I can see how it might look that way to someone who views life as a contest between men and women as competitors, but that sort of view seems to be restricted to a shrinking segment of still-bitter feminists. It is becoming common now to hear once-verboten laments from 40-something women who bought into the "have it all" ideology in their youth, only to find themselves on a lonely, childless, middle-management treadmill twenty years later.
The feminists are still out there encouraging girls to view boys as their enemies and competitors, but I get the sense that that particular bad idea has about run its course. Feminist ideals aren't abstract rainbows in the future anymore; they are a real society that has some serious problems raising and educating its children, and in even having enough to replenish the species. The down side that no one knew back then is here now, staring us in the face.
We need some adjustments, and we all know it. Men my age, at least, can read that article from Australia and not really be surprised by it. It is a perfectly rational response by young men to a marriage-and-divorce system that quite simply makes the price of marriage too high for its male participants. As prices rise, fewer people buy. To me this is just common sense; I would expect no other response from young men.
Assertions that women are gleefully participating in these no-commitment relationships, and that they are perfectly thrilled to be free of marriage and children, has an odd 1970's ring to it that I just don't believe anymore. It's that boastful "fish-and-bicycle" nonsense that would have us believe that what women want most in this world is to leave the entire male sex behind, and to enter the wonderful world of all-lesbian cloning, or whatever the Hell they had in mind when they started selling those T-shirts twenty years ago.
I think the article is sad. I don't think the men prefer things that way. I think they just can't, as sane human beings, justify taking such a huge risk with their futures. I'm sure that what they'd really prefer is for the fish-and-bicycle crowd to get out of the way, and to leave them alone, and to leave the women of their generation alone as well. And I'll bet the women agree with them.
The premis of your article was that women are willing to be emotionally blackmailed by this withholding of marriage proposals. Nowhere was it even attempted to butress that premis with facts.
In fact, the article was contradictory by imply that being college educated was a handicap to marriage (for women) but that men didn't want to marry women who they might end up having to support either (one would assume less educated women). He seemed to be saying men don't want a woman who can support herself because she might up and leave because she's not financially dependent ... but men don't want a woman who can't support herself as well because she might up and leave and sue for a greate amount of support. Choose your poison.
If anything THIS author (of the article you presented) was playing the classic schoolyard "girls are poison" game .... damned if you do, damned if you don't ... male vs. female game. And he was anti-marriage no matter the parameters since he didn't bother to set any.