It has long been known that men have an expiration date too, although no one seems willing to point this out. I suupsoe this has to do with our mindset that women bear all responsibility for fertility problems, something that our whacko male dominated thinking hsa held to be true since Biblical times. This excerpt is from a JAMA article (http://www.malebiologicalclock.com/docs/mbc/

MBC-BioClockTicks-JAMA.pdf):

"Interestingly, while news reports on the CDC figures by various news outlets mentioned the link between increased female age and disease risk to

infants, none reported the vulnerabilities posed by aging fathers that researchers have turned up in recent years, such as the association between increased paternal age and genetic diseases such as

Apert syndrome (a disorder characterized by craniofacial and limb abnormalities)and achondroplasia (a skeletal disorder that causes dwarfism). Furthermore, studies show that 2% of

children born to men 50 years or older will have schizophrenia, three times the incidence of schizophrenia in offspring born to fathers in their early 20s."

Another citation:"A UK study, based on research carried out by research teams at Bristol and Brunel universities, has discovered that the older a man is the longer it may take his partner to conceive, regardless of her age.

Women with partners five or more years older have less chance of conceiving within a year of trying than those whose partners are the same age, or younger. The odds of conceiving within 6 months of trying decrease by 2% for every year that the man is older than 24 years, and for conception within a year decrease by 3% for each year...

Dr Chris Ford of the University Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at St Michael's Hospital, Bristol said that "it tells us that to some degree men as well as women have a biological clock that starts ticking as they get into their thirties and it also indicates that paternal age is another factor to be taken into account when doctors are looking at the prognosis for infertile couples". " (Human Reproduction 2000; 15(8): 1703-1708)

Since there is a space limitation, I won't go on and give more such information, but it is out there, and the notion that males can forever expend their sexual largesse without problem, while women are limited by their biological clock, is pernicious, fallacious, malicious, and sexist to boot. It actually makes sense for young women to seek out younger men to enhance of the likelihood of conceiving healthy offpsring. Maybe we should all stop and consider what are the real reasons for relationships of any kind, which are: friendship, support, love, and caring for each other, not the acquisisiton of assets (fertile mates) or manufacturing of assets (children).

In other words, would the real grown up men and women please stand up out there?

If a man wants to terminate a pregnancy he initially agreed to, then he is in the wrong, a baby is not a possession and at the point that "they break up" the woman may have a huge emotional, psychologica, not tomention physical investment in the baby, which a forcible abortion would do great violence to,. I suppose that women will need to start getting written contracts now from men before they conceive, because the poor put upon man could otherwise go to court and whine that he never wanted to become a father and she forced him to! Which, you know, would be one way to get around the whole issue. Before you have sex, you agree that you do or don't want a baby, and write up a contract accordingly.

If a man doesn't want a baby to start off with, he has several choices: use contraception to ensure the lack of offspring, vasectomy, or abstinence.

So your arguments are silly, childish and moot.

If the teaching style hasn't changed and the only thing keeping women behind was discrimination, then explain why the percentage of men going to college has decreased. Maybe we are now raising a generation of men who ARE trouble. Witness the "in your face" attitude so admired in public and so hostile to learning. Witness the "extreme" mentality which worships physical frenzy over mental exertion. Witness the commercial push to make people uneducated consumers which used to suck up only the female mind but now sucks up the male mind (how many boys aren't walking around checking out their duds and each others, when they used to simply throw clothes on and head out the door?). No, the theme that education is slanted against maleness is full of holes. Our culture is against education, and we now have the mostignorant President of the US ever showing that education doesn't make you better or smarter, so why bother?

Having said that, I can also say that educational methods surely don't suit most children well. I had two daughters go through the system, both gifted, and both labeled at one time or another "retarded" thanks to the ignorance of the teachers. When we have ignorant teachers teaching by the book, we have teachers who reward compliance because they hate challenges. Today's educatinal methods are all about compliance, not about education.

the older the man at conception, the more likely there are to be genetic defects also. It simply hasn't been ballyhooed that men are at fault for some of the defects in older mothers' children. Usually older mothers have older mates, even older than the mothers. It would be interesting to see what the genetic defect burden is on couples where the mother is older than the father.