Please leave us modern women alone!

I'm sick to death of hearing about the sexual (and romantic) cost of female success. It seems everyone from Time magazine to English comedian Stephen Fry to our mothers is extremely worried about the state of the modern single gal. But, seriously, aren't we over this hackneyed debate already? Evidently not.
The Salon website only just last week declared that it's all our fault that we're still single, that the marriage age has been delayed, that we're allowing our eggs to rot and that our so-called success in the boardroom is the reason we're throwing ourselves (naked) at men (who are often below our standards) without demanding commitment, a ring or a walk down the aisle.
Researchers Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker of the University of Texas at Austin say that, since so many women are smarter and more successful than their male counterparts (ahem), these superwomen have delayed finding a boyfriend and therefore have found themselves in quite a muddle, all fighting for the one available bloke who is left swimming around in the small pool of similarly educated and financially stable men.

Advertisement: Story continues below

And, boy, are the blokes loving it. Especially since the weapon of choice a woman uses to nab the guy is – surprise, surprise - sex.
While the men reading this are probably applauding and giving one another high fives in the office, the researchers weren't too impressed with their findings, concluding: "It's the opposite of a cartel effect where women would say, 'All right, we need to band together and artificially restrict the price of sex and get it high, even if we don't want to, in order to extract things from men.' It used to be women would shame each other for selling low." (Ladies, anyone willing to try this tactic?)
I am often told, too, that we're selling ourselves too low. Yet, paradoxically, we are constantly being told that our biological clocks are ticking, that at the mere age of 27 our chance of getting pregnant begins to decline, and that there are no men left. Which sends a confusing message: aim low so at least you're not left on the shelf? Doesn't sound too appetising to me.
It's no wonder then, that, just this month, statistics revealed that more women today are yearning to swap their spreadsheets for spatulas in fear of having to face this dilemma.
Yep, according to a study carried out by the National Centre for Social Research, commissioned in 2009 by the Department for Children, Schools and Families in the UK, a third of all mothers would prefer to give up their jobs if they could afford to, and three-fifths said they would want to work fewer hours.
Which is enough to cause The Female Eunuch aficionados to burn their aprons.
But what about when it comes to men and their careers? Would there be the same uproar and debate about their decisions - whether it be to remain single or not?
Take the resignation of Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett, who announced that he was stepping down to be a better dad to his kids.
"Working seven days a week and wanting to be a better father for Hudson and Matilda has become incompatible as the children are growing up," he told the media.
Would there be outrage if a woman said the same thing? After all, shouldn't she be able to "do it all"?
Taking over the top job is his deputy Lara Giddings, 38, not married, no kids. In her Wikipedia entry it says that Giddings has acknowledged her political career may mean that she never has children. And it's easy to see why. Having been elected to Parliament as the youngest woman ever at age 23, she's now Tasmania's first female Premier – a feat that no doubt showcases the state of modern women: make it to the top, and you might not have been able to make it with a man at the same time.
Yes, we all know that modern women are facing a tough choice: have a career, or have a family; be the perfect housewife and conform to societal pressures to "settle down" before your age shoots up or be single or be unmarried and childless, and running a company, or even the country.
Which is why I was glad to read last weekend an interview with my good friend Sky News reader Jacinta Tynan, who at five weeks pregnant, announced proudly that, although it might have been career suicide for a woman on television to fall pregnant a few years ago, it's not the case any more.
In fact, I've always thought of Jacinta as a woman who has proved to the rest of us that you could indeed have it all. Sure, there were times she struggled to meet a man. But now she's proved that, indeed, it's possible (no matter what your age or the demands of your job) without having to succumb to a life of a Mad Men character. And thank god for that ...    
So whose standards are we supposed to conform to? Because everyone has a different level of success of happiness. Some people think of it as career, some people think it's having a family. Some people think it's both.
For me, I know that I'm on the cusp of letting my career take over my personal life. Hence, I constantly live in fear that I'll become one of those women whom the rest of the world sniff and guffaw at for "missing out" on what women are traditionally supposed to do, be and become. But if I quit it all now for a life of domestic bliss, would I be just as happy? Somehow I think not ...

The three-month itch: should men commit at this point?

Lately I've noticed a phenomenon that is inflicting relationships and getting women's knickers in a knot and men fleeing for the hills.
I'm not talking about whether or not to have sex on the first date. (The men say: "Yes!" The women say: "Hell, yes!") Or who should have the first orgasm (no surprises on what I think). Or even if you should be friends with an ex. (The jury is still out on that one – any thoughts?)
Instead, I'm talking about the trend known as the three-month itch, which occurs when a couple have been dating for about three months and suddenly one decides that they either want to exit the relationship, or morph things from casual to commitment.

