The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The traffic in eggs: Media hype over 30-something women > Comments

The traffic in eggs: Media hype over 30-something women : Comments

By Eleanor Hogan, published 8/2/2005

Eleanor Hogan argues that women shouldn't be defined by their fertility.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
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 ...
Posted by Audrey, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 11:14:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ericc, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 12:20:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 12:23:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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”.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 12:56:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by bozzie, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 1:13:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 1:31:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bozzzie
well said. :)
Tim.. illuminating :)
girls ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 1:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Timkins, I regard anyone who has put in the effort to obtain a tertiary education with esteem. It's not always easy. To me it also shows a degree of perseverance and interest in the world that usually goes hand in hand with intelligence. I've certainly met university educated people who, in my opinion, were idiots, buffoons, nitwits, mentally unstable, vague, foolish, misguided to name only a few, but I've met very few who I would truly regard as unintelligent.

A uni degree is certainly not the be all and end all, but in my opinion it just shows a little bit of life effort.
Posted by bozzie, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 1:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, I have a PhD, and an academic and public policy publications record as well. So it depends on what you think of academics & bureaucrats, and certain types of academics & bureaucrats, as to whether you think I'm a dummy or not.

The idea in writing this kind of article is to articulate a view that I believe to be shared by other women my age (with whom I talk frequently) that's not being given much representation in current debate.

After all, how many female 30-something women are leading the charge to put their fertility issues on to the public policy agenda? How many older media & public policy ideologues are steering this debate?This might also be a Gen X/BBer issue as to how much space my generation are allowed to have to voice their views/issues in public in general.

Btw, I don't think articles by Leslie Cannold are necessarily representative of the entire thesis of her work.
Posted by Eleanor, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 2:15:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bozzie,
Education is important. I’ve done so many courses I would have trouble remembering them all I guess. However some of these courses were not all that useful in retrospect.

I put this in another forum:-

“The belief that education will solve all social problems is also naïve, as education systems can become corrupt. This is why an Academic Bill of Rights is being incorporated into a number of universities in the US. This has often come about from strong objections by the students themselves, because they felt that they were being brainwashed by leftist dogma, and were simply not learning enough that was useful.

See .. http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org”

Now some of these courses the US students were objecting to where feminist courses, where indoctrination was taking place. They were “male-hating” courses. I personally have heard of a male uni student who had to seek counselling outside of uni, because he had to undertake a “women’s studies” course as part of his course in Nursing. As a male he was being vilified so much during that course, he had to seek counselling. Unfortunately the counsellor lost track of the student and didn’t know if he continued the course at that uni, or gave up and went elsewhere. Those are the negative aspects of “women’s studies” you don’t here about that often.

To help broaden your understanding of what can take place in “women’s studies” please read an article at
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Sommers/SISTER1.html

That article is quite funny in places, but then not.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 2:34:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eleanor,
You seem to be advertising yourself and your work.

You say that you talk to women very frequently (EG “other women my age (with whom I talk frequently) that's not being given much representation in current debate.”)

However, I am wondering if you also talk to many men regards this “debate”. Of course if you don’t, then this would lead to you forming distorted or biased perceptions, as there are two genders (at least)

Of course if this “debate” is only from one perspective, then it is only a “pseudo debate”, or a debate in name only.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 2:57:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are childless, in our Church we were seen by many as cursed by God. Tried to adopt but at 35 was considered toooooo old - so. I just cannot understand how we spend millions or at least hundreds of thousand of dollars harvesting eggs for an IVF programme. Then spend millions or at least hundreds of thousands of dollars killing and aborting completly healthy and normal tots. A typically stupid and inane human behaviour.

To those who are dominated by males, or have males trying to dominate them. The Bible states in very clear language the God created male and female IN HIS IMAGE. Horror of horrors females created in God's Image. So I suppose God would not be offended to be called "She"?? Though in the Bible he is called the Father but that is only for us to grasp Him. Jesus even compared Himself to a mother hen - would you believe. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 3:53:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins I can agree with you that there are a lot of women-centric articles about this very issue out there which is probably Eleanor's point, and my gripe also, that we are tired of being made to feel responsible for making all the to-parent-or-not-to-parent choices. Like much of the media surrounding the issue, it's tapping into and creating insecurities that shouldn't be there. Eleanor has an important voice and it spoke to me, so surely you can't condemn that. By demonising the female perspective as you have done with your repetitive commentary everywhere else on this site, you stifle debate. It's all you keep harping on about. Women's endless rhetoric is a problem you say? Yours is too. Why don't you get a life?

Bozzie I'll agree with you that if more women like Eleanor - intelligent, educated and best equipped to bring children into the world with the support and guidance they need, were HAVING children, the world might just be a better place. But it's a little elitist also. But encouraging men to ignore what women have to say about it (Timkins!) is counter productive. Women I believe, are asking for men's views here, on when/why/how to parent, not trying to 'own' the debate. Keep writing Eleanor.
Posted by Audrey, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 4:16:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Audrey,
Your “words” about myself (eg “Why don't you get a life” etc ) are straight out of “The List”
At .. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2940

15. Dismiss or ignore any criticism of feminism, but if a reply to criticism does become necessary, then make liberal use of one-line put downs (EG. “Grow up”, “Get a life”, “You have to be kidding”, “Get real” etc), or include the term “domestic violence legislation” to try and silence any further criticism. Label any correspondence that is critical of feminism as being “hate mail”, so there is minimal obligation to reply.

