Xi Jinping, Emmanuel Macron & demographic “warfare”

Laetitia@Work #66

Hi everyone,

China’s Xi Jinping and France’s Emmanuel Macron apparently don’t have much in common. But both leaders have recently made strong declarations about their country’s fertility, urging their people to start making more babies. And both see babies not just as the fuel of future economic growth, but as the staple of patriotism. In both cases the approach is bound to fail lamentably. And in both countries it irritates women enormously. 

France has just recorded its lowest fertility since World War Two (France has long prided itself on having long had Europe’s top fertility) and is struggling to come to terms with population ageing. At the same time, the rise of xenophobia and racism make it politically difficult to advocate for more migration to stabilise the workforce. In a much commented speech this January, France’s President called for “demographic rearmament”. Demographic rearmament?! Really?! 

(Cartoon: Caroline Taconet ❤️)

Meanwhile, in China, with the prospect of fast population shrinking —it could be halved long before the end of the century— Xi Jinping has emphasized the importance of women embracing more traditional roles within the household. He recently encouraged government officials to advocate for a "marriage and childbearing culture" and to shape the perspectives of young people regarding "love and marriage, fertility, and family." Many times, Xi Jinping has also invoked patriotism, calling on women to be “good wives and mothers” for the sake of their country.

Both engage in discussions about birth rates that completely overlook the most crucial issues, such as childcare and healthcare infrastructure, housing, the state of schools, workplace equality, the possibility for women to escape the motherhood penalty (and the state of our environment, of course). Both turn to pro-natalist discourses that clash with the cultural reality of their country. 

China is an authoritarian regime that does not support gender equality so it’s not that surprising its leader will talk that way. But why does France’s leader resort to the same martial register? Here are some thoughts on fertility, martial natalist speeches and what should really be done to give women the choice to have or not to have children. 👇💡

Babies and patriotism have a history

During times of conflict, governments have strategically endorsed natalism as a means of bolstering military capabilities and ensuring the resilience of the nation. The idea is that a larger population not only provides a potential pool of soldiers but also strengthens the workforce and economic capacity required to sustain and recover from the ravages of war. During periods of conflict, there’s a symbiotic relationship between population growth and the preservation of patriotism.

Children as future cannon fodder for armed conflicts, of course, was never popular. Even in conservative societies, parents did not like sending their sons to die. They weren’t really given a choice. Women rarely chose to get pregnant and they didn’t choose to enrol their sons in the army either. Propaganda was meant to reduce rebellion and make sure people knew they didn’t have a choice.

After a significant loss of life during World War I, France implemented natalist policies to address the demographic decline. The French government offered financial incentives and family support to encourage higher birth rates. These policies continued on during the period of collaboration with Nazi Germany.

During and after World War II, the Soviet Union promoted pro-natalist policies to recover from the demographic losses suffered during the conflict. Policies included incentives for larger families and benefits for mothers with multiple children. These mothers were celebrated in special rituals and art.

Natalist policies “to strengthen the nation” are also strongly related to racist ideology. The Nazi regime under Hitler implemented aggressive natalist policies to increase the Aryan population. Encouraging large families was part of the broader goal to expand the German military, which was driven by the belief in “Aryan” racial superiority. 

Macron’s opponents didn’t fail to mention that his phrase “So France can remain France'' had (more or less subtle) racist undertones to appeal to all those who believe France is in the process of losing its Frenchness, which, to them, is connected to its white, Christian roots. Far-right extremists are convinced there is a “great replacement” taking place whereby white people are progressively being “replaced” by non-whites, non-French people. So the message is a double one: white women should have more babies (and they are accused of being too selfish) while non-white women are accused of having too many of them (funnily enough, they’re also accused of being selfish).

Why appealing to patriotism doesn’t work when it comes to fertility

Yes, Chinese women are in a very different situation than the French when it comes to freedoms and economic emancipation. China ranks much lower than France in the Global Gender Gap Index 2023 rankings. The French enjoy a higher degree of free speech than the Chinese. Indeed feminist movements are systematically censored in today’s China, while French feminists, on the contrary, are more vocal and visible than ever. There’s even a feminist Renaissance in France.

Yet young Chinese women are no less “feminist”. Interestingly there are cultural and demographic reasons for the fact that Chinese women won’t give up on economic emancipation and sacrifice their careers for the sake of patriotism. Between 1979 and 2015, the one-child policy made it extremely hard for families to have more than one child. This had 2 consequences for the generations born from the 1980s to the 2010s. 