Advertisement: Story continues below

"I'd dump a girl if she brought up commitment after three months," declared one roving Lothario when I posed the question to him. "It takes me at least a year."
But my girlfriend Trudy – who is close to 30 and dating a much older bloke – says that it's paramount she has "the conversation" with her commitment-phobic man in order to know whether or not she's wasting her time.
"I want to be married within a year and have kids within two," she says. "And if he isn't on the same page as me, shouldn't I know sooner rather than later?"
She may have a point. I've heard that, until a woman brings up commitment, most men don't even fathom it's an issue.
"Why ruin a good thing when we're having so much fun?" the men say.
"Why make things complicated?" they beseech.
"Why do women always ruin things by wanting to talk about them?"
Well, here's why. If the statistics are anything to go by, a woman's chances of falling pregnant decrease from the moment she hits age 27.
Adding to her woes is the fact that the pool of men available to her decreases from the moment she reaches 30, and her chances of ever getting hitched decrease dramatically once she hits 40.
So it's no wonder that women are more inclined (as they get older) to demand some sort of affirmation that they're not wasting their time by putting all their eggs (so to speak) into one non-committal male basket.
Even if the woman doesn't mention a thing, I've heard many stories of men running off at this stage in the bonking cycle.
Which makes me wonder: what do so many men fear might happen at the three-month mark that cause so many of them to leave? Do they think the girl suddenly changes? Do they fear losing control? Do they start to feel guilty for "just having fun" when she might want something more? And is that such a bad thing anyway?
Says Craig: "It's as though we feel a kind of 'pressure' that this is either the make or break point of seeing this person. You know them pretty well by now, they know you. They haven't left after getting to know you so they must like you. For some, though, it's a simple flow that never interrupts and possibly they are the happiest."
So how the heck are we supposed to bring it up, without interrupting the so-called flow?
"The key is to use the word 'exclusive'," my friend 29-year-old friend Jed told me the other day.
He's decided recently to commit to a woman after she asked him what he wanted out of the relationship.
"I don't know," he replied when she asked him during dinner.
"Well, should I be seeing other people then?" she countered.
"Definitely not," he said. And so it was settled: they were in an exclusive relationship.
"But what if she asked you if you wanted to get married any time soon?" I asked.
"I'd dump her," he said, not missing a beat. Right.
Of course, not that all men are the same either. In fact, by my reckoning, there are three types of men:

Type A: the Stayers
A rare breed, these men actually want a relationship, are eager to make a woman their girlfriend and will do anything to get one. Some blokes are masters at doing so ("it's not a matter of if a girl becomes my girlfriend, but when," one of these girlfriend-type guys told me), while others are utterly clueless.
"I'm too nice," one complained. "I'm not what they're looking for," another said. "I can't get past three dates, let alone three months!" lamented a third. Sigh.

Type B: the Players
This is the worst kind of bloke who swaps his women as often as he changes his condom packets. The unfortunate news is that this type is increasing in numbers so rapidly (thanks to the proliferation of the "sexually empowered woman", the casual sex generation and online dating), that you'd be lucky not to land yourself one of these caddish boys who will rope you in and spit you out before you can ask, "Have you thought about changing your single Facebook status?"
In fact, mention anything to this breed of bloke about commitment, exclusivity or being "in a relationship" and watch the dates subside and the flirty text messages come to an abrupt and sudden halt.
The good news, ladies, is that it's not you; it's his testosterone. And while every poor woman who jumps into bed with him hopes she can change him with the belief that he's "the one", here's a sobering fact: he's not. Just ask his multitude of heartbroken exes. I should know.

Man type C: the Commitment-phobes
Good luck at ever roping this man in. While he might not have a gaggle of women on his speed dial (see the Players), he's never been in a long-term relationship either and can't quite understand why he should be in one ... ever.
"I love my freedom!" he'll say. "I don't want to compromise my lifestyle for anyone!" he'll tell you. And then he'll reach the age of George Clooney and his options will grow astronomically and he'll reach confirmed bachelor status and you'll still be trying to lock him down for a second date, let alone a second month.
So why all the three month malice? Are we choosing the wrong men? Not speaking up soon enough? Or speaking up too soon and scaring them off? Should we just learn to enjoy "the moment" and forget about the future (as they'd love us to do)?
Or, perhaps, "If after three months you are not already committed, then there's something wrong!"
Oh yes, and he's a bloke, too. Perhaps there's hope after all..

Sophia Abella at Bollywood's exotic item girl