So in other words, if there is criticism of feminism, try and shut it down through name calling, one-line put downs etc.

Eleanor should be capable of answering some questions. Does she consider the male’s perspective within her research?

I have seen one article after another in the media (including OLO) written by women that hardly show the male perspective at all, and of corse if a male does put forward an opinion that is contrary to that being advocated by “certain” people, then try and shut him down.

My overall opinion of feminism is that it is “HIGHLY GENDER BIASED", and because of that, most of it can hardly be taken seriously at all. This article does nothing to change my viewpoint. An increasing number of others throughout the world also share my opinion, so I don’t believe that I am the only “mere male” on the island.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 4:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Eleanor has "not" been taking into account men's perspective within her research, then she would of course be using no 6 on "The List"

6. Use highly biased studies and statistics to positively portray women. This normally involves “interviewing the cat and not the dog” type studies that result in biased conclusions, or it involves suppressing or ignoring any study that gives negative conclusions regards women.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 4:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmm.. seems like this has degenerated further into the 'US/THEM' cesspool..
Numbat. yours was the only comment out of all that I can see which mentioned God. Good to see, but sad that you were made to feel like some kind of 'cursed being' by your church.. heres some advice CHANGE church :).. no one should be pushing any such idea.
You raised some good points, no one responded to what I said before and it goes as no surprise that most of the interaction has been inter gender slanging.
Tim raises some points which clearly come from his and those he knows experience, but it sounds like he is on one end of the spectrum in similar ways that some others are on the opposite end.

I think that to 'academize' our human male female experience is to have already lost the plot. Why the heck do we have to 'study and research' things that have been with us since time began as if we don't have a clue about how to relate ?
How hard is 'do for others as you would have them do for you" applied to male female relationships ? do we really need another PHD to show that 'being kind to each other' "Is now verified and can be accepted as a positive force in gender understanding" aarrrrrrrrrrrrrgghhh.. give me a break.. When things spin out to that degree is it any wonder that 'loonies' like me point 'up' for guidance :)

30 something ladies with eggs is a situation girls face because they chose career over marraige, or because they simply haven't met mr right, or, for reasons known only to themselves they prefer the single life. Does it have to be more complicated than that ? If they know the category they are in, they should make peace with that and be confident about it.
I've seen ONE show in the past 2 yrs where a number of career minded ladies indicated that now they regret having chosen career over marraige and children and that "now" its too late or almost too late because of mid to late 30s. Ok.. maybe its about time that we started to socialize girls ACCORDING to how they tick ? Instead of ramming socialist feminazi ( 2 use colorful terminology) propoganda down their throats in their developmental yrs.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 5:54:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Childless women is not a new thing. I had a great auntie that never married and never had kids, and she grew up in 'white Australia' (1895-1990 to be exact). My grandmother had my mother when she was 42, and her first child when she was 40!

Also ditch the 'children born with the wrong colour skin' comment. It suggests that the non-white world should breed the worlds children, and stinks of xenomania. It's not to late have children, yet, Eleanor.
Posted by davo, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 7:22:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,
I think that academia is quite important, because most academics and researchers are being paid out of the tax-payers pocket.

Should what they teach young people be biased? Should they carry out biased research? Should they then be disseminating their biased research results to the public through the media, thereby creating distorted perceptions in the minds of the public? Should they be carrying out the techniques on the list mentioned previously, or should the use of these techniques be included in their Job Description?

In a society that is making some attempts at being ethical or moral, then I think not to all these questions.

Who put the article in OLO anyway, thereby causing more divisions between the genders, and were they goaded into doing this by other people. (This is another interesting question, that perhaps could be asked of Eleanor).

The fact is that considerable amounts of tax-payers money has been spent on social science in the past, to PRODUCE GENDER BIASED RESULTS, and it is only now that social science is starting to research mothers and fathers in a non-biased way. This was in a posting of mine way back at …http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2905#717

I’ll repeat it here because it is quite important:-

---------------------------
In terms of having “fathers” incorporated into the fertility rate issue, (or in terms of determining what fathers want or how they perceive things), then it appears that Australian research institutions have very little information to provide. The following is from an Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) staff paper titled “Researching Fathers :- Back to Basics”

Quote
“Fathers are overlooked in many areas of research. In the divorce literature, for instance, much of what we know about fathers comes from talking with mothers. The same is true of fertility research, and of research about caring for children. Yet we know that men and women often have quite different views and experiences.”

“In recent years, increasing research attention is being paid to fathers. In Australia, small pockets of research exist but the gaps in our knowledge remain large and fundamental.”
End of Quote

From this it appears that the AIFS knows very little about fathers, although it is the largest institution researching families in Australia. It is funded by the tax-payer through the Department for Families and Community Services and it has been around since 1980.

However most of it’s research on families has been biased because it has left out fathers. This means that government cannot adequately make decisions or develop policies relating to social issues such as the fertility rate, because it can’t get any reliable, un-biased information from it’s own research institutions to base those decisions or policies on.

