Blame those self-centered women

I am far more understanding when poorer, less responsible newspapers have awful articles, but the NYT's? Sample 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/nyregion/11bigcity.html?ref=health (linked on the 'city' page and the 'health' page). The idea is interesting: what will the surge in IVF twins mean socially in the long term. The article: infuriating. First, it provides no really useful data on how many of the twin boon are from IVF. Plenty of other IF treatments also increase the chance of twins. I thought that it would take the trite but potentially feasible conclusion that medical technology will improve, so there will be less twins. Instead, it's straight back to blame those women with lines like: "Surely, women in their 20s today better understand that their fertility really will wane in their mid-30s ..." A few objections:

a. The high-paying jobs need to adjust to allow women to have children in their mid-20s. It's not pure self-centered indulgence that encourages women to pursue an education and career, there's that whole responsibility thing. I wouldn't chose to have a child I couldn't support on my own, should that be necessary.
b. Guys don't want to have kids in their mid-2os. Unless we really want to endorse a system where women marry men 10+ years older (and somehow battle all the potential power differentials that may result), someone needs to start nagging the men, not the women. For most of the couples I know, it's been the man who has stalled for a few years after they started the baby talk.
c. Stop making stupid comparison to Europe! Yes, they use less eggs in IVF, and they have much lower success rates. Also, since insurance covers IVF the government gets to decide who is eligible (in some countries, that means out with the single women, lesbians, anyone over 40, and the UK has been debating ousting women with a BMI above normal - so no more fat mothers either). IF treatments in Europe are generally viewed as much less of a right than here, and far fewer women have access to them. So, yes, they may have fewer twins but they also have less babies total.

Stupid articles in generally good newspapers are so annoying. Including Atl.antic Month.ly's anti-feminist cover article about settling for whatever guy you can find ... Not only does it basically argue that because men make money, women need them (yes, nothing like completely taking for granted a system with a humongous wage gender gap) but it lauds things like the divorce mother who at least has her child support and "a free night off when the kids go to Dad’s house for a sleepover." (Yes, so many divorced women think of split custody as free babysitting ...). I also love the approval of the idea that couples don't actually spend much time together, so it doesn't matter if they get along (great for the kids, eh?) And it ends with this entirely circular logic that as a single mother by choice she now can't settle because her son deserves a decent father, but of course if she had settled in her 30s and produced a biological child with a man she disliked all would be swell for that kid ... another article that is going to be way overplayed.