Poland's birthrate on the decline

I've found some interesting (and surprising) articles/research info concerning Poland:

pap-mediaroom.pl/polityka-i-spoleczenstwo/raport-instytutu-pokolenia-magisterka-sprzyja-macierzynstwu

"It turned out that 80% of mothers were working, while among childless women 67% were working. It means that women with kids are more often professionally active. Another thing women were asked about was education. 'Among mothers almost 40% had master's degree and if we add postgraduate education and PhDs - over 40%. Among childless women it was only 20%.'"

And in this article there's a claim made that one of the reasons for low birth rate is the disproportion of the number of women and men in cities and in the countryside - there's more women than men in cities and more men than women in the countryside. In Warsaw it's 120 women for 100 men. This means a number of women won't have a chance to find a partner because he's simply physically not there:

pap.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C1228213%2Cw-polsce-dwa-razy-wiecej-bezdzietnych-40-letnich-kobiet-niz-w-czechach-czy

The reason is simple. Polish women are a torture to live with. Pushy, loud, argumentative, illogical, emotional...

A marriage like mine can survive only if the man has the patience of a saint and follows one rule: Never, ever, react to her going nuts on you. And never, ever, act on emotion.

Yes, Rysiek, everything is "simple" for you 😂

That's why I am such a joy to be married to ... 56 years...

@Novichok

I really like that post.Full of common sense!

It's neither interesting nor surprising at all.

The real issue isn't the supposed shortage of men. It's the outdated, recycled feminist nonsense of blaming men for unsatisfying outcomes that always occur when catering to female whimsy. The ratio of 120 women for every 100 men in Warsaw is misleading, as it ignores the foreign men in the city, the country, or abroad. Temporary or permanent, they count. Get real, Polish women have openly demonstrated they are not shy about shacking up with 'the exotic.' For many, it's like a competition to see who can get and show off the rarest handbag.

Not only that, but educated women are delaying motherhood by choice. Not because there aren't enough men, but because they prioritize education and career. Nearly 40% of mothers having a master's degree is no coincidence.

And here's the real contradiction: women taking to the streets and social media to advocate for support for single mothers and abortion on demand, then complaining about the 'lack of men'? Seriously? The issue isn't quantity, it's unrealistic expectations. There's a name for it: hypergamy.

I honestly did find it susprising (and interesting for me), because there's this stereotype expressed often by right-wing men that women end up being single and childless because they're choosing education and career instead of having a family of their own. It turns out it's the other way around - childless women are more likely to be less educated and without a job.

There's more info there that I've found susprising - that, for example, childless women are more likely to live where they grew up.


I doubt that there are that many foreign men in every city in Poland and not all women may want to get married to a foreigner or be willing to look for someone abroad.


However, they've become mothers nevertheless.


Who's complaining about the lack of men?

This reads like skewed reporting to push a narrative.

First define childless. Do you mean delayed childbirth, voluntary childfree, or infertility?

If the dataset includes younger women who haven't had kids yet, of course they'll show lower education and income. They are still starting out in life. If it includes women who delayed kids to finish degrees and build careers, the numbers swing the other way.

And the "living where they grew up" point isn't surprising either. People with less education and fewer opportunities tend to be less geographically mobile. Migration from rural areas to cities for better jobs has been happening forever but for many it just takes longer to do.

Background matters too. Women from already established middle-class families are more able to prioritize education and delay kids. Those without that mobility often start families earlier or face different constraints.


Get out more, and go beyond where you grew up!


Yes, and on their own terms. And the fact that these "educated mothers" exist, often with higher birthrates, is prima facie proof that the patriarchy is a myth.


You, for starters: Paulina - there's more women than men in cities and more men than women in the countryside. In Warsaw it's 120 women for 100 men. This means a number of women won't have a chance to find a partner because he's simply physically not there.

It's straight out of the Feminist Playbook:

Step 1. Complain there are not enough men.

Step 2. Claim women are most affected.

Step 3. Get a cat and cry alone, staring at that "wall" at 35, with zero chance that you will ever have a family of your own.

Feminazis did a great job selling the image of a professional and independent woman that few men want or need.

