The population, now around 1.4 billion, is likely to drop to around half a billion by 2100—and women are being blamed.

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.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.worldEnglish
      582·
      11 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.

      • DonkeyShot@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        11 months ago

        Because capitalism is doing unbeatably well in incorporating whatever social movement and then celebrating itself as being “progressive” while just exploiting some valuable aspects of these movements. Sexual liberation? Well you get it back as “freedom” in the form of sexualized advertisement. Feminism? You get it back as women working now basically equally much (but both partners basically earning less in total). Psychedelic drugs that make you question the foundations of our materialistic world? You get it back as micro-dosing to enhance creativity (=productivity). The list goes on, and always will.

    • CaptKoala@lemmy.mlEnglish
      61·
      11 months ago

      Been thinking about this since I got to double digits, how could adding more people solve overpopulation and overconsumption?

      • MrPoopbutt@lemmy.worldEnglish
        201·
        11 months ago

        Overpopulation isn’t the problem they want to solve. The problem they want to solve is “there are too many of us old people and not enough young people to take care of us”. Since the old people with money aren’t being taken care of, now it’s a problem worth addressing.

        This is of course oversimplified, but I don’t think I’m on the wrong track.

        • CaptKoala@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          Oh you’re bang on, but in my mind I’ve always just kinda “known” I don’t want kids, there’s already too many of us. Obviously that’s since been heavily reinforced based on the science 🔥

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Who said it could? You can famines in rural areas and a strong walking recycling culture in urban areas. It isn’t the size of your obligations it is your ability to pay.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        22·
        11 months ago

        That’s not what ‘paid’ means here. I’m a parent. I wouldn’t trade it for anything because of the rewards. But children are very expensive, and if the government expected me to have a kid, I would expect them to cover the costs at the very least.

        • Pretzilla@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          11 months ago

          That’s easy. Just quit working and descend into poverty, then the government will help you maintain that lifestyle.

          {UBI peers around the corner}

      • jj4211@lemmy.worldEnglish
        19·
        11 months ago

        The point is that a lot of folks, even if they would want to can’t, in good conscience, have children because they lack the resources (time or money) to do right by those children.

        So to say “just have children already” does nothing for those that aren’t having children. If the society truly feels they have a problem, then they need to address the factors that prevent people from properly raising children. Free services for care and feeding of children, housing for families, labor regulations to make it so parents actually have some flexibility to take care of the needs of their children.

        Parenting may be very rewarding but a lot of people who would be appropriately responsible are responsible enough to not inflict a bad childhood when they know they can’t make it work without changes.