Russian women say Nyet to children

November 18, 2024 35 Reactions

The world's population is becoming greyer, getting sicker, and growing fewer. Fertility rates are falling far below replacement level. Nearly everyone is alarmed by this, apart from a few ZPG ninjas. The proportion of Japanese over 65 in 2050 will be about 40 percent. In China, that figure will be about 30 percent; in Germany, about 30 percent; in Iran, about 25 percent; in the United States, about 20 percent; and in Russia, about 25 percent.

A high proportion of elderly means fewer taxpayers, fewer innovators, more dependents, and bigger healthcare bills. There will be shortages of workers and – this must be giving generals everywhere nightmares – soldiers.

So governments are experimenting with schemes to boost the number of babies. There have been all sorts: subsidized IVF, baby bonuses, generous parental leave, and awards for fertile mothers. Singapore even experimented with a government dating service.

None of these carrots has worked.

So Russia is trying a stick.

A new law criminalising “child-free propaganda” passed the lower house of parliament earlier this month. It still have to be passed by the upper house and signed by President Putin.

“Childfree propaganda is a socially dangerous phenomenon. The Americans are promoting this. Our country is vast and their ideology is dangerous. Under no circumstances should it be allowed to spread,” Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house, said in October.

The Russian Orthodox Church is on board. “Child-free is an ideology…that claims children are not obligatory in life and, more generally, even fosters hatred toward children,” said Father Fyodor Lukyanov, the head of the patriarch’s Commission on the Family and the Defense of Motherhood and Childhood earlier this year. “Such child-hating, people-hating ideologies – particularly child-free – must be banned and equated with extremism since they are destroying our future, our children.”

President Putin has lots of things on his mind, including that special military operation in Ukraine, but increasing the birth rate is a very high priority for him. In May he issued a decree calling for measures to raise the birth rate and to increase the number of families with three or more children. In 2022 the government revived the Soviet-era Mother Heroine awardfor women who have 10 or more children -- a lump sum cash prize of US$16,500.

If it passes, the legislation will ban “childfree propaganda” on the internet and in the media, films and advertisements. There will be steep fines –about $4000 for individuals and $51,000 for organisations. The law is loosely worded and human rights advocates fear that even positive comments about a childfree lifestyle or public discussions on birth control or abortion could be considered a violation.

Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

But despite the bombastic pro-natalist rhetoric, the Russians are unlikely to have greater success than South Korea or Singapore has.

Some lawmakers floated the idea of a tax on a monthly tax on families without children – but the Soviet Union already tried that and it didn’t work.

Cutting back on abortion seems like an obvious strategy. Russia has one of the world’s highest abortion rates – a legacy of the Soviet era, when it was the principal means of birth control. Now the government is beginning to actively discourage abortion. A fifth of abortions are carried out in private clinics and local governments are beginning to close them down. According to the BBC:

“The Health Ministry has drawn up guidelines telling medics how best to dissuade women from having an abortion. Doctors are encouraged to tell pregnant women who are younger than 18 that young parents bond better with their children ‘because they are practically from the same generation’.

“If a pregnant woman is single, doctors are meant to tell her that ‘having a child is no obstacle to finding a life partner.’"

But the Russians are unlikely to ban abortion entirely. Romania’s appalling Communist dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu tried that. The results were disastrous. So the Russians are trying a soft approach.

The media is full of pro-natal advertising. One ad features a young couple who receive a knock on the door at night from a cute little toddler, who tells them, “I am your happiness.” The woman lets her in despite her boyfriend objecting that “we are not planning.” She replies, “You can’t plan happiness, can you?”

The Russian TV channel Yu features a number of pro-child shows, like Supermom, Maternity Ward Days, Call Me Mom, and Mom at 45. One of them used to be called Pregnant at 16; recently it was rebranded Mom at 16. The opening line of each episode changed from “I’m pregnant” to “I’m expecting a child”. Nowadays girls on the show never even consider an abortion. Russian feminists are outraged.

Even Putin has expressed doubts about banning abortion. According to Deutsche Welle, last year he described it as a perplexing issue. What should the country do, he mused. "Ban selling medication that terminates pregnancy? Or improve the socio-economic situation in the country, raise living standards, real salaries, benefits... help young families buy homes?"

The government is scared.

Russia’s population is shrinking, partly as a result of losses in the war with Ukraine. Demographers believe that the current population of 146 million will decline to between 74 million and 112 million by 2100. Defence, industry, social services, living standards, and national identity are all at risk. At the moment, “Every corner of Russia’s economy is experiencing personnel shortages, while war casualties continue to shrink the able-bodied population,” says a recent report on Russian demographics for the Atlantic Council.

In short, it appears that neither the carrot nor the stick will increase the birth rate in Russia. The problem, as in other countries, must be that young women no longer see motherhood and family life as fulfilling life goals.

How will that change? Only with a spiritual renewal, as I suggested recently. And Putin’s Russia is unlikely to inspire that.

Forward this to your friends.

Michael Cook is editor of Mercator.

