The issue of IVF treatment is a complex one, but I’m more than troubled at times by the general level of ethics and standards enclosed within many women’s minds.

The author of this article, Melinda Tankard, has made liberal use of terms such as “scatter their seed”, “put their wrigglers into the collection tin” etc.

The use of IVF treatment can incorporate many health and emotional problems, and there are considerable moral issues involved. There is also the question of whether or not IVF companies are operating simply for monetary gain, or for more altruistic reasons.

However I believe that persons such as Melinda Tankard, only degrade the issues involved to the lowest level. I wouldn’t be having her as a role model.

Well, Melinda has aptly described herself in her last sentence.We need good genetic material from a who range of people from our society, since our whimpish attitudes are are diluting not enhancing our genetic pool.The way we are going, most of our Govt budgets will be put towards fixing genetic defects.Once upon a time we conceived ten children and and four died.Now we save one at all cost.Where is survival of the fittest?Where are those healthy children that will never exist because we have so few to polish our self indulgent life styles?If the body is the is the vehicle for the soul, shouldn't we be improving the vehicle?

Timithy, I'm sorry, but you really need to get a life and stop reading every article written by a woman as though it's an attack on men. Lighten up! And thanks for the excessive-PC policing, but honestly - “put their wrigglers into the collection tin” is just a light hearted euphemism. If every opinion had to be devoid of humour and delivered in the muted, ultra-conservative, PC way which you prescribe, we'd all be jumping off a bridge in no time. Great article Melinda, it was fun and light hearted. Anyone that saw some sort of malicious intent in it seriously needs to seek a little therapy.

Hi Audrey,

If you had any great knowledge of IVF, you would know that there are many highly serious ethical and moral issues involved. It could be a case that the technology of IVF has developed too rapidly for society to have fully debated and legislated on these ethical and moral issues.

The article by Melinda only mentions a fraction of these issues, and I believe that her article was just a thinly disguise attempt to label male MP’s as being “wankers”, and to try and infer that other males are similar.

I have read an enormous amount of literature by female authors who try and discredit the male gender as much as possible. In the past, advertising companies have also tried to discredit and mock males as well, but I understand that a number of these advertising companies are now being brought to account in the US. Female authors who try and discredit the male gender will follow.

The issues involving IVF are very serious issues, and any author who includes terms such as “arse-licker” in an article on these issues, has no place in the debate on those issues.

Again, I see Melinda Tankard Reist as not being a suitable role model for anyone, and she would be highly unqualified to be writing an article on the ethical and moral issues involving IVF.

Timithy, Audrey is right you really do have to lighten up. This piece was well written and the author made her points without turning it into a rant. I don't agree with her but to say she is unqualified is wrong. When it come to issues such as these every ones opinion is valid even yours.

Hi Kenny

Have a real good look at the real world.

What do you mean by that, have you some special insight?

Well Timithy, if you knew anything about politics and didn't just fly off the handle at everything, you'd know that Melinda was referring to Mark Latham's calling John Howard an 'arse licker' back in 2002. And I believe that Peter Dutton in turn stated that Latham should be sacked "..not just because he is a thug that bashes taxi drivers, but because he is a disgrace as a member of the Australian Parliament". Hmm. Perfect role models, you are right, MUCH better than Melinda. Noone is claiming that IVF is not a serious issue. And more than one member of my family has been through the IVF wringer, so there's need to be patronising thanks! However, if we can't use a little humour to deal with difficult topics, then we will get nowhere. People will just switch off. And on an unrelated topic, do you know how many times the term 'wanker' has been used in Australian politics? I believe it is a well-worn part of the aussie vernacular. More commonly used by men in reference to men. Does this mean that all men who use 'wanker' are now man-haters?

As a general rule, nature normally gets things right and people don’t.

Modern man has only been around on planet earth for a relatively short period of time, and whenever man has interfered too much with nature, then man has normally become worse off.

IVF is an artificial or man-made process, and the latest IVF technology is very much pushing the boundaries of what is natural (or meant to be), and what is not.

I’m no Luddite by any means, as I have been involved in quite a lot of technology in the past. But in the longer term, I would think that there would be more serious problems associated with IVF then we are even remotely aware of.

However, articles like the one by Melinda only degrade the considerable issues involved. Her article is just a thinly disguised attempt at “male-bashing”, and there are many other articles released in recent times that are similar. Normally the subject matter of these articles is irrelevant to most of the authors, just the “male-bashing”.