--------------------------
Now social science really has not got a clue as to what is the perspective of the majority of fathers in society, and this can affect fathers a great deal within areas such as work hours, Family Law etc.

Social science researchers giving their “opinions” (but not considering fathers much) only adds to the confusion, and it is particularly contemptible if they base their opinions on the own biased research. The whole matter cannot be just swept under the carpet, and the matter is being raised with the Australian Research Council.

You may have heard of the litigation campaigns that have commenced in certain countries, a nationwide one in the US has now reached the trillion $ mark, and such campaigns are being run because of bias against fathers. Litigation regarding biased education is next on the agenda.

However, back to the article. I found the article a little difficult to understand. If you take out any lines that contain derogatory or impertinent remarks, (such as “up the duff” ), then the article reduces down to very few sentences. These sentences become fragmented and lack continuity, so the actual gist of the article is a little to understand.

I think that what the author has written is a complaint about the “debate” regards fertility, a complaint about her own body, and a complaint about “men”.

Now she can make the first two complaints for all I care, but I do believe the author has to be carefull when making the third complaint , particularly if she is being paid by the tax payer. The fact of the matter, is that she knows very little about men, because social science knows almost nothing.

You may have heard about the calls by feminists for the head of Harvard University to resign after he made some casual remarks during a small meeting at Harvard. The same can occur in Australia regards sexist comments by female academics, and many have been noted now (even in articles in OLO).

So overall, I think that tax payer funded social science researches and members of academia should be very, very, very careful of what they say about men or women.

Particularly such things as “when they should have been trying to snare a man and get up the duff.”

I don’t like the word “snare”. I don’t think it “gorgeous”, or funny. I think it possible reasons to call for a resignation, like at Harvard.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 8:26:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The main point I was making in my last commment was that women my age are the 'experts' on their predicament, and that they are not being allowed much public space to discuss this subject. The agenda is being set for them by others. I had no intention of attempting to speak for men in my opinion piece, only for women my age. Likewise, I believe that men my age are the 'experts' on their predicament, and I agree with Audrey about the over-concentration of these 'breeding' articles on women -- i.e. as a women's issue rather than one that concerns both women and men. I agree it would be refreshing to hear both sides of the story covered in debate of this issue, and also to hear men discussing their own difficulties in juggling career aspirations/child-raising more often.

Interestingly, from the extracts of Lesley Cannold's book that I've seen, her research seems to indicate that men and women are failing to talk with each other about these important issues, even some length of time into their relationships, which contributes to the 'childless by circumstance' dilemma.

And yes, I have discussed these issues with male friends as well. In fact, one of my friends rang me today to say how entertained he'd been by my piece and that he'd printed out a copy to give to his wife.

Off now to revisit the Book of the Judges...
Posted by Eleanor, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 10:31:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eleanor,

I think I agree with you, (eg "I think that what the author has written is a complaint about the “debate” regards fertility, a complaint about her own body, and a complaint about “men”.)

However social science knows very little about men and fathers, or at least the AIFS doesn't. Many comments regards fathers made by persons attached to education systems, research organisations etc have been noted.

Opinion pieces are not that much of an excuse, as males in various organisations have been litigated against for their opinions only.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 11:02:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too many choices … not enough time. Sounds like it’s hard work, being a girl of any age, with or without children.
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 12:24:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree there seeker. So many decisions, decisions. And those men. If only they would just agree with whatever they are being told to believe.

I once read an article in a newspaper that contained a series of derogatory remarks about men. I contacted the author and asked where she got her information from about men. She said from office colleges (IE Office Gossip). However I think that office gossip does not make for very good social science research.

I also read an article recently that said that a woman could tell a man’s personality type by studying the shape of his eyes. Round shape eyes would mean that he would have a certain personality type; almond shaped eyes would mean another personality type. But why eyes? Why not ears, lips, noses, chins etc. Who knows?

The main problem is that some people believe this type of thing. The other problem is that these articles are often printed on paper, thereby killing more trees.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 2:55:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting bit of insignificant literary fluff

It is like this, we are all indivuals. Women have one individual choice which we men are not "challenged" with - to get impregnated or not.

We all face challenges - example
which career to focus on as a teenager - then in mid life the crisis of was that the best option (I have been through 4 careers so far and am still uncertain).
Who to marry (done that twice too plus the divorces)
How many children to have (- settled on 2 there).

Women have a different set of challenges they have the "career thing" - like us fellows - but this competes further with the "mother thing" and all its baby bearing / rearing.
So what - be an individual and do not succumb to being classified, catagorised or partitioned into a box to be targetted by some "advertising guru" or (worse) the lab-rat for a manipulative sociologist with a theory to prove.

The only important thing to remember is - "the world does not care", it can and will get on with or without you.
Your choice, your decision -
Whatever you do matters most and only to you -
Make it your "choice" and remember it comes at a price of not doing something else - because no one has enough time in their life to do everything.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 8:13:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col
as far as it goes, you spoke rightly, as observation. But gee.. it sounds a bit like London weather mate.. "bleak".
As I was reading, I was thinking about the contrast of my own involvement in a local church, and an international mission group for about a decade.. and the 2 are poles apart like east is from west.
Your story sounded much like a ship without an anchor, in a stormy sea with no rescue service. Not a criticism, just an observation again.
Is there room for God in your life Col ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 8:49:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
I agree fully that the article is totally insignificant as literature or journalism.

