Poland's birthrate on the decline

I think that is the main point- you judge it as right vs wrong while I marelely observe certain phenomenon and try to see the reason behind it.

More than that, I would urge everybody not to make that decision lightly as it is a huge responsibility.

I wasn't writing about myself, but in general. And my posts were a response to your patronising, judgemental and unfair comments.


Exactly.


No, not in this regard. Only women are expected to make this choice. Men don't have to do it, because they can have both (a family and a career) - they know they can focus on their careers, because their wives will be there to take care of their children. Majority of men wouldn't do the same for their wives.

Very true. Women have to bear the physical risks and inconveniences of birth and pregnancy and there is often an expectation that they sacrifice their careers instead of men. Which means that they are often at risk of poverty in old age if their marriage terminates (which happens more and more).

I am a man thus I do not have to worry about those things, yet I don't want any children either for multiple other reasons. The progress we have made as a species means that people do not need large families anymore in order to provide for themselves in old age, and women can actively choose if and how many children they end up with. Which also makes the decision to have children more noble and meaningful, but there should not be any pressure on women to "breed".

Women should be informed about their choices in life propely. They are not. They are not. They are send to be get some education and there is talk about carrier, ambitions and so on. Noboady is teching younrg women that they can get an education but that having children is their other as ambitious and important way in life that is no less or worse that being some pen-pusher in some office.

The issue here is that all that is one sided and nobody tells women that.
You living in some different reality. Do you think that all women or majority of women have a chance to make it a big? Even get a good job? You are talking about 30% of women with uni degree or that run their buisses with some sucess, or land a good job, being a lawyer or a doctor.

Why do you sound like you speak for ALL women folk? Reality check here. Most women with shity jobs would love to be able to stay home they can't becasue men have competition with women in the workplace that drive the pay down. Fat cats are winers here.


What men have to do with that? Why would they make it easier for you if asking women to make it easier for them is considered sexist and patriarchy? Do you think women make it easier for men? lol!

You first get married and have kids and then came back here to preach. Right now you just spew your stupid opinioneted nosensne. Are you even a women or just wish to be one.?


What do you know about men? You seem to see it as a buffet from you can pick and choose what you like and dislike. All your agruments amount to the old sexist bit..ing about men. If you have problem with men stay away from them.

Women seems to be very easily sway against men by that BS propaganda. Poor victims lol!
As what goes between man and wife it is not your business, stop prying they made their own desicions.
By the way women in general choose men that are better off them they, taller, have higer social status and make more money.
If you have a sucessful top woman in their early 30' there is only few men she can choose from and that is narrowing down as she is getting older.

Men on the other hand choose younger women and prettty - that all. It is not about being nasty it is nature.
If you don't know your own nature you are in truble or blame others.


Thank you for your post you made my point for me.
As we see some men don't want children either and they do not suffer from that as much as women - in terms of the mental health.

Is she "preaching*?

Didn't you realise that this is a discussion forum?


Opinions different from your own?

Great posts, Cojest! You are telling it exactly like it is.


That's because men are romantic and women are pragmatic. If a man falls in love with a girl, he won't care if she's rich, educated, with high social position etc. etc. he will marry her anyway. A woman, on the other hand, would be extremely reluctant to marry a man who is less well off, has worse education than her and so on. Funnily enough, popular culture tries to tell people that it's the other way around - that women are more romantic than men LOL :) Well, we have our own eyes and we can observe reality. :)

The fact that some people here feel attacked, by the mere stating of obvious facts and social phenomena, only proves our point. Men and women who don't want to have children won't spread their genes, which I suppose is a good thing after all - nature decides and weaker maternal/paternal instinct (weaker than dreams of "career" anyway) may be an indication that nature doesn't want such people to reproduce. Let's not force them. Let's not correct nature.

There is one problem though, men without kids can survive in something that remotely resembles sanity (limited sanity but still). I am, however, yet to meet and old spinster who would be even remotely "normal". The entire popular culture tries to denigrate motherhood, so some women give it up - not even high class professionals that Cojest mentions, but those in relatively low paid jobs as well (e.g. teachers) - they don't realise that at the end of the day nobody will care about their PhD thesis that 3-4 people will ever read or about their "career" in early school teaching for example. Nobody will care about these totally irrelevant things at all... the only thing left will be loneliness... horrible loneliness creeping ever closer each day... loneliness, regret and emptiness... void never to be filled with anything...

Oh, well... we all have to face the consequences of our choices. I suppose that the profits the fat sharks make by having women in the job market and driving the salaries down are worth it... even for those women for whom "careers" mean menial, low-paid jobs (either physical or white-collar).

WoW !
Man did he ever nail it............ Spot On !
Excellent post Cojest even though the Fems here will try to diminish it to save face.


Yes joun, daily, with, "Listen to me growl - listen to me roar - I am woman b.s. propaganda rants to indoctrinate younger women into her grooming them by preaching to them with her misandry as much as she tries to deny it.