Image credit: Bigstock

Showing 35 reactions

Sign in with

Randy Jacobson commented 2024-11-25 04:58:42 +1100

Spiritual renewal has nothing to do with it. Because of climate change and rising fascism the future is bleak. So people don’t want to bring children into the world. The best way to stabilize populations is through immigration.
Janet Grevillea commented 2024-11-21 09:54:01 +1100

Susan, yes Musk is one to watch, although given his distress about his own child who lives as the other sex, he is unlike to join forces with the pro-trans billionaires. Strange how we used to be ruled by people born to blood and now it is people born to monetary wealth.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-21 02:11:07 +1100

Susan,

Anything is possible with God. So going to continue to have that homosex and pray to God for a child.
Susan Rohrbach commented 2024-11-20 22:59:25 +1100

Janet I hate to say it but the Doge sponsor of the upcoming president may fall into that category, with his harem and eleven known children from IVF.
Janet Grevillea commented 2024-11-20 11:40:02 +1100

Steven Meyer, whoever wrote that story over eight decades ago, Jennifer Bilek names the US billionaires who are enacting that same mission by means of the transgender cult), among them Jon Styker ( founder of Arcus) and the immensely wealthy Pritzker tribe.
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-20 09:10:27 +1100

Janet Grevillea,

Back in the 1950s I read a sci fi story about men using artificial reproduction techniques to do away with the need for women. It was called “The Society of Men” or something like that. Maybe Ms Bilek read the same story.

Some men have expressed a desire to clone themselves. Now that should be interesting.
mrscracker commented 2024-11-20 08:40:08 +1100

I agree with you on that point Mr. Julian. Sending young men off to war does little to encourage women to begin families.
Julian Cheslow commented 2024-11-20 04:18:19 +1100

Has he thought about not sending more Russians to die for his war? I think that would definitely make people question whether to have them.

Also this law is dangerously ambiguous and gives wayyy to much power to him. A exact definition of “child free propaganda” is impossible to define and all this will do is give him free reign to censor more then he already has.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-20 03:01:59 +1100

Susan,

He’s 6. And his older sister loves having a younger brother.

And it’s not a false dilemma – otherwise all those kids would have been adopted by all of those heterosexual couples.

Lastly – in the politest way I can possibly manage – go dry up and bust.
Susan Rohrbach commented 2024-11-20 02:18:24 +1100

Apologies, I had a typo in previous post which would lead to confusion . Please refer to this one instead!

Anon – " She, and my entire family, are decidedly not haunted by the decision at all, so please loosen your grip on your pearls." You do not say how old your nephew is, or how much informed he even is, but there are many late regrettors of the IVF procedure, when all the facts tumble out. See “Them before Us” website.

" Given the choice of having these kids stay in the system or being adopted by a loving gay couple what would you choose? " This is a false dilemma. There are already many mom and dad couples who could adopt. Also each of those homosexuals could have children of their own by undoing their homosex conditioning and marrying opposite sex. All the science says they were
not
born that way.
Susan Rohrbach commented 2024-11-20 02:15:04 +1100

Anon – " She, and my entire family, are decidedly not haunted by the decision at all, so please loosen your grip on your pearls." You do not say how old she is, or how much informed she even is, but there are many late regrettors of the IVF procedure, when all the facts tumble out. See “Them before Us” website.

" Given the choice of having these kids stay in the system or being adopted by a loving gay couple what would you choose? " This is a false dilemma. There are already many mom and dad couples who could adopt. Also each of those homosexuals could have children of their own by undoing their homosex conditioning and marrying opposite sex. All the science says they were not born that way.
mrscracker commented 2024-11-20 01:51:29 +1100

No one asked me but the purpose of foster care in the States is not to remove parental rights & make children available for adoption but instead to safeguard children in foster homes until their own family’s situation is resolved. Many children are removed from their parent(s) because of substance abuse in the home.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-11-20 01:43:10 +1100

Susan,

My nephew was conceived via IVF because my sister-in-law had trouble getting pregnant with her second child (she was 34 at the time). She, and my entire family, are decidedly not haunted by the decision at all, so please loosen your grip on your pearls.

Further – what is your position on gay adoptions? There are many gay couples who would love to adopt one of the tens of thousands of kids in the foster care system. Given the choice of having these kids stay in the system or being adopted by a loving gay couple what would you choose?
Janet Grevillea commented 2024-11-20 00:26:53 +1100

’So you’re saying that women have to endure the hardships of pregnancy and childbirth because otherwise men will consider them useless?’

Steven Meyer I am not saying that. I am saying that some very rich men are working hard to take charge of human biology and to produce techno-humans. Jennifer Bilek calls it their ’dark and sinister agenda’. I could elaborate, but probably better just to give a link to Jennifer Bilek https://jbilek.substack.com/p/how-a-handful-of-billionaires-created
Susan Rohrbach commented 2024-11-19 23:51:26 +1100

“pronatalist” needs to be carefully dissected to exclude the proponents of the frankentube (IVF).