But similar articles are churned out daily and they often portray men negatively or in a biased way. En masse, these articles do considerable harm to the male gender, because they result in distorted perceptions of men and fathers.

You say that “Women have one individual choice which we men are not "challenged" with - to get impregnated or not.”. However many men also pay child support, and this is being found to be often based on the belief that women have some type of ownership of the child, and men are not proper parents but sperm donors and pay-packets only.

The author has mentioned that men have to be “snared”. That came out of her mind, and it would indicate a highly dismissive attitude regards men.

I wonder where she learnt that attitude.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 10:25:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is academic rigour and there is academic opinion. Academics are human also and bring to any debate their own perspectives. There is no rule against this. Academics however have research skills and rigour on their side which they are schooled in during a higher degree. Otherwise how do we know what we know? As for academic bias, well bias is everywhere, in schools, newspapers, esp. online, but at least academics teach people to think for themselves. In fact Universities are set up so as to AVOID bias. It's called academic rigour. Some universities do this better than others. Something Timkins might have picked up had he finished one of his 'many degrees' or if he actually knew anything about 'research'. Trawling the internet, highlighting passages in books and spouting selectively and verbatim might class you as an obsessive compulsive, but it does not mean you know what 'research' is.

I'll say this again to you Timkins - you are very confused between criticism of women and criticism of feminism and for all your purported knowledge of feminism, you seem unable to distinguish such a critical difference.
Posted by Audrey, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 11:06:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Audrey,
I have many qualifications, and I have attended many conferences and been involved in the development of a number of papers. One of those papers was rejected for publication, because one person on a committee of three thought that one small area in the paper was not accurate enough. However that paper was in the area of engineering, where there is a high regard for accuracy.

Judging from what the author has said, she seems to get her information about men and fathers from friends and colleagues (IE gossip)

Social Science has been heavily gender biased in the past, and this was finally acknowledged by the AIFS last year in the staff paper “Researching Fathers – Back to Basics”

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html

If the AIFS knows so little about fathers or men in general, the author of the article knows even less, but this of course does not stop her from writing articles that include derogatory remarks about men (eg “the opportunities to meet Mr Darcy or, more likely, Mr Dubious”)

Are men “dubious”? I think many men are now becoming very “dubious” of certain women in society.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 12:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David - I was talking about the article - not my life - which is one of structure, love, and joy.. full of expectations (not impossible dreams
My belief is to take care of oneself before taking care of the world - I have met plenty of people who go through life looking for crutches - either a partner, a job, a position in society - none of these things really matter - what does matter is being a good friend, partner, father/mother and being responsible for ones own actions. What I am certain of is - the world will go on with or without me - where I matter is in the hearts of the people who know me - and I am lucky - there are plenty of them.

Timkins - They can turn out ten times as many articles like this - it does not matter - people do not have to read them. As for the dismissive attitude toward men - It will not effect me - most women are not as "predatory" as the author - believe me - I have met a few from my mature (and not-too-long-ago) dating days - I found it easy to pick the predators and trawlers (snaring) and ones who didnot want to work with mutual respect - so I didn't phone them back. Ultimately, we end up with the relationship we deserve - and on that score - I am one of the most blessed people I know.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 4:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would agree fully Col, that with age one begins to learn. There are an enormous number of articles being produced daily in the media, and with experience one can begin to detect spin or bias in them.

However my main concerns are now for the young and their education, and whether they are being indoctrinated through education systems to form biased perceptions, (particularly regards gender).

There is an interesting article in The Australian about this. This issue has been underway in the US for some time, but is now occurring here also.

See… “The politically correct elite seeking to control our schools prefer indoctrination to education “

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12190959%5E7583,00.html

There is also an interesting account of just how much academics and researchers are being paid, (normally from the tax-payer).

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12191805%255E12332,00.html
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 4:43:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins
I reckon it is easy for you to detect bias; it would be anything that doesn’t accord with your view of the world, surely?

I wonder when you think that schools began to indoctrinate students rather than educate them? Do you think it was education or indoctrination happening when I was unable to study geometrical drawing and perspective at high school back in the 60’s because girls weren't able to do maths and technical stuff?
Posted by Mollydukes, Wednesday, 9 February 2005 10:28:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins "However my main concerns are now for the young and their education, and whether they are being indoctrinated through education systems to form biased perceptions, (particularly regards gender)."

That is the concern of every older generation toward the younger generation - I bet our parents were terrified when the baby boomers were smoking dope and getting high in the sixties - wondering how we would distinguish "up" from "down" - let alone the subtleties of gender bias - but here we are - I know I am happy with the job i did for my daughters - they both know how to drive their own minds - and sometimes even agree with me - spooky.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 10 February 2005 12:08:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mollydukes,

You know nothing about me, but if you did then you would know that I have no great bias towards any political party, religion, ethnic group, or even gender. All can be as good / bad as each other.

