Harvard Rejects Case For Marriage Out of Political Bias

	posted by Nightmist on Thursday November 15, @04:49PM from the censorship dept.
	This article in the National Review suggests that Harvard's publishing house refused to publish a book titled The Case of Marriage out of a political bias for feminist orthodoxy rather than the reasons the publishing house's board originally stated: that they believed the book failed to provide evidence of casual benefits of marriage. Now, though, researchers claim to have proven those benefits: For the first time in the history of research on marriage, Ginther and Zovodny appear to have successfully shown that the "marriage premium" — the tendency of married individuals to make more money than single people — is an actual effect of marriage, and not just a function of a preference shown by both employers and potential spouses for people with qualities likely to bring about success.

<  Men Suffer Under Taliban Regime As Well | Kathleen Parker on Drafting Women  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Marriage and antifeminists by Anonymous User on Friday November 16, @01:07PM EST (#1) I've seen more than one antifeminist say that if men were in charge, there would be no such thing as marriage, supposedly because marriage goes against a male's "natural" polyamorous orientation. In fact, one of them wrote a book about it, "Sexploytation." It says that marriage is an offense against nature because it limits men to only one sex partner. I don't agree with that book at all. I think some people are polyamorous, but others are monogamous, and either gender can be poly or mono. Saying that all men must have multiple partners because they're all uncontrollable sex maniacs sounds like male-bashing to me. Getting back to my point, is being against marriage really limited to feminists? Not from what I've seen. There are people in both camps who are for and against it.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]