Aleksandra Gajek: The fact about the “baby” stirs rage. Very good!

The smoke from the forbidden rac has subsided, the unrighteous cry has stopped, but the banner calling for the establishment (or enlargement) of families continues to annoy. "Kits and dogs will not replace your child" – the slogan that hung over the way of this year's independency March has sparked a heated discussion that could be divided into a dispute between those who see the request for a serious debate about a demographic disaster, with those who effort very hard not to realize a simple message. However, this, although somewhat ironic, is highly real – and contrary to appearances it points to key causes of quilting fertility.

The attractive banner perfectly entered the intense discussion for any time that we have a serious problem with demography in Poland. He besides coincided with the publication of fresh CSO data, summarizing the fertility in the first 3 quarters of 2025. Unfortunately, there is no surprise here.

Between January and September this year, the CSO recorded around 181,000 live births, or about 11,000 little than in the same period of 2024. If this trend continues, in 2025 the number of births in Poland will fall below 245 thousand; for comparison, nearly 282,000 children were born last year. This is simply a crucial loss, and the downward trend has continued, with insignificant derogations, for more than 30 years.

And it would seem that the way in which we are in a disastrous position is already clear to everyone, and it should surely be clear to people who have as much influence on public opinion as politicians or journalists. However, after the celebrated banner about dogs became loud in the media, it turned out that ignorance (although is surely just ignorance?) in this issue is rather common.

“The dog” outrages

Krzysztof Bosak spoke positively about the pro-childic slogan in social media.

In the March of independency there is no shortage of accurate message. Without a young generation there is no future, and the household is the foundation of a strong nation – wrote the marshal on the X portal, attaching a image of the banner.

And although this is 1 of the fewer comments that support this message, the discussion on the contrary continues until now.

Members Katarzyna Kotula or Anna Maria Żukowska have already entered their opinion under the speaker's entry. The slogan was besides referred to by left-wing activist Maja Staśko, pointing out that the banner was “drising women” and that its authors only treat them as a political tool. Leftist activist Łukasz Litewka on his social media even converted a banner, changing the slogan to "Kitki and doggy have nothing against the child". In his opinion, the banner “took advantage of people with animals, and considered the four-legged to be 1 of the reasons why Poles do not want children” [original spelling].

The subject was besides addressed by Polsat writer Agnieszka Gozdyr, and Tomasz Terlikowski was treated as a starting point in his conversation with Kazimiera Szczuka.
Conclusions? They all look alike.

The word on dogs is mocking women, so we can't improve fertility, and investigation shows that there are more animals in households with children than in those without children. In order to improve fertility, we request first of all women's rights – of course leading the abortion.

Meanwhile, the banner in a somewhat humorous form rightly draws attention to the key in the process of falling fertility phenomenon: individualism, printed to us by modern culture momentum to individual development, escape from work and dislike of commitments.

And while dogs or cats are in no way guilty of falling fertility, having them and treating them as their children is simply a way of compensating parental instinct for people who, frequently for ideological reasons, avoid offspring.

In Poland, the trend of "dog mom" is not so widespread (although it is already noticeable), but the data from the US show that it should not be underestimated. In the United States, 7 out of 10 adults from the Z generation (i.e. born after 1995) decide to replace the kid with an animal. small better is besides in the earlier generation, due to the fact that among the alleged millennials (it was born between 1980 and 1995) the pet chooses 58% of respondents alternatively of the child.

A dog or a cat becomes a more convenient substitute for a real parent relation for people who inactive feel parental instinct, but want to avoid the burden of having children. In a planet where culture shows children as hardship, nuisance and over-responsibility, and besides closing the anticipation of self-fulfillment, the “adopted” of a dog or cat becomes a good solution. Animals have a akin biological response, so caring for them can bring akin satisfaction to caring for a child. At the same time, they are simply little demanding. They do not restrict the freedom of life of their owners as much as the kid does. In addition, the beloved cat or dog will never enter a period of rebellion of a two-year-old or a teenager and will not argue with their siblings about inheritance.

The banner from the March of independency showed the fact – but seemingly 1 that is very acquainted with the Polish political class and commentariat.

“We cannot afford children”?

Unfortunately, in the debate on demography, besides frequently excessive importance is attached to economical issues, as a origin of low fertility, indicating the inaccessibility of housing, low wages, popularity of alleged junk contracts, etc. specified perception of the problem is convenient in a way. Comfortable for ourselves – due to the fact that material causes are a reasonable and actually hard to question reason why we do not choose to have children. It is besides convenient for politicians – due to the fact that bringing the problem to this level allows you to propose, though not very effective but catchy solutions that may appeal to voters.

