Kids playing in a neighborhood nursery at Qianxi, Guizhou Province Photo: IC PHOTO

---

Reproduction is not only a central event in an individual’s life course but also a cornerstone of national population strategy. Today, China faces the dual challenge of persistently low fertility rates and an accelerating demographic shift. In this context, young people’s reproductive views have emerged as a key to deciphering broader social change. An analysis of nearly 200,000 fertility-related discussions on social media platforms such as RedNote and Hupu reveals that contemporary youth are neither rejecting tradition outright nor simply responding passively to policy incentives. Instead, their reproductive choices represent a recalibration of the “balance between risk and development” amid the ongoing process of modernization. This process reflects the convergence of individual rationality and traditional ethics, the tensions between family roles and social structures, and a new pattern of interaction between state governance and personal choice.

Reproductive views from ethical duty to risk governance 

Traditional reproductive values, centered on the belief that “more children bring more blessings,” emphasize family continuity and social responsibility, fundamentally embodying “duty-based reproduction” rooted in kinship ethics.  In today’s environment—shaped by urbanization, industrialization, and digitalization—young people are reconceptualizing reproduction as a systematic “risk management” endeavor. This shift does not signal a rejection of the value of reproduction, but rather reflects an adaptive reformulation of traditional ethics through the lens of individual rationality amid social transformation.

Contemporary youth now situate reproductive decisions within an economic rationality framework, employing cost-benefit analysis to assess the viability of childbearing. Young women, in particular, are acutely aware of the potential career setbacks reproduction may bring. Through the lens of “opportunity cost,” they weigh the tension between childbearing and self-actualization, with online discussions often centering on the financial burdens of parenting, the physical toll of childbirth, and women’s rights. Young men, meanwhile, are more concerned with the household’s financial capacity, adopting a “proceed according to ability” approach to childbearing, considering mortgage pressures, bride price controversies, and policy subsidies. This nuanced calculus should not be seen as excessive utilitarianism, but rather as a pragmatic strategy for mitigating systemic risks.

This logic is further reinforced by an intergenerational transmission of risk awareness. A generation raised under the one-child policy has an acute sense of the high costs and pressures of “intensive parenting.” Emotional narratives shared on social media—such as women denouncing the “childbearing trap” [Some women believe that certain narratives promoting the benefits of childbirth are actually deceptive, concealing the hardships and costs associated with having children] or men expressing anxiety over “bride price alienation” [Some men believe that when women ask for a bride price, they are more focused on the financial benefits rather than its traditional ceremonial significance]—amplify the perception of reproduction as a “privatized risk.” When society fails to effectively share the burden of childcare, young people increasingly regard reproduction as a personal “life project” for which they alone must bear responsibility. As one young woman remarked, “Childbearing is no longer a personal obligation—it’s a survival strategy that demands careful calculation.” In this sense, heightened risk consciousness can be seen as a response to the erosion of the traditional family support system.

Family order from role fixation to shared responsibility

In traditional family structures, the gendered division of labor—men as breadwinners, women as caregivers—inherently assigns reproductive responsibilities almost exclusively to women, giving rise to the dual dilemmas of the “motherhood penalty” and the “absence of fatherhood.” Today’s younger generation is striving to break out of this bind by reshaping the reproductive order within families through shared responsibilities and negotiated rights.

Gender-equal parenting practices have emerged as a breakthrough. Women no longer passively accept the so-called “destiny of motherhood,” but instead assert agency through career planning, bodily autonomy, and financial independence. On the lifestyle platform RedNote, young women share “20-point agreements” they’ve negotiated with their husbands prior to pregnancy—covering the division of parenting duties, job security, and property arrangements—illustrating an awakening to reproductive autonomy. Meanwhile, men are transitioning from “economic providers” to “parenting participants,” as evidenced by popular Hupu threads discussing how to become exemplary fathers, where young dads exchange experiences on preparing milk formula and changing diapers, seeking to resolve the structural contradictions stemming from “widowed parenting.” This shift is enabled by universal higher education, growing gender consciousness, and the rise of flexible work arrangements in the digital age—remote work and freelancing have opened new space for men to take on caregiving roles.

