620
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 220 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

China's problem is a universal problem. They're "communist" in name only. Their economy has capitalist demands for growth/metastasis, same as ours and most developed economies.

People want to have kids when they can expect those kids to live at minimum the same quality, and preferably better quality, than they themselves did and do. That just isn't the case anymore as the global economy has run out of massive new sectors for growth/metastasis and has begun eating itself. You can see this in all the entire sectors here merging into monopolies and duopolies. Constant merging isn't a business strategy, it's just trying to buy time in a failing economic model.

Capitalism has always been a long-term pyramid scheme to concentrate all the power/wealth/means/capital to a small owner class. The problem is, the con has run out of new places and ways to exploit people as you eventually can't squeeze more out of a fully exploited stone. No pensions, laughable pay, no future. Just expected to thanklessly generate capital for the owners in larger and larger quantities for the love of what? The nation trying to commoditize your entire life to profit the right people? Why would you bring another poor, desperate child to suffer such a world?

Now, in their desperation, these economies that lead their societies and governments around by the nose are desperately screaming "MORE LIVESTOCK TO EXPLOIT GOD DAMN IT!" because in lieu of not being able to squeeze any harder on existing capital batteries without being correctly told to 'get fucked,' that's all they have.

I firmly believe that is why the federalist society that runs our SCOTUS is trying to get abortion banned, as the most profitable capital batteries are desperate, poor ones. I also believe the intentional decline of our public education system is meant to address the same problem, if they can make the population stoooopid enough not to consider the lives the children of already struggling peasants would have.

This world is finite. Its resources finite. An economic model literally based on infinite continuous growth/metastasis or die is not compatible with the world as it is. In every sense, it is killing us, whether by climate change from without, and loss of actual personal meaning within, at least for the non-winning vast majority. The goal of global economics should have been to establish a sustainable population that could find equilibrium/homeostasis with our shared, COMMUNal environment we all rely on from one breath to the next. Not a lot of room for Super Yachts and private jets in such a world though...

[-] Synthuir@lemmy.ml 84 points 8 months ago

This is why so many ‘industrialists’ are championing Mars bases and asteroid mining. Not because it would solve scarcity, but because it would provide another spatial fix, which like you said, is the ideal capitalist solution.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

There was a 1950s radio drama show called X-Minus One that adapted stories from a science fiction magazine. There's a comedic one that is a surprising critique of capitalism in 1950s America called "Snowball Effect" [spoilers ahead] about an economics professor who comes up with a formula for unlimited growth and tests it out on a small women's organization in a small town in Wisconsin. It starts working too rapidly, but he has built a flaw into the formula where the organization will quickly collapse if they stop getting new members. But it becomes so successful that the organization takes over the world. At the end of the episode, the world leader (who started as the president of the organization in the tiny Wisconsin town) announces that they are landing the first people on Mars to look for Martians because they desperately needed new members.

If you're curious to listen, it's #64 here- https://archive.org/details/OTRR_X_Minus_One_Singles

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 53 points 8 months ago

This is also why the Federalist Society is coming after a womens right to vote.

It won't be long until we hear MTG shouting "All MEN are created equal, not woMEN" in the halls of Congress.

[-] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago

Saving this so I can come back in case you're right

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 131 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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 8 months ago

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

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 56 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 15 points 8 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 8 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] qooqie@lemmy.world 117 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I have several very close friends who are Chinese. Some from near Shanghai some from near Beijing. The reason they explain is much more cultural and not capitalist as some here suggest.

For one, it is extremely rough on women because young men act very spoiled and men in general have an abusive problem there. So they don’t want to have kids with these men and they don’t want to marry them either. Women are getting married much later with it not being completely unheard of to be 30 and unmarried anymore in China.

Second, it is also hard on women because of family. When they get married the man’s family is their new family essentially and they lose support from their blood family. This can be tough especially if the husbands family hates the woman (not that rare).

Third, divorce is still rare because of the culture of stick through it and be a good wife. Divorce is also hard when you have kids and there’s a lot of pressure to have kids right away when you get married. This is changing but it’s slow.

Finally, we arrive at feminism. This is a good change and women are realizing all the cultural problems and see they can be happier on their own and make big money on their own too. So why get married, why have kids when you can be happy by yourself?

So all in all it’s not bad changes, these are cultural changes most countries go through and I’m happy for the Chinese women and hope all goes well. If you have any questions or want me to elaborate just let me know.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 52 points 8 months ago

Considering your first point, it might be more effective to train young men in how to be attractive husbands and co-parents than to pressure women to just lay back and think of China.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

The capitalism part is culture too. You're just describing the traditional capitalist practices of treating women like commodities to use as a type of fuckable home appliance. You're using cultural language to describe commodity trade, inheritance, reproduction of human capital, property ownership, and the fact that only men were "real people" who could own capital.

