20

23 comments

[–] shewolfoffrance 12 points Edited

Men who push this kind of crap are so stupid. Beyond the physical risks and financial difficulty of having 10 kids, it's not great for the kids either. Unless the parents can hire an army of tutors, maids and nannies, it becomes very difficult to make sure the kids are doing their homework, getting to bed on time, staying out of trouble, and bathing and wearing clean clothes every day. Since the parents are usually too exhausted to be adequately involved in their kids lives, they end up forcing their older daughters into a quasi-parental role.

ETA The timeline for this is insane. If a woman got started bright and early having babies at the age of 20 and waited 2 years between pregnancy (probably not ideal in Putin's mind), by the time she was 40, she would have gone through 10 pregnancies (assuming no miscarriages). She'd be raising children until she was 68 or so, at which time she'd probably be expected to help out with her children's children.

I have ONE toddler. And me and my husband can barely meet her needs between both of us working full time and needing to do basic stuff like cooking, cleaning, and bathing. We had wanted at least two children. But having another doesn't seem feasible when we don't have much in the way of support (aside from our moms being able to babysit once in a while).

The only way I'd have more kids is if one of us somehow got a job that paid enough for the other to quit working and be a stay at home parent. And even then, it would still be tough.

I honestly don't think its possible for a family with more than five kids to adequately meet their needs. Even if the parents are rich and don't need to work, they'd still be stretched thin and reliant on outside help.

I honestly don't think its possible for a family with more than five kids to adequately meet their needs.

I've known quite a few families with 5+ kids (grew up religious). Some actually did well, others...not so much. It definitely helped if the father made enough money for the wife to stay home.

Another factor was daughters. Having a female oldest child was almost like having a free, built-in babysitter. Older sons didn't offer the same benefit most of the time. Having more daughters than sons also seemed to make the workload of supervising and disciplining lighter overall.

The mother's mental and physical health mattered a lot, more than the father's. It helped immensely if the mother was naturally organized, detail-oriented, and proactive. If she was able to get enough rest and exercise, eat healthy food, and shower every day, it made a big difference for her mood and attentiveness. Related to that was how much time she had to recover between pregnancies. The 5+ mothers I know who had all their kids within 1.5-3 year time spans seem markedly more tired and forgetful, even after their kids are grown up. The ones who have more physical and mental energy often had their last 1-2 kids as "surprise" babies 4 or more years after the older kids.

All the previous points apply mostly to families with 5-6 kids and assume a more or less equal sex ratio. After 7+ kids, the parents usually were too tired to adequately supervise the younger ones, especially if they were boys (boys are unruly, die mad scrotes). It really depended on whether they had older daughters they could push into a parent role.

And a final, tangentially related note: women surviving 10+ pregnancies and 10+ surviving children was never the norm, historically. Mothers either lost young children to illness and injury, died in childbirth, or both. Even aristocratic women who could hire wet nurses and maids couldn't reasonably expect 10 surviving children.

ETA Sorry for the rant. I was raised with the expectation of having tons of children. I saw what it did to women, and I'm still raw about it.

Lmfaoo this is crazy. The same men who hate and have contempt for women and are disgusted by single mothers, desperately wanting us to be bay factories.

For all that Putin claims to hate nazis, he sure likes to copy their tactics.

(Stalin may have done it first in Russia, but Hitler did it in 1938.)

Though the Cross of Honour of the German mother apparently didn't include any money, it did include privileges - according to the English Wikipedia article, mothers with eight or more children were treated like war heroes and given a family helper, which is arguably worth more than a measly 13,500. At least it would in modern Germany, what with the minimum wage.

So yeah. This sort of thing seems to always crop up in countries that throw their young people away in wars.

The ancient Romans gave women their legal independence:

Even babies accepted into the household by the paterfamilias had a rocky start in life. Around 25 percent of babies in the first century AD did not survive their first year and up to half of all children would die before the age of 10.

