WTF
Edit: I wasn’t sure what I was appalled by at first but now I realize it’s that this fucking medal just encourages women to be treated no better than a prized heifer.
My great grandma got that one. It allowed her to be a bitch towards the Nazis, as they had to honor her.
The truth is that Trump is a poster child for why abortion should not only be legal, but encouraged.
Ah, here is step one. The “Mutter der Nation” medal for women having 5+ children.
Next stop: Lebensborn projects where women are forced to get impregnated by real american patriots ™
Blessed be the fruit.
Why do you think he wants to be “The Father of IVF.” Musky’s little breeding program.
Jesus fuck, if you want people to have kids, it is not that hard. Remove obstacles. On average, people want to have kids. It’s an evolutionary drive. People override that drive when they do not feel secure enough to start a family. Just make that easier. That’s it. Make sure people can afford to have kids, that they can provide them a comfortable and safe upbringing, that they can ready their kids to become adults, and that their kids’ future seems likely to be bright. How?
Decrease inflation. Subsidize child care. Increase wages and benefits (raise the mimimum wage). Mandate maternity/paternity leave. Make coverage for kids on health, dental, and vision insurance less expensive, or provide medicare for all (or at least all children). Make sure young people can afford good homes off of minimum wage. Make sure good schools are available to everyone by improving public education and providing bussing. Make sure kids are safe in schools with gun control laws. Make sure college/trade schools are inexpensive and accessible. Stablize the economy. Promote good middle class jobs. Avoid war. Fight bigotry. Provide comprehensive sex education and family planning resources including abortion rights so that people can start families when they are ready and promote generational welfare rather than propogating generational poverty.
Notice how damn near all of these things that would increase the birth rate are antithetical to GOP policy though? You want the results, but not the means. You want to offer “medals” for motherhood like a boss offers a pizza party for a record profits last quarter. It’s unserious, unhelpful, condescending, insulting, and still leaves new parents struggling to get by. Be better leaders with sensible policies. Maybe then you will get your wish.
The GOP wants to have their babies and eat them too
I would gold this comment if I could!
Trump is the sum of the reasons I won’t procreate and can shove every single medal up his rectum to form Trump piñata. However, we can then string him up and take turns beating Trump-yata with a bat until we all get a medal, and the world will be on its way to healing.
That’s what women of child bearing age want and need. A medal. Not jobs, food, housing, security, nor equality.
goes along nicely with the female celebrity “astronauts” from last week. “Putting the ‘ass’ in astronauts”, They said. “There will be eyelash extensions floating around the capsule”, and saying that they were very concerned about their hair in space. Thats is who the republicans need women to be. less concern about the stuff you mentioned, more referring to yourself as a piece of ass who will be required to make a whole lot of babies. Got it?
/s
Also those child-bearing age women do not want nor need maternity care, and are TOTALLY into receiving a huge hospital bill after giving birth.
All the best countries did that, and US will be greatest of them all, that is what he will make it. Great it will be made…
Can this medal be exchanged for food and shelter?
That would be communism!
Wait so we have too many immigrants but not enough babies?
What’s going on?
Sounds about white.
Keep track, we have too many of some immigrants, but not enough of some other immigrants. We have a tariffs on some stuff, but other stuff you don’t need to worry about. We support babies and infants sometimes, but not other times, but we ALWAYS hate China. That’s 2025!
That’s project 2025
ok so this is inconsistent
i read two fucking weeks ago that economists around the world are waking up to the idea that people should have fewer children because otherwise the rich and corporations might have to pay taxes to provide income to the people that the wages don’t. if there’s fewer people, they don’t need to pay people subsidies so much. trump should talk to his economists.
edit: context: wages are predicted to drop so low over the next 20 years that people will not be able to feed themselves on wages alone. social unrest is painful and to avoid it, some sort of Universal Basic Income will be unavoidable. That would have to be paid for by taxes that the rich would have to pay, since literally nobody else has any money. You see where this is going: the rich don’t like their wealth to be taxed.
It wouldn’t help unless said economists drew pictures and used simple words. Even then there’s no reason to believe he would understand.
it’s worth a try, and better than doing nothing.
Your masters want you to breed.
Whether you can afford to have children or not.
Especially when you can’t afford their education. Those are the best kind of voters.
Another coinkidink.
Governments are always offering weird wacky incentives for women to have children, when the solution is usually patently obvious: you can increase fertility by making it easy and affordable to have children. Stipends for food, paid maternity/paternity leave, free childcare services, affordable housing, and a good economy with an abundance of high-paying jobs.
I mean… there’s a reason the baby boom happened in the 50s! But no, that would be socialism!!
These fuckers will do anything to invent a flying machine except the proven model that works because they knoooow it gotta be possible with large square blocks of quarried marble tied to huskies. Just need more dogs. Or maybe more marble. mush! Ok add some more marble see if that works.
I posit that if we add a spoiler with 20" rims and a high flow muffler, this block of marble will surely take flight.
Well somebody’s about to get added to a Signal chat
I think you’re forgetting the marital rape, financial dependence on men, lack of choice, sexist culture and general helplessness and misery of women involved in creating the ‘baby boom’.
Were those new problems that didn’t exist before the 50s?
Of course they did. But medical advancements have reduced infant mortality and increased life expectancy.
I think you misunderstood my point. Even with all material comforts and financial stability, what makes the original commenter think women will voluntarily choose to have children? The huge surge in population was not only because of government subsidies, but brutal repression and lack of any real choice women had. It is not natural – it was artificially created by a system of violent repression of women.
If it was due to reduced infant mortality then why didn’t the same pattern happen from 1800 to 1880? Infant mortality dropped from about 1/3rd to 1/5th dying before their 5th birthday. Fertility rate being fairly consistent around 5 with a slight (10%) increase for a few years around 1815 before going back to around 5.
Then fertility rates nosedive from 1880 to 1935 with a temporary increase (boomers are the peak of this) before dropping down again and continuing to where we are today.
I get it, people have been treated badly throughout history and it even continues today. But that isn’t the reason the boomers exist.
That’s how you create a society of responsible adults capable of critical thinking. They want a society of mindless workers used to hardship and deprivation of their rights.
Ehm, on paper I agree, but you’ve witnessed the generation that came out of the post WW2 baby boom, right?
What were they called?
Germany has most of these and a low birth rate.
You still need 2 working parents, few people want to balance a career and children. We’re not designed for it. And their social help, while good for global standards, amounts to a fraction of the cost of having kids. In prehistory a whole village raised children and people barely worked. Social policies help but we need a global structural change.
In the past, people had several children because most would die before adulthood. The 20th century population boom is because better sanitation and healthcare reduced child mortality but it takes at least one generation for women to adapt and have fewer children.
Yes, the social support structure is essential. If you have extended family for example; that will help you out a lot with costs and care. Families are small, atomized and fractured today.
Honestly, we need to reform our economic system and not continually rely on fertility to solve all of our problems.
I’ll add that even those incentives probably won’t help, as fertility declines are strongly associated with education levels and money (and women’s liberation in particular). Give women options and unsurprisingly, some will choose not to have children.
Honestly, we need to reform our economic system and not continually rely on fertility to solve all of our problems.
Fertility and demographic collapse aren’t about supporting an economic system. Even if we were a post-scarcity communist utopia women would need to average 2.1 children/woman to maintain the existing population (2.1 isn’t growth, it’s maintenance - if you wonder why it’s slightly higher than the number of people involved with making new people it’s because you also have to cover for infertility and mortality among those children) or the same population-level result would occur. The nasty thing about demographic collapse is that it’s subtle until it isn’t and by that point it’s really hard to fix. There is no economic system where people don’t need to make more people to have a stable population, at least not unless/until we achieve some kind of immortality.
Ultimately you have three options when it comes to the topic, and they all have downsides:
-
Get your people to make more people. Downsides: Those new people aren’t really contributing to society for a couple of decades, which means it’s a long term fix for a problem that might be a big problem in a shorter term than that depending on where we’re talking about. Also, there aren’t a lot of ethical ways to do this, and the ones that are ethical aren’t extremely effective.
-
Import people from elsewhere. Downside: If you do this too quickly and/or without pushing for assimilation you will irrevocably change if not destroy your culture. This is why places like Japan and South Korea aren’t allowing unlimited mass immigration from anywhere people are willing to come from despite being on the cusp of the “until it isn’t” part of “subtle until it isn’t.”
-
Do nothing, and hope it just fixes itself. Downside: This is essentially a death spiral for your people.
-
IIRC. the US is one in two countries in the entire world that does not offer paid maternity leave.
Truth. Although at least FMLA allows us to not get fired during the 12 weeks after having a kid. You just won’t get paid, assuming you haven’t already used your FMLA time in that calendar year. Hopefully, you weren’t stuck on bedrest during the pregnancy because you only get up to 12 weeks. Period. And that’s whether it’s used before or after the kid’s birth. Also, if you’ve been working for your current employer for less than a year, you get nothing.
FREEDOM!!!.. hooray…
I’m pretty sure Somalia does not have paid maternity leave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#By_continent
National laws vary widely according to the politics of each jurisdiction. As of 2012, only two countries do not mandate paid time off for new parents: Papua New Guinea and the United States.
Somalia 14 [weeks] 50% [pay] Employer liability [source of pay]
Somalia does not have a functioning state apparatus to enforce any of its laws in most of the country
Because all the Sommelier babies are wine-drunk.
But that’d hurt billionaires.
Nooo not the billionaires!
Someone think of the poor billionaires!
Also the belief the future will be better and more abundant. People need that as possible parents being scared of the future are not having (more) children.
And the society we live in tells us money, expensive status symbols and varying experiences you can brag about are the most important things. Having many children stands in the way of that
There are also signs that there is an opportunity window that closes for large families.
As families sizes shrink, the children of those families go on to have a family size similar to what they grew up in. This is especially problematic for single child households.
Augustus did this 2000 years ago. Dictators can only imagine so far.
“Coincidentally” also a thing that Putin is currently doing
the US Government is bought, paid for, and owned by the Russian Mafia. So much so that the Subordinate tries to emulate the master in every facet now.
This is the more accurate comparison. Yes, Trump’s government is like nazi Germany in many respects but the pronatalist movement is straight out the Putin playbook.
…could he just skip to the part where he feeds himself a bullet just like daddy-Hitler, already?
