Why Russia decided to combat childlessness

 

The government's control over the literature about childlessness has sparked outcry from liberal quarters, with critics arguing that to solve the problem of low birth rate, it is first necessary to provide quality welfare to already-born children.

Russia is preparing a new ban on topics such as childfree culture, radical feminism, and "unhealthy sexual relations," thereby equating them all to terrorism. They intend to block such materials on the internet.

First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration of Russia, Sergei Kiriyenko, has been tasked with implementing the ban by June 1.  

The ban is actively supported by Senator Margarita Pavlova, who believes that it is necessary to police the internet and discourage the childfree discourse promoted by "radical feminism" in order to protect the country's future and national security.

But the move has already sparked condemnation from the country's liberal strongholds. 

"This is unconstitutional," says Senator Lyudmila Narusova. 

Narusova insisted that such issues are not resolved simply with the stroke of an official's pen, as voluntary childlessness in Russia is not an organised movement, but a way of life for some people. 

She said that refusal to have a child or get married is usually related to housing issues and unwillingness to limit oneself. She added that people have children when they are not afraid and are hopeful about the country's future.

But for Senator Pavlova, the ban is important to keep what she calls "maniacs and criminals" in check. "Terrorists, criminals, maniacs, murderers are romanticised online," Pavlova recently told Russian media. 

She said that abortions, including those of advanced pregnancy, are imposed and promoted under the guise of women’s rights. 

The rejection of starting a family and having children, the so-called childfree movement, is promoted under the guise of freedom of choice, Pavlova added.

Senator Lyudmila Narusova is critical of the Russian state's intent to ban childfree literature on the internet. ()

What does the State Duma think?

Senator Pavlova assured that the relevant bill is already being developed in cooperation with The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media, known locally as Roskomnadzor. However, Roskomnadzor denied having any information about the issue. 

The Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia, urged that such an initiative should not be rushed. The head of the Committee on Family, Women, and Children, Nina Ostanina, explained that the prohibition of publications on these topics on the internet might lead to a ban on abortion in the future, which means that women will begin to have them illegally. 

"Member of the Federation Council, Elena Mizulina has been thinking for a long time about taking them (abortions - editorial note) out of the MHI (mandatory health insurance) and making women have them for a fee. Then we will give it all to criminals," Ostanina said, expressing her concern. 

Ostanina insists that the ban on "radical feminism" is the most challenging initiative to implement because it has no exact criteria.

Lyudmila Narusova, a member of the Council of Federation for Constitutional Legislation and Nation Building, also spoke out against the bill to ban online content on childlessness.

According to Narusova, the Russian parliament has already “produced many similar legislative bans mechanically."

"Out-of-court decisions to ban something are unconstitutional," the senator said. "Any content is intellectual property, and if there is a ban on this type of property, then it should be a judicial ban, a reasoned one. But such issues are not resolved simply with one stroke of an official’s pen. I am conceptually against extrajudicial bans."

What do sociologists say?

It is unlikely that such bans will destroy the childfree culture, according to sociologist Ilya Lomakin. While researching this topic, he found that the Russian childfree communities on social networks cannot be called a well-defined movement since the idea of being “childfree” is based on the voluntary rejection of children. Therefore, he suggests a less politicised and broader term to describe the phenomenon – “voluntarily childless.” 

According to social data, up to nine percent of Russian men and women intend to remain childless. This proportion is relatively small compared to the United States, where 15 percent of women aged 40-44 have no children. In Austria, Spain and Great Britain, more than 20 percent of the population have opted to be childless.

Lomakin said that people who want to remain childfree tend to unite on social networking sites and usually bond well because of their lifestyle. Therefore, conscious childlessness cannot be seen as an organised movement that needs to be suppressed by the government. 

The response of childfree activists 

Edward Lisovsky, a leading childfree activist in Russia, believes that the state's decision to fight childlessness was quite predictable. The initiative could be the grounds for "putting a person in jail for reposting." 

"Maybe someone will write, 'How glad I am that I don't have children,' and that could be taken as a slogan to start a criminal case," Lisovsky told Russian media, adding that there is a difference between the so-called radical feminism and more tolerant movements.

"I have considered myself childfree for about ten years. I also created the first community at the same time," Lisovsky said. 

"At the moment, I am in a relationship with no children and do not plan to have any. I do not advocate that people do not have children, but I believe that everyone should have a choice. I just educate people and give them an opportunity to explain to others, including their relatives, that you can have children later or not have them at all."

Factors behind the declining birth rate

Emma, who works as a surgeon, decided not to give birth when she was six years old. "Maybe my horrible childhood was to blame for this, but this decision has never changed over the next 20 years," she told Lenta.ru. She said that she did not have a telephone at the time and certainly not an internet connection to learn about the idea.

"The example of my parents was enough to make me realise how I didn't want to live. Everywhere you look on the internet you see pregnancy, childbirth, and the happiness of motherhood propaganda, but I don't see any childfree movement propaganda. And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't affect anything. I had to see drunkards all my childhood, but I did not become like them, did I?" 

Emma's parents dragged her around from one bar to another. She spent most of her childhood going to bed hungry. She was usually fed by her neighbours. At home, she hid under the couch 24 hours a day, afraid that her parents' drinking buddies would rape her. Her mother once nearly strangled her in a drunken stupor; her father threw her in the furnace.

The doctor also said that in her case, childbirth was also unsafe. Because her mother smoked and drank the entire pregnancy and gave birth with a hangover. Emma was born a very sick child. 

"I have hypothyroidism, which now I have been able to put into 'hibernation,' but with a possible pregnancy, it will definitely 'wake up,' and I will have every chance to die from it within a few years. I value my own life more than the lives of non-existent people. This same hypothyroidism has caused me multiple tumours, which I had several years ago removed. I was already in the first stage of cancer," she said.

Despite her childhood trauma, Emma is open to the idea of adopting a child from an orphanage. She believes that orphans need parents more than anyone else. 

"Such laws discriminate against one category of people," believes Maria Karlina, who identified herself to Lenta.ru as a feminist. She admitted that previously she had no desire to have children, and the imposition caused only protest and irritation because she saw it as "reproductive violence."

Now that she has met someone she loves and can rely on, she has begun to think about children. "As for the bill, I think it's all sophistry in the first place," Karlina said. 

"The definitions that appear in this bill about advocating the killing of children are still up in the air. We've all seen it before in our history: when the government encouraged one opinion and punished another one. Most Russians know what this has led to - after all, we are all literate."

Karlin believes that perhaps the state is now "trying to solve the problem of fertility at the expense of people, rather than dealing with the current, already born children." 

Polina Malakhova, a journalist, thinks the problem here is much more serious: “It would be harder for the childfree communities and people with similar views to express themselves and obviously they will limit themselves in some way - after all, any 'Like', post or comment could be equated with propaganda, and you could be fined or jailed. This is a total restriction on freedom of speech. For me, this bill is another wake-up call and a reason to think about emigration.”

Source: TRT World 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure