Canada: Marriage tames men, think-tank says

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2010-11-11 16:37

News story here. Excerpt:

'OTTAWA - Marriage should be promoted as a way to civilize men and cut down on social ills such as crime, substance abuse and homelessness according to an Ottawa think-tank.

An Institute of Marriage and Family Canada paper cites marriage as helping men become more nurturing, improving their health outcomes and even making men better workers.

The paper quotes Ottawa Senators general manager Bryan Murray as saying marriage improves the games of his players.

“You’re more committed. You have something to go home to,” Murray told a reporter in October. “I think these guys start to realize that there are other people depending on what they do with their lives.”

Status of Men, authored by the institute's research manager Andrea Mrozek, looks at what role the decline of marriage may play in the lagging results educators and sociologists are seeing in boys.'

The report entitled "Status of Men" was written by religious conservative Andrea Mrozek and can be found here in .pdf format.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

1:
"Singleness should be promoted among women as a means of encouraging independence (or so it's been touted now for over 40 years). That being the case, if women stay single and men ought to get married, well unless they are marrying one another, then just who are they marrying?

Any given society needs to get its values in line and consistent or else it cannot function as a whole, cohesive apparatus. The trend has been away from marriage due to the unholy mess it creates when people decide to split up (statistically, this is usually the woman in the couple, not the man). If Ms Mrozek really wants to see men getting married, she needs to get women on that page first."

2:
"Oh yeah, and another thing-- the suggestion that men need to be "civilized" by marriage?? What kind of weed has she been smoking? Some of the greatest men who ever lived never walked a day in their lives in the married state!! A small selection include: Isaac Newton, Soren Kierkegaard, Ludwig van Beethoven, Robert Boyle, David Hume, Michelangelo,Adam Smith,Henry David Thoreau, Henri De Toulouse-Lautrec, Leonardo da Vinci, Voltaire, Horace, Washington Irving, Sam Rayburn (Chmn of the US House of Reps for 20+ years!), and the list goes on and on and on. Is the author dare suggesting these men were uncivilized??

In short: She can go frack herself!"

FYI, I found a good list of accomplished single men here:
http://aliasclio.blogspot.com/2008/07/unmarried-greatness.html

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2010-11-12 03:28

Judging by the comments, that "think-tank" is much stupider than those who she wants to fool (i.e. men).

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by nbdspcl on Fri, 2010-11-12 04:25

If you read her paper, she makes good observations re the effects of fatherlessness on society and on individual boys and later as they are men. All in all she is making a case for people living in the married state. What she is not acknowledging is that for a lot of people this is not a good idea because they will not stay married and that this entails bad consequences of many kinds for all involved, esp. if the couple has had kids.

Apart from suggesting men need to be married as a means of "civilizing" us, there is the problem of what happens when things (as they are more likely to do as not) go downhill after marriage, then leading to "mommy court". She seems to avoid discussing legal-world imbalances that lead to men paying to support kids that are not theirs, paying alimony that the ex doesn't really need/deserve, etc.

She is a traditionalist in her viewpoint and despite decrying feminists as placing men and women in an us vs. them model, I just want to call your attention to page 4:

"An alternate thesis puts men and women in partnership and credits marriage with human flourishing; furthermore, it places the balance of power firmly in female hands."

This is the model she is advocating. See any desire for equality between the married partners here? She then goes on to talk about "What makes a man?". Imagine a man writing about "What makes a woman?" and how that would be received? Read that part and compare my previous list of men who were inarguably "all man" in their lives/pursuits and also unmarried through it all and tell me if what she is writing adds up.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2010-11-12 19:47

Yes they are stupid,Bush tried that in America with billbaoards & every thing needless to say it failed miserably. The only way men will find marriage appealing,if the divorce court raping stop's & certian legal changes are made. That would ensure men would get a fare shake,what I think the Canadian goverment fears are these wild roaming men who have loyalities to none. There not going to stop the financial rape of men,because of the money & there not going to stopthe wildmen they created.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by crypter27 on Sat, 2010-11-13 00:46

A contemporary civilized man doesn't need anyone in order not to be "wild". It's enough for him to be loyal to himself for being civilized.

As for marriage, the situation is very simple:

supporting women == destroying marriage

supporting men == protecting marriage

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by nbdspcl on Sat, 2010-11-13 02:33