New models of intergenerational cooperation reflect an ongoing tension between tradition and modernity. Under the typical “4 grandparents, 2 parents, 1 child” family structure, many young couples rely on intergenerational care to alleviate parenting pressures, forming a new collaborative model of “three generations under one roof.” Yet such arrangements often mask underlying value conflicts: Older generations tend to emphasize a child-centered logic of self-sacrifice, while younger parents prefer to establish clearer boundaries in parent–child relationships. Young women complain of mothers-in-law who excessively interfere in parenting, while young men discuss strategies for resisting parental pressure to have a second child—revealing a deeper recalibration of intergenerational power dynamics. Additionally, regional differences exacerbate complexity: In eastern China, women tend to focus on the toll reproduction takes on their self-worth, whereas men in western regions are more concerned with the economic benefits of policy subsidies.  

As a result, redistributing childcare responsibilities between families and society has become an imperative. When households struggle to independently bear the full weight of childcare, young people’s demands for public services shift from economic subsidies to “institutional empowerment.” On RedNote, women call for a more reproduction-friendly society; on Hupu, men advocate for a unified national standard for paternity leave. Both point to a broader need for coordinated governance across the state, family, and market. Initiatives like Shanghai’s “Community Baby Houses,” which provide public childcare through government-procured services, and Chengdu’s “Expert Mom Stations,” which integrate community resources to create mutual support networks, demonstrate that multi-stakeholder collaboration can effectively ease parenting-related anxiety. However, their long-term viability depends on robust institutional backing.

Policy resilience: Pathways to building  reproduction-friendly society

Addressing the low fertility challenge requires transcending the short-term, instrumentalist approaches to policymaking. It calls for strategies that do more than target fertility numbers—they must also address young people’s deeper aspirations for fairness, dignity, and self-development—achieving collaborative advancement of rights protection, social co-education, and the reconstruction of values through institutional innovation.

The core of building a reproduction-friendly society lies in reconfiguring the institutional architecture of gender justice. While current policies alleviate some economic pressure through subsidies and tax breaks, they fall short of addressing structural issues such as workplace gender discrimination and the stigmatization of motherhood. Policy design must go beyond economic compensation by ensuring women’s career continuity through mechanisms like flexible work schedules and remote work rights. At the same time, employers should be mandated to disclose parental support measures—such as breastfeeding room coverage and paternity leave utilization rates—and gender equality should be incorporated into ESG metrics for publicly listed companies. Only then can we break the occupational dilemma of “reproduction equals unemployment,” freeing women from the conflict between “motherhood penalty” and the identity of the “independent woman.”

A more fundamental transformation lies in reorienting the national development narrative itself. The fertility challenge is not merely about population quantity but reflects a structural tension between quantity and quality. The old paradigm that focused narrowly on “demographic dividends” is no longer viable. Policy must now adopt a people-centered approach to high-quality population development: dismantling the monopolies of housing for school districts through reforms that facilitate equal access to education, optimizing the cultivation of a new workforce suited to the digital economy through systematic skills training, and replacing the “996” culture (which expects employees to work from 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week) with more humane and innovative talent incentive systems. Experiences from Nordic countries suggest that when young people perceive reproduction not as sacrifice but as a shared avenue for development, their willingness to have children increases organically. In some countries, for example, parental leave is integrated with lifelong learning programs, allowing parents to receive vocational training and earn academic credits during childcare periods—creating a virtuous cycle between childrearing and personal growth.  

Promoting a reproduction-friendly society entails a fundamental rethinking of traditional development logic. It requires policies that not only provide a “safety net” through childcare services, but also build an “opportunity net” for career advancement and a “meaning net” that affirms social respect. When institutional safeguards eliminate the need for young people to choose between “self-fulfillment” and “reproductive responsibility,” high-quality demographic development can become a cornerstone of civilizational progress.

Today’s youth are attempting to balance personal development with social responsibility amid the uncertainties of a risk society—a process marked by growing pains, but also brimming with hope. Indeed, the most profound societal transformation lies in the evolution of human order. Over the past five decades, we have shaped the reproductive attitudes of multiple generations and even an entire nation. Now, we must summon the same patience and resolve to accept, understand, embrace, and ultimately help reshape how the next generation views reproduction. It is essential to foster a social environment that truly understands and respects young people’s reproductive aspirations—and build a more supportive, harmonious framework for the future of childbearing.

Shen Qi is a professor from the Fudan Institute on Ageing. 

Edited by REN GUANHONG