Once so liberated, she enters the job market, competes with her own husband, makes crap money, depresses his wages, and discovers that it now takes two incomes to maintain a decent standard of living. The trap is closed.

Luckily for me, my wife's income was small compared to mine. She could quit to have kids any time she wanted. She did.

Life is not kind to women. As one smart guy noticed, as men earn more money, their pool of available women expands. A law partner will marry an attractive clerk without any hesitation.

As women make more, the pool shrinks dramatically since women seldom marry down.

Thanks for the link. I found it interesting too.


I think it's a myth perpetuated by an American viewpoint.
The work culture diesn't seem to leave a lot of space for family life full stop (at least from the information I see). In Poland, whete you have maternity/ paternity leave, little or no expectations to take work home, part time hours offers etc.
Not too mention that Poland didn't have that big stay at home culture after the WW2. My grandma worked (born in the 1910's), my mom worked and I work too.



At some point it it. Unless of course we support the men to leave their families and start new ones to cater to those 'extra' women.

It seems we have a red pill men here. If that's the case please say outright so I don't waste my tine.
Maybe because it's not about what a men wants in this case? Maybe, just maybe it's about what that women wants?

Of course. There are fewer men in general (there is always less of the good stuff ;)), some of them die in wars, some in accidents (higher risk taking), some end up in jails, some become priests and monks, some are homosexual, some are red pillers who are through with women etc. etc., so in general it is definitely true that there simply aren't enough men to go around. We are a rare and precious commodity. :)

What's the possible solution here? Polygamy? Unfortunately that would create even more problems - if we allow 4 wives, like in Islam, then handsome, rich and powerful men will end up with four wives whilst we will have throngs of angry lonely men without a chance for a wife - a timebomb waiting to explode.

The previous system in which "surplus" women became nuns or aunts helping to take care of their sisters'/brothers' kids, while the rest managed to find a husband for themselves, was much better imo.

They studied Polish women who were around 40 years old.


That's because women live longer on average. But among people born in the 90s in Poland there's more men than women. In the article it's about where people are "redistributed" though - more women than men in cities, more men than women in the countryside. Hence less people will pair up.


You must've meant that good, reliable men who make good partners are "a rare and precious commodity" :)))))


Better for whom?

You mean that system in which women had no choice but to become nuns, "helping aunts" or prostitutes if they couldn't find a husband?

Ironically, it seems the "previous system" that men are longing for so much was worse both for women AND men. Some time ago I've read about a DNA research which has shown that even though in the past men comprised half of humanity just like now they had less chance to reproduce than in our times. Throughout human history around 80% of women reproduced and only 40% of men.

As for modern times - according to a Men's Fertility and Fatherhood report from 2014 released by the U.S. Census Bureau 61.6% of men age 15 and over had a biological child.
Approximately 86% of women in the United States reached the end of their childbearing years (ages 40 to 44) having given birth, according to data from Pew Research Center from 2016.

The difference in Poland is very small - 65-70% of 40-yeard-old men are fathers and 70% of women in the same age are mothers.

So chances of procreating increased a lot for men.

That's info for men who complain how women are "too picky" these days and that their standards are "too high." I guess those men don't realise how much better they have it now than their predecessors...

One of the problems is women's unrealistic expectations. In the US, so many are looking for that 666 guy...often 667.

When they find one, they get bored quickly with his predictable perfection and for excitement hook up with "a bad boy" on a Harley vs Honda...

I meant that I was surprised that childless women are more likely to live where they grew up. I'd think it would be easier to have kids if you have your family close enough to help you out, having your mother around during pregnancy and after child birth, knowing that you can leave the kid with a grandma when you want to go back to work, etc.


Dude, I live in Kielce, this is not Warsaw xD The number of foreigners settling in Poland has been increasing, but it doesn't mean there's enough of foreign men in cities to fill the gap. And don't forget that there's a lot of Ukrainian women in Poland now and they are also staying mainly in cities, especially big ones. And not everyone wants to marry a foreigner.