Children should be conceived only from the marital embrace, lest they become creatures of the state.

Abortion must be banned, with a salutary consequence of minimizing rape (because abortion has always been a way to cover up rape so the rapist can rape some more… Nowadays we have DNA test to explode that cover and garnish rapist for life to pay for pregnancy)

This leaves all other supposed reasons for abortion solvable by a choiceful woman crossing legs in first place.

Supposed “need” for IVF can be mitigated by women marrying at earlier age. There’s time for a career in later life… Women live longer than men anyway.

And hey what about IVF tempted couples adopting the child of a crisis pregnancy instead? Mom Dad adopters only to reflect the fact if the (ideal) (and mystic) marital embrace, to Win win win.

Tell trumpelon IVF, like rape, haunts its victims. Make marriage forever again.
Jeff O'Neill commented 2024-11-19 21:22:56 +1100

It is an issue that will be tackled culturally rather than economically. I applaud the pro-natalist media approach. It needs to be a subtle message in all media—especially soap operas. Celebrities who are childless need to be shamed by the media.
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-19 16:58:53 +1100

Janet Grevillea

So you’re saying that women have to endure the hardships of pregnancy and childbirth because otherwise men will consider them useless?

Anyway, this discussion is moot. Ectogenesis has become an engineering problem more than a scientific one. It’s a hard engineering problem and will take a few decades to solve. But solved it will be. So, like it or not, the technology is coming.

My guess is the technology will appear in stages. Starting in the 2050s the norm will be for women to bear children in the current normal way for the first trimester or so. Thereafter the foetus will be transferred to a “biobag” and mature there. Full ectogenesis will probably start in the 2070s.

Of course this process could be compressed if fertility collapses completely, a scenario which is beginning to look ever more likely

And then again the curve could turn and fertility could rise.

We cannot foresee the future.
Janet Grevillea commented 2024-11-19 12:11:21 +1100

Steven Meyer, the techno-human plan has nothing to do with helping women. It is about men achieving mastery over nature.
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-19 09:42:13 +1100

Elva Kindler

That of course assumes he can find a woman who wants his “protection”, is confident of his ability to provide and wants to bear children.

It’s not entirely up to the man.
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-19 08:21:30 +1100

mrscracker, not only a war, but a needless senseless war.
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-19 08:05:07 +1100

Janet Grevillea, fair enough.

Will it be a “good” thing or a “bad” thing?

I just think a growing number of women will be unwilling to go through the hardships of pregnancy and childbirth, I know that if I were a woman and had that option I’d take it and I wouldn’t blame any woman who did.

But, of course, like every technology, it can and will be misused.
mrscracker commented 2024-11-19 02:55:42 +1100

Wise thoughts Miss Elva.
:)
Elva Kindler commented 2024-11-18 23:38:15 +1100

Sigh. If a man has the courage to marry and love a woman and, to the best of his ability, welcomes, protects, and provides for all the children that come into the marriage, healthy and unhealthy, then there will be more children in the family.
mrscracker commented 2024-11-18 23:05:48 +1100

It seems an uphill battle to encourage Russian women to have more children while they see conscription sending other mothers’ sons off to war.
Janet Grevillea commented 2024-11-18 19:07:33 +1100

Steve Meyer you seem peeved by my comment. I am just saying that
(1) You are not the only one making the forecast. The gender ideology billionaires are on the same wavelength as you and
2. In Australia our governments and institutions are also on the same wavelength, insofar as they are trying to stop us using the word ‘woman’.

So, yes, you think it is going to happen. I am merely pointing out the means by which it could happen. I hope it doesn’t happen.
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-11-18 17:11:54 +1100

Why are there so many articles about the Russian demographic crises on this site? What’s the obsession with Russia? Or is it the normalization of Russia?
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-18 15:04:02 +1100

Emberson Fedders

You really expect consistency from a berserk dictator?
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-18 15:02:42 +1100

Janet Grevillea

I don’t care whether ectogenesis is “one of the aims of the transgender movement” or what the ABC has to say about women.

I simply made a forecast. It’s what I think is going to happen.

So please explain what your comments have to do with my forecast..
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-11-18 14:13:07 +1100

Russia clearly isn’t THAT interested in demographic collapse, otherwise they wouldn’t have sacrificed 120,000 – 170,000 young men in a futile war.
Steven Meyer commented 2024-11-18 12:08:58 +1100

Paul Bunyan,

I personally regard the birth dearth as a good news story – on balance.

Yes, an ageing and declining population poses challenges. I don’t underestimate them.

But they’re nothing compared to the problems posed by a population that keeps growing exponentially.

Our current economic system is based on population Ponzi. Like all Ponzi schemes it’s come to an end. We’ll just have to deal with it.

“If the rich “elite” truly cared about humanity…”

You’re kidding right? Name a time in history when a ruling class “truly cared” about the welfare of humanity?

Name a time in history when any group compared about the welfare of humanity in general.

Like what you are reading?

Here are some more articles you may enjoy