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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.