Anonther Moscow Approval

[eekee 182]

I'm not saying it has to be 50%. I'm just saying it's really odd that it is not more than 16%. And there are A LOT of factors which would lead to these statistically disproportionate preferences which start in kindergarten or even earlier.

This is like saying that because 50% of the population is a woman, 50% must be qualified for every position everywhere regardless of preference. While I agree that discrimination based on gender is wrong, I just can't see that there's no room for women to indicate a statistically disproportionate preference or distaste for certain types of jobs. I'd be curious to find out how many states put up female candidates that got rejected because of sexism, before railing that there aren't enough female senators.

When women are no longer bearing the brunt of domestic abuse and sexual assault, then I will say that yes, women do not need special protection. But that hasn't happened yet and probably never will. IMBRA is just weird. That's why I say IMBRA is not a feminist issue. ####### does where you meet and how much you paid to join a site have to do with anything?

Edited April 4, 2008 by eekee

[shikarnov 7]

I'm not saying it has to be 50%. I'm just saying it's really odd that it is not more than 16%.

This is like saying that because 50% of the population is a woman, 50% must be qualified for every position everywhere regardless of preference. While I agree that discrimination based on gender is wrong, I just can't see that there's no room for women to indicate a statistically disproportionate preference or distaste for certain types of jobs. I'd be curious to find out how many states put up female candidates that got rejected because of sexism, before railing that there aren't enough female senators.

I think it's odd that there are so many lawyers, and so few economists, or doctors, or teachers, or other groups that would bring fresh and important perspectives, working in the senate. But how many of those people actually try running for senate? We have to apply some kind of logic to these things before jumping to the conclusion that a statistically low percentage of any particular group is the result of unfairness.

When women are no longer bearing the brunt of domestic abuse and sexual assault, then I will say that yes, women do not need special protection. But that hasn't happened yet and probably never will.

The point is that we have laws to protect people from violent crime. Because it happens to a woman doesn't make it any better or worse than if it happens to a man, or to an African-American, or any other group. If you assault somebody, you should be punished -- whether that assault happens in the home or on the street. But setting up laws with a thesis that men are abusive SOBs is as wrong as setting up laws that assume African-Americans driving nice cars are criminals, or Muslim clerics getting on airplanes are terrorists.

Z

Edited April 4, 2008 by shikarnov

[eekee 182]

Doctors, lawyers, teachers etc. are generally working as doctors, lawyers, and teachers. There's a difference between a profession and an entire gender that constitutes half the human race.

I think it's odd that there are so many lawyers, and so few economists, or doctors, or teachers, or other groups that would bring fresh and important perspectives, working in the senate. But how many of those people actually try running for senate? We have to apply some kind of logic to these things before jumping to the conclusion that a statistically low percentage of any particular group is the result of unfairness.

[Bobalouie 0]

I'm not saying it has to be 50%. I'm just saying it's really odd that it is not more than 16%. And there are A LOT of factors which would lead to these statistically disproportionate preferences which start in kindergarten or even earlier.

This is like saying that because 50% of the population is a woman, 50% must be qualified for every position everywhere regardless of preference. While I agree that discrimination based on gender is wrong, I just can't see that there's no room for women to indicate a statistically disproportionate preference or distaste for certain types of jobs. I'd be curious to find out how many states put up female candidates that got rejected because of sexism, before railing that there aren't enough female senators.

When women are no longer bearing the brunt of domestic abuse and sexual assault, then I will say that yes, women do not need special protection. But that hasn't happened yet and probably never will. IMBRA is just weird. That's why I say IMBRA is not a feminist issue. ####### does where you meet and how much you paid to join a site have to do with anything?

Ok, so now you are saying that women should not be equal to men and be afforded additional protections under the law, in addition to the protections that everyone is entitled? I dont understand, up until now you wanted equality and now you want to be more than equal? Up until now I thought women didnt need to be considered "special" under the law.