As a result, the Roman state gave legal rewards to women who had successfully given birth. After three live babies (or four children for former slaves), women were recognized as legally independent. For most women, only at this stage could they choose to shrug off male control and take responsibility for their own lives.

But maternal mortality was also very high (I can't find the number right now), so 3-4 children was risky.

https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/family.html

I wonder if this resulted in baby killings / forced abortions when men didn’t want them to have independence

GOP: »Listens carefully«

GOP: »Listens carefully«

GOP: "Congrats on your tenth child! I'm sorry you're struggling and can't feed them! Here, have some bootstraps!"

GOP: Congratulations on your tenth child! Unfortunately, as you are not white you do not qualify for this award.

GOP: Congratulations on your tenth child! Unfortunately, as you are not white you do not qualify for this award.

They'll get 1/5 of the award 🤣

My concern is why he's doing this now when the kids won't be ready to die in war for at least 16 years. What's he planning for the future? He has cancer and he's old, is he expecting to even be around for it?

I'm guessing Putin wants this policy to be his legacy. That he inspired Russian women to be fruitful and multiply. And I'm sure he's already preparing a successor to continue on whatever path he has mapped out

Hey Putin! Maybe more women would have children if you gave ALL of them support/benefits instead of only reserving benefits for the women who have litters. Just a thought.

FULL TEXT:

Putin revives Mother Heroine award for women who have ten children

Marc Bennetts | Tuesday August 16 2022

President Putin has revived a Soviet-era award for women who have ten or more children as Russia faces a demographic crisis that has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.

Joseph Stalin established the “Mother Heroine” title in 1944 to encourage large families after the death of tens of millions of Soviet citizens during the Second World War. More than 400,000 women received the award before it was scrapped after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Under Putin’s decree, women will get a one-off payment of one million roubles (£13,500) after their tenth child has reached its first birthday, on the condition that the other nine children are still alive. They will also receive Mother Heroine gold medals decorated with the Russian flag and the country’s coat of arms.

Putin also announced that recipients of the Parental Glory award, created in 2008 for families with seven or more children, would receive increased payments amounting to 700,000 roubles (£9,500). Some Kremlin critics accused Putin of encouraging women to produce “cannon fodder” for the Russian army.

“As a rule, you can really rely on those who were brought up in a large family. They will not let down a friend, or colleagues, or their motherland,” Putin said.

Putin is the youngest of three brothers and the only one to survive childhood. His eldest brother, Albert, died in infancy in the 1930s and his other brother, Viktor, died in 1942, reportedly of starvation and diphtheria, during the siege of Leningrad.

The Russian president has acknowledged fathering two daughters with his former wife, Lyudmila. However, he is also widely believed to have other children with Alina Kabaeva, an ex-Olympic gymnast, and Svetlana Krivonogikh, a cleaner who became massively wealthy after a reported affair with Putin during his first term as president.

The move comes after Russia’s state statistics service warned that the country’s population of 144 million could fall to about 132 million in the next two decades. It also said that the number of people living in Russia had fallen by 380,000 between January and June. The United Nations has predicted that in the worst-case scenario Russia’s population could slump to just 83 million by 2100.

Tens of thousands of young Russians are thought to have died in Ukraine since Putin ordered an invasion in February. The average age of those killed is thought to be just 21. In addition to military casualties, hundreds of thousands of people, including academics, journalists and IT specialists, have emigrated from Russia since the start of the war.

Putin’s decree is part of a wider Kremlin policy of promoting what it portrays as “traditional values”. A group of pro-Putin MPs recently put forward legislation that would outlaw any public discussion of a child-free lifestyle, something they said was as harmful for Russia’s future as drug abuse, suicide and political extremism. The draft law would also prohibit any public discussion of homosexuality.

ARCHIVE LINK

“…on the condition that the other nine children are still alive.” That’s just cruel. Imagine gestating, birthing, and raising TEN children, but one of them tragically dies just before the youngest turns 1 - “oh just kidding, never mind on this pocket change we were going to give you! Better luck next time.”