Are you a hippy Timmy? Nature gets it wrong all the time it is the main driving force behind evolution. As fore your hippy attitude towards what is natural, is a bird building a nest natural? Is a beaver building a dam natural? What about a person building a house? Get real we are a part of nature and all our acts are natural and work generally work very well thank you, next you'll be going on about gm crops and going back to nature.

Kenny,
I have been involved in quite a lot of technology in the past, up to developing new types of software, and I have done quite a lot of work in areas of engineering.

However there are now many technology researchers becoming very concerned about certain types of new technology, and where that technology will be taking us. Nano technology is one example, and IVF technology is another.

I feel so sorry for Timithy. You poor old sod, picked on by women all the time, even the blokes have given you a serve and all because you want to be soooo serious. Well it takes all types. Thanks to Melinda for bringing a smile to my face. We all need a laugh now and then, especially Timmy.

Yeah, I have noticed the creditability of Kenny, he has been arguing against total “free speech” in another forum, but he labelled me a "hippy", when he doesn't even know me.

Melinda could have chosen many controversial areas of IVF to write about, but she didn't, just called men "wankers". That type of joke is no longer being accepted by a lot of men now in several countries

I am certain that Timithy is a well adjusted individual who just cares too much sometimes. I also agree with Timithy’s reading of the article, and believe these wholesale attacks on males are unwarranted, discriminatory, and in bad taste. Melinda relies upon our contempt for politicians to write a “satirical” piece, and therefore get away with it – but this can only be interpreted as an attack on the sperm donor gender.

In truth, Timithy would probably put on his humanist hat if this article was disparaging women who were donating their eggs. Such an article however, could not be published as we all know that women would be doing it out of altruism and for reasons beyond reproach (it would just not be funny, right?).

Is there really a shortage of sperm for IVF? How could such promotions possibly assist?

Who killed Kenny? (before he could donate)

Yes Seeker, I have often wondered what would happen if people such as feminists moved towards becoming humanist.

However one of the things Melinda Tankard Reist forgot to mention in her article, (probably slipped her mind because of all the profanity and vilification she wanted to write), is that the entire IVF industry is most likely driven by women and their desire to become pregnant.

It is drawing a long bow to say that the husband or male partner always forces the woman to have IVF treatment, as the sperm may not be his. Also there appears to be a large % of single females as clients in some IVF clinics. It becomes the female desire to be pregnant that is mainly driving the entire industry.

I have read of couples spending years and up to $40,000 for the woman to become pregnant. Yet there are countless numbers of orphaned children living in impoverished conditions in various countries that could be adopted. Why then IVF, why not adopt? This then introduces a highly ethical issue.

The woman wants some type of ownership of the child by becoming pregnant. She will go through the IVF treatment for this, and she will even put this ahead of adoption of an orphan.

Of course if she undergoes IVF and a baby is born, it will be quite dependent on the parents for at least the next 15 yrs, and this is when the real parenting and nurturing has to take place.

I think the mother's desire for ownership of the child is a very important issue, particularly if adoption was available.

Timithy and Seeker, you are quite a team, swarming any article site that presumes to mention women's business, and regaling the rest of us with your poisonous chatter on how women are destroying life as you know it. What on earth happened to you two? Did your mothers run away from you? Do your daughters loathe you? Have you got any sisters? Were you abandoned by wives who found you just too awful to live with? Or have you not had sex with a woman yet? Perhaps you are really men who want to be women?

Hi Grace,
I do not care for your implications regards myself. I thought the subject was IVF, but the article by the author has been degraded and stained somewhat by her mocking of males.

So now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of why does society need IVF. There is no shortage of children in the world, and there are many orphans. So why do women choose IVF over adoption.

Grace this is all getting too petty for me .It's about time you just, well;grew up!We are all human and all have our foibles.I've yet to meet the perfect male or female.We shouldn't have children at all costs.It is they who have to live with natures glitches, not us.

It is worth keeping in mind that the invitation to politicians is a simply a stunt, designed to raise the issue in the community's mind and cut through the blizzard of commercial and other messages in the media, rather than being a serious call on politicains to donate. It is this feature, rather than any other, that is shared with the promotions for organ donation. While using politicians as a device is excusable for a promoter, the use of this device in her reply is merely a cheap and lazy appeal to the baser interests of her readers.

