this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
360 points (98.1% liked)

World News

39082 readers
2835 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
 

Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house of parliament and an ally of President Vladimir Putin, said a new bill would tackle the “ideology of childlessness.”

Russia’s fight against the West and its values has taken aim this week at an “ideology” that the Kremlin and its allies say threatens the country’s very foundations: people not wanting to have children.

Lawmakers have proposed a ban on “propaganda of conscious refusal to bear children,” Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house of parliament and an ally of President Vladimir Putin, said in a post on Telegram on Tuesday.

It is the latest effort by authorities to combat the demographic strain of falling birth rates, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, which the Kremlin says could threaten the country’s long-term outlook. In July, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called Russia’s declining birth rate “catastrophic for the future of the nation.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

Does anyone know the strategic reason for right wing authoritarians prioritizing people having kids? Like project 2025 talks about it a bunch, but nothing totally clear cut comes to mind as to why. At least not that feels like it fully justifies how clearly important it is, and that isn't just me dismissing it as meaningless control or whatever. It feels strategically important

In this case it's clearly important militarily, but that's also not likely to help in the present conflict in Ukraine. It'll take a long time for those kids to grow up, but at least they'd help mitigate population loss

[–] shaun@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Corporations need consumers (constant growth model). Military needs more living soldiers.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, I guess that feels like the obvious reason. It just feels like there's gotta be something more immediate and tangible. Maybe there isn't though 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Having kids makes you think differently. It makes you think about longer term plans, and immediate plans. It makes you yearn for stability. It makes you more succeptible to scare tactics. It makes you less likely to rock the boat.

It made me personally accept shittier situations personally (work) for the percieved benefit of ensuring stability for my baby. You can imagine how that extrapolates across an authoritarian society.

Even knowing it would probably be fine to advocate for myself, to push for what I deserved; knowing that it was purely biology pushing me to make the choice, I still picked percieved stability. I just couldn't bring myself risk being fired.

Counter-intuitevely, we think of parents as being primed to defend their children from any and all attacks and threats. That works monkey to monkey, but at scale, it breaks down. Being parents makes both men and women more vulnerable.

As for immediate effect: I'd be a lot easier to coerce if you had access to my family.

Edit: It also makes you busy as fuck. Ain't nobody got time for nothin' when they have a kid. Certainly not for uncertain outcomes, like resistance groups or political disident work

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

This is kinda the first reply that really gave me a new angle to think about- multiple in fact. Both "vulnerability to fear tactics", and "keeping people occupied" are a lot more immediate systemic impacts that can benefit maintaining the status quo than the things that had come to mind for me.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I wouldn't have had the perspective to consider it from your angle and I appreciate it!

Hope you have a good one :)

load more comments (9 replies)