In my eyes the fact that IMBRA is 'just wierd' is a clear sign that it is a militant feminist issue. If it was well thought out and provided the same protections to ALL women regardless of country of origin or method of aquaintance, then I would say it is not militant feminist and just misguided. Where you met and how much you paid are the ways that the law SINGLES OUT the subset of overall population that SOMEONE wants to control. Who would possibly want to control that particular subset of the population? Feminists like yourself? Men? non feminist women? Militant feminists? My guess is the former three groups of people could care less how two people met or where they come from. Which of those groups seems to be the likely candidate?

[eekee 182]

I don't know, I'm really hungover today. my head is really swimming right now!!!

I suppose it all depends if you see it as a) more than equal OR b ) something that helps women to BECOME equal.

Ok, so now you are saying that women should not be equal to men and be afforded additional protections under the law, in addition to the protections that everyone is entitled? I dont understand, up until now you wanted equality and now you want to be more than equal? Up until now I thought women didnt need to be considered "special" under the law.

In my eyes the fact that IMBRA is 'just wierd' is a clear sign that it is a militant feminist issue. If it was well thought out and provided the same protections to ALL women regardless of country of origin or method of aquaintance, then I would say it is not militant feminist and just misguided. Where you met and how much you paid are the ways that the law SINGLES OUT the subset of overall population that SOMEONE wants to control. Who would possibly want to control that particular subset of the population? Feminists like yourself? Men? non feminist women? Militant feminists? My guess is the former three groups of people could care less how two people met or where they come from. Which of those groups seems to be the likely candidate?

Edited April 4, 2008 by eekee

[visaveteran1 33]

oh, come on. the world is not anti-male. trust. when men start making 75 dollars to every 100 dollars a woman makes in the same job, then you can start saying that stuff.

there are very few women in positions of power in politics. there are sixteen women in the senate out of 100 senators. If there was any real gender equality in this country, there would be many more women in the senate and CEO positions and everything else. And women who do reach high levels or professional success have to do deal with comments and issues that men never ever have to deal with. Women whose jobs have nothing to do with appearance are criticized for their clothing choices and makeup. Employers often do not want to hire women who seem like they could be ready to start a family.

I respect men. All of my close friends are men. But I have always considered myself a feminist. Yes, like in any movement, there are people who take it to extremes. There's women who hate men, but there's a lot of men who hate women too. These ultra-manhater feminists are NOT going to be elected to positions of power, especially in America. Go to the general polls sections and look at the poll there about what factors would make you not vote for a presidential candidate--an alarmingly large number of people said they would never vote for a woman president.

Feminism is the idea that women are equal to men and should enjoy all of the same advantages that men do. If someone sees fault in that, well...

Maybe you have to go overseas to find a woman who is willing to fulfill a more traditional role in a relationship. But you don't have to go overseas to find a woman who RESPECTS men. There is a huge difference there. I really have no desire to do the majority of the housework and child-rearing. I don't want to spend my life working at my career and then coming home and having to do all the housework while my husband goes drinking with his friends or lies down on the couch watching tv. I have always made it clear to my guy that I would NEVER be like a typical Russian wife/mother and do everything for the men in my family while they sit around and do nothing. And if he were unable to accept that fact, we would not continue with the relationship. This does not mean that I do not respect men. It means that I think that life is short and it's unfair that I would be overly burdened with these kinds of responsibilities just because I happen to have two x chromosomes. You can respect men AND respect yourself.

IMBRA is not really a feminist issue per se.

There are things that irritate me though about certain subgroups of feminists--like people who try to eradicate gender from the english language completely.

At this point in time, the world view of men is not good. Some of it we brought on ourselves and some has come from misguided and warped feminist thinking.

The woman's movement started off as a legitimate social movement for economic and legal change; then abruptly morphed into hard left, fringe, man-haters. The movement was taken prisoner by goof balls. The word feminist can refer to women or to men (and I use the term lightly) who embrace the anti-male rhetoric and political and philosophic stance that sees masculinity as the enemy of the modern world. It's hard to hear this stuff from women; it's shameful to hear it from fellow men.

Once a decent organization, NOW is today a marginal group of radicals and malcontents...and a very vocal subgroup of man-hating lesbians who want a life devoid of men.

