For all those confused, it's to make younger women into brood mares, and framing this as a "call", when it was one tweet from some deranged jerkoff, is disingenuous clickbait

I hate the frequent use of "call(s)" in journalism to paint this dishonest picture that there is a large group or important figures actively motioning to do shit, when it's almost always just as you've said here. One or two inconsequential dicks with a stupid opinion.
- Welcome to most modern journalism! Remember when every news org started spending time going to Twitter to get the general population's reactions (instead of actually interviewing real people and figuring out how actually widespread a viewpoint is)? It's been downhill from there.
  
  Combined with most people only reading headlines, news organizations almost never providing context for most actual facts, and wealth concentration like we've never seen, the current state of news media is pretty dire.
  
  You can get people to assume almost any cynical worldview you want when you can chip away at their belief in humanity by repeatedly showing only the worst examples of it. This is what conservative news media has been so good at - getting them to believe a specific image of "liberal" and allowing that image to represent ALL liberals instead of just the most extreme side. Honestly, it feels like most people on the left are similarly starting to use dehumanizing language to describe conservatives. All this leads to people avoiding communication because they assume that everyone on "the other side" believes insane nonsense. Sometimes they do. A lot of times, they don't.
- I came in here ready to ask why someone's hot take gets to be legislation while my carefully thought out stuff is just thrown in the garbage. Turns out nobody's hot take is going anywhere.
But they even used the name "Conservative Party" so we can mentally connect this insanity to our own local conservatives in between bong hits, comfortably assured of our biases.
- ...there's a lot to unpack here
- It's pretty easy to see that "conservatives" the entire world over are just absolutely evil human waste. Their actions prove that.
- Oh, no, ours are much worse.

TOKYO: The leader of a Japanese conservative party has apologised for saying the solution to the nation’s population crisis would be to ban women from getting married after the age of 25 and have their uteruses removed at 30.

Feels like kinda burying the lede here.

oh I would LOVE to have my uterus removed! I tryied but.the doctor keep saying that "you may still want to have kids". IM 40! and I never wanted them until now, really doubt I'll change my mind radically

edit: why don't I have autonomy.over.my own body?
- Try talking directly with a surgeon. Doctors can be hesitant about fairly invasive surgeries like that, but surgeons almost always want to cut.
  
  It's a vastly different situation but I had to do something similar for a carpal tunnel release. Doctors danced around the issue for years giving me braces, stretches, and work notes. But one call with an orthopedic surgeon and I was in for a consult within the week and surgery a couple months later.
- That's really fucked up, I'm sorry. Especially because it's an informed decision.
- Idk about nowadays but I think childfree (or related sub) on the other site had a list of known good doctors who'd do vasectomies and tubal ligations without the whole bs about but you might want kids (or more kids) later/let's ask your husband bullshittery.
- I don't know if it's changed here, but even as a guy trying to get sterilized without being married nor having kids was work. I found someone to do it and paid out-of-pocket to get it done. I've heard similar stories from women living here.
- Til this is a thing
- Because you live in the US?
What in the cinnamon toast fuck
- LMFAO
That's quite confusing actually, don't they want people having more children, not less?
That means the men are free to marry each other right? Right?
Is that a requirement right now? If you marry after 25 you have to have your uterus removed by 30? Hence why he wanted to ban it?

Weird requirement.
- No.
  
  There are two things this person was suggesting:
  
  ban women from getting married after the age of 25
  
  and
  
  have their uteruses removed at 30

Man, this sure is a fun timeline

Next up: women should be sex slaves.

Seriously, I've seen shit like this in weirdo porn stories, never thought this would be real life.

That headline is crazy, but then I read the article. Thank goodness it's not a mainstream idea and even other politicians are vocally telling this guy to pump the brakes. I don't think it ever even made it to a formal policy proposal. I suppose that one politician wants to speedrun the decline of Japan or something.

This guy is known for spouting all kinds of bullshit, apparently. I've lived here for a decade and it's the first I've heard of this level of insanity (though there certainly is no short of misogyny from the fossils and those wont to blame anyone else for their problems).

What a solid way to destroy whatever remains of their birth rate.

This timeline is cooked fr 💀💀💀

Don't they... have... a... population shortage?

I'm so confused

Naoki Hyakuta, a writer and founder of the Conservative Party of Japan, also said that women should not be permitted to attend university from the age of 18, apparently so they could focus their efforts on producing more babies.

The conservative party's solution to declining birthrates is to make it illegal for women to do anything besides have children. What are you confused about?
- WOW that's fucked up.
  
  Naah, I was referring more to the headline, as I believe there would be a positive correlation between married women and kids. Banning women to marry = less kids.
- Them removing womens ability to procreate. Not only is it counter productive this costs money.
No, they have colossal overpopulation.

Is just that it happened a while ago and now the massive population is getting old and the bottom of the pyramid isn't looking too good for them anymore.
- they have colossal overpopulation.
  
  I don't know that that's necessarily true, particularly as the older generations are on their way out. I'm not sure how many people Japan can/should support in a sustainable fashion (thinking here more in environmental terms and maybe a bit in economic terms, but not in terms of the safety nets that are getting really wrecked by what you mentioned).
  
  I will 100% agree that the distribution is rather unsustainable on a number of levels. Not being able to get into free/subsidized childcare with growing shrinkflation and stagnant wages has certainly been an issue, and more people moving to the same places has definitely impacted that poorly.
- Maybe the old should die.

But why? Don't they have a problem with low birthrates?

Insanity and the need to control everything, that's why.

🤨

WHAT?!?

The fact that this was an idea he was able to articulate is either an indictment of his intelligence, an indictment of his respect for women.

This is an attempt at reverse psychology.

OK, all of this panic about lower birth rates… Is it really that big of a deal? I mean, the planets overpopulated as it is. Can someone clarify this for me? Is it really the crisis people seem to think it is?

I think it’s treated as a crisis because the economic charts always need to go up. Infinite growth requires people.
- Infinite growth requires infinite people. So yea, speedrunning the end of earth and all life inhabiting it because well...........line must go up.
Number must go up
Lower population in of itself is a good thing.

It's the change that is disruptive and will cause suffering in ways that are unique to the suffering caused by over population.

As population growth slows, the younger generation needs to support more elderly. Which means we need some combination of:

Working population being more productive. Population making do with less.

However you approach it, there will be segments of the population that are very unhappy.
the planet is not overpopulated. narratives like overpopulation are used by and can quickly lead to nazi stuff.
- I guess it's a quality versus quantity thing. It's a lot easier for 4 billion people to coexist happily than it is for 8 billion people in the same space.
  
  Our food air and water quality have all dropped dramatically over the last 50 years even though the protections for them have increased.
  
  If half the population did not reproduce then those of us that have grandkids might live in a better world.
- We're overpopulated given our current resource distribution/consumption, but solving that through eugenics is obviously moronic.
it is for rich people. The less ofer the higher the value. If you have less workers the ones you have will cost more and than shareholders won't have as much profit and CEOs won't be able to make bilions a year
generally a racist/xenophobe thing, there are more than enough people, they're just not the "right kind"
Yes. AFAB people do not owe society their reproductive labor. If someone doesn't want to contribute to saving the species that's their choice, and it's unethical to force it on them.

Yes, that means even if there's only a handful of people left on Earth.

In Japan, call to ban women marrying after 25 stirs backlash

WHAT?!?