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.”

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.”

  • Cris@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    2 months ago

    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

    • socsa@piefed.social
      22·
      2 months ago

      Traditional values used to subjugate women. That’s really it. The same reason they hate abortion. Pregnancy and children are traditionally ways to control womem. “Keep em barefoot and pregnant” and so forth.

    • shaun@lemmy.worldEnglish
      191·
      2 months ago

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

      • Cris@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        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.worksEnglish
          13·
          2 months ago

          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@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 months 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 :)

    • jonne@infosec.pubEnglish
      18·
      2 months ago

      They want to grow the population in order to have more workers and consumers. There’s also a white nationalist component where they’re afraid that white people will become a minority and they’ll use this demographic power to agitate for more equality, which is basically oppression to those people (because if it was only about economic growth, they’d be pro migration).

    • Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      191·
      2 months ago

      More working class children means that there will be more people to exploit in the future. The size of the working class population is extremely important for the generation of wealth because they’re basically the only ones doing productive labour.

    • barsquid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      2 months ago

      The wealthy are running a massive pyramid scheme and need a constant influx of plebs to support the bottom tiers.

    • OfficerBribe@lemm.eeEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      No idea what kind of level prioritising is meant, but all governments should provide benefits to children since any country needs their population to be healthy and not decline. You want young working able people to replace old population so that there are enough workers and taxpayers to keep country going.