Tankard also places great importance on knowledge about linages, health and genetics and states that the costs of not knowing this information is harmful to the child, based on a sample of one. Well children are only a children for a short while, and a more mature judgement in later years is likely to reflect on the fact of their very existance rather than where they came from. Stating that the flow of sperm is taking “precedence over a child's well being” is unfair because its call to emotion tries to obscure the real forces driving this issue. It is adults making decisions about their lives and the lives of children they will love that is taking precedence. To imply that we should change practice for the sake of childrens' sensitivities is not an adequate argument. It feels good but is emotive, and in its own way utopian. But what is worrying is that it implies that we should run our world based on the sensitivities of children. This is utopian because adults, thinking or unthinking, for better or for worse, will always decide what they will do with their lives, and children of necessity follow.

I do think we need women’s perspective on why society does need IVF, as I think that the IVF industry is being propelled mainly by women, and also by people who want to make money from that industry.

Looking at it from a male’s perspective, I don’t think there is much in IVF for males, particularly for sperm donors. If they donate sperm then they can be held liable for child support, and also for possible litigation if they pass on a genetically inherited disease or disorder. The potential risks are becoming too great to donate sperm.

For a father there is not much in it for him also.

But there are an enormous number of ethical and moral issues surrounding IVF, and these issues may grow even more so in time. If IVF links up with biotechnology and begins to incorporate gene splicing etc, then we can have genetically modified children, which has even more ethical and moral issues involved.

I think it very important to determine why do we need IVF in the first place, and because it seems to be driven so much by a woman’s desire for pregnancy, then why do women want to be pregnant when they could adopt.

There are very few ethical or moral issues involveing adoption, as compared to IVF.

No Takers. Well these are my thoughts

Basically I see IVF technology as becoming a potential mine-field of technical, legal, and health problems. It may be best for society to just leave IVF and concentrate on programs that enable couples to adopt children.

I can understand a couple’s desire to be parents as that is a natural desire, but it is not necessary for the woman to be pregnant so as to be a parent. Therefore instead of spending resources on IVF, it would be best to spend those resources on enabling better adoption programs for couples.

There are a lot of orphan children in great need in many poorer countries, and for most of them their future would be very bleak. Adopting them would be the best for them and satisfy the couples desire for children.

I agree that adoption would be a noble option. After all, we dads do our fair share of it already. Somewhere between 20% and up to 30% of children we believe to have fathered, are not actually ours.

Although DNA paternity testing is now available and affordable, it only occurs at the edges, and in disputes where Family Court requests it. Perhaps it should be made standard part of the process - say a prerequisite to birth certificate. It would at least be nice to know our true adoption rates.

Children are not trophies – they are people. And our laws regarding reproductive technologies have the potential to either set people up for life or to rip them off.

To be legislatively deprived of the opportunity of ever knowing the identity of one’s biological parents is to be ripped off. I think it’s clear people born of donor semination have a right to know identifying information about their biological parents.

Surely there has been enough said about ‘nature versus nurture’ for society to realise that to blank out nature (in this case biological parents) from a person’s life is likely to leave big gaps in their sense of identity. It’s not hard to imagine a person in that situation desperately wanting to know about their biological parents or any half-brothers and sisters they may have. Melinda Tankard-Reist states the obvious when she writes about sperm donors: “passed on are entire personal, genetic and medical histories, lineages which aren’t just nothing.”

Is it plausible that people wouldn’t feel cheated or frustrated by blanks to questions about their biological identity?

With maturity, perhaps many young people deprived of knowledge about their biological parents will indeed come to realise the reasons why they were conceived from donor sperm. No doubt most will be grateful for the opportunity to make their mark in life. But the realisation of why they were conceived won’t necessarily take away their pain or the gnawing dead ends about their identity.

Australia is – at least in theory – an open society. So let’s do the right thing by all our citizens, no matter how they were conceived, and give people equal access to information about their biological parents. Let’s lobby State governments to follow Victoria’s enlightened example by amending reproductive technology laws so that children born from sperm donation have access to identifying information about their biological parents when they turn 18.

The big money (IVF companies) is likely to strongly oppose such amendments, however I suspect agitation for change will intensify, not subside, as increasing numbers of young people conceived from sperm donation grow to adulthood and become active in public life.

Melinda Tankard-Reist is to be congratulated for daring to challenge the establishment regarding a topic which, for most commentators, is simply too hot to handle.

I tend to agree with Duffmeister, but the only way we could be guaranteed to know, would be by way of postscript on our birth certificate. That asterisk next to mother or father, could indicate that further information should be sought at 18.

“So let’s do the right thing by all our citizens, no matter how they were conceived, and give people equal access to information about their biological parents.”

Hear, hear!

Duffmeister,
You argue why the sperm donor has to declare their identity, and nearly all debate on IVF centres around this. However female eggs are often in much greater demand than male sperm, and yet I have never heard of a debate on whether female egg donors should be called upon to declare their identity.