Maybe this is why you don't hear much about "feminism" these days. Yet, with many women in key positions in both sides of the capitol, or in positions as influential lawyers and judges and lobbyists, the feminist agenda slips through in shadowy ways and we get anti-male laws. Should we be surprised with IMBRA?

And should anyone need to ask why guys are going overseas to find women who respect good men?

I should have said western world view...namely western Europe and America are anti-male bastions.

You have the speaker of the house who is a woman and you have a presidential candidate who's a woman and at one point two women on the Supreme court...not bad for the downtrodden gender. As far as counting heads in congress, you have to add in all the nice boys who jump to the feminist tune...Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, etc.etc. Lots of allies. These to are feminists.

Only morons would argue against women getting a fair shake around jobs and pay and respect...but when you start to throw around the term "equal" you've taken the conversation into the great abyss. Equal in what ways? What does equal mean? Equal enough to go into the infantry? Equal enough to change the flat tire on the SUV in a snowstorm? Equal enough to bench press the same amount of weight as a man can? Equal enough to produce sperm? And can a man have children? Nurse a child?

The current male-female confusion over life and marriage roles goes directly to the need for women to be "equal" to men...only they want to cherry pick when they are equal and when they are the weaker sex. I remember with great anger at dating well off American women...and they never picked up the dinner check...never. After getting tired of shelling out my hard earned money to feed my date, I'd suggest maybe it was her turn to buy or let's just go "Dutch." Oh man...they did not want to hear that. What kind of gentleman am I? It's traditional that the man pays. And, of course, I'd never hear from them again.

Equal indeed.

You may mean, "equal under the law" and I totally support that sense of "equal." But feminists want it to mean something else. That's the gray area and where the battleground lies. Men don't get a fair shake around child custody and frequently get screwed in divorce settlements (Paul McCartney coughs up $50 mil). I went through the 1970s when the lesser female job candidate got the job or promotion based only on her gender...reverse discrimination. I remember unisex this and unisex that. Such nonsense.

The enlightened thinkers on gender issues now also speak about the differences between men and women and urge a new line of thinking that ends the view of women as equal to men or vice versus. Mutual respect and honoring our differences is what the conversation should be about.

[shikarnov 7]

Doctors, lawyers, teachers etc. are generally working as doctors, lawyers, and teachers. There's a difference between a profession and an entire gender that constitutes half the human race.

I think it's odd that there are so many lawyers, and so few economists, or doctors, or teachers, or other groups that would bring fresh and important perspectives, working in the senate. But how many of those people actually try running for senate? We have to apply some kind of logic to these things before jumping to the conclusion that a statistically low percentage of any particular group is the result of unfairness.

The question I was asking, and you've evaded, is this: if only a relatively low percentage of women apply for the job of US Senator, is it logical to expect that a relatively balanced percentage would have that job.

I looked up figures from the 2006 contest. Interestingly enough, there were 100 candidates in the 33 total contests. Of that group, I counted only 18 female candidates. Of those, 6 won their contests, which is about 18%.

Sounds to me like women simply aren't trying to get this particular job.

Z

[eekee 182]

Actually, men can and do lactate. There have been many documented cases of "sympathy" lactation. As far as the army goes... that's a whole other issue i won't get into. Can I change a tire? Yes, because I was taught how to and it is really not that hard. Is my SO a LOT stronger than me despite the fact that he is only maybe 4 kilos heavier than I am? Yes. There are definitely PHYSICAL differences... but I don't really believe so much in mental ones.

I am not talking about male feminists in the senate. That is immaterial.

it is wrong to cherry pick. I agree with that. But I don't have any friends who expect the man to pay. This is actually a problem with my American guy friends who dated Russian girls... since in our generation it's not expected, they just did not treat the girls the way the girls were used to being treated. That's why I say that for people my age, American woman + Russian man is better because we expect so little from boyfriends. And thus when someone carries your bags without you asking them to it is like WOW. But when we first started dating him I said to him that I didn't expect him to pay all the time.

Paul McCartney could have been screwed over a lot more considering UK divorce laws. If Heather Mills wasn't such a disagreeable person he probably would have been.

I should have said western world view...namely western Europe and America are anti-male bastions.

