this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
235 points (81.7% liked)

Not The Onion

12295 readers
3222 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 37 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Don't they... have... a... population shortage?

I'm so confused

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 71 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Naoki Hyakuta, a writer and founder of the Conservative Party of Japan, also said that women should not be permitted to attend university from the age of 18, apparently so they could focus their efforts on producing more babies.

The conservative party's solution to declining birthrates is to make it illegal for women to do anything besides have children. What are you confused about?

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

WOW that's fucked up.

Naah, I was referring more to the headline, as I believe there would be a positive correlation between married women and kids. Banning women to marry = less kids.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It is similar to other countries getting rid of "no fault divorce" or abortion access.

By making the strict cutoff early, you have women who genuinely do want kids much more likely to do it with the nearest guy they can find and while their careers aren't stable enough to really recover from a pregnancy. Which then traps them in the marriage and means they continue to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen for the rest of their lives.

I saw it play out in grad school far too many times. Women who wanted families would start early (and there are actually very strong health reasons to not wait until your mid-late 30s). And even with our advisor being very understanding... it is a massive derailment at a time where even a two month delay can be the difference between being cited for a foundational concept going forward and having to start over because someone else published. Same for getting internships that can lead to jobs and so forth. Which leads to "oh it is just too hectic right now. I'll go back to school when my kids are old enough to not need me all day"

But even five or six years later? Both partners have a solid salary. So it is still a big hit to have diminished capacity for the third trimester and then maternity leave but that kid goes into preschool and things get back on track pretty quickly.

But... then you have one or two kids. Rather than the person who gave up on a career and is a stay at home mom (and no shade to people who DO want to do that) where it is "easier" to have more.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 6 points 4 days ago

Them removing womens ability to procreate. Not only is it counter productive this costs money.

load more comments (4 replies)