The entire issue of IVF always seems to centre on the male sperm donors, and yet there are an enormous number of ethical or moral issues surrounding IVF. There are many problems with IVF, and I feel that many of these problems will be unsolvable, or they will never be solved satisfactorily.

The central point, (and not mentioned by the article author, despite all her maligning of males) is why do women want to become pregnant through IVF, when there are other options available to becoming a parent such as adoption.

As a society, should we be pursuing IVF (and spending public money on it via medicare) when adoption of many needy children is an alternative.

Timithy,

After a recent conversation with Audrey, I am encouraged to disagree with you from time to time ;-). Sorry :-(

Although I actually mostly agree with what you say in your last post, I feel the priority and the focus could be a little displaced. I’ve introduced a new slant to adoption – one I believe is very valid and fundamental to male-female relations. One that is backed up by some worrying statistics, but also one that deserves more serious study. It is also something that Duffmeister subconsciously acknowledges (as I quote above).

Can someone please address this first before we go back to your original question about women’s apparent choice of IVF over adoption. Timithy, this question was already posed – why ask the same question again, while burying a new one?

Ok Seeker, but the IVF industry is growing faster than government can legislate I believe. Sperm and eggs are being imported and exported between countries, and what rules or laws that are current in one country may not be current in the next. Men and women are being enticed to go to other countries to donate sperm and eggs. A Family Court may be able to overrule certain agreements or legislation if it believes that this will be “in the best interests of the child”, so there is no guarantee that child support payments will not have to be made before the child is the age of 18 etc.

IVF is an industry, with IVF companies now listing themselves on the stock market, but often the profits of these companies come from the tax-payer via Medicare payments for IVF treatment.

The success rate for IVF treatment is not that high, and women can have years of treatment before becoming pregnant, and then they can have a miscarriage. Children born from IVF have a 40% greater chance of being born with birth defects than other children.

The list of problems or potential problems that can occur with IVF goes on and on, so it becomes a very important to ask why not adoption instead.

Only taking a few swipes at feminists in some of these forums. They have had an easy run for too long. In the past they have been able to say just about anything about men, and not be held accountable for it. It is noticeable that if you return something back to them they immediately call it abuse or misogyny. Help, I’m being victimised and oppressed by patriachy.

Looks like we're back to the Timithy-show again, everything is the fault of feminism and women expressing an opinion and heavens forbid! equal rights to choice. While you're there Timithy, you may as well make a spurious connection between world poverty and feminism. Your 'selective' sensitivity is endless and it's hilarious that you feel we've misunderstood you. I believe your position is fairly obvious. Attacks on feminism are not misogynistic or abusive, but attacks on women directly are. There is a difference. And poor Timithy, help! I'm being shown up by women!! Debating with you Timithy, is iritatingly circular.

Let me just precede the following by stating that I'm pro-adoption. I doubt that women 'choose' IVF over adoption, as this implies that adoption is actually a choice. In a simplistic world cross-nationality adoptions would alleviate many global social problems. But it doesn't. It worsens them. Unmanaged, in it's current state, it's a murky, unlegislated minefield that promotes the hideous trafficking of children. Children with loving parents but no means to feed even themselves, sell their children as 'orphans' for a month's worth of food. You think IVF is expensive? Cross-national adoption is currently only for the rich and well-connected. Our system does not allow for the easy adoption of foreign orphans. The average wanna-be adoptive parent is unfortuately not Angelina Jolie.

Hi Audrey,
I've never attacked women or females. I have a daughter and I also sponser a little girl in a very impoverished country. Do you?

However I have attacked feminism, as feminism and feminity are entirely different, and I see no real constructive use for feminism (for females or males). Please get your fact straight.

I also have made complaint about the author of this article because of her unnecessary maligning of males and I am entirely justified in that.

I have also changed my name, so you will not immediately believe that I am a sexist male, although nothing is sexist if it is true.

Oh come on .. 'Timkinese'?? Why don't you go for Timithea?

Hi Audrey,

I have changed my name again. I might even change it to Timist Reist so that I can infer that men are “wakers”, or maybe “P____s Persons” as I have seen written by a feminist lesbian who wanted IVF.

It is very noticeable that feminists rarely object to male vilification, but instead carry out an enormous amount of it themselves. I have also noticed no objection by any female to the maligning of males carried out by the author of the article. In fact, if you cross out any sentences that contain derogatory remarks made about males, then her article reduces down to almost nothing, and I have read an enormous amount of literature written by many feminists and other women that is very similar.