You have the speaker of the house who is a woman and you have a presidential candidate who's a woman and at one point two women on the Supreme court...not bad for the downtrodden gender. As far as counting heads in congress, you have to add in all the nice boys who jump to the feminist tune...Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, etc.etc. Lots of allies. These to are feminists.

Only morons would argue against women getting a fair shake around jobs and pay and respect...but when you start to throw around the term "equal" you've taken the conversation into the great abyss. Equal in what ways? What does equal mean? Equal enough to go into the infantry? Equal enough to change the flat tire on the SUV in a snowstorm? Equal enough to bench press the same amount of weight as a man can? Equal enough to produce sperm? And can a man have children? Nurse a child?

The current male-female confusion over life and marriage roles goes directly to the need for women to be "equal" to men...only they want to cherry pick when they are equal and when they are the weaker sex. I remember with great anger at dating well off American women...and they never picked up the dinner check...never. After getting tired of shelling out my hard earned money to feed my date, I'd suggest maybe it was her turn to buy or let's just go "Dutch." Oh man...they did not want to hear that. What kind of gentleman am I? It's traditional that the man pays. And, of course, I'd never hear from them again.

Equal indeed.

You may mean, "equal under the law" and I totally support that sense of "equal." But feminists want it to mean something else. That's the gray area and where the battleground lies. Men don't get a fair shake around child custody and frequently get screwed in divorce settlements (Paul McCartney coughs up $50 mil). I went through the 1970s when the lesser female job candidate got the job or promotion based only on her gender...reverse discrimination. I remember unisex this and unisex that. Such nonsense.

The enlightened thinkers on gender issues now also speak about the differences between men and women and urge a new line of thinking that ends the view of women as equal to men or vice versus. Mutual respect and honoring our differences is what the conversation should be about.

Exactly... and that's the real question.

The question I was asking, and you've evaded, is this: if only a relatively low percentage of women apply for the job of US Senator, is it logical to expect that a relatively balanced percentage would have that job.

I looked up figures from the 2006 contest. Interestingly enough, there were 100 candidates in the 33 total contests. Of that group, I counted only 18 female candidates. Of those, 6 won their contests, which is about 18%.

Sounds to me like women simply aren't trying to get this particular job.

Z

Edited April 4, 2008 by eekee

[shikarnov 7]

Exactly... and that's the real question.

The question I was asking, and you've evaded, is this: if only a relatively low percentage of women apply for the job of US Senator, is it logical to expect that a relatively balanced percentage would have that job.

I looked up figures from the 2006 contest. Interestingly enough, there were 100 candidates in the 33 total contests. Of that group, I counted only 18 female candidates. Of those, 6 won their contests, which is about 18%.

Sounds to me like women simply aren't trying to get this particular job.

Z

I might have missed something here?

Is this the real question: Why aren't women trying to become US Senators in greater numbers? I would suggest looking inward for that answer. Ask your friends. Your neighbors. Why don't they get involved in politics? Why should they? And if they're genuinely not interested, what difference does it make?

Z

Edited April 4, 2008 by shikarnov

[Bobalouie 0]

I don't know, I'm really hungover today. my head is really swimming right now!!!

I suppose it all depends if you see it as a) more than equal OR b ) something that helps women to BECOME equal.

Ok, so now you are saying that women should not be equal to men and be afforded additional protections under the law, in addition to the protections that everyone is entitled? I dont understand, up until now you wanted equality and now you want to be more than equal? Up until now I thought women didnt need to be considered "special" under the law.

In my eyes the fact that IMBRA is 'just wierd' is a clear sign that it is a militant feminist issue. If it was well thought out and provided the same protections to ALL women regardless of country of origin or method of aquaintance, then I would say it is not militant feminist and just misguided. Where you met and how much you paid are the ways that the law SINGLES OUT the subset of overall population that SOMEONE wants to control. Who would possibly want to control that particular subset of the population? Feminists like yourself? Men? non feminist women? Militant feminists? My guess is the former three groups of people could care less how two people met or where they come from. Which of those groups seems to be the likely candidate?

