You may not follow the agenda, but this issue will still bother you; abortion. It’s hard to immediately remember when you first heard it. Maybe you were scrolling through the feed and read that MPs were discussing something? Or have you seen the debate of MPs? Or is it a statement from one of the politicians? Or will you discuss the application? A look at television, radio, telephone. At anchor.
This topic is presented in the information area the same way the cook Tosya Kislitsyna from “Girls” serves potatoes: fried potatoes, boiled potatoes, mashed potatoes, french fries, potato pie, potato pies. Both officials complain that women forget their purpose, that is, to give birth and raise; then they propose to ban higher education because it gives freedom to women; Then the priests propose to force the women to their knees and beat them to death. And as a result, lawmakers of some regions ban private clinics from performing abortions. Then they say that everything is not right, that they were misunderstood. And then – rrraz! – and now the Legislative Assembly of the Nizhny Novgorod region has adopted a ban on abortion performed by private clinics.
The issue of abortion and control of this process is becoming so exaggerated that various mid-level bosses are already trying to address this issue.
Circulation is guaranteed when an official talks about this topic. Also the principle of television that Vladimir Pozner said ten years ago: if you regularly show a horse’s ass on television, then it will become popular. If you constantly blame a woman for wanting to decide for herself what to do with her life, sooner or later society will believe that this is how it should be. This society needs to solve personal problems.
It is now said that a woman must get approval from her husband to terminate her pregnancy. First, the church talks about the possibility of such a law, then this issue is supported by leading figures of public opinion, votes in the media and publications of public opinion leaders. And now the matter went downhill, and the guys began to seriously argue whether he would give such permission. And here, of course, I want to ask: After obtaining permission, will he also give enough money for upbringing? Or – as is often the case, the piece of paper is separate, the money is separate?
Because of such talk, there is a strong feeling that the officials who propose this are living in a vacuum, in their own bureaucratic little world. Because in a normal family where there is trust and understanding, such problems are usually solved together. This is a difficult emotional choice. Difficult decision. And in normal relationships, women don’t do this alone. And the idea of asking your husband’s permission will only lead to fewer people getting married. No one wants to deliberately push themselves to the limit.
Yes, maybe this family will live together, give birth to six children to the joy of themselves and the state, and never marry. Or maybe they live for two years and break up, and a month after the breakup, the woman finds out she’s pregnant, what happens? Will she have to go to her husband, whom she does not love, and ask for permission to terminate the pregnancy? Yes, this is just the beginning of a series for the Domashny channel about the difficult life of an abandoned loner. But there is a rule on the Domashny channel – everything should end well, because there are always good people around, because in the last minutes of the film a regretful husband appears, who has noticed everything and has already bought a stroller. And only officials who are detached from life believe that this can happen.
In general, one of the biggest mistakes of the current authorities is to believe that people who come to the polls in the rain and snow do not understand anything about government affairs and can communicate with them like a caveman. For example, to intimidate and forbid. Seriously saying that higher education is not necessary for women. And any woman could give birth to children instead of studying.
This probably seems like a subtle move to them. It seems that they do not oppose abortion, but they talk about how beautiful it is to be a mother. Or they publicly praised women who refused abortion, but the subtext was: Those who reject the child are bad.
The state’s speech to women is degrading and humiliating towards women. He takes the woman back to a dirt-floored hut where she has no rights, no condoms or birth control pills. And a modern fertile girl may not know anything about the Stalinist-era abortion ban, but when she is again dragged into such conditions with a virtual stick, she will begin to resist.
There are rare issues that an ordinary person can tell the state and the state will learn about. And this is exactly the theme of the family – it is from this list. And there can be a good dialogue here. Because (I would like to believe) this is not a global problem about banning abortion and the desire to force all women to give birth, but about the fact that Russia has long been experiencing a demographic crisis and the period for bearing babies is short. The boom of the 2000s is long over. And here it would be possible to discuss and help, not to point out and forbid. There could have been a dialogue that would take the issue further and not reduce it to the statement “patriarchy was good, women gave birth, they were not smart”. It’s time to understand: it will not be the way it was.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.
Source: Gazeta
Dolores Johnson is a voice of reason at “Social Bites”. As an opinion writer, she provides her readers with insightful commentary on the most pressing issues of the day. With her well-informed perspectives and clear writing style, Dolores helps readers navigate the complex world of news and politics, providing a balanced and thoughtful view on the most important topics of the moment.