First, there are fewer women than men. The selective abortion of female fetuses, referred to as "female feticide" was a fairly common practice. This put the (surviving) women in a relative position of power when it comes to choosing a partner. Second, most girls were raised as only children, cherished, pampered, and encouraged to pursue education and careers. They did not serve brothers nor were they sacrificed in families where the resources were directed towards males. As explained in this excellent New York Times piece:

China hastened the problem with its one-child policy, which helped to push the birthrate down over several decades. The rule also created generations of young only-child girls who were given an education and employment opportunities — a cohort that turned into empowered women who now view Beijing’s efforts as pushing them back into the home.

Meanwhile France may see a rise in patriotic discourse and nationalist fervour but patriotic natalism is not received well. The phrase “patriotic rearmament” is ridiculed these days. The left criticised the government for policies that it says made it harder for young people to access housing and access childcare. The martial rhetoric seems completely out of tune.

Who will have a baby out of patriotism? Answer: absolutely nobody. Out of love, maybe. But to "rearm" the country? Certainly not.

So what policies do boost fertility?

The list of reasons for not having children is long. There are economic, social as well as cultural reasons. You can blame the inadequate availability of childcare, the housing crisis (that particularly affects the young), as well as anxiety about climate disaster and war. 

Countries such as Japan or Korea, which are now facing extreme population decline (their fertility is among the lowest in the world) have tried many things that didn’t work because they failed to address the motherhood penalty, i.e. the systemic disadvantages and biases that women face in the workplace due to their roles as mothers. 

👉Also read: How Germany punishes mothers. Laetitia@Work #40

Women who become mothers experience discriminatory practices, lower wages, reduced job opportunities, limited career advancement, and biased perceptions of their commitment and competence at work. Mothers encounter (impossible) challenges in balancing work and family life. As a result many women still have to choose between career and maternity. And in places where they have to choose between the two, they have fewer and fewer children.

The type of policies that do seem to have some positive effect on fertility are related to helping mothers have careers rather than pushing them to stay at home. It may seem paradoxical but research shows that higher female participation rates are associated with more babies. 

It is well known that fertility rates have declined as women’s labour-force participation has increased. Handling a career as well as juggling childcare appeared to leave little room for big families. But new research now helps to explain a striking reversal of that trend in rich countries: higher female participation rates are associated with more babies.

In short, if you want to have some chances of increasing fertility, support working mothers! Fight discrimination in the workplace. Create infrastructures of care (childcare and healthcare) that make it easy for mothers to work and have the children cared for. Improve the school system. Change the tax system so you don’t incentivise the gender gap (France, like Germany, still has a “conjugal quotient” for income taxes). Reduce the work week for all workers so caregivers can continue to work full-time without risking burnout. Create incentives to encourage fathers to get more involved.

The more you talk about “rearmament” the less people will want to have children. Who wants to bring children to life for them to be cannon fodder? Nobody. Not even patriots.

💡I wrote a newsletter for Vives Média: Et si l'on apprenait les uns des autres ?

💡Check out the latest articles in French I wrote for Welcome to the Jungle: Pourquoi le métier d'assistante sociale a de l'avenir en entreprise, Les profils atypiques existent-ils encore ?, Biais d’ancrage : pourquoi vos anciens salaires peuvent plomber vos négociations

🎙️ The new season of the Nouveau Départ podcast has started! Quelle place pour l’intime ?, Économie / Travail : 7 tendances en 2024 🎧 (in 🇫🇷) 👉 Subscribe to receive our future podcasts directly in your inbox!

Miscellaneous

🌆 The Big City Where Housing Is Still Affordable, Binyamin Appelbaum, The New York Times, September 2023: “Those who want to live in Tokyo generally can afford to do so. There is little homelessness here. The city remains economically diverse, preserving broad access to urban amenities and opportunities. And because rent consumes a smaller share of income, people have more money for other things — or they can get by on smaller salaries — which helps to preserve the city’s vibrant fabric of small restaurants, businesses and craft workshops.”

🤕 Back and neck problems driving major UK health crisis, say medical leaders, Michael Goodier and Andrew Gregory, The Guardian, January 2024: “Almost a million people in the UK are too sick to work because of back or neck ailments (…) In most cases, back or neck issues may be resolved or improved with prompt physiotherapy assessment, advice and rehabilitation. However, the NHS faces a shortage of physiotherapy staff, with thousands of patients stuck on waiting lists. Some in severe pain have been forced to wait so long that they are developing other health conditions, such as depression.”

Peace and love ☮️🤗