this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
604 points (95.9% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2699 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Chinese women have had it. Their response to Beijing’s demands for more children? No. 

Fed up with government harassment and wary of the sacrifices of child-rearing, many young women are putting themselves ahead of what Beijing and their families want. Their refusal has set off a crisis for the Communist Party, which desperately needs more babies to rejuvenate China’s aging population.

With the number of babies in free fall—fewer than 10 million were born in 2022, compared with around 16 million in 2012—China is headed toward a demographic collapse. China’s population, now around 1.4 billion, is likely to drop to just around half a billion by 2100, according to some projections. Women are taking the blame.

In October, Chinese Leader Xi Jinping urged the state-backed All-China Women’s Federation to “prevent and resolve risks in the women’s field,” according to an official account of the speech.

“It’s clear that he was not talking about risks faced by women but considering women as a major threat to social stability,” said Clyde Yicheng Wang, an assistant professor of politics at Washington and Lee University who studies Chinese government propaganda.

The State Council, China’s top government body, didn’t respond to questions about Beijing’s population policies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 131 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

Governments and companies have gotten by in the past with a combination of factors:

  • Religion pressuring people into marrying and having children.

  • Poverty and poor education causing people to have children they weren’t prepared for. Includes lack of access to birth control and discouraging its use.

  • One income households made it feasible to raise large families when times were good. The rich have since siphoned off all economic growth while real wages have stagnated.

Having children is an unpaid job. If the government wants people to have children, it should start paying for it. Or, the wealthy will need to stop hoarding all the wealth and let regular people earn enough to support a family on one income again.

In the meantime, people should feel justified and good about not reproducing. The planet is already pushed to its breaking point. More humans will consume more resources and emit more CO2.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I never thought about it like that before. Having children is an unpaid job. So true.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 55 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

You’re basically expected to produce new workers all at your own expense. And, who benefits? The children you raise become workers and contributors to the economy. So, it’s the capitalists that benefit from increased productivity and growth.

I realize there are other abstract and noble reasons to have children. But, capitalists don’t see it in those terms and there is this economic dimension to childrearing. You should be able to have children if you want them, but you should also be paid for doing so to the extent that it benefits society. I would argue that people were once paid, albeit indirectly through a spouse’s salary that was high enough to support a non-salaried adult to raise the children. Why are people now expected to both work and raise children? Why are they expected to fit this productive activity into their non-working hours as if raising children was a hobby.

[–] DonkeyShot@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Because capitalism is doing unbeatably well in incorporating whatever social movement and then celebrating itself as being "progressive" while just exploiting some valuable aspects of these movements. Sexual liberation? Well you get it back as "freedom" in the form of sexualized advertisement. Feminism? You get it back as women working now basically equally much (but both partners basically earning less in total). Psychedelic drugs that make you question the foundations of our materialistic world? You get it back as micro-dosing to enhance creativity (=productivity). The list goes on, and always will.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Southpark - Canada wants more money!

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] CaptKoala@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Been thinking about this since I got to double digits, how could adding more people solve overpopulation and overconsumption?

[–] MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Overpopulation isn't the problem they want to solve. The problem they want to solve is "there are too many of us old people and not enough young people to take care of us". Since the old people with money aren't being taken care of, now it's a problem worth addressing.

This is of course oversimplified, but I don't think I'm on the wrong track.

[–] CaptKoala@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Oh you're bang on, but in my mind I've always just kinda "known" I don't want kids, there's already too many of us. Obviously that's since been heavily reinforced based on the science 🔥

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Who said it could? You can famines in rural areas and a strong walking recycling culture in urban areas. It isn't the size of your obligations it is your ability to pay.

[–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 15 points 10 months ago

In Russia, people with children get benefits that scale really quickly with the number of kids you have. This is, of course, balanced by the fact that Russia is miserable and people seldom wish to stay.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

My wife and I are thinking about babies, she would love to stay at home and take care of them but it's just not that easy to make ends meet.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it should start paying for it.

How much whiny shit I have seen on the internet over the years about the child income tax credit. Oh yes that tiny reduction that comes no where near the actual cost of raising a child. I can't see people who bitch and moan about this voting for even more money. Then you got the other side that cries about having to pay for schools.

Sorry I can't see any situation where we roll out something like this. We are way too short thinking and "fuck you I got mine". Which is fine since global warming is going to kill us one day and we will deserve it.

[–] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

It feels so backwards, I see people admonishing the younger, more liberal generations for not having children while turning around and bragging that their wife only needed two weeks of maternity leave. Why want more children in the world if you dont want to actually take care of them?

[–] tory@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

100%, well said!

I think the issue could be distilled down to the fact that women globally have been forced due to economic factors to choose the workplace over the home. It's a good idea for women to have equal rights in the workplace, and they should be able to choose a career over a family. But basically, every economy shifted to the point where now you need two average salaries to support a household. This means keeping one parent home to watch the kids is financial suicide for most families.

The results are fewer children, dumber children, and a shittier society. Tax incentives for having kids are a start, but not nearly enough to tip the scales at all.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

It sure looks like "the economy" is this massive religious monster that demands nonstop sacrifices for its endless growth. Not immediate sacrifices, mind you, but long and torturous ones. It managed to get a lot of people in line for the sacrifice, it only forgot that pesky part about ensuring they reproduce before dying.

[–] DonkeyShot@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago