World News

39147 readers

3705 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

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.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

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

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

187

So, are you pregnant yet? China’s in-your-face push for more babies. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave to c/world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The government is again trying to insert itself into women’s childbearing decisions, knocking on doors and making calls with questions some find downright invasive.

The first time a government worker encouraged Yumi Yang to have a baby, she thought little of it. She and her husband were registering their marriage at a local office in northeastern China, and the worker gave them free prenatal vitamins, which she chalked up to the government trying to be helpful.

When an official later called to ask if she had taken them, and then called again after she did get pregnant to track her progress, Ms. Yang shrugged those questions off as well intentioned, too. But then officials showed up at her door after she had given birth, asking to take a photograph of her with her baby for their files. That was too much.

“When they came to my home, that was really ridiculous,” said Ms. Yang, 28. “I felt a little disgusted.”

Faced with a declining population that threatens economic growth, the Chinese government is responding with a time-tested tactic: inserting itself into this most intimate of choices for women, whether or not to have a child.

Officials are not just going door to door to ask women about their plans. They have partnered with universities to develop courses on having a “positive view of marriage and childbearing.” At high-profile political gatherings, officials are spreading the message wherever they can.

Non-paywall link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The only thing mentioned are the promotional campaigns and once, vaguely, "child-care resources". And the ratio is far more in the former's favour, which is useless. Same for women being pro- and against the government's actions, with there being more focus on the complaints. And they actually get quoted, so they're more trustworthy. I actually applaud them, since the supporters might just be doing it out of fear. No statistic to back up either though, but just about anyone will assume the Chinese government is fucking up privacy rights, as usual. There ARE quotes for that in here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

And the ratio is far more in the former’s favour, which is useless. Same for women being pro- and against the government’s actions, with there being more focus on the complaints.

This is an article not a poll. The author of the article can choose to focus on women who are unhappy with the government programs even if they’re in the minority. The author can also highlight aspects of the Chinese system that are more invasive than others. Assuming everything in the article is factually correct, you still cannot make assumptions about how Chinese women feel more generally.

You also cannot proclaim that the government did not pursue means of promoting having children that did not infringe on women’s privacy, as the comment I was replying to did.

I actually applaud them, since the supporters might just be doing it out of fear.

This is just speculation and it contradicts other assumptions you’ve made based on this article. You seem to think the women quoted in the article are representative of China as a whole except of course when it comes to their willingness to criticize their government. This kind of logic is unreasonable and will easily lead you to believe all sorts of nonsense. It’s not all that different from how republicans get swept up into thinking Haitian immigrants were eating people’s pets.