Maybe I missed something, but I don't see how the we get from Danielle's own evaluation of where she went wrong:

"The trouble was, throughout my 20s and early 30s, my
relationships with men were short-lived and problematic. I
was always attracted to exciting, but emotionally
unavailable men, who were anything but suitable husband -
let alone father - material."

to the broad brushstroke statement to the effect that "Feminism only encourages women to have careers, not families". Is the author suggesting that "feminism" considers the dating emotionally unavailable men through one's twenties and thirties a suitable career for the modern woman? I don't recall that coming up in Betty Freiden (Jilly Cooper, perhaps?).

The argument may have carried some weight if the evidence bore some relationship to the hypothesis, though personally I'm with DavidJS on that point. As it stands, the article sounds shrill and hollow.

This is almost identical to a morality fable repeatedly told to my mother, who went to Catholic schools in the 50s.

Back then, Catholic girls’ minds were filled with horror stories about what would happen to them if they succumbed to increasing social pressure to marry ‘outside the Church’. This was usually known as a Mixed Marriage [capital M, capital M].

As the story goes … some silly girl with progressive ideas about religious desegregation defied all the nuns’ warnings and sailed down the aisle with a ... gasp ... Protestant. It was all downhill from there. After years of doom, gloom, financial ruin, miscarriages and sickly babies a-plenty, the cad finally deserted her. One day – a thin, frail and worn-out wreck – she returned to the Convent a sadder, wiser woman, begging for a handout just to put food on the table.

‘If only I had listened to you, Sister,’ she croaked. ‘My only hope is that one day my daughter learns from my mistake and never, ever makes a Mixed Marriage.’

The morality of the story hasn’t changed at all – i.e. Life punishes girls who break the time-honoured marriage rules laid down by generations of patriarchy. Only the concepts have been revamped for contemporary sensibilities.

Hi, I am another man having opinion about feminists.

Have not read the article but browsed through some posts. Not much substance in debate for my liking. I do not got deeply into feminist ideology because the only thing I know is negative behavior and ideas. Definitely as I know it, Feminism is an Extremism. And as such and what we can associate with it, is quite detrimental to everyone.

I've heard some arguments that this is the force aimed to stop or counteract the male dominance.

It is also blind argument. Because IF, male dominance is wrong, than does it mean that FEMINIST dominance is right? sure it is wrong.
Also it deviate from the issue and turn into fanaticism.

I actually run the forum dedicated families, and was taking active part on overseas fora on the matter. Such extremism or fanatism are serious distraction from main issues, from problem solving.

While I have no interest in going into analysing details of feminism, I may indicate that the idea of equality of gender on basis that we are all humans, is wrong.

Take the Priminister and yourself. You cannot claim that Rudd is your partner as feminists try to. On human being level, you are equal, but his role and yours is not and should not be equal. Be real.
Now imagine what is you or a group of people would try to make equal the roles of the group and the Priminister? Anarchy, or anything except order, peace, productivity and happiness. Same can be translated into feminist ideology.

Re: Bazaar comments by mmistrz. Umm……… I am not dignifying these comments with a reply but rather pointing out a huge mis-representation of Australian Democracy in his post for the rest of us. As Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Deputy Prime Minister; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; Minister for Education; Minister for Social Inclusion, has already acted as Prime Minister and will do so again whenever Rudd is unavailable. She is the person most likely be elected as the next Prime Minister of Australia. There are also some of the most talented women Australian Politics have ever encountered in the new Rudd Labor government ministry. Some of these amazing women include; Nicola Roxon Minister for Health and Ageing, Penny Wong Minister for Climate Change and Water and Tanya Plibersek Minister for Housing; Minister for the Status of Women. These women have all made it top in the toughest game around and done so based on their own talent and hard work.

Quite frankly I think blaming feminism for your ills is as immature as blaming your parents. Feminists have fought successful campaigns to achieve the vote for women, for equal pay for the same job, to establish women's refuges and to highlight domestic violence and child abuse (to name a few). Gee how terrible! What next? Freedom from sexual harassment?

I fail to see why any woman or man should have a problem with this. And if you don't like what some feminists have to say, stop reading their books and turn off the TV when they come on. Or move someplace where feminism is non-existent and women know their place like Somalia.

Speaking as the father of two children, I have to say that though I love them dearly my own life would probably have been much happier and fulfilled if I hadn't had them. As far as I am concerned people who decide not to have children are making a perfectly rational choice.

As for women (and men) who want children, these seem to me to fall into two groups -- those who just like to have kids around, and those who want to go through the biological birth process. The first group is easy to please: they can head for Asia and pick up some of the many millions of unwanted babies arriving on planet Earth each year. The second group I would classify as delusional -- why would anyone want to do anything involving so much pain? -- and they should be provided with counselling and therapy until they realise what a daft idea it is. Giving in to them will only cause misery and suffering.