Anonther Moscow Approval

[mox 298]

I know what you're saying shikarnov. When I say "intent," I mean the pure intent of the impetus behind IMBRA, not the actual implementation of IMBRA. I know a lot of our ladies here don't really need protection (and maybe even the opposite is true in some cases ) but I do think it's the business of the government to make sure immigrants understand that they have options available to them if they need help. This is, of course, very different than IMBRA, but I do believe that was the intent. It is, from what I can tell, a miserable failure, and I hope someone with deep pockets will challenge it again and on different grounds.

Completely agree with you on point A. On point B, this may be the "effect" of the law, but I seriously doubt there was any actual thought put into IMBRA, let alone something so nefarious as "let's make sure American women are protected from competition." IMBRA was enacted after a couple of high-profile murder cases. One was a Russian woman around 2001-2001, I don't remember who the other one was. It was a knee-jerk reaction, like so much of what our government does.

[shikarnov 7]

In a nutshell, the story on IMBRA is this: The pro feminist movement started a campain stating that a number of these foriegn spouses were being abused, the abuse allegations were, rape, sexual slavery, neglect, murder, etc. All the usual suspects.

It should be noted that those allegations have been debunked more than once in recent years. Most data shows that American/Foreign relationships experience abuse 1/7th the number of times it happens in fully domestic relationships. And the whole sex slavery thing has turned up little evidence of this "widespread" problem.

Z

[Bobalouie 0]

In a nutshell, the story on IMBRA is this: The pro feminist movement started a campain stating that a number of these foriegn spouses were being abused, the abuse allegations were, rape, sexual slavery, neglect, murder, etc. All the usual suspects.

It should be noted that those allegations have been debunked more than once in recent years. Most data shows that American/Foreign relationships experience abuse 1/7th the number of times it happens in fully domestic relationships. And the whole sex slavery thing has turned up little evidence of this "widespread" problem.

Z

Preach on Brother Shikarnov

[shikarnov 7]

I know what you're saying shikarnov. When I say "intent," I mean the pure intent of the impetus behind IMBRA, not the actual implementation of IMBRA. I know a lot of our ladies here don't really need protection (and maybe even the opposite is true in some cases ) but I do think it's the business of the government to make sure immigrants understand that they have options available to them if they need help. This is, of course, very different than IMBRA, but I do believe that was the intent. It is, from what I can tell, a miserable failure, and I hope someone with deep pockets will challenge it again and on different grounds.

Completely agree with you on point A. On point B, this may be the "effect" of the law, but I seriously doubt there was any actual thought put into IMBRA, let alone something so nefarious as "let's make sure American women are protected from competition." IMBRA was enacted after a couple of high-profile murder cases. One was a Russian woman around 2001-2001, I don't remember who the other one was. It was a knee-jerk reaction, like so much of what our government does.

I agree that people should be protected from abuse -- but couldn't they give these immigrants a paper at the embassy that says "In the US, even married people aren't allowed to assault eachother. If your spouse beats you, rapes you, etc, seek help immediately from the local police force. They're here to help."

As for the lack of nefariousness of social activists with an agenda, I'll politely state that I disagree

Z

[shikarnov 7]

Preach on Brother Shikarnov

I guess this entire experience has had me reeling. Before beginning this process with Ira, I never really understood how invasive our government really was. Well, I knew, but it was all academic, you know? From start to finish (and we're not finished yet), this whole process has been about proving that I am telling the truth. I say I make X amount of money, but must back it up with several forms of proof. I say I want to marry this woman, and must back that up with proof. It's horribly upsetting to me that this is our government, and even more upsetting that so many people are complacent about it.

Brother Shikarnov, indeed...

Z

[mox 298]

I agree that people should be protected from abuse -- but couldn't they give these immigrants a paper at the embassy that says "In the US, even married people aren't allowed to assault eachother. If your spouse beats you, rapes you, etc, seek help immediately from the local police force. They're here to help."

Completely agree. The embassy is the perfect place to do it. You've got someone there who speaks their language, and who can answer any questions without the SO present. Tell them to memorize "911" if they need help. Something that simple would offer women more protection than IMBRA ever will.

As for the lack of nefariousness of social activists with an agenda, I'll politely state that I disagree

But this is the Russian forum. Why politely?!

[eekee 182]

#######

A feminist is a person who believes that women should be held in equal esteem to men. Period.

B - Based on all I've read in the past few hours, the intent of IMBRA is not to protect foreign women who are at a disadvantage here. It's to protect American women from romantic competition and to remove the threat to continued indoctrination into the male psyche of the feminist agenda.

Edited April 3, 2008 by eekee

[shikarnov 7]

#######

A feminist is a person who believes that women should be held in equal esteem to men. Period.

B - Based on all I've read in the past few hours, the intent of IMBRA is not to protect foreign women who are at a disadvantage here. It's to protect American women from romantic competition and to remove the threat to continued indoctrination into the male psyche of the feminist agenda.

I don't mean to offend, Eekee... If we go by that definition, I think few people, male or female, would disagree. If you genuinely don't know the types of people, and the agendas being pushed forward as a result of modern day "feminism" and the abuses in our system that it's caused, then I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But I'm sure you understand exactly what I meant. No need to mense words.

Z

[eekee 182]

Mense words... Good pun.

Honestly, I don't understand the issue. And I'd be interested in hearing what exactly you have a problem with. Personally I am thankful every day to the women who came before me who made sacrifices so that I could have so many opportunities in my life that would have been closed to me 100, 50 years ago.

#######

A feminist is a person who believes that women should be held in equal esteem to men. Period.

B - Based on all I've read in the past few hours, the intent of IMBRA is not to protect foreign women who are at a disadvantage here. It's to protect American women from romantic competition and to remove the threat to continued indoctrination into the male psyche of the feminist agenda.