Older single women quite often do this so they have other women to share their misery with.

It's sexist and patriarchy because it's one-sided. Only women are expected to make sacrifices in terms of their careers or even education. If the expectations were the same for both women and men then it would be fair. But it isn't. Get it?


But it's not just about "having children". "Having children" for women usually means "taking care of them basically on their own" (at least in Poland). The same can't be said about men. So, again, it's easy for you to say.

And why should only women be educated about this? Why men shouldn't be also educated that taking care of children (and not just "having" them) is "ambitious and important way in life that is no less or worse tham being some pen-pusher in some office"? And if it's such a great and satisfying way of life then why men aren't becoming stay-at-home dads or aren't participating more in taking care of and raising their own kids?


lol Oh dear :D
And this is the problem - you don't understand that there are people different than you. People who don't need kids to fill any "void", because their lives are rich enough. Also, not having kids doesn't equal being lonely. People have partners/spouses, friends and the rest of their family. You have a rather narrow-minded view of life and people, it seems.

Not at all! In what world do you live in, Paulina? These days both men and women take care of children and share the necessary house chores. Of course, women will almost always be better mothers just like men will be almost always be better miners or soldiers. That's mother nature for you :)

If anyone had told me, as a man, that I wouldn't be able to have a professional career if I didn't give up my dreams of having a family, I would have told them to go f*ck themselves, bought a small farm, kept my own cows and ducks and still have a family. :)


Oh, but I do! Out of 100 people who don't want to have children, I would say that about 15-20 genuinely feel that. It's the case that I mentioned of not correcting nature and not forcing them. They might have some faulty genes - immune system deficiency, some sort of genetic disease that might activate itself in the 2nd or 3rd generation - whatever, it doesn't have anything to do with their looks or intelligence, it's just some sort of genetic fault that nature wants out of the pool. I have no problem with such people not having children. Let's not correct nature.

The remaining 80 people, on the other hand, have healthy instincts regarding reproduction and would like to have children. However, if mass media propaganda (partly driven by money of fat sharks who simply want to have cheap labour available in large numbers, partly by stupidity of people who fall for it) denigrates parenthood and successfully convinces those people that they will be more happy with their "ambitions" or "careers", it means that they are being made ultimately miserable and - yes - creates a void that nothing else can fill. I won't even mention all the other downsides of a society that doesn't even have the replacement birthrate of 2.1 (meaning, it's practically dying out), this one is enough - it is selling people lies and plastic dreams, and eventually making them unhappy and miserable. And all this for what? For the profit of companies who crave cheap labour... greed of those who need childless robots, driven by TV commercials and social media game of appearances, to earn them even more money. Disgusting and sad. :-/

Stop nitpicking. Married middle-aged woman who doesn't have children is, to all intents and purposes, an old spinster. :)


Because I have to support my family. I'd say that 80-85% of people would gladly give up their jobs, if they could afford it, to take care of their families better and spend more time with them. The system, however, doesn't allow them to do so, and popular culture has done a lot in recent years to denigrate parenthood.


Obviously LOL What I meant was 'better parents'.

I've spent much time over the past few days, thinking about how to raise birth rates in Poland. I'm happy to announce that I am not coming back empty handed. I have developed several potential solutions:

1) Create a secret government agency tasked with poking holes in all condoms imported into Poland. Just small, millimeter-sized holes that would not raise suspicions of the population.

2) Provide people fake abortions. After 10-15 mins of poking around "down below", on generous helping of anesthesia, announce to the patient that the "job is done".

3) Pass legislation making masturbation illegal under penalty of confiscation of assets.

4) Men and women, above age 40 and still childless, automatically sentenced to 10 years hard labor of building kindergartens and playgrounds.

5) Reward productive members of society with once annual trip to Spain or Turkey (viagra included), paid for with money confiscated from masturbators.

I have many more potential solutions, but this should be good to get the discussion going.

@Bobko

Ad 1. That would only increase the profits of Czech abortion clinics.

Ad 2. That lie would be extremely short lived and would only result in people turning away from state-provided abortion to illegal abortion grey zone - a bad idea.

Ad 3. How would confiscating assets of 100% people help? :)

Ad 4. Brilliant idea!

Ad 5. Confiscate all the money from all people (see Ad 3) just to send the same people to Turkey. Bad idea.

20% of your ideas are brilliant - that's more than most people on this board can say about themselves. :D

Is that true, though? Certainly, in a modern urban setting, children are significant net drain on family resources, but has that necessitated poorer outcomes in both education and career or standard of living for those children?

There is compelling data that would indicate that population growth is a factor in economic growth. The greater the population the greater the opportunities for innovation and an increase goods and services, as well as hard capital. Granted, other factors contribute to economic growth, but population growth does appear to play an important part. Do you agree?