Of course it isn't.
First of all, something that existed in reality can't be a "myth", but, at best, a thing of the past. Secondly, patriarchy still exists to varying degrees in various areas. There's no 100% patriarchy free country on this planet.


I didn't complain. I presented the data and the conclusion about what impact it may have - from the article.


And again you're putting words in my mouth invented in your sick mind which has been corrupted by your prejudice against women:

1. I didn't "complain" that there are "not enough men."

2. I didn't claim that women "are most affected." Obviously, the logical conclusion is that women in cities are more affected than men and men in the countryside are more affected than women. 🙄🤦

Of course. When I said "we" I meant men like AntV, BB, Bobko, Velund and my-humble-self. Crème de la crème and all that.


D-NA, sra-NA. Bring back the good old days: when men were men, women were women, and if something broke, you fixed it with a wrench and a hammer instead of updating the software!

No thank you.

Well, I will remember that.
---

Bring back patriarchy. Women need civilization; the wild women roam free, leading to downfall.
Each of them should have at least seven children; there is no need for drama, adventures, and travels, they have all the issues at home.
---

You are a miserable, wild woman, and you don't even know it. Sad.

You so obviously belong to that group, Iron, that there was no point even mentioning you. *high five*


Wise man's words are always a pleasure to read!

HF!!
-----
I like those lyrics:J'ai fait comme toi J'ai fait comme tous ceux avant moi Ceux avant nous J'ai fait semblant d'être au bon endroit Qui suis-je vraiment J'sais pas J'ai vu
l'amour
J'ai vu la guerre J'ai fait le tour de l'univers J'ai fait semblant
D'être au bon endroit
A-t-on vraiment
Le choix

I'm so SO happy neither one of you can actually make women go back to those times.
Man like you can go look for a women that shares your sentiments while women like me, Paulina, Feniks etc can crack on on living our lives as qe see fit

With more women voters than men, there is no such thing as patriarchy as a tool of oppression.

Matriarchy is a curse and poison, and a lot worse for any tribe. There was a good reason why Sitting Bull had only men in his wigwam when he needed advice on where to hunt, who to kill, and how to survive.

Matriarchal societies are sick and in decay because the underlying philosophy is protecting the weakest and the sickest instead of the healthy 99%.

80% of the ICE protesters are women...Try to explain that without sounding like an emotional idiot.

How can you be so mean and not let these poor women with children in...they are hungry and abused...boo...hoo...

I heard it so many times...while watching a mob of military-age men invade country after country...

You are not, you're faking it and coping.
Also, nobody asks women; if you are part of society, you follow the rules. If you are out, you are an outcast without protection. Simple.

Also...

All benefits, protections, and the rights women enjoy today came from men.

If you are part ofbit you create the rules as well.

My God, me too, sister!!! :D They can only whine and fume on the internet, hehehe 😁

So we're on 23 comments on page 17 of this thread and the male representation so far looks like this:

Bad men: 4

Good men: 0

I'll comment on the misogynistic crap those bad men wrote when I have more time (maybe). Until that time:

Yes, those horrible, horrible men: getting married, working their arses off to provide for their families, making their wives happy. How dare they! Luckily, men like those will not reproduce and die childless, whilst good women like Paulina will pass on their genes and values to the future generations.

No... wait a minute...

😆

Bad/good is relative to the given situation.
Plenty of our friends are single with no children, but we include them with all our other friends who happen to have children. Why discriminate? Include, just like America used to before our country lost focus under Reagan!

@Paulina
If you imagine for even a second that you are a good woman, you are delusional. You bad wild woman,
And so is Lenka.

---

Creating rules in your head is one thing, but you can't enforce them without men's help. Get real.
---

yada yada you learned difficult world and use it left right and center, are you feeling accomplished spewing nonsense that sounds somewhat sophisticated?
What is that vulgar, rude *****, doing some St. Vitus dance? Do you aspire to be so utterly sultry with no morals?

You have no idea if she has/ will have kids so pack it up. I also don't remember Iron or Poloniusz ever revealing if they have kids.


With contraception yes, we can. Man can moan and moan but a women can now decide whether she wants to have kids.

Women are not baby machines, folks!
Most are lucky if they can make a single copy.