Does anyone really believe that US would bother about 'suppression of birth rates' if China was still a deeply poor Maoist country?
what kind of hypocrisy is it to accuse China for "suppression of birth
rates" among muslims well knowing that they have for long had many more
children than other Chinese families and, moreover, that it's precisely
those muslim women who are at risk of radicalization that are staying
locked in the home reproducing children and missing education, job,
social contact with non muslims etc..
And what if e.g. Wales had many xenophobic white supremacists - would it be called 'genocide' trying to counteract it?
The Nazis had clear ideas of what they wanted from women. They were
expected to stay at home, look after the family and produce children in
order to secure the future of the Aryan race.
Goebbels said: "The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world."
Women were important to the Nazis, however, the Nazis believed that the role of the woman was in the home and with her family, not in the world of work.
Marriage and family
Hitler wanted a high birth rate so that the Aryan population would grow.
Peter Klevius: Muslims had clear ideas of what they wanted from women. They were expected to stay at home, look after the family and produce children in order to secure the future of the muslim race.
Islam (Wikipedia): Women are often expected to be obedient wives and mothers staying within the family environment.
Women were important to muslims, however, muslims believed that the role of the woman was in the home and with her family, not in the world of work.
Marriage and family
Islam wanted a high birth rate so that the muslim population would grow.
James Kynge/Financial Times:
Clyde Prestowitz, who worked for President Ronald Reagan and has advised subsequent US administrations since then, offers pithy advice for the new American (sic)* president.
* Is it US's megalomania illness that makes US people call themselves "Americans", i.e. the name of two continents named after Amerigo Vespucci who landed in South America more than 500 years ago.
The tragic delusion that Washington allowed itself to buy into was “constructive engagement”, a notion that investing in China would somehow foster greater freedoms in the world’s largest country.
Peter Klevius/Human Rights defender: The tragic delusion that Washington allowed itself to buy into was “constructive engagement” with islamofascism, a notion that investing in the terrorism spreading and war crimes and real genocides committing Saudi dictator family would somehow foster greater freedoms in a country that harbours OIC which opposes Human Rights in any form if they go against islamic sharia.