But those progressive provisions depend on funds. I am unaware of any developed nation's social welfare system that is not funded by the taxes of active workers. Most western countries, including Germany, and China are facing a current or looming social welfare crisis because of an aging population.


:D :D. You are quickly becoming my favorite Russian.

[/quote]
1) Logically, we will then close the borders. Rebuilding the population cannot happen in the context of open borders. Especially when they hear about my masturbation laws.

2) We will do what Rodrigo Duterte did in the Phillipines with drug dealers, but with underground abortion clinics. Two words: motorcycle hitmen.

3) I must consult my data set once again.

4) Glad you like it! Enjoy your 40s shoveling dirt yuppie b!tches.

5) Yes, seems there's a problem with this one. Turkey seems to be only winner from Polish masturbators. Not my intention.

Well, having such a brain as Bobko's working on Poland's low birthrate problem allows me to retire from this thread with clear conscience. If he won't come up with a viable solution, nobody will. :)

I don't know about numbers or percentage, but I also think that majority of people would like to have children (that includes women). So, instead of complaining that the world isn't as it used to be (because it won't go back to what it was and thank God for that!), make it easier and more attractive for women to have children. I think no amount of propaganda claiming how great it is to be a mother will convince them, because women know what the reality is on the ground. So, change the reality instead of making up lies about that reality.


No, she isn't:

dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english/spinster

I didn't realise you can be such a primitive a$$hole, GF. I have a female relative who's been married for a long time, but couldn't get pregnant for years. She and her husband were trying to have a kid for a very long time until they gave up and they left everything they own in their will to their niece. And then my relative got pregnant at 49! A freaking miracle :) Everybody was very happy for them, because they're very nice people. They have a daughter now :)

So, are you telling me that my relative was a "spinster", despite being married for years, just because she couldn't get pregnant??


Oh for f*ck sake! Having a job isn't a "sacrifice" lol If you want to earn a living you have to work, even if you're single and childless.

Thank you.


Finally some good news in this thread. :)


No she wasn't, because she was actively trying to have children, so she was never a spinster mentally. A woman who doesn't want to have children can be married 5 times and she is still a spinster. Sorry.

I wasn't speaking, strictly, about kids in general - just having more than two in a latter-generation urban context. The third, fourth, fifth kid will statistically have lower outcomes, if other factors are kept static. If dad keeps earning more money to be able to scale these higher needs, then of course all bets are off. That's why it seems that on average families limit it to two. Putting two through school, uni, initial life set-up is hard enough for most families.


That seems to be the current paradigm. Until we see a new one that works well (looking at Japan, Germany), it's what we have to argue against. Population means markets, markets mean innovation, population means a higher chance of winning at the random number generator game of producing geniuses - these things are hard to discount.

However, as you say, other factors play a part too. I would much rather be a Japan, than a Nigeria or Brazil. Not so sure if I would prefer to be Japan over India or China, however. Many, many factors at play.

Sorry, but you're acting childish now. Words "spinster" and "bachelor" have a fixed meaning. They describe people who aren't married. You'll have to invent some other word in order to offend married couples who don't want to have kids :) Or are you just offending women? Married men who don't want to have kids are not "mental bachelors" according to you?

Stop being a dictionary nazi. My usage of "spinster" is better. So there.


But of course they are!

NO but handing over your paycheck to support someone else is, ain't it.


Much more effective and it just steams the 'Spinsters'.

She is not. Words have a meaning for a reason. If you start calling stairs blue it has as much sense as you calling a married women spinster. Btw- is a single women with kids spinster or not?

Yes, but as educated people we know that meanings of words very often change, and if there is a word that needs its lexical sense to be ever so slightly expanded, it's definitely "spinster".

It's simply not effective to say "a married woman who freely chooses not to engage in procreation" - too many syllables. Even if we go for simpler "childless married woman", it's still too long to say. "Spinster" will definitely have its meaning officially expanded one day - just think of me as a forerunner of the inevitably incoming lexical change.


No, she's not.

No, it isn't. Sorry, but it simply makes no sense!


That's not a "sacrifice", but one's duty and responsibility. If you make kids, you have to pay for their support.


No, you give up, because you know I'm right lol Pity that you don't have it in you to admit that.

Don't get divorce, seem you are not very fond of your poor man.
are you proud of being sexist?


sure keep pating yourself on the back, women seems to be very good at buying into their own BS.
I know you are wrong.

You are not expanding it- you are changing it.

@Cojest
First I would have to see any proof of being sexist. As it stands all there is is a guy who throws insults here and there whenever he disagrees with someone

Yes, I am. To the old definition of "unmarried woman" I am simply adding "or, also, a married woman with no children".

@GefreiterKania
And excluding unmarried but with kids. That is a change

Very well. As we all know words can also change meaning.

Damn, sometimes it is really difficult to be a forerunner of lexical change. People just don't understand those who are ahead of their time. *sighs*