Meanwhile, finance and logistics related to having children can be crucial aspects – but for people who are already reasoning about starting a family.

Today, the problem of fertility is much deeper. Before the time comes to decide about the child, there are 2 another factors: the anticipation of entering a relation and cultural basis encouraging or discouraging the establishment of families. These are crucial factors that, without them, we will never even scope a phase where young people could consider whether it would be a good decision to have a kid in their current situation.

In a 2010 CBOS report, researchers indicate that the relation between financial situation and procreative attitudes is complex. The material situation is not a decisive origin in the causes of childlessness. The decision to become a parent has a much greater origin in the "fundamental values" of respondents, and what is more, the economical situation does not actually affect the attitudes of the childless, but can only influence the decision to have more offspring.

Cultural and social factors, on the another hand, are peculiarly crucial in the case of people declaring childlessness by choice. This decision frequently stems from our notions of pregnancy, motherhood and upbringing of the child, women's concerns about failure of attractiveness or health, but besides about losing independency and the anticipation of continuing to prosecute the current lifestyle or career development.

Psiecko, of course, is simply a symbol (which did not come out of nowhere, due to the fact that this word introduced to the general public consciousness, among others, Gazeta Wyborcza herself by addressing the subject of "interspecies families"). But now that the word “dogly” has become popular adequate to become a figure representing voluntary childlessness and all the motivations associated with it, it is outraged that it is “a mocking of women” and treating them only as a political tool.

On the contrary! It is simply a sighting of an crucial group of motivations for women themselves, which politicians frequently do not see, due to the fact that it is easier for them to focus on the construction of nursery and kindergartens or to grant further economical incentives.

Psiecko is simply a symbol of modern culture of distracting women from motherhood. due to the fact that there are also crucial signs on the banner, in addition to the dog at first sight in the baby carriage.
The symbol of lightning on the cheek pushing a wheelchair does not request to be explained to anyone – just callback in memory the Strike of women from 5 years ago. It's a sign of the ideology of feminism, pro-abortion movements, and taking women's rights to the pedestal. And so, promoting the image of a strong, independent female deciding her own life solely affects the dissemination of the attitude of childlessness by choice. Like threatening women with dangers and nuisances of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood, which are presently targeted by mainstream media.

So can you realize a controversial banner as an expression of something another than sexism, ridicule women, and a machinist approach to the problem of demography? Yes, and actually trying to put him on the force in just specified categories proves 1 thing: the banner creators have raised a certain crucial truth, which many commentators (not for a reason mostly those on the contractual left side) are very afraid, so they effort to shout it out with the same arguments as usual.

Childbirth and Women's Rights

The proposition that women who choose to be childless may endure any degree of work for low fertility may have touched the most delicate strings in commentators.
Have all the men active in the march present fulfilled their pro-demographic duty? Why are they not accounted for from the number of children they have? – the minister Katarzyna Kotula asks.
Well, Minister, possibly it's due to the fact that you've been convincing for years that the decision to have a baby is an exclusive choice for a woman, and men don't have the right to vote on it...?

In fact, the editor Tomasz Terlikowski makes akin allegations about the banner with the dog.

This one, for quite a few reasons, I don't like it. First, because... this is simply a tweet that all work for having children or does not consist of women. There's no man in this picture. As it happens, in our species, as in all mammals, to have a child, a man and a female are needed. (...) Only a female is stigmatized here – Terlikowski explains in this conversation with Kazimiera Szczuka, a literary critic and feminist activist.

Interestingly, investigation conducted in Poland shows that in the case of our country it is indeed women who have a decisive influence on reproductive strategies in relationships, sometimes even convincing the childlessness of men who initially leaned towards having children.

However, in the discussion sparked by the controversial banner, it is the reaction of the commentators outraged that we blame women, not men – especially those marching in the March of Independence.

As you can see from the position of today's liberal website, it would be very crucial to close the discussion on the causes of fertility in a rational framework, offering justifications in terms of economics, housing and women's rights, in peculiar reproductive rights. Going outside this region reveals the real causes and is an act of accusation against these environments and media, manipulating women into a progressive, anti-natalist fashion.

So, is the reaction of politicians, activists and journalists truly a concern about the disastrous demographic situation of Poland, or is it an effort to realise the interests of its ideological-political environments? Do the current divisions and tribal wars gotta govern even specified a key issue for Poland's survival?

In this war, we will all be losers, regardless of political affiliations. However, judging from the angry reaction to the “dog” and the insulting banner, it seems that in the name of ideology the left is ready to even the last to extinguish the light.

Aleksandra Gajek