But there is no way that the law (in the instance of domestic violence) can help women to 'become equal'. Lets take this to the extreme. Lets say that a new law was passed that said that if a man hits his wife, it is an automatic 25 year sentence with no chance for parole in the federal hoosgow. That law (and all laws) can only give someone pause because laws dont prevent crime. They tell you what will happen if you do something. Since most domestic violence is not caluclated beforehand, the fact that the punishment the law provides (pause is nonexistant due to heat of the moment/crime of passion) will not be a factor and the woman will still get hit. It is already illegal to beat up people, woman or man. I dont see how a law with stricter punishment (which is really what 'special protections') are can help anyone become more equal.

The law doesnt stop me from running idiot drivers off of the road. It doesnt protect those people or prevent me from doing it. It only provides a structured outcome for if I do it and get caught. My self control and sense of right vs. wrong is what keeps me from mowing them down with my '48 Buick.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Bobalouie

[eekee 182]

OK... looking more into it, it should have been the violence against PEOPLE act.

But doesn't IMBRA apply to both men AND women who used a dating service? For instance, if I had used russianhusbands.com wouldn't I also be subject to IMBRA law?

But there is no way that the law (in the instance of domestic violence) can help women to 'become equal'. Lets take this to the extreme. Lets say that a new law was passed that said that if a man hits his wife, it is an automatic 25 year sentence with no chance for parole in the federal hoosgow. That law (and all laws) can only give someone pause because laws dont prevent crime. They tell you what will happen if you do something. Since most domestic violence is not caluclated beforehand, the fact that the punishment the law provides (pause is nonexistant due to heat of the moment/crime of passion) will not be a factor and the woman will still get hit. It is already illegal to beat up people, woman or man. I dont see how a law with stricter punishment (which is really what 'special protections') are can help anyone become more equal.

The law doesnt stop me from running idiot drivers off of the road. It doesnt protect those people or prevent me from doing it. It only provides a structured outcome for if I do it and get caught. My self control and sense of right vs. wrong is what keeps me from mowing them down with my '48 Buick.

Edited April 4, 2008 by eekee

[eekee 182]

When I was in preschool they asked us what we wanted to be when we grew up. All of the girls said they wanted to be the first women president.

The women bears the brunt of the family. i think that's the main answer.

I might have missed something here?

Is this the real question: Why aren't women trying to become US Senators in greater numbers? I would suggest looking inward for that answer. Ask your friends. Your neighbors. Why don't they get involved in politics? Why should they? And if they're genuinely not interested, what difference does it make?

Z

[visaveteran1 33]

I am not talking about male feminists in the senate. That is immaterial.

I think it's VERY material given the origin of this discussion...the infamous IMBRA law which some of us argue is a feminist driven law. Certain male senators and congressmen buy into the feminist agenda and this is obviously critical to pass legislation like IMBRA. Yes?

[shikarnov 7]

But doesn't IMBRA apply to both men AND women who used a dating service? For instance, if I had used russianhusbands.com wouldn't I also be subject to IMBRA law?

The law does not explicitly state that "men" are the targets of this legislation, but as you've pointed out in the past, women are usually the victims in the types of domestic violence situations this law is purported to prevent. And, as you've also noted, men, in massively disproportionate numbers, seek foreign wives. The target of this is quite clearly men.

Z

[eekee 182]

but not to the particular point i was making.

I am not talking about male feminists in the senate. That is immaterial.

I think it's VERY material given the origin of this discussion...the infamous IMBRA law which some of us argue is a feminist driven law. Certain male senators and congressmen buy into the feminist agenda and this is obviously critical to pass legislation like IMBRA. Yes?

Who knows? Maybe in the future things will change and women will go elsewhere for husbands.

So then you're saying that ANY law which deals with domestic violence/sexual assault is targeted towards men, because they commit the vast majority of such crimes?

But doesn't IMBRA apply to both men AND women who used a dating service? For instance, if I had used russianhusbands.com wouldn't I also be subject to IMBRA law?

The law does not explicitly state that "men" are the targets of this legislation, but as you've pointed out in the past, women are usually the victims in the types of domestic violence situations this law is purported to prevent. And, as you've also noted, men, in massively disproportionate numbers, seek foreign wives. The target of this is quite clearly men.

Z