For all those confused, it’s to make younger women into brood mares, and framing this as a “call”, when it was one tweet from some deranged jerkoff, is disingenuous clickbait
But they even used the name “Conservative Party” so we can mentally connect this insanity to our own local conservatives in between bong hits, comfortably assured of our biases.
…there’s a lot to unpack here
I have this guy tagged as “Religious Fruitcake”, of the “Masturbation is evil” and “god put women here to serve man” types
That headline is crazy, but then I read the article. Thank goodness it’s not a mainstream idea and even other politicians are vocally telling this guy to pump the brakes. I don’t think it ever even made it to a formal policy proposal. I suppose that one politician wants to speedrun the decline of Japan or something.
TOKYO: The leader of a Japanese conservative party has apologised for saying the solution to the nation’s population crisis would be to ban women from getting married after the age of 25 and have their uteruses removed at 30.
Feels like kinda burying the lede here.
oh I would LOVE to have my uterus removed! I tryied but.the doctor keep saying that “you may still want to have kids”. IM 40! and I never wanted them until now, really doubt I’ll change my mind radically
edit: why don’t I have autonomy.over.my own body?
That’s really fucked up, I’m sorry. Especially because it’s an informed decision.
Don’t they… have… a… population shortage?
I’m so confused
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?
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.
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.
But why? Don’t they have a problem with low birthrates?
Insanity and the need to control everything, that’s why.
🤨
WHAT?!?
The fact that this was an idea he was able to articulate is either an indictment of his intelligence, an indictment of his respect for women.
OK, all of this panic about lower birth rates… Is it really that big of a deal? I mean, the planets overpopulated as it is. Can someone clarify this for me? Is it really the crisis people seem to think it is?
I think it’s treated as a crisis because the economic charts always need to go up. Infinite growth requires people.
it is for rich people. The less ofer the higher the value. If you have less workers the ones you have will cost more and than shareholders won’t have as much profit and CEOs won’t be able to make bilions a year
generally a racist/xenophobe thing, there are more than enough people, they’re just not the “right kind”
Lower population in of itself is a good thing.
It’s the change that is disruptive and will cause suffering in ways that are unique to the suffering caused by over population.
As population growth slows, the younger generation needs to support more elderly. Which means we need some combination of:
Working population being more productive. Population making do with less.
However you approach it, there will be segments of the population that are very unhappy.
