Thanks Eleanor. It's certainly true that it's getting to the point where I'm afraid to open the newspaper these days for fear of being harassed into 'getting up the duff' as you put it. Or feeling as though there are no real choices, just sacrifices. At last check, I believe that these days I have to be both un-educated and under 30 if I have any plans for having children. Oops ...

Regardless of whether you agree with Leslie Cannold and the rest it is great that the debate seems to moving towards what is best for the women, the children and their men. People are making their procreation decisions based on what is best for them, not what the community thinks or seems to think or the spin doctors tell us to think. All these articles are about women trying to have it all, but if they can't meet the utopian goal, they are suiting themselves - which is the way it should be.

It was not that long ago that women and men who did not have any children were much more severly ostracised. Twenty five years ago I worked in a manual labour job and one of the guys was doing a night course (like TAFE) so he could get a better job. He and his wife were postponing having children until they were more comfortable. He took constant abuse from the other imbeciles that we worked with who said "He doesn't know how to do it," and "Your wife doesn't want you." These dopes had kids when they were 19 and were stuck in very difficult life that was not going to be good for them or the kids. All this recent debate is a strong indication that we are well past that.

The "we will be poor if we don't have lots of kids" argument is a dud, as well, even though you often see it in these articles. The productivity commission published a report in November that said we will be twice as rich in 40 years with low birthrates. There are also a hundred environmental reasons to keep population low but they are not as important as people having the families they really want.

Good Luck Eleanor, keep trying to get as much out of life as you can based on your own desires, not anybody elses.

I read this article with amazement. How tragic it is that the male female 'thing' has been reduced to a 'them /us' deal. "Conservative agenda" aarggggh....

"I find much of this material, and the way it is presented, implicitly conservative and disempowering for women my age"

And that little quote from the article says a LOT about the stereotype image of what being 'conservative' means. It also re-inforces the very IDEA of 'conservatives who are out to GET us'

Social conservatives would have many shades of color and doctrines regarding the place of women. What IS all this about 'empowering' women ? Even THAT tells loads about the view of 'THEM' out there....
"The oppressive evil conservative" no ?

To be "conservative" does not HAVE to just mean 'retain the OLD status quo no matter the cost and no matter the validity.'

So, while I normally describe myself as "Conservative evangelical' in my position as a Christian, that means preserving the BIBLICAL view of male female roles. Now.. where the idea that women cannot be HUGEly successful and powerful and leaders came from.. I know one thing, it SURE DIDN'T come from the Bible. Deborah in the book of Judges was considered on a par with Moses !!! She was a military leader, a prophetess and a judge. (Judges 4 and 5)and newsflash.. MEN recorded the Bible.
There are some examples of women holding positions in the Church in the New Testament also. It IS true that the overall socio historical situation of the day, and in any period where there is unrest or uncertainty, that the burden of action and protection will fall on the shoulders of we guys. Always has done, always will do.

Biblical Principle: Is not a bad place to begin in drawing an understanding of our roles
"Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her."
Wives, submit to your husbands in everything"

If u took just one of those statements ALONE you would have a very unbalanced picture of marraige. Taken TOGETHER.. its balanced. No, it does NOT put a women in 'POWER' over a man, nor (if one reads closely) does it put a man in "POWER" over a woman. It puts a man in "sacrificial self giving" on her behalf.
Any man who took just one of those verses and used it to justify ill treatment or "Lording" it over his wife is using the text as a PRETEXT, and has totally neglected the CONTEXT.

This of course does not make any reference to single 30 something women, nor their eggs but the principle applies in regard to the caring self giving on behalf of women by men. I dont think the 'submit' bit applies to unmarried women who have or aspire to leadership positions in life, because of precedents in the rest of scripture which clearly show that women CAN occupy high positions.

When we reject the 'Christian Taliban' approach,(barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen) lets recognize it for what it is.. LARGELY CULTURAL. There is no biblical principle that I know of which suggests that women should be eternally in that situation.

CONCLUSION. We should aim for a mutual caring and upbuilding of each other in our society. Its basis should be self sacrifice and love

In this article on fertility the author refers to other articles recently written by Leslie Cannold. One article recently published was titled “In search of the gorgeous Aussie bloke” The Age Feb 3, 2005.

Within this article Leslie Cannold wrote:-

“It is surely unarguable that men's desire and decisions have a significant impact on whether women who want to have children actually wind up being mothers. The truth is that men can derail women's maternity plans by failing to partner, failing to prove themselves good father material or simply refusing to
have the children that they promised their spouse years earlier they would want "one day"..”

Is this true? It paints a rather negative picture of men. In that article Leslie Cannold made use of the word “unarguably”,(which is a big word), but if her statement was true then this would be “unarguably” true also:-

“It is surely unarguable that women's desire and decisions have a significant impact on whether men who want to have children actually wind up being fathers. The truth is that women can derail men's paternity plans by failing to partner, failing to prove themselves good mother material or simply refusing to have the children that they promised their spouse years earlier they would want "one day"..”

However Leslie didn’t make the last statement in her article, (just the first one), and so the distorted view of men is developed.

It is a fact that women and men are getting married latter in life, and most children are being born to married couples. It is also a biological fact that women’s chances of falling pregnant begin to decline past the age of 30, and by 40 they are in the area of minimal. Is this biological fact important? Very much so, if a woman wants to have children.

But I do get the opinion that there are a number of women, (particularly those that classify themselves as being feminist, or have undertaken feminist "courses"), who are now trying to blame men for women’s biology. This is being done to the extent that if a woman does not have children, it is “men’s fault”.

Do I think it particularly “gorgeous” for women or feminists to be attempting to blame men for this, or blame men for that?

No, I don’t think it particularly “gorgeous” for women or feminists to be attempting to blame men for this, or blame men for that.

They may think it is their "choice", but I don't think it particularly “gorgeous”.

The author is sick of being defined by her fertility, yet she brands the idea of having children as neo-conservative, like it's a bad thing.

Well if a 30 something woman is a dowdy neo-con for choosing children, the author is a selfish trendy marxist for not. Sound fair?!

The author should realise that she is probably the only person in the whole wide world who gives a toss whether or not she has children. If she gets all offended and knicker-twisted about media articles urging her to have children then surely there must be women who feel the same when the author slyly cloaks them as Iraq-invading, fossil fuel-burning, 1950's ideologues who are having children to keep Australia white.

It's probably the best thing for the author, the child and Australia that she doesn't have children. The only problem is it's women like her - intelligent, educated and best equipped to bring children into the world with the support and guidance they need, that are not having children.

Bozzie,
You seem to regard the author with significant esteem (IE “intelligent, educated and best equipped to bring children into the world with the support and guidance they need”)

However is your opinion regards the author based on the fact that she has an MA in Women’s Studies, and would such education be broad enough to qualify her as being intelligent, educated etc ?

Debateable.

The author being “intelligent, educated and best equipped to bring children into the world with the support and guidance they need” may only be based on what the author wants you to believe.

There are many articles being written by people who have undergone "women's studies". Whether those articles contain much truth is another matter.