If what you are saying about 1960’s education is correct, then do two wrongs make a right? Should education become a form of left-wing indoctrination, or right-wing indoctrination? In the 1960’s it was possibly too right-wing, but there are now definite signs that it has become too left-wing. An article in today’s Australian newspaper describes the issues at... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12190959%5E7583,00.html

Within this article, there is mention of US university systems becoming too left-wing. For background information on this, see the many articles contained in the web-site at ..
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org”

It has been found that students do not dare disagree with any thing their lecturer says. Many university departments have mostly left-wing staff, and there can be a ratio of left-wing to right-wing staff of 30 to 1 in some places. This does not provide for a broad education for stufents, and the same is being identified in Australia.

Right now I am particularly interested in feminist indoctrination. The vast majority of feminist teaching is fraudulent, as it makes use of a number of techniques to indoctrinate and give false information. The greatest critics of feminism are now female, because they have realised that there is little truth in feminism, and lack of truth does not set anyone free.

A Christine Stolba carried out considerable research into feminist teaching in the US and wrote an essay titled “Lying in a Room of One’s Own – How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students”. A copy can be found at... http://www.iwf.org/pdf/roomononesown.pdf

To my knowledge, this essay has never been questioned or found erroneous. The three most common elements of bias contained in feminist teaching and feminist literature identified by Christine Stolba were:-

Errors of Fact
Errors of Interpretation.
Sins of Omission.

If you read her essay and see the many examples she provides, then it becomes much easier to identify the bias in feminism. I personally prefer humanism to feminism anyday.

If you wish for any more information concerning the fraudulent nature of feminism, feel free to ask, but do not make veiled accusations regards myself thankyou.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 10 February 2005 1:44:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note with interest that the momentum of education seems to wax and wane from left to right, right to left. Usually a reaction.

I'm glad I'm part of a stream of history which looks at things from a stable, enduring and greatly humanizing source. You all would know what I mean by that by now :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 10 February 2005 7:34:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,
It is interesting how history changes. We constantly here of how women find it difficult, and I believe there is often a reaction to try and blame men for any difficulty they might experience.

In the Australian newspaper at (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/opindex/0,9320,opinion%255E%255ETEXT,00.html) there is a cartoon. There are two women drinking wine at a bar. One says to the other” Did your marriage improve after the first decade”. The other says “Oh Yes, He forgot our tenth anniversary so I killed him”

Many males are now becoming quite offended by these type of "jokes" or "satire".

On the opinion page of the paper there is an article by a Emma Tom on abortion.
(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12191683%255E12274,00.html)

It contains lines such as “More than 60per cent of Australians aged between the excessively frisky parameters of 20 and 39 are not hitched. The odds of these hornbags suddenly ceasing to shag is extremely slim.”

After this the article just gets worse, and it would be the most disgraceful article I have ever seen on the highly serious issue of abortion. The general language used would only be surpassed by the filth often written by Susan Maushart.

With all the liberation, this is where the women’s movement has evolved to. However from experience, it is highly unlikely that there would be any objection from any feminist to this type of media, but instead any criticism of feminism is regarded as misogynist, or not allowed.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 10 February 2005 9:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TIM
what you are witnessing and by the sound of things 'feeling' is nothing less than the social consequences of the crisis of male identify, brought on by a thoughtless approach to social change.
Now we see 27 yr old female teachers in the States 'raping' 13 yr old boys. (not one but 2 of recent days). We had our own example recently.
Of course these are only the 'reported' cases.
We are heading down a path reminiscent of the Aboriginal tribe of Cape York which I tend to point out quite a bit.
Loss of male identity means loss of purpose, meaning, and a downward spiral of lurching this way and that to rediscover it, usually in unrewarding places and behaviors.
Fortunately, I know who I am and where I am going :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 10 February 2005 9:57:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Boaz,
The largest anti-feminist organisations in the world are organisations made up of women (mainly in the US).

Reason:- because they can now see feminists for what they are.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 10 February 2005 10:24:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tim
I don't doubt that. (unless someone can show me to the contrary)
But given that this is the case, we all need to try to put the 'them/us' thing away :) including one rather prolific writer here who's name starts with "T" :)
Reach out to our females, smother them with caring affection, seduce them into the beauty of life as 2 complementary units making one wonderful whole.
Urge them to put off the old flea infested cloak of 'feminism' and put on the new gown of joy in mutual upbuilding and inner renewal.
Be an instrument of transforming opinion, and be transformed ourselves. Lets become blind to the bad, and all seeing with the good.

If I may use a parable of Jesus and apply it to this, he spoke of a shepherd who had 100 sheep. One went astray, so he left the 99 to look for the straying one, when he found it, he placed it on his shoulders and rejoiced "Look, this which was lost.. is found"

We are all lost in various ways and at various times. Most of us actually know it. We just dont like it when people (like me sometimes) show us just HOW lost we really are, with underlining and bold :) We prefer someone to just touch us, hold us, guide is with love.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 10 February 2005 10:41:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins You write that I know nothing about you, but I do. I know heaps about you! You make so many posts and tell so much about yourself in these posts. What do you think you are doing by participating in these forums?