I don't mean to offend, Eekee... If we go by that definition, I think few people, male or female, would disagree. If you genuinely don't know the types of people, and the agendas being pushed forward as a result of modern day "feminism" and the abuses in our system that it's caused, then I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But I'm sure you understand exactly what I meant. No need to mense words.

Z

Edited April 3, 2008 by eekee

[mox 298]

I don't mean to offend, Eekee... If we go by that definition, I think few people, male or female, would disagree. If you genuinely don't know the types of people, and the agendas being pushed forward as a result of modern day "feminism" and the abuses in our system that it's caused, then I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But I'm sure you understand exactly what I meant. No need to mense words.

When I first read that, I thought you said "menses." And I was gonna say "BEST. TYPO. EVAR!"

[eekee 182]

I don't mean to offend, Eekee... If we go by that definition, I think few people, male or female, would disagree. If you genuinely don't know the types of people, and the agendas being pushed forward as a result of modern day "feminism" and the abuses in our system that it's caused, then I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But I'm sure you understand exactly what I meant. No need to mense words.

When I first read that, I thought you said "menses." And I was gonna say "BEST. TYPO. EVAR!"

i thought it was purposeful.

[shikarnov 7]

Mense words... Good pun.

Honestly, I don't understand the issue. And I'd be interested in hearing what exactly you have a problem with. Personally I am thankful every day to the women who came before me who made sacrifices so that I could have so many opportunities in my life that would have been closed to me 100, 50 years ago.

My main issue is not with the idea of women being equal in status and opportunity. I think denying somebody a job, or equal pay, based on gender (or any reason other than ability) is quite ridiculous. And I agree that women have been unfairly treated by being forced by law, abuse, or stigma into playing certain roles within society and the family structure.

But, what I disagree with is the idea that women aren't responsible for their own actions. The very thesis of many laws designed to protect women are based on two ideas: First, that women have been, are today, and will be victims of men. Secondly, men are inherently dangerous.

Consider the case of two people drinking a bit too much. They get drunk, and have sex. Six months later, he's on a sex offender registry with his life turned upside down. That happened with my ex-wife while she was in college. Does my ex-wife have any responsibility for what happened? Was was her intoxicated lover really a dangerous predator?

Another friend, who is a housewife by choice, has no female friends. Most think she's an affront to "the cause," some others think she's being oppressed by her husband (which, if you ever met them, you'd realize is a ridiculous notion), and a few admit to simply being jealous. She gave up very well paid job because she didn't want to be apart from her newborn son as he was growing up. Is she oppressed and controlled? Should she have sacrificed her right to choose for the cause? Is this feminism?

And when I worked in a corporate office 7 years ago, why did my girlfriend of the time have to go to HR to officially report our relationship and sign a sworn statement that our activities were 100% consensual and that I wasn't pressuring or coercing her into anything she didn't want to do? Am I that dangerous? Is she that incapable of protecting herself?

I could go on and on, cite legal actions, dig up cases and articles, but I wanted to restrict this to my own personal encounters with feminism run amok. Besides that, I think you catch my drift.

Z

[eekee 182]

It is incredibly hard to actually get convicted for rape. The vast majority of rapes do not even get reported. And as a man, I doubt you think that someone is going to rape you as you're walking down the street at night alone. You don't think about when you are going into a parking garage by yourself. Women are aware of this all the time. The rate of women who will get sexual assaulted at some point in their lives is something like one in four.

All of the stuff you mentioned is really small potatoes.

Mense words... Good pun.

Honestly, I don't understand the issue. And I'd be interested in hearing what exactly you have a problem with. Personally I am thankful every day to the women who came before me who made sacrifices so that I could have so many opportunities in my life that would have been closed to me 100, 50 years ago.

My main issue is not with the idea of women being equal in status and opportunity. I think denying somebody a job, or equal pay, based on gender (or any reason other than ability) is quite ridiculous. And I agree that women have been unfairly treated by being forced by law, abuse, or stigma into playing certain roles within society and the family structure.

But, what I disagree with is the idea that women aren't responsible for their own actions. The very thesis of many laws designed to protect women are based on two ideas: First, that women have been, are today, and will be victims of men. Secondly, men are inherently dangerous.

Consider the case of two people drinking a bit too much. They get drunk, and have sex. Six months later, he's on a sex offender registry with his life turned upside down. That happened with my ex-wife while she was in college. Does my ex-wife have any responsibility for what happened? Was was her intoxicated lover really a dangerous predator?

Another friend, who is a housewife by choice, has no female friends. Most think she's an affront to "the cause," some others think she's being oppressed by her husband (which, if you ever met them, you'd realize is a ridiculous notion), and a few admit to simply being jealous. She gave up very well paid job because she didn't want to be apart from her newborn son as he was growing up. Is she oppressed and controlled? Should she have sacrificed her right to choose for the cause? Is this feminism?

And when I worked in a corporate office 7 years ago, why did my girlfriend of the time have to go to HR to officially report our relationship and sign a sworn statement that our activities were 100% consensual and that I wasn't pressuring or coercing her into anything she didn't want to do? Am I that dangerous? Is she that incapable of protecting herself?

I could go on and on, cite legal actions, dig up cases and articles, but I wanted to restrict this to my own personal encounters with feminism run amok. Besides that, I think you catch my drift.

Z

Edited April 3, 2008 by eekee

[eekee 182]

I WILL agree that this idea goes too far: http://jezebel.com/375822/

[mox 298]

I WILL agree that this idea goes too far: http://jezebel.com/375822/

*slaps forehead*

Good grief. I'm the forum tree-hugging granola-munching sandal-wearing liberal, and even *I* think this is freaking ridiculous.