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.”

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    17 days ago

    Citizens stop having kids because they can’t afford them, government fines them and makes rape, I mean traditional values, more acceptable instead of making rich people stop hoarding all the cash.

  • Richie Rich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    17 days ago

    Russia is like, “Sons! We need sons for the fatherland so that they can fight in the field against Ukraine!” How inhuman can Russia be?

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      I find it disturbing that they apparently expect that their 3 day operation will be ongoing two decades from now.

      • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        So I just did a quick analysis of war lengths after and including WWII, and given that this isn’t my area of expertise, but they tend to run around 30 years on average. You either get out quickly or you’re there for generations. Russia is losing troops at a rate that worries me and I’m on Ukraine’s side of the war.

  • barsquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    18 days ago

    Can we get the .ml crew in here to explain why this is actually good and freedom? Because I’m a little confused.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 days ago

      Why does ml crew defend modern day Russia? Modern day Russia is not a communist country. I’m confused why any communist would defend the USSR in general, especially after Stalin took power. Makes no damn sense to me.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      Come on, .ml, tell us how the west has fallen and Russia is the last true bastion of civilization and people’s rights. We’re waiting.

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        found one

        A commendable effort by Russia to discourage the promotion of human extinction.

        The nation starting wars and extracting fossil fuels is soooo concerned with the extinction of humanity.

    • a Kendrick fan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      this is why .world is full of mostly braindead folks who’ve never had to think for themselves, only what their master propagandists feed them

      to be fair, i didn’t have to respond, i did to bust your cocky egos. in what world do supporters of the American Empire think they’re superiors to fanboys of the Russian state? isn’t the repeal of Roe v wade even worse than whatever this Duma member is threatening?

      • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        You actually didn’t respond really. At best you barfed a whatabautism and then assumed everybody is American.

        Feel free to give a real answer if Duma allows you to.

  • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    You know, I would bet there’s tens of thousands of Russians that would be interested in having children if they didn’t all have a case of unnecessary deadness. If only something could have been done to avoid that.

    • Draghetta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      But if you can’t send them to get gunned down in a foreign land, what is even the point of having more children? Do you hear yourself?

  • Cris@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days 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

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

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

    • shaun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

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

      • Cris@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 days 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.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 days 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.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days 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).

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    This is why US First Amendment standards for freedom of speech need to be adopted everywhere, not with hundreds of “but this kind of speech is harmful to society” exceptions.