this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
186 points (93.9% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2195 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Notably, Chang's report claims that biological females develop earlier than males do, so requiring girls to enter school at younger ages will create classes in which the two sexes are of more equal maturity as they age. This, the author posits, makes it more likely that those classmates will be attracted to each other, and marry and have children further down the line."

(...)

"The report does not include evidence of any correlation between female students' early enrollment and the success rate of their romantic relationships with men. The author also does not detail specific mechanisms by which his proposed policy would increase romantic attraction or birthrates."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (5 children)

It's really easy, and I'll explain it once again for the idiot governments in the back.

GIVE LARGE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HAVING CHILDREN AND RAISING FAMILIES.

This concludes my Ted Talk.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

People don’t need large incentives. They need help with daycare/eldercare, education, and healthcare. They need to be able to afford places to live that can fit a family. These are things that everyone needs, it’s just more critical to having a family

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't work. My country gave around 15% of minimal pay per kiddo. People who shouldn't have children had lots of them. People who should...had the same amount as before that. Slightly better finances tho, but they still waited till they were able to provide for child.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

What country are you from?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fuck that, I'm not paying for breeders to ruin the planet more.

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

It’s that easy in most countries (though really just making it not a financial detriment to reproduce is better), but in South Korea it’s more than the money. A lot of South Korean women are withholding reproductive labor due to the intensity of the cultural misogyny

[–] HighElfMage@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No government can afford giving large enough baby bounties to move the needle. Kids are really, really expensive.

[–] MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

what is it now, $200k+ from 0-18? (depending on where you live)