• taladar@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    11 months ago

    “In Russian families, many of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had seven or eight children, and maybe even more. We should preserve and revive these wonderful traditions. Large families should be the norm, the way of life for all peoples of Russia,”

    Along with traditions such as 3-5 of those children dying before they even reach adulthood?

    • Johandea@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      11 months ago

      Of course not. Modern medicine will keep them alive. At least long enough for the frontline. Most of them will probably live well into their teens!

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    And just like that they’re sliding back into the dark ages. Putin wants ignorant masses to exploit.

    • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      They had a chance to join the civilized world in 1917 and 1991 and failed both times. I feel bad for the average Russian. A country full of resources and land with a long history of abusive, shit head rulers.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I wonder if it’s a cultural thing, because every ruler seems to be an autocrat no matter if they call themselves Czars, Presidents, or Prime Ministers. Are Russian politicians always willing to resort to violence making those who do not politically disadvantaged?

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m not sure, it seems like they’re just used to it.

          They’ve never had democracy and many of the would-be heroes plus their genetic lineage have been stamped out.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I mean, not having women do higher education might bring up fertility rates – I don’t think that there’d a clear answer there. It’s true that fertility rates were higher during a period in time when women were in college less, but there were also a number of other societal changes that happened.

    But if one doesn’t educate women, it runs the risk of probably cutting your GDP significantly, as it halves the size of the pool of people with higher education. That’s a costly move.

    EDIT: And one other point. If the experiment doesn’t work, it’s a policy that is hard to back out for a long time. Let’s say that you adopt the policy for 10 years. If a woman doesn’t get a college education, they’re probably going to stay like that for the next ~50 years of their working lives; it’s harder and less-effective to go back much later and do adult education. So you’re kind of committing to that policy for quite some time to come, and if you don’t like the results, you don’t really have a lot of way to immediately revert back to the pre-policy environment.

    If one wants to try restricting abortions – also referenced in the article – or oral contraception or something like that, those are policies that can be readily backed-out if you try them and decide that they don’t work well. Not doing higher education for women would be a change to Russia that will be around for a long, long time.

    • interolivary@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think your problem is that you took the Kremlin at its word.

      This policy isn’t meant to do anything but further subjugate women, because right-wing authoritarians generally despise feeeeeeeeemales