Poland's birthrate on the decline

No, they can go to couple therapy or get a divorce. Normal people don't rape their spouses to "resolve" marital problems lol (and of course rape wouldn't "resolve" anything, it would just usually end the marriage completely).


No, your point is that you don't want married women to be allowed to report rape comitted by their husbands. You don't care what it would do to them and the marriage.


Exactly. And if the husband knows that if he rapes his wife he is likely to go to prison for that, then he will be less inclined to rape his wife. Simple.


I've already made plenty of points that you haven't addressed.


It looks like you personally still view them as such.

As usual, the man's solution is to force the woman, rather than for men to step up as husbands and fathers. You'll do everything besides putting in the work (I'm channeling right now comments of many women that I've read).


She was confused, because she was from an older generation. Younger generations are far less confused and men like you don't like that, haha :D


Maf, you'll make Iron's head explode xD Too much logic and reality for him to handle lol


Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The thing is, I've read many comments by divorced American women and what hit me was that the reason for divorce for many of them was the fact that they were ALONE in marriage and in parenthood. They were saying that despite being married in reality they were single mothers. I've read so many comments about lazy, selfish and unempathetic husbands that I was honestly shocked that I was reading about American men. I thought that the US as a Western, progressive country must be ahead of Poland. But it doesn't seem to be that much ahead. Actually, it looks like that men are pretty much the same everywhere and women have the same exact problems with them in the US and in Poland.

Now, you have to remember that the kids those women had with those sh1tty husbands aren't blind either. They saw what their mother's life looked like. And daughters who saw it with their own eyes will draw conclusions for themselves. Why would they decide to get married and have kids if they pay the biggest price? If the most of the both physical and mental work connected to having a family falls on their shoulders? Women have options now. And, yes, the standards are higher now. Women often don't want to do all or most of the work anymore. Why would they then get married to and have kids with selfish a$$holes?

I've often read comments by women saying that nowadays men have to compete not with other men, but with single woman's peace. A man has to provide an added positive value to a woman's life, because if he doesn't then what's the point? And many men seem to still think that all they have to provide is a paycheck.

I've also seen many comments by women saying that they would like to have kids if they were fathers. Because many men want children the way kids want pets. They want to play with them from time to time, do the fun stuff, but it's usually the parents of those kids who end up taking care of the pets - doing all the unpleasant, boring tiresome stuff.

This is why usually more men than women want to have kids. And it's really not rocket science to figure out WHY is that.

So, yes, I agree with you that:


...but I'm afraid that one of the solutions is something that many men won't like - because it would mean they'd have to share the load of having a family more equally with women.

Maybe not a relevant tangent here...

... but some time ago I was reading Bill Clinton's autobiography.

Clinton said that the first time he felt himself an "adult" or an independent moral agent - was when he confronted his step father - Roger Clinton Sr - with a golf club. His step dad was an alcoholic, and his favorite form entertainment was beating Bill Clinton's mom.

The future president told his step dad - that he would spread his brains all over the floor if he touched his mother again. Surprise - it worked.

-//-

I think if you have designs on raping your wife, you should also watch out for your kids.

If my dad abused my mom, I know I wouldn't look at the fact that he is my dad - and would still bash his brains out.

@Bobko, yes, and there were instances of sons killing their fathers in order to protect their mothers. There were also instances in which sons didn't manage to defend their mothers (because they were just kids) and their mothers were killed by their own husbands. Like, for example, the mother of Jakub Błaszczykowski, a very well liked former captain of the Polish national football team. He was only 11 when his father murdered his mother with a knife. She died on the boy's arms. The father went to prison for 15 years.

This is why the state does and should "meddle" in "family business" (preferably before it's too late). IMHO, only men who are likely to be potential perpetrators have a problem with this kind of "meddling." 🤮

Most boys end up being momma's boys.

Girls gravitate more towards their dads, after a certain age.

Not sure why life works this way, but I think it's true.

Romantic love is a temporary phase that helps people pair bond. It then either gets replaced by mature love (a very different critter) or simply goes away.


Parenting is tough (and not romantic at all). I'd need to know more about specific cases before passing any judgement on either party.

In general, it's better to discourage most divorce as divorce usually ends up being wealth transfer to the upper classes... (who mostly don't divorce).

That doesn't mean stay with an abusive partner but it does mean don't deprive children of their father even if you don't much like him at the moment.

Wow. Gonna borrow this.

This rings true to me.

That's often true about Catholic countries, like Poland.


Not in my family... Men from the generation of my father are so emotionally and mentally detached from their kids that there's nothing to gravitate to... Daughters here usually have a bond with other women in the family, not with fathers.

Is that different in the US?


There's a theory that women disappointed with their husbands pour all their love on their sons, since those will be the only men who will love them unconditionally and will never leave them. Who can compete with such motherly love?