Then you write that if I did, I would know that you have no great bias towards any political party, religion, ethnic group, or even gender. All can be as good / bad as each other.

And isn’t that exactly what I was suggesting - that you are so 'not-biased' and therefore anything you agree with is unbiased and ‘true’ and things you disagree with are obviously biased? I don’t understand your reaction!

Now when you write *If* what I am saying about 1960’s education is correct, you reveal even more about yourself. First, it is rather easy to imply that I might be lying. So do some research for yourself on social conditions for women pre-1970's feminism.

You ask 'Do two wrongs make a right?' Of course not. Did I suggest that?

You ask ‘Should education become a form of left-wing indoctrination, or right-wing indoctrination?’

But that wasn't what you asked in the post that I reponded to. Look back and you will see that you were saying that once upon a time schools educated kids and now they indoctrinate them. Presumably the time when they educated them was when they were doing the right-wing indoctrination thing? Ooops?

I am pleased you have cleared this up somewhat for yourself and me. Thank you.
Posted by Mollydukes, Thursday, 10 February 2005 2:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mollydukes,
I'm not sure if you want more information about the fraudulent nature of feminism or what?

There's an enormous amount of information available, but if you could focus your questions, I might be able to better direct you towards that relevant information.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 10 February 2005 7:49:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, now why would you think I wanted any *unbiased* information about feminism? It doesn't scare me.

I just ignore it or read it out of a vague sort of interest in new ideas.

Not real dangerous stuff really and I don't see my *indoctrinated* sons turning into wimps or my daughter not shaving her legs.

Get over it, eh?
Posted by Mollydukes, Thursday, 10 February 2005 10:53:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mollydukes,

Sorry,

I thought you were interested in society, and the different movements and forces that shape that society. Or about corrupt or fraudulant organisations, that try and indoctrinate others through various methods and techniques.

Sorry again. It appears your not apparently.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 10 February 2005 11:03:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, you seem to be saying that, for you, new ideas about 'women in society' equals indoctrination? No need to be so sorry, many men would like women to be back in the kitchen and bedroom, barefoot and pregnant. We are used to it.

By the way, do you have a spell checker and could you brush up on your grammer? Did you know that 'your' does not mean the same as 'you're'?

I do not expect academic essay level of written English, however if you took more care with the compostion of your posts, your message might be easier to decipher. Consider that quality may be more valuable than quantity.
Posted by Mollydukes, Friday, 11 February 2005 10:04:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Molly
please see my last 2 posts on 'Fertility Crisis and seeking the Gorgeous male" topic. I'd be interested in your feedback.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 11 February 2005 10:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mollydukes,

New Idea! (why not Women’s Day or Cosmopolitan also).

Some of this discussion is taking place in the forum on women’s voting, but an important aspect of women’s “liberation” has been giving women greater “voice”. Unfortunately voting for government does not necessarily give women much voice, as government can become corrupt, and there has been plenty of evidence of women such as Margaret Thatcher becoming corrupt in her administration.

Another area where women have been given ”voice” is in the countless “women’s studies” courses, but Christine Stolba exposed the wide-scale corruption, bias, and brainwashing taking place in those courses in her work “Lying in a Room of One’s Own – How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students”.

A further area where women have been given “voice” is in women’s literature, and the vast majority of it is now found in “women’s magazines” which are extremely popular and outsell all other types of magazine. However Myrna Blyth exposed the hypocrisy and wide scale brainwashing taking place in this literature in her book “Spin Sisters : How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness --- and Liberalism --- to the Women of America” . Of course Myrna herself was a “Spin Sister” herself for over 20yrs, because she was the editor of some very large women’s publications.

Those magazines basically hypnotise the reader.:-
You are a victim.
You are being oppressed.
You are unhappy
You must have a make-over.
You must keep buying this magazine to believe that you are victimised, oppressed, unhappy, and in need of a make-over.

So this is where women are now because of the wonderfull women’s movement. They live in a world largely of their own making. They have a vote, which can often be meaningless (eg. did Bush really win the last election?). They have indoctrination and brainwashing occurring during their women’s courses, and a further insidious form of brainwashing and hypnotism taking place each time they read one of their magazines.

Of course the women’s movement cannot be challenged, because feminists regard this as misogyny. But lack of criticism or even objective analysis of the women’s movement has now made the movement very corrupt, and some of the people in that movement have the most debased and corrupted of minds, and some of the most minimal ethics and standards.

Of course many of them won't have children either, which is not necessarily the fault of men.

NB. In the past, the vast majority of fathers came home from work and gave the pay-packet to the mother. Not the other way around. No chaining ever took place, it was a myth from the women’s movement. I grew up in the era that these feminists talk about, and my mother spent half the day at the tennis club, at her ESA meetings, or at her morning tea sessions etc.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 11 February 2005 11:27:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, leaving voting out of the issue, you must live in a very sheltered and narrow world if you believe that all women had it good before the women's movement.

I am sure that some women, like your mother, had wonderfully happy lives with 'good' men. However, my own experience is certainly not like that. I cannot believe that you do not know how bloody awful it was for so many women before feminism.