In the article, the author points out a problem, mocks and maligns males and that is about all. You have pointed out a problem regards adoption, but no possible solutions were given. Who do you think will provide solutions to the problems surrounding adoption?

In a humane society, IVF should be well down the list of options for couples that want children, because there are so many children who need a mother and a father. But it isn’t.

So what do you or other women believe are possible solutions to the problems (and please leave out the name calling and insinuations regards myself).

Dear Timmy
Melinda Tankard wrote a piece of satire. Get over it. Judging from your constant carping about women in all your posts throughout this forum I doubt very much you have even met a woman let alone fathered one. Get out a bit more, talk to women - you will find that some are really nice, decent human beings and some aren't - just like men

Hi Ringtail,

So what do you or other women believe are possible solutions to the problems (and please leave out the name calling and insinuations regards myself).

Timmy, darling, a good start would be for you to stop blaming women for all the world's problems.

Nothing.

No woman so far has anything to offer except name calling and insinuations regards myself. You are simply following rule number 17 on the list of techniques generally used by feminists.

“17. Oppose any stereotyping or vilification of the female gender, then attempt to stereotype and vilify the male gender as much as possible. If a male questions this hypocrisy, then state that any stereotyping or vilification was only a joke, and feminism is actually altruistic, and plays an important part in the democratic process.”

Mock and malign males, and then say that it was all a joke. A well worn and used technique. If the article was “satire” then it should have been put in the “humour” category.

It is also noticed that rule 8 is commonly used.

“Blame males for as many problems as possible, as this transfers responsibility for those problems onto males, and hides the fact that females may be partly or fully responsible for those problems occurring. Transferring responsibility also relieves females from having to find workable solutions to those problems.”

So now you have the opportunity of “not” using rule 8 or rule 17

So what do you or other women believe are possible solutions to the problems (and please leave out the name calling and insinuations regards myself)?

Thanks for telling me about rules 8 and 17. How many rules are there and what are they? This is absolutely fascinating. I had no idea that these rules even existed. I guess you do a lot of reading. Me I get out and do volunteer work, local aged care home, animal rescue and environmental work - I'm too old to adopt so this is my way of assisting the world's problems. PS Even if I could have children I wouldn't want a politician's (of either sex). LOL

Still Nothing

Nothing yet except the use of the well worn techniques so often used by feminists. If someone disallows those techniques then they have almost nothing to contribute. Been identified countless times.

Maybe Melinda Tankard Reist can contribute if she happens to read this forum on her “satire”

What does she believe are possible solutions to the problems (and please leave out any name calling or insinuations regards myself, or the use of any techniques found in the list at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2940#883

This could be a mental exercise for Melinda, help take her mind off other things.

GRACE...
on 'womens issues' and feminism generally.. they (feminists) are tampering with something about which they have little idea of the consequences.

If u can tell me who the YUR YURONT of cape York Peninsula were, and what happened to them, and why, we might have a basis for discussion.

Hint "Steel Axes for Stone Age Australians" every feminazi should read that.
Regards
BOAZ

Boaz David, are you suggesting that IVF is the modern tool to be (mis)used by 'feminazis' that will destroy our civilization? Good one. I'm sure that IVF will destroy us long before global warming or nuclear war. Oh, by the way, learn to spell; the aboriginal tribe on the York Peninsula are called Yir-Yoront, Jirjoront, YirYoront, Yir-yiront, Kokomindjan, KokoMindjin, Kokominjan, KokoMandjoen, Koko-manjoen, KokoMinjen or Koka-mungin but no where are they referred to as YUR YURONT.

Ringtail,
You haven't yet offered any possible solutions to the many problems involving IVF or even adoption.

Still waiting

Ringtail,
I welcome your pedantism, and the helpful correction of my spelling, how would we survive if our friends failed to assist us from being the best we can be eh :)
Now.. having said that.. did u FIND anything about them ? The idea I was attempting to communicate, is that their culture was radically effected by something, which effected mens self esteem and sense of social identity, to a point which you will have to actually read the article to know about.
Quite a bit more important than my ability to recall the exact spelling of their tribal name.. or am I being unreasonable here ?
Here is a small summary but not the full article.
http://connecting.vccs.edu/feature-2.htm it gets the 'point' though.
keep up the kind words
BOAZ

IVF is but one of many things, and it does have bearing, and may well be a part of contributing to a destruction of our society in WAYS WE DONT YET KNOW.. just as the Yir Yoront had no idea that steel axes would effect them the way they did, all they knew was WOW.. ARN'T THEY SO EASY to use and so DURABLE and so AVAILABLE and gee.. anyone can have one...hmmm starting to sound very much like the IVF thingy...
The issue is 'unanticipated results of social change' How long has IVF been with us ? a few years.. a decade.. not much time to see its real social /cultural impact. Has any research been done on its impact on male social roles ? sense of identity ?
Questions.. questions...
BOAZ

I agree there Boaz. IVF is coming up against some significant technical barriers (such as a high rate of birth defects). Test tube babies and genetically modified children are in the pipeline.