Also, historically sons were more valuable than daughters so that could also partly explain it.


...by being better husbands and fathers :)


Being a father doesn't end after divorce. You stop being a husband, but you're still a father (or you should be).

@Paulina

In the US the rule definitely still holds. As it does in Russia.

Dudes find it harder to be close with their sons, and much easier with their daughters.

-//-

I figure it's the same everywhere.

-//-

I just asked ChatGPT why this could be, and it gave me a pretty neat explanation.

Basically:

1) You model yourself on the same sex parent. So if you are a boy, you model your behavior on your dad's.

2) You form a special emotional bond with the opposite sex parent.

-//-

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

On my own example - it's 100% true.

1) I want to be like my dad. But also - he yells at me, constantly criticizes me, and generally makes me feel like a loser after every misstep.

2) My mom doesn't want anything from me. Doesn't expect anything from me. Just unconditional love.

If I was a girl - it would probably be the reverse. My mom would judge me, and my dad would not care - other than that I am happy.

As you guys know - I've seen an ungodly amount of videos of people dying in the war in Ukraine.

One thing stands out - no one ever screams for "papa" when they are about to pass into the next world.

If they are not cursing the gods, or simply screaming non-stop - they usually call for "mama".

Big, 6 ft dudes, in full gear - crying for "mama" in their last moments.

I think it's because under such stress and shock, we "default" to our factory settings. And under factory settings - who gives you care and protection? Who will always soothe you, and make your pain more manageable? Of course, Mama.

@Bobko, yes, that's true... I wouldn't be crying for either of my parents though.


I don't know how that works according to you. But I know that if I were to consider a divorce I wouldn't care about "wealth transfer to the upper classes", but I would care about my life and the lives of my kids (if I had kids at the time of the divorce).


I guess you misunderstood me. I use the term "romantic love" as opposed to platonic love. Obviously romantic love has phases.


The women I'm talking about provided plenty of examples of their husbands' behaviour. And it all sounded like men from my father's generation or worse. When I was reading those comments I was catching myself thinking: "How on Earth did you end up with a guy like this? Were there no signs? Why did you put up with this for so long?"


Yes, that's how exactly it is in my case - with my mother and father. My mother has been always critical and very demanding from me. The problem is that my father doesn't care... about anything in general.


Well... then why isn't it happening in Poland with fathers and daughters? I'm not saying it never happens, but I haven't noticed it being a general trend in my country. In other Catholic countries you also always only hear about "momma's boys" and never about "daddy's princesses." 🤔

Many women try to cut contact or minimize contact with the father after divorce.

I'm sure some women are justified in seeking divorce and probably a lot.... aren't....

Yes, that's a problem, but apparently more so in the US than Poland. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't.


Would you say the same thing about men seeking divorce?


In my experience and from my observation men find it harder to be close with kids in general.

I remember when during one Christmas family gathering at my grandma's place in the countryside I was taking family photos at and after the Christmas Eve supper (since I was the "photographer" in the family). I asked my uncle and his daughter (I think she was in her late teens) to stand next to each other in front of the Christmas tree. They stood there like two emotionless "kołki," so I asked them to put their arms around each and smile. They did put their arms around each other a bit, but they did it so awkwardly as if they haven't ever hugged each in their lives. I felt some kind of second-hand embarrassment when I watched this and felt sorry for my cousin. I pretended that I haven't noticed how awkward it was.

I've realised that I've never seen them hugging each other or showing any kind of affection.

Of course that's just one example of a general problem.

Yup.

The same sex parent can actually compare you against himself/herself, and figures they have a good idea of where your breaking point is.

The opposite sex parent has no good anchor point to judge your status (unless he/she grew up around siblings of the opposite sex), and by default reverts to some neutral positioning.

--//--

Me and my dad - I know its been like this for sure.

Whenever I'm getting it from him the hardest, I know its for faults that he sees in himself.

Sometimes he makes it explicit - as in "I recognize this rotten gene in myself, and I'm gonna beat it out of you before I leave this planet" (metaphorically beat it out, of course).

--//--

The scariest thing ever, is getting older and realizing you are much more like your dad than you had ever thought.

In general - getting older - has made me understand my dad much more.

Btw, Bobko, advice for the future since you're newly-wed and you're planning to have (many) kids - the way you behave and what you do for your wife during pregnancy, during birth and after birth is very important for women. That's the time when women are most vulnerable and need their husbands the most. The way the guy behaves during this time is usually a prognostic for what the rest of the relationship is going to be for the woman - if she can count on him or not.

Also, the way husband behaved during that time and what the labour was like for the woman can affect her decision about having another child. So try to make it as least traumatic for her as possible. Make sure that you're there for her and you got her back.

