Ban on women marrying after 25: the proposal to boost birth rate in Japan
firstpost.com
firstpost.com
I wonder what kind of headlines Jonathan Swift's modest proposal would generate in the modern clickbait era. "Irish influencer apologies for abhorrent suggestion that the poor feed their children to the rich."
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uterus-removal-for-women-at-...
And just because he prefixed it with a disclaimer of how bad it was doesn't negate his responsibility to not say stupid things.
And it is stupid to think that if you restrict the right for half your population to marry then you'll increase the birth rate.
Why is it a stupid thing to say? It wasn't proposed as a validated or effective solution. I agree that a marriage ban after 25 probably wouldn't help.
The point wasn't to propose viable solutions - they were repeatedly stated to be bad.
I agree that the concept could have been presented more clearly, and used an unnecessarily distasteful example.
I just dont think that justifies the lying, disinfo, and manufactured outrage about what he said.
He clearly was not "advocating for a ban on women marrying after the age of 25 and having their uteruses removed at the age of 30." and didn't "[suggest] barring women from attending college after the age of 18"
If the headline read "politician uses horrific example with unclear point" there would be fewer clicks. Lies sell adds and fear drives up engagement.
If so, it might have been more useful to start with a more plausible example. As it is, it looks like it's trying to make the notion of "radical social engineering" look bad.
Unfortunately, it's hard to "think outside the box" because the box often exists for a reason. Most of what's outside the box is bad. Maybe it has also excluded something extraordinarily good, but you won't find it by casting about at random. Just telling people to think more radically doesn't seem to be helpful.
That was my take away from the interview. And yes, I would agree the interview did not present the well.
My point is that those are legitimate criticisms, deceitful journalism and outright lies are not legitimate criticism.
We can debate how valuable it is to think outside the box is, and when to do it.
That said, hopefully we both agree that spreading lies, misinformation, and outrage amongst people is not productive either.
Heck, there are even legitimate reasons to be upset by what he said, but that doesn't justify lying about what was actually said. That benefits nobody but those who profit from clicks.
You agree; I agree. I'm not sure how many more of us there are, but I don't think it's a majority.
But also, what, women don't have kids in their 30s ever? This is baffling from every angle.
First, an initially outrageous idea is introduced. Over time, this idea is gradually normalized, becoming more acceptable. Eventually, it’s implemented with the support of hidden allies who were quietly aligned all along."
Birthrate issues in east asia come down to short term rewards vs long term rewards. Income/leisure/career vs national security/sustaining ethnic identity. This fixes nothing and helps no one
This is a proposed human rights violation, to say nothing of any other aspect of it. The UDHR is clear on this.
Why are the types of people making these proposals even given the time of day?
> The minister proposed prohibiting women from getting married after the age of 25 and having forced hysterectomies ( uterus removal procedures) at the age of 30.
> The politician also suggested barring women from attending college after the age of 18, allegedly in order to concentrate on having more children.
Even worse than the headline lead me to believe.
> Hyakuta became recognised on the far right of Japanese politics in part because of his best-selling book The Eternal Zero, which was adapted into a movie that glorified kamikaze pilots in the closing days of World War II.
Just who we should listen to about ideas.
> Sumie Kawakami, a lecturer at Yamanashi Gakuin University and author of a book on gender issues, told This Week in Asia, “I cannot believe that a Japanese politician has said such a thing. I can only see these comments as a call to violence against women.”
Yep.
> He explained that these concepts were not intended to be taken literally, but rather were presented as a “science-fiction storyline” to start conversation. He added on X that he does not support such extreme actions against women and that his remarks were “extremely harsh.”
Sounds like he’s an L, Ton Hubbard type. Time to start a grifting, litigious religion.
My friend, who is going through IVF to have a child in her 40s, would love this.
Seriously, this man should not have any type of leadership role after this. What a dystopian hellscape in his head.
I think we need more space for devil's advocacy. We don't really know what we believe unless we can calmly, rationally argue for it rather than evading it. Modest proposals have a lot to teach. Failing to engage with alternatives to our values makes us more vulnerable to them, not less. The world would not be improved if The Handmaid's Tale had been suppressed, and a non-fictional debate on a similar topic is no different.
This example amounts to a gedankenexperiment simulation of an alternative incentive structure. We have a lot to learn about the effect of incentives, and simulations are the best available teacher that doesn't require tuition in blood.
Similar concepts mentioned in the interview would be sex education about the real benefits of having children earlier.