[-] qooqie@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I understand what you’re saying, but these Chinese cultural aspects go back far further than modern capitalism. At least in china

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] highenergyphysics@lemmy.world 95 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Put women in the workforce but keep the societal expectation of having them do all the housework, child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc.

Gee I wonder why they don’t want to engage in that social contract anymore, and that doesn’t even cover how fucking expensive it is to even have one kid

[-] chitak166@lemmy.world 65 points 8 months ago

From the 1 child policy to this?

[-] Commiunism@lemmy.wtf 47 points 8 months ago

I'd imagine a lot of people who were affected negatively by 1 child policy being absolutely pissed at seeing the government suddenly go "we miscalculated, pls start breeding like rabbits"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rammer@sopuli.xyz 32 points 8 months ago

There's a lot of crazy things in China that are related to this. Not just one child policy. There's a whole crisis of sexuality in China.

[-] storcholus@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

Do you have an article on that? I always think of Japan with that issue, or do I have that mixed up?

[-] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago

I think a lot of countries are having similar issues. I think South Korea is another one.

[-] Shialac@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Hell, even most western countries have the same issues

[-] Chriswild@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

But many of those same western countries level out the population decay with immigration. To my knowledge South Korea, Japan, and China don't have as much immigration.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Toes@ani.social 34 points 8 months ago

I think low birth rates are a product of a demanding system. In many cases it's economic suicide to even entertain the idea of having children.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 32 points 8 months ago

Ah yes, "a threat to be eliminated" is surely a stance that will get women on board with child-bearing.

[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The allure of DINKs and solo living is too strong even when developed countries started to get really developed earlier on.

[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bg10k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 8 months ago

China could probably stand to spend some time not having an extremely strong stance on babies.

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 23 points 8 months ago

Why would anyone want kids while they can't afford anything with no kids? If they want people to have kids, they better help them financially. You can't have a child and leave them for strangers to raise them at daycares. Or have the mother sit home and the dad works 3 jobs to put food on the table. Fuck that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

Russia is the same. Nobody wants to immigrate to those countries. Wonder why.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

If there's one thing I know about the Chinese Communist Party, it's that they take rejection and defiance in stride. At least this isn't anything as dangerous as hunger strikes and students assembling in public squares so maybe they can save a little gas money on tanks and pressure washers this time around.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 13 points 8 months ago

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.

It does take two to tango.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Loving this child free wave

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

Every ~~American~~ Chinese woman has a duty to birth at least one able-bodied worker.

~ Mike "Chinese Communist" Johnson, Speaker of the Beijing House of Representatives

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

No dispute we have a problem with fascist republican swine, but we’re a far cry from China.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

There is a reflexive need among Americans to assume every other country is significantly worse than their own.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

China is an authoritarian state that had a literal one-child policy until recently

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

China is an authoritarian state

My guy, I'm living in a state that tried to arrest a woman for removing an ectopic pregnancy. The border towns of my state are rapidly developing the largest per-capita prison population on the planet, thanks to the number of migrants being snatched up and forced into ~~concentration~~ detention camps combined with our already prodigious home-grown prison population. A full third of my city budget is dedicated to funding an enormous do-nothing police force and our new mayor spent his first day doing ride-alongs with cops while promising even more money. You can get arrested in my state for simple vagrancy. You can get arrested and jailed for days at the age of 6 years old for stealing a crayon. You can get arrested and sentenced to five years in prison for submitting a provisional ballot on election day>

had a literal one-child policy until recently

Until as recently as 2010, US prisons had a policy of sterilizing inmates.

China's One Child policy boiled down to withholding financial benefits after the second kid, which is no different than the American EITC refundable tax credit that caps benefits at 3 dependents, along with numerous other state benefits that are capped at between two and four children depending on the state.

If you want to talk about authoritarianism, you're going to have to put more on the table than a vaguely referenced policy you know very little about. Nevermind how you're speaking about this in a state that has been caught engaging in outright genocidal conduct towards its native, african american, female, and LGBT populations within the last few news cycles.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

My guy, I’m living in a state that tried to arrest a woman for removing an ectopic pregnancy.

Yep, and your state voted for that. My state amended it's constitution to prevent this situation, also through voting.

In China, you don't get that option, because China is an authoritarian state.

Authoritarian doesn't simply mean "bad" even though authoritarianism is bad.

You know what's not a sign of an authoritarian state? An appeals court overturning a bad verdict.

Crystal Mason’s contentious illegal voting conviction must be reconsidered, criminal appeals court says

You should really click the links you use as evidence.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] vividspecter@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago

Increase education rates, reduce poverty, and give women more rights = fertility goes down. This is a good thing in theory, but society has to change its approach to designing the economy to handle a declining population.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
620 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38591 readers
1914 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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