You seem to think that women now are very unhappy. I think you have formed a mistaken impression about women from the 'ironic' articles like the one that this discussion is related to.

I certainly am not unhappy. I am very grateful that the women's movement means that I have been able to buy my own house without having a man to sign the mortgage papers for me.

I think you are blowing the issue out of all proportion and blaming feminists for things that they also disagree with.

You talk of the women's movement as if it was a political party or something with strict guidelines and a policy. But it is not. It is a collection of individuals, all with their own agenda and different ideas.

It is not feminism that influences women's magazines to publish the rubbish that they do. Blame Rupert Murdoch for this. Blame capitalism and the marketing of products.

It is 'aspirational' values that influence women to look for unrealistic qualities and attributes in the 'ideal' man, not feminism.

It is the financial and social conditions that our materialist culture has created where children cost so much money that is the reason many couples don't have children, not feminism.

Young people are simply not indoctrinated by a uni course or two.

There is a great deal of reputable research that shows that for the majority of children, it is the values of the home that influence their beliefs and behaviour - not what they are taught in school or uni.
Posted by Mollydukes, Saturday, 12 February 2005 6:07:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MollyDukes,

I thought feminists didn't like children, because children act as a barrier to women's advancement or "liberation".

Once again, you tend to look at the world through a very narrow viewpoint. Since the turn of the century, there were two world wars (which were totally unnecessary and inexcusable). However after each world war, most countries were in a state of economic depression, with high un-employment, minimal government money available etc. Put simply, there was little left in the kitty and it was “survival time” for many countries.

What employment there was usually went to the males, and it was not often an easy time for them, particularly with so many being wounded or traumatized from the war. My father eventually died of a war related illness, and so did many other men.

Survival time has eventually passed and countries have got back to normal. We now have more opportunities for employment, and women can find employment in many areas, but it is noticeable that they don’t apply for too many trades.

Feminists did very little in any of this, although they claim a lot, (like a political party claiming that they have been of benefit to the country at election time). Most of the changes to society came about from economic forces, or breakthroughs in science and technology.

By it’s very nature, feminism is “gender biased”, and for this reason it is “non-democratic”. Feminists also use misinformation, biased social science research, indoctrination etc. Very few feminists will bother to even recognize if members of the male gender are in need in some way.

Feminism is very much alive in today’s society, although it is not of much benefit to most women. The women’s magazines you refer to are written to a formula, to make women believe that they are un-happy, and being victimized etc (like a part of feminist teaching). But the “spin” is that these magazines then suggest to women that they should spend money at shopping sprees, or buy the products being advertised to make them feel like proper women. It is a scam.

Nearly all these magazines have female editors and female staff. It is their livelihood. No one is making them or forceing them to do it, as they can get employment elsewhere. Women are doing it to themselves.

No use continuing to try and blame males for anything or everything on the planet. It is not only very annoying for males, but it eventually makes “dependency divas” out of a lot of women.

Also see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3004#2416
for more information on what the women’s movement is presently doing to society.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 12 February 2005 7:02:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too right. I am sick to death of hearing how one will have no children if they leave it too long or the child may be deformed or the sheer terror in the voice of friends "but what if you find out you can't have them and you left it too late?!!!" The anguish they feel if you don't care whether you have them or not because they have been busy toeing the party line and need you to validate their decisions by also toeing that line. This is of course only brief anguish as they shortly afterwards decide that "Oh, you don't really mean that at all. You really want to have children" and so their loop of harrassment starts again...

That starts about 20 so yes, whether friends or media, I am totally over the role of fertility being pivotal to defining a woman's role in society also. Is it really too much to believe a female can be a happy and well-adjusted contributor to society without being a mother?
Posted by LP, Monday, 14 February 2005 5:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would mostly agree with your sentiments LP. There are children involved in all this, and their interests have to be thought of.

So if a woman does not want children, then she should not form relationships with a male, or children might come along. However if she does not want children, then she cannot be using men as some type of scapegoat for her own decisions, or be regarding every male as being unsuitable as a husband or father.

If a woman wants children, then she should not think that she has to “snare” a man, and then treat him as a type of sperm-donor or pay-packet, or hen-pick or boss him around for the rest of his life.

Those women who “snare” a mate, then dump him after the children are born, taking the money and children, and regarding the father as a Disney Dad for the children thereafter, will find themselves on the outer in the future.

Those feminists that have established a career out of preaching “male hate”, using male villification, brainwashing and biased research, will loose that career in the future. It has been noticed that “love not hate” has never been a slogan of the feminist movement.

Those women’s magazines that try and convince women that they are perpetual victims, and will be perpetually unhappy unless they buy, buy, buy, (and of course its all men’s fault), are a bit of a problem. Maybe women should just not buy them. It would be a real test for the modern woman, to be spending her and/or his money on something else.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 14 February 2005 7:20:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LP its not too much to ask. There may be a host of reasons why a person is not suitable, or does not wish to have children. One them might be that there are moments when u feel so frustrated with them that u say "Sometimes I feel that if u were not my flesh and blood, I'd disown you" !!! which happened to me today.I did the saying.
But letting off steam with words we regret later (and which we apologise for) goes with the territory of family.
But when you have been placed in touch with the mystery of life, and sit back and look at the big piccy, the idea of bringing new life into the world is most precious. Words cannot describe it.
I just hope, that you would reflect on your thoughts and ensure that it is not just for selfish reasons that you would not wish to have a family and children.
Females are not 'defined' in terms of social contribution, by their ability to have children, but there is no one else who can have em :)
It's all about what we are "together" as male and female.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 14 February 2005 7:56:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Boaz,
I noticed the use of the term, “male and female”. This may be coincidental, but I was reading an article on parenting in The Age today, where it actually mentioned fathers as well as mothers, but more incredibly, it mentioned “men and women” a number of times.

