World News

38969 readers

2564 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

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.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

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

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

224

Russia wants a baby boom, but some women resist becoming a mother for the motherland (ca.news.yahoo.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Regional health minister says those who are busy with careers can 'create offspring' on work breaks

While addressing a crowd at the Eurasian Women's Forum in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin hailed government policy geared toward helping women achieve the ultimate balance — professional success while being the linchpin "of a large, large family."

He went on to joke that Russian women can manage it easily, and still remain "beautiful, gentle and charming."

His comments are the latest in a public push by government officials to try and reverse Russia's sinking birth rate by appealing to a sense of patriotic duty and promising financial incentives to sway prospective parents.

Russia's fertility rate — which measures the average number of children born to a woman over a lifetime — stands at approximately 1.4, less than what is considered the rate for population replacement, which is 2.1. Kremlin officials have labelled Russia's statistic "catastrophic," and it comes at a time of higher mortality among younger Russian men due to the war in Ukraine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Population declines have happened many times in history and were always a good thing. It takes more resources to raise a child then to care for elderly. When the elderly die it frees up resources for everyone making the next generation more prosperous.

The Black Plague, WW1, WW2, all were huge population declines. WW2 killed almost exclusively the best workers leaving the elderly. The result was a global boom.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The Black Plague, WW1, WW2

That’s my point

Black Plague resulted in hundreds of years or pd societal disruption, end of political and economic structure and changing national borders -WWI caused the rise of Nazism and Communism, creating 100 years of societal disruption, end of political and economic structure and changing national borders
WWII caused huge societal disruption, destruction of former economic and political power, changing national borders. As an American, I benefit from the destruction in previous economic powerhouses that helped the dominance of us capitalism for half a century, but people in those countries may not appreciate it, nor am I blind enough to see it as all good.

Your examples are also one time events, vs lasting societal changes

regardless of the horrors of war, it’s eventually over
do you think our economic system will go back to one income being enough
do you think we should stop educating women, stop giving the opportunities?
do you think women’s role is in the kitchen and bedroom and do you really think we’re goi g back to that?
do you think people will stop taking the edge off with internet porn?

Your examples are limited in scope, leaving much of the world unaffected

Black Plague was mostly Europe, everyone else was fine -WWI, mostly Europe
WWII was much bigger but still many areas unaffected
so far the plunge in birth rates is ubiquitous. Different places are on different parts of the curve, but it happens everywhere

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One income is enough if you want to like that way. In the one income 1950s you had one phone for the house, a radio (maybe a black and white tv with a tiny screen), one car (mom didn't have a drikers license anyway)... it is easy to put on rose colored glasses but they had a worse standard of living.

Realistically that was the only time one worker was somewhat normal but only because we rarely count 'womens work'. For that matter the effort women hut in to maintain their 1950's house was significant - though if you were a women it was probably your best time to live from work standpoints (but there were still a lot of socity issuse that made your life worse). last while a significant number of women were 'housewives' it was still comon to have jobs- just less common than any other point in history.

was single income really better? That is a complex debate that I only scratched the surface of. You can get phd's looking into this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m not saying that lack of women’s opportunity was better: I’m saying it was easier to choose children in a family when one parent could afford it, when one parent could be dedicated to it.

I’m also not saying women’s lack of choice and opportunity was a good thing or that we should wish for it, but you can see how it facilitated a higher birth rate. We never want to go back, but how do we make it easier for people to choose more children, in that context? How can that conflict ever be fixed?

For myself, I loved taking care of kids and believe I would have made a great stay at home Dad. However among other things, my ex could not financially support our family alone and it would have seriously derailed my career, my future ability to support our family. Now that women have the same opportunity, the same choice, the same freedom, they’re also stuck with the same consequences. How can we expect more parents to choose children when you face less ability to support them, for both men and women.

Regardless of societal changes being for the better, we have lasting changes that will keep the birth rate too low

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm saying you could have afforded it. That you didn't want to accept that lower quality of life is a valid counter though. (it may have required you to move to the poor side of town which is often dangerous). Your observations about how it affects future career is also spot on. You could have done it though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I suppose there’s always a way, always a compromise that could have been made.

However our situation was more extreme than most. As a software engineer, I earned enough to support my family reasonably well, even on one income. Our family could afford that my ex be a stay-at-home Mom, which many families could not. One of the benefits was also to allow my ex the opportunity to take the job most fulfilling to her (as the kids went to school), despite it paying well below the average income, well below what she could have earned. Trying to support a family on that would be very poor indeed