The idea by Melinda that all problems will be solved "if only" those pesky male sperm donors would just identify themselves, is just looking at one problem in the many problems involving IVF technology.

Women are coming to Australia from other countries for IVF treatment, and sperm and eggs are being imported and exported between countries. An IVF clinic in Australia has been trying to entice males to come from Canada to donate sperm in Australia. Meanwhile IVF clinics in the UK are trying to entice women from Australia to go to the UK to donate eggs. What all this means is that a child born from IVF can have its donor parent somewhere in a totally different country, so knowing their identity won’t mean much at all.

A donor can also have many children, so that donor will not have much bonding with those children even if one child does meet them.

The problems are many, and I see feminism as being of no real use in helping solve these problems. There have been people in this forum who have been very protective of feminism, but have not offered any solutions to any problem. That has been found to be highly typical of feminism. Big on mantra, small on constructive solutions to problems.

Timkins.. DARE I SAY IT ? :) "Unanticipated social and cultural consequences of change"

I dont think I could have put it better than you..stacks up well.

I was not aware of those things. But in a capitalistic society where the only criteria for 'can we do this or that' is.. "is it legal" rather than ethical or moral, such things are inevitable.
Not to suggest we need a 'socialist' society, they would make it worse :) I'm all for an 'ethical and moral' society based on the Love of God and neighbour, which doesn't have to be a Theocracy.
but then again.. I'm a "religious zealot" and I should be cloistered away so I dont infect 'balanced and educated' people with my views... according to another contributor in a different topic. :)
I can see that contributor keeping me locked in a damp basement, feeding me a few times a week.. and never letting the rellies know I exist ..
BOAZ

Boaz,
The following links might be helpful in getting some background info on IVF, sperm and egg donors etc.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/18/1071337091483.html?from=storyrhs

http://www.uwa.edu.au/media/statements/2002/03/birth_defects_double_in_ivf_babies_(7_march)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11907794%255E23289,00.html

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_06_170303/jan10067_fm.html

There was an article in the Bulletin magazine some months ago which described meetings between children and their donor parents.
I haven’t the time to find relevant sources on the net, but if you investigate the technology of IVF, and try and determine where it is going, I think you will find it disquieting to say the least.

Thanx Timkins :)
boaz

Dear Timkins,

You don't have to be anti-man/male/masculine to be pro-feminist/woman.

Have been reading quite a few of your posts lately and I am intrigued that you should know so much about women and femnists and all these other things that affect the interaction between men and women (oh never mind the fact that all women are not the same and all feminists are not the same either!).

Your main argument seems to be that (a) "feminism" (but not feminity whatever that is) is bad and to blame for many of society's ills (b)evil has entered the minds of a few terrible women and they are now trying to inffect all women, including some younger women (in high school no less) and (c)feminists hate men and will do anything to discredit them. In summary, feminism is "a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians" right?

Please correct me if I am wrong about the views you have so far posted.

I know you have read a lot (somewhat selectively I might add), but you seem to have difficulty grasping that feminism is not about casting women as victims, but about casting women as being empowered so that they are able to make their own choice with their lives and yes, even their *gasp* reproductive capacity. It seems to be the only person crying victim here is yourself on behalf of men.

If you would like to discuss male villification, why don't you bring up issues of gay men in the workplace or gay men and identity in AUstralia, or just men and their search for meaning on online opinion websites?? or the crisis facing middle age men who find themselves 'unemployable' because job markets are structured in such a way so that employers prefer young men and women.

I am not going to bore everyone with stats on how women continue to be marginalised in society (and women who may not speak english, or are a different colour, wear a headscarf, are lesbian etc more so than others) - not that it is boring, but I wanted to leave this shortish...I do want to leave you with this thought...Mary Wollstonecraft an early western feminist wrote that "I do not wish them to have power over men, but over themselves". That is what it's about Timkins.

Good luck to you

For BOAZ_David don't put words in my mouth the ones coming out of yours are bad enough. Timmy I think you should seek professional help to work through these issue's you have. David just put the bible down step away turn your back and you'll be one the road to enlightenment.

