this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
237 points (81.9% liked)

Not The Onion

12295 readers
1714 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 days ago

Man, this sure is a fun timeline

Next up: women should be sex slaves.

Seriously, I've seen shit like this in weirdo porn stories, never thought this would be real life.

[–] BlanK0@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago

This timeline is cooked fr 💀💀💀

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 127 points 4 days ago (5 children)

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.

[–] MissJinx@lemmy.world 57 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

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?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your doctor is saying that … are they also refusing to help you get it done?

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 34 points 4 days ago

Try talking directly with a surgeon. Doctors can be hesitant about fairly invasive surgeries like that, but surgeons almost always want to cut.

It's a vastly different situation but I had to do something similar for a carpal tunnel release. Doctors danced around the issue for years giving me braces, stretches, and work notes. But one call with an orthopedic surgeon and I was in for a consult within the week and surgery a couple months later.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 days ago

That's really fucked up, I'm sorry. Especially because it's an informed decision.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 6 points 4 days ago

I don't know if it's changed here, but even as a guy trying to get sterilized without being married nor having kids was work. I found someone to do it and paid out-of-pocket to get it done. I've heard similar stories from women living here.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago

Idk about nowadays but I think childfree (or related sub) on the other site had a list of known good doctors who'd do vasectomies and tubal ligations without the whole bs about but you might want kids (or more kids) later/let's ask your husband bullshittery.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

Til this is a thing

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because you live in the US?

[–] MissJinx@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago
[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What in the cinnamon toast fuck

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 11 points 4 days ago

That's quite confusing actually, don't they want people having more children, not less?

[–] Harvey656@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

That means the men are free to marry each other right? Right?

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Is that a requirement right now? If you marry after 25 you have to have your uterus removed by 30? Hence why he wanted to ban it?

Weird requirement.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago

No.

There are two things this person was suggesting:

ban women from getting married after the age of 25

and

  1. have their uteruses removed at 30
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

What a solid way to destroy whatever remains of their birth rate.

[–] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 60 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 9 points 4 days ago

This guy is known for spouting all kinds of bullshit, apparently. I've lived here for a decade and it's the first I've heard of this level of insanity (though there certainly is no short of misogyny from the fossils and those wont to blame anyone else for their problems).

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 37 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Don't they... have... a... population shortage?

I'm so confused

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 72 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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?

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 6 points 4 days ago

Them removing womens ability to procreate. Not only is it counter productive this costs money.

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

No, they have colossal overpopulation.

Is just that it happened a while ago and now the massive population is getting old and the bottom of the pyramid isn't looking too good for them anymore.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Maybe the old should die.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago

they have colossal overpopulation.

I don't know that that's necessarily true, particularly as the older generations are on their way out. I'm not sure how many people Japan can/should support in a sustainable fashion (thinking here more in environmental terms and maybe a bit in economic terms, but not in terms of the safety nets that are getting really wrecked by what you mentioned).

I will 100% agree that the distribution is rather unsustainable on a number of levels. Not being able to get into free/subsidized childcare with growing shrinkflation and stagnant wages has certainly been an issue, and more people moving to the same places has definitely impacted that poorly.

[–] nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But why? Don't they have a problem with low birthrates?

[–] PrincessKadath@ani.social 21 points 4 days ago

Insanity and the need to control everything, that's why.

[–] BonerMan@ani.social 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] bane_killgrind 4 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago

This is an attempt at reverse psychology.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (7 children)

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?

[–] xtr0n@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think it’s treated as a crisis because the economic charts always need to go up. Infinite growth requires people.

[–] Glent@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago

Infinite growth requires infinite people. So yea, speedrunning the end of earth and all life inhabiting it because well...........line must go up.

[–] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 3 points 3 days ago

Number must go up

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] Arsecroft@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 days ago

generally a racist/xenophobe thing, there are more than enough people, they're just not the "right kind"

[–] MissJinx@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

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

[–] 0laura@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

the planet is not overpopulated. narratives like overpopulation are used by and can quickly lead to nazi stuff.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I guess it's a quality versus quantity thing. It's a lot easier for 4 billion people to coexist happily than it is for 8 billion people in the same space.

Our food air and water quality have all dropped dramatically over the last 50 years even though the protections for them have increased.

If half the population did not reproduce then those of us that have grandkids might live in a better world.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I don't think so.

Having less children means having worse ratio of elderly to young people, which strains social security and may ultimately force seniors to work until they die, while young generation will see an ever greater burden of disabled elderly.

Unless you want to shoot people after certain age, that is. But, happily, this is a tradeoff unlikely to be accepted.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

We're overpopulated given our current resource distribution/consumption, but solving that through eugenics is obviously moronic.