. Look at the birth rates in most of the developed world. It's plummeting because modern women now have choices. If they really want to have children, they will do it on their terms.

This post is as stupid as the one that preceded it. You have no evidence to support the statement that the only reason why men have children is because wives are willing to "take on the burden." What about children born to unmarried women? What about unplanned pregnancies? Stating something stupid many times does not make it correct.

Men had sex. They didn't have children. I have no idea what this post is trying to say. It's more unclear than the one that it's responding to.

Anonymous wrote:This is decision driven by the need to make money and succeed independently (like men)

Women should be paid for their time off to have children. Paid a uniform amount, in addition to what their jobs pay them.

It should be called “American Future Worker” Act.

See what canada does. And we should do it better. That will get things back on track.

What does Canada do here?

Your Dh doesn’t match the biological norm of like 300,000 years of human and pre human(sic) behavior.

Do you have any proof to support this statement? And I mean scientifically supported evidence regarding the "biological norm" of 300,000 years of human and pre-human behavior.

+1 the vast majority of men do not want the actual physical responsibility of caring for children. I have stated on here many many times, most men should not have children. The only reason why they do is because the wives are willing to take on the burden. But that's changing. Look at the birth rates in most of the developed world. It's plummeting because modern women now have choices. If they really want to have children, they will do it on their terms.

This post is as stupid as the one that preceded it. You have no evidence to support the statement that the only reason why men have children is because wives are willing to "take on the burden." What about children born to unmarried women? What about unplanned pregnancies? Stating something stupid many times does not make it correct.