Hi Simone and Kenny,

So what do you or other people believe are possible solutions to the problems involving IVF and adoption (and please leave out the name calling and insinuations regards myself)?

KENNY *confused look*...
umm...where did I put words in your mouth in this topic ????
My bible is always close .. to my heart at least.
Enlightenment :) I so love that kind of comment. I posted it somehwere else but a ditto here won't go astray and while Simone and Grace speak 'from within' this generation in a rather existential way, seldom stopping to ask 'why' we can even ask these questions, I draw your attention to this, as a warning. (not from me but from me ol mate Fred)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now don't knock the guy, after all he discovered that God had died :)

The position of women as being 'in charge of themselves' is curious. They happen to be the vehicle of human reproduction, which, last time I checked involves we guys. And from the moment of conception, we are as involved as it can be, OUR life is present inside that young lady, how DARE anyone reduce this awesome and wonderful fact of life to something about 'empowered women'.

But ... to the topic. I find the way that precious little lives are tossed around as 'topics' and political footballs to be rather repulsive. The social side of this has yet to be measured effectively in my opinion. I just know that the thought of my own offspring being 'out there' and being denied his/her own biological dad, comes pretty close to 'unthinkable' to me. Umm...Tony Abbot had a child ????? amazing the advancements of this program.

Boaz,
The issue is much more complex than whether or not the child knows the “name” of their donor parent. Many donor parents now live “somewhere” in other countries and are basically unavailable to the child.

There also have been meetings between donor parents and their children that have not been satisfactory for either party, and left both quite depressed, regretful and wishing they had not met. It is not necessarily all joy and happiness.

I didn’t have the time to find the links the other night but this link shows where IVF is heading. Genetically modified children or “designer babies” or “made to order babies”. It is at the “scientific research” stage at present, but there are a considerable number of moral or ethical issues involved with this. It is now scientists playing at God, independent of any religion.

http://www.gene.ch/genet/2001/May/msg00043.html

What's Nihilism got to do with it? Nietzsche was a reductionlist but he didn't go that far.

For Timkins I wasn't have a go I truely think by your posts that this is a isssue you need to deal with there is no shame in getting help to understand why you think something. To often people do explore why the think they do, but simply find reasons to backup their view points.

As for IVF I think people have always tried to manipulate these things, now we can do it I think we should. As for so called designer babies why not what parent would want the best for their offspring.

Kenny,
I don't think you have given an answer to many of the issues. These are just some

Donor parents (either men or women) can be quite unavailable to the child, because they are in a different country to where the child is born (and this is becoming more common.)
Donor parents can have many children and may not have much bonding with any.
Meetings between donor parents and the IVF child not necessarily satisfactory for either party
Higher rates of birth defects with IVF children and they don't know why
Lower rate of pregnancy as the mother gets older
IVF industry is often is driven by money, and can become very commercialised (not necessarily moral)
What is a good or required child, and should it be "made to order" by genetic engineering ? (eg one that can break an Olympic record, or one that has white skin only)

Timkins... child dude :) I'm on ur side.. I was not asserting that the child needs to know the name of the biological parent..I would say they need the full 9 yards.. how can we deny to our own offspring the parental duty and connection.. emphasis on the connection.

Kenny.. do u have kids ?
and pls argue with the encyclopedia from where I got the quote about Neitzche.. it said "Is most often associated with" him..... got it now ? :) and if u look even closer, the reasons it is associated with him is because of what he claimed such a thing would lead to..and VOILA.. it just did..in your comment about 'if they want to, why not' (designer babies).. u probably have little idea how incredible that statement is, I mean 'that u can even think it' as I'm often saying. That mode of thinking is purely a result of what I quoted. U make it up as u go along. Not trying to be mean there, just observing.
BOAZ

Hi Boaz,
I’m not that hot under the collar, just learning to ignore all the slings and arrows from “certain” people that believe they have a right to make 150,000 insinuations about myself, or intentionally misinterpret what I have said.

From what I have read of it, then meetings or contact between the donor parent and the child can become so emotional as to be traumatic. (Eg the child does not know where it’s true identity is, the parents who brought up the child get jealous of the donor parent, the donor parent may have 10 –15 children already somewhere in the world and does not want any of them to become too dependant or too attached to them etc.)

We have had IVF now for 20 – 30 years, and there are now some who believe that it is generally best not to tell the child. This then is another problem, whether to tell the child or not.