I cannot remember the last time I have read that in the press. There are normally plenty of “I’s” or “as a woman” or “women and children” etc, but rarely “men and women”. May be a small start. Who knows?
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 14 February 2005 9:35:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with LPs comments.

It is terrible how soiety makes people who don't want children feel somehow inferior for the lack of children. I think it is great that people who chose to have children get to experience the joy of it and I would not begrudge them that. I don't think that my friends encourage me to have children to "validate" their decisions, but more if you have something really great you want to share it. That is a nice thing.

But I get very annoyed with people treating me like I'm insane for not wanting them. My husband also doesn't want them (which is quite convenient for us) so this point of view is obviously not restricted to either men or women, and we both get as much stick as the other from collegues, relatives and friends. We both like children well enough (we have five god children who we spend a fair bit of time with) but we just don't lead a lifestyle that would enable us to give the proper attention and support to a dependant person for the next 20-odd years, and we don't intend to change our lifestyle.

What worries me is couples who reach 34 or so and think they are running out of time and start having kids just in case they miss out, who they then resent. (I know one couple who have done this and surely it is better that they wait longer and risk none, or don't have them at all?)

It seems unfortunate that there are loads of people desperate to have kids who can't, and that makes them unhappy, but I can't change that, so putting pressure on me to have them is unproductive. I don't want kids because I am selfish, but better only I suffer for my selfishness, rather than some poor kid...
Posted by jcl, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 12:42:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JCL
glad ur comfortable with that decision. Childless couples can make a great contribution to society.
Hope u have taken a 'whole of life' look at that. If u have a good extended family network then u can survive ok. But unless one is pretty strong and able to predict how one will feel as a widow or widower at 65 with no offspring, its quite a big decision I feel.
Just to be sure, might be an idea to talk with some people in that situation. If u still feel no drama then you should be ok.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 9:20:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JCJ,
I hope you don’t mind me asking, but why is it that you do not wish to ever have children. It appears to me that society is going around in circles at times.

On one side we have the IVF industry, where even 67 yr old women can now become pregnant, while on the other side we have an enormous abortion industry.

Then we have government funding courses in “male hate” and the “destruction of the nuclear family” (and one proponent of this received a standing ovation at a WA university last year), while on the other side we have the “family benefits tax”.

The whole thing is not just a moral issue, as there are very big sums of money involved. If you don’t want children, then I don’t care, as long as you do not try and blame men or patriarchy etc, etc, etc, but I am trying to find out why people do not choose to have children.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 12:53:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TIM
can u give me more details on that WA lecture and standing ovation.. who was the speaker .. is there a transcript etc ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 1:25:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,
There were references to this in a number of newspapers. (EG “Greer cheers divorcing women” The Adelaide Advertiser - 8th Sep 2004)

“THE high rate of divorce should be celebrated as the major sign of progress in the feminist movement, an ever-passionate Germaine Greer said at the start of a national speaking tour.

”Greer said the main thing to have changed since her early feminist days was the mass exodus of women walking out on their marriages. “

"Exactly the thing that people tear their hair out about is exactly the thing I am very proud of. But life for these women is very difficult. The price of their liberty has been taking on a massive amount of toil.”

She regards women walking out of marriage as something to be “proud” of, but maybe they should have stayed and worked things out. It is also questionable whether or not these marriages were actually “unhappy”, or whether this “unhappiness” was imagined, or had been brainwashed into the wives by some means.

Eg :- through reading recent articles such as “ Women live longer if they throw away the ring”
By Adele Horin January 10, 2005 at … http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Women-live-longer-if-they-throw-away-the-ring/2005/01/09/1105205981068.html

This article contains the first line:- “If women are looking for the key to long-lasting health, they should consider getting rid of their man.”

However , if you read the end lines of this article, and do some follow up research, then you will find that the “recommendations” or “considerations” contained in the first line, are actually based on bisased social science research, (as that research did not have a representation group of people in the study).

The newspaper article becomes an insidious form of brainwashing, and almost all of feminist doctrine is like this. Women's magazines are also filled with such biased or false articles.

What does Greer think is the father’s role in a nuclear family that has been split. This gives a clue:- “The state having taken over the duties of children towards their parents (and allowed the childless among us to face the future without dread) it had better finish the job and take over the duties of the father towards the child” The Independent [London], 25 May 91.

So in other words, the fathers become payers, and the mothers become payees. Great work Germaine. Not ironically, Greer is often quoted in “women’s studies”.

I am concerned that women’s “choices” to not have children, or to have abortions etc are also based on similar brainwashing.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 2:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy