Interesting comments, all, but not really addressing the issue I was trying to highlight, which is that many men are simply choosing not to marry for fear of the consequences of a bad decision. ISTM that if we have a legal and social framework that leads men to that conclusion, then we have a society which is not functional on perhaps the most basic level. There has been much fuss made about "baby bonuses" and there are enormous numbers of taxpayer dollars devoted to the welfare of "families", yet the marriage rate has been falling steadily for years as the divorce rate has crept up.

I believe that many of the young men who might otherwise get married or make the decision to father children are scared off by seeing the consequences that their father or male friends suffer following a failed marriage. The mass media-bombing yesterday in regard to "spies watching deadbeat dads" is perhaps another reason. Given that the future of any society is very bleak without a new generation being produced, surely this is a serious issue that should be addressed? How?

I wonder how many men will choose not to have a relationship over this one? Given that every woman I've ever lived with has had full control of the domestic spending, not to mention an assumed power of veto over both my dress and my movements, I can't help feeling that this stuff is aimed at the wrong gender...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/law-to-target-money-bullies-20080624-2w5z.html?page=-1
I quote: "MEN who financially abuse their partners will be subject to intervention orders under new legislation that aims to dramatically expand the reach of family violence laws in Victoria." And not a mention of the domineering woman who takes her husband's pay straight from the bank before he ever sees it. That's apparently perfectly acceptable behaviour, according to the "reporter".

So much for both unbiased reporting and sensible laws. As seems to be the norm in this Age of Women, a couple of extreme examples are being used to inform a sweepingly draconian law that is intentionally designed to have as broad an application as possible. It's appallingly sloppy and lazy thinking.

Antiseptic,

Well I think that law is really made for a good reason, and I can see it helping free people from abusive situations. Of course it will be abused, as all laws are.

You'll love this one though. My partner just came home from the early childhood centre. They asked her, as a matter of routine, if her husband hit her, or if she was 'scared of her husband'. She laughed, but I cant help feeling if I had taken our child to the centre, that question wouldn't have been asked.

Sure it could give an opportunity to help some women in need, and their children, but the affect of all these kinds of things is to demonise men. I remember reading an article about black people in the US being made to feel they were by definition dumb and violent, and this being somewhat self fulfilling.

How long are we going to tell young males they are all violent abusers, constantly under suspicion when they have done nothing wrong. It's the same as the Males of Middle Eastern Appearance. I'm glad I gon't look like that when I go to an airport.

Dear Seeker,

Apologies. I cited the wrong magazine - I read quite a few of them.
The farmer article that I was referring to appeared in the,
latest issue of, 'Woman's Day,' (June 30, 2008), under the heading,
'The Farmer Gets His Wife.' (page 18).

There's apparently a TV show coming up as well called, "The Farmer Wants A Wife." This is where this particular couple met. And they married in Tamworth, where it all began.

Anyway the local people of Tamworth were thrilled for this couple.
They now live on a farm outside Byron Bay. So no, Seeker, it's not
a 'hobby farm,' as you infer.

And by the way, I don't often wear skirts - I prefer slacks, especially in winter - they're warmer and more comfortable. But Thank
You for paying me the compliment of calling me 'smart.'

I actually chose the name 'Foxy,' because of the colour of the animal,
which I admire.

Actually, Antiseptic, I think there is a lot of wisdom coming through for you to chew over, if only you would open your mind just a little.

My own view is that you're taking the whole thing far too seriously.

>>many men are simply choosing not to marry for fear of the consequences of a bad decision... if we have a legal and social framework that leads men to that conclusion, then we have a society which is not functional on perhaps the most basic level<<

"Not functional on the most basic level", Antiseptic?

Come now, we are talking about an individual's choice here. In fact, I would venture to suggest that given the history of marriage, we are freer to make that choice ourselves than any previous generation. We can even choose same-sex marriage if we like, how much more choice do you want (quiet, Boaz)?

Maybe that's the problem. Too much choice has been shown to increase anxiety in shoppers, too, making them afraid that they may be selecting the wrong washing powder. Do I need low suds, or high power? Help me decide, government.

If it is economic damage you are concerned about, get a pre-nup. If it's custody of the kids you are worried about, don't have them. If it is domestic violence that you fear, marry someone with poor eyesight and a weak right arm.

The idea of any government, at any time, wanting to make it "easier" or "harder" to get married is of course abhorrent to any true libertarian.

Which probably explains why I can't take it seriously.

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-truly-believe-men-need-to-be-wary-of.html

My guest today on my radio show was Carnell Smith, an expert on paternity fraud. He claimed that 30% of men who went to blood banks for paternity tests found that they were not--as the child's mother claimed--the father. Smith went on to say that in most states, DNA evidence, in many cases, is inadmissible. He estimated that, currently, one million men are paying child support for kids they did not father.

Of course, it's outrageous that 30 states would enact such unfair-to-men laws. But why would a woman falsely claim that a man is the father of her child when he isn't, thereby forcing him to unfairly pay many thousands of dollars in child support, and manipulate him into spending 18 years involved in raising a child he didn't father? Smith says that these are the major reasons:
-- He had the deepest pockets among the men she slept with
-- She was trying to chain him to the relationship
-- She thought he'd make the best father
-- She was trying to lash out at the man"