EXACTLY !!! what u described is the reality..and the logical one. TOOOO much of what goes on today is about no-one other than "meeeeeeeeeeeeeee" emphasis deliberate. The words 'choice' and 'equal opportunity' and "empowerment" are bandied around, but seems to me like often just a smoke screen for 'me me me'.
BOAZ

I agree that adoption would be a noble option. After all, we dads do our fair share of it already. Somewhere between 20% and up to 30% of children we believe to have fathered, are not actually ours.

Although DNA paternity testing is now available and affordable, it only occurs at the edges, and in disputes where Family Court requests it. Perhaps it should be made standard part of the process - say a prerequisite to birth certificate. It would at least be nice to know our true adoption rates

I see what you mean Seeker. Adoption is already being carried out, but informally without the father knowing.

IVF is becoming quite commercialised and could go franchise. I can even see IVF clinics combining with abortion clinics so as to offer more “choice”.

There are many problems with IVF, but the biggest concern is that it will become like the abortion industry, where debate has been silenced because of “choice”. You can't talk about abortion, so any problems involving abortion have not been fully identified and satisfactory solutions found, because of “choice”.

So problems with the IVF industry may simply grow in number as well, and those problems will be hidden away and not solved properly because of lots of “choice” (and of course those paternal sperm donors, or wankers as the author thinks of them)

Even natural conceptions, carried to full term, are problematic, Mr Timkins. We’re a narcissistic bunch these days, and although each one of us is at the very centre of that universe we each imagine, individually, we are responsible for very little. We’re permanently on the lookout for someone else to blame. Men seem to continue taking more than their fair share.

I trust you’re already familiar with Dr Summers, the president of Harvard University who “has provoked a furore by arguing that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological difference, and discrimination is no longer a barrier for female academics”. If not, here’s a link:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Science/Harvard-chief-angers-women/2005/01/18/1105810916573.html

Seems men are running out of solutions, and Dark Ages are surely ahead (the book “Dark Age Ahead” was written by a woman).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Paul-Sheehan/Why-the-West-is-riding-for-a-fall/2005/01/14/1105582711593.html

Oh, almost forgot …

Did you all happen to catch the first episode of Desperate Housewives (or the article that preceded it)? I did.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Paul-Sheehan/New-rules-in-the-Age-of-Woman/2005/01/30/1107020258549.html

Another Paul Sheehan article ... din't he also write about male politicans not washing their hands after going to toilet?

I’m hooked already.

Hi Seeker,

I have read about the Dr Summers issue. It seems that it was just a casual remark he made that “certain” people then wanted to make political mileage out of. If there is a comment or report that is in someway negative about the female gende,r then this group will “shout to the top”, but if there is any type of report or negative comment made about the male gender, then complete silence. They term this “gender equality”

It is interesting that there have been reports that boys often struggle in areas of education because of problems such a colour blindness, autism, and there have been some reports that boys often have problems with writing skills at an early age. (EG “Handwriting is a basic skill that serves us all our lives. Unfortunately, a problem that primarily affects boys is rarely on anyone's list of educational priorities.” At ... http://softwareforschools.com.au/news16.php ). However you never hear “certain” people even remotely suggesting that there needs to be special attention given to boys with these problems, as that would not be gender equality.

This OLO article is obviously an attempt by the author to extract as much sympathy for herself from the reader as possible because she is a “mother” with “children”. These are like key words that have to be mentioned repeatedly in “certain” types of articles, although words such as “father” need not be mentioned.

The author appears to be hinting at affirmative action for women in government, but I feel that certain people will try and get into government through affirmative action (like they have in the Spanish government), but these people will be highly unlikely to consider both the female “AND” male genders in their decision making once they are in government.

Seeker,
My last comments were for the article "Do you want children with that". Of course this title could be construed as being offensive in some way also, but I think Melinda wouldn't mind, as she knows her satire.

Timkins may have his tendencies, but so what. His comments stand or fall on their merits and how you measure that merit is a function of your own subjectivity. Even if l dont agree at least he has the brains to make his position logically. Which is not what one obserbves amongst those combative respondents who feeeeeel ooooh sooooo put out by his perspective.

The same tired band of 'anti-timkins' crusaders summarily come out the minute he opens his mouth and they dribble the hillariously ironic statement that he should get a life. Methinks that it is you folks who are so put out by his opinion and feel the need to rebut his esoterica who are the ones who should follow your own advice and 'get a life.'

Maybe you all could set up a special forum where you can perpetually sling mud together with your adolescent school yard level vitriol and spare the rest of us from your crusading vendetta. l for one am growing very weary of the cry babies in this place.