I know this may seem random, but do you look more like your father or your mother (physically I mean)?

In England, women were viewed as chattels for centuries. Change didn't begin until the late 19th Century.


Google it. I could link you to countless articles on women as chattels but you'd probably ignore them. Pretty sure that until relatively recent times, Poland wasn't that much different with respect to how women were legally treated by their husbands.


My heart bleeds.

By and large, it is women who still do the lion's share of bringing up the children, often whilst working themselves. Many don't get to have a career to give up so don't talk to me about sacrifice.


I'm not surprised birth rates are dropping.......

The Married Women's Property Act was a big turning point.

English women had a generally crappy social position compared to some European countries. Some stuff like women not being able to inherit seemed incredibly stupid.

The way things are going is not just wishful thinking but a future reality for many.
----

Provided the wife doesn't work, which actually raises the cost of the workforce.
----

That's pretty much my point. I don't see a reason for many laws regulating marriage; it doesn't help, and it doesn't improve anything. On the contrary, it's invoking a vengeful or spiteful spirit.
If a spouse accuses the other of some transgressions that can earn her/him prison time, they might as well get a divorce because the marriage has ended.
What do such laws achieve objectively?
What will the ex-husband do after prison time? Splits her head open? And we have another case.
Those laws do not mend harm, do not turn back time, do not make it better; they make it worse.
At the same time, involving other people, the state, and taxpayers, money.
They could find a better use. What is that for?
So Paulina and women like her can feel better, not much else.
-----
Most of the rest of your posts are only musing, repetition, and anecdotal stories, that do not drrss the core of the matter and do not address my point.

Lovely Paulina is at work, attempting to undo what has already been done.

Aren't you confused? Chattel means "property." Are you telling me that in 18th-century England, women were considered property? That is a-historical nonsense.
I'm telling you to shake off feminist propaganda; it makes you look silly.
---

Well, I still think that women shouldn't be able to hold a credit card in their name. Inability to spend freely doesn't make them property, nor deprive them of their rights.
---

Come on, 95% of women do not have careers; they have jobs they hate for the most part. The same goes for 80% of men, but men need to provide, so they work many hours and sh'tty but well-paid jobs. While women spend more than they earn. What a great prospect they lose by taking care of their families, lol!.
You (plural) just love to pat yourself on the shoulder, don't you? And men generally do not contradict you because they want to get laid.
---

Cry me a river. What a great job you are doing, judging by the current generation.
Also, not to be petty, but I can't just help it.
Tell me how many children they have to 'take care of' on average, two, three at the most, that is not that hard. Also, you have all the modern amenities at your disposal.
Do you think it justifies you to brag about it and call it hard work?
It was 100 years ago, when all food had to be made from scratch, all washing needed to be done practically by hand, and people had on average seven or more children, when in fact it was a hard job, comparable with men slaving away outside.
Now you're living a dream. and still complaining.
---

The birth rates are dropping because in the 60' of the 20th century people made really potent and effective anti-conception drugs. It is coupled with the Western socio-economic system and generally laissez-faire on morality that leads to today's Godless, hedonistic sewer.

Random answers to random posts:


You are taking, I presume, about the landed gentry, who had a different inheritance law. You also need to remember that women had something that was called a dowry.
Something Americans forgot about.
Anyway, fiscal limitations on women were meant to protect them, not to make their lives harder.
---

Hmm, father. Which is not a necessary bad thing in my late 30', some successful woman a few years younger wanted me to be her kept man. She wasn't a stunner, but she wasn't bad-looking. To nip your spiteful reaction in the bud, I rejected it as a matter of principle.
---

Quite the opposite, with my mother.
On the other hand, my father was F annying.
---
@Paulina

No, you moron.
She was a very intelligent woman, and that's why she recognized the validity of my question, and couldn't find an immediate answer because she didn't even realize until I asked what she was subconsciously doing as a woman. Following the lead of her man.
Her later answer was predictable. She said that although that is the case, she wants to have a choice in case she might vote differently.
It is the best answer, but still, I think that the right to vote should be connected with being eligible to serve in the draft.

That's what they say about burqas...


not really her asset, a dowry is symbolic payment for the husband's future labor and not something a woman can decide about herself.

It was her asset of sorts; if the unlikely event they divorced or if she was widowed, she had the right to her dowry. On the other hand, the husband was supposed to pay all the bills. So get real, it wasn't a bad deal. The majority of women today go to college and do not learn anything useful; that money lost would make a nice dowry and could start up a family business.
----

Hey, as a progressive, shouldn't you invoke Hitler? Seriously, what does it matter who says what about burquas? That is connected with Islam but also with local cultures. Also true to be said, we in the West could use a dress code.

Yes. During Medieval times and prior to the 1870 Married Women's Property Act that Atch mentioned earlier, once married, legal rights of women were incorporated into those of their husbands. Basically, they had no legal rights or standing of their own. In law they became as one person. This was due to the common-law doctrine of coverture:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

Far from being 'historical nonsense' as you put it, in effect it meant that any personal property she had prior to marriage automatically became her husband's, any wages she earned belonged to her husband. Husbands also had legal control of any children. If a woman came to the marriage with a dowry, that became her husband's other than the freehold title of any land.

More about the background here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Act_1870


It's not propaganda, it's fact as I have explained. Why would you think I'm confused or into fiction stories as you claimed earlier when what I've said is easy to check.


They could not inherit or own property independently as any assets would automatically pass to the husband.


Plenty of female teachers, doctors, scientists, health care professionals etc


How would you know? If it's not that hard, then perhaps you'd like to stay home and look after the children? Most men would run a mile at having to take care of their kids on anything more than just a temporary basis.


Nothing will change until men with your attitude actually start listening to and not being dismissive of women's views.

In modern day Poland, women don't even have reproductive rights. Poland also ranks relatively low in the Gender Equality Index and in terms of political representation. Talk about a crappy social position. Polish men just performatively buy them flowers once a year for IWD then go back to expecting them to stay barefoot in the kitchen cooking them kotlet schabowy and rearing their dzieci.

Not at all sure why a lack of women's rights in Britain are being brought up now, as if Poland was any better and as if it isn't indeed many hundreds of times worse in the modern age.

@Feniks

Look, you might think women were property, but they weren't. You clearly have some issues with comprehension. I have read all you wrote, and that doesn't strike me as them being slaves or chattel.
---
A lot depends on their socioeconomic status, and the same goes for men.
---

Teachers and health care professionals are hardly a career. How many doctors and scientists ( I mean those in STEM subjects) are females, I mean, what percentage of the whole? 5%?
---

It is obviously not that hard. Depends on what you are comparing it to? If you compare it to sitting in an air-conditioned office, sipping coffee and gossiping with coworkers most of the time, then doing actual work like three hours out of eight in some HR department, then yes, managing children is slightly more difficult.
---

It's not that I'm dismissive; it's that women in general rarely make actual sense. One more thing, if men were that dependent on women, what women do or do not, what their opinion is if they listen to them or not, they wouldn't be able to do anything.
---

Apage Satanas, you mean killing unborn children, you crazy freak, get lost.
---

Good, you can shove that index where the sun doesn't shine.

The modern age is nothing more than hedonistic degeneration, filled with godless, aimless freaks, with brains fried by satanic propaganda and pron.

You would make a great Russian secret services agent.

I would suggest that it is you that has comprehension problems regarding coverture. That, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

" In the UK,a woman was considered her husband's property so any assets or earnings she had automatically became her husband's, leaving her financially vulnerable and dependent. In common law, a wife was often referred to as 'feme covert', meaning she was placed under the protection and influence of her husband.
Wives were unable to hold their own property, sue or be sued, write a will (or inherit land in the same way that a man could) or even be recognised as a separate legal person. "

wslaw.co.uk/blog/empowering-women-and-engaged-couples-reflecting-on-the-legacy-of-the-married-womens-property-act-1882/

I have a feeling that this English custom will appeal to you though.......

Divorce was almost impossible in those times unless one was extremely wealthy, so an alternative was wife selling. Yes. you could auction off that gobby cow you married in haste and replace her with a better model. ( I could see you being at the front of the queue for this Iron ). To be fair this was not a legally recognised practice, and women in many cases, were equally glad to be shot of their husbands.

Wives were not considered as property?

"In most reports the sale was announced in advance, perhaps by advertisement in a local newspaper. It usually took the form of an auction, often at a local market, to which the wife would be led by a halter (usually of rope but sometimes of ribbon)[6] around her neck, or arm.[27] Often the purchaser was arranged in advance, and the sale was a form of symbolic separation and remarriage, as in a case from Maidstone, where in January 1815 John Osborne planned to sell his wife at the local market. However, as no market was held that day, the sale took place instead at "the sign of 'The Coal-barge,' in Earl Street", where "in a very regular manner", his wife and child were sold for £1 to a man named William Serjeant."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling_(English_custom)


Hardly. Poland has the highest percentage in Europe of women in science and technology, between 58% and 60%. In the EU, out of 80 million people in the science and tech sector in 2023 , 52% were women.

researchinpoland.org/news/poland-leads-europe-with-highest-percentage-of-women-in-science-and-technology/

Back in the UK, female doctors outnumber males ( 50.04%)

gmc-uk.org/news/news-archive/more-female-than-male-doctors-for-first-time-ever-in-the-uk

All in all, way more than your 5% figure.


No matter what facts I present, you'll dismiss them or misinterpret them because they don't suit your neanderthal views.