I've always wondered about people who have an unrelated criminal charge, would they be able to get a wife? say they have a fraud conviction or tax evasion... something non-violent in nature. would that preclude them from this?

i think most women (not just mail order brides) should get a criminal history check before they get married...
but then i've been with an abusive man before, so maybe i'm jaded.

I read this and immediately thought of the guys on the Forbes message boards, almost all of whom had sworn off "American women" and were going to search for foriegn brides instead.

Our office had a case last year in which we "defended" (such as we could--dude was guilty as sin) a guy who lied to an abused his mail-order bride. First thing we did was look into his past to see what might haunt us if we went to trial. Sure enough, he had a history of domestic violence. The victim was one tough broad, though. She wasn't afraid to talk to us and was not going to back down. When he pled out, we all thought, "good for her, dammit."

Kind of reminds me of the sites for dating transsexual women. The same comments about being more respectful, feminine, and appreciative have been made. A big difference is that those men have no interest in marrying a transsexual, but just to date (have sex) with them.

I wrote about this a few months ago. I received a blog award, and then was horrified to find out that the same award had gone to a blog devoted to bashing feminists and Western women in favor of Eastern European women. Trolls poured over from that blog to mine, and I've been quietly following that blog ever since. These men are very, very angry people. They are also completely unable to formulate a logical argument.

I think I heard the I Love Latins plaintive theme song on the radio commercial; to be honest, it sounded somewhat familiar.

"The Canadian girls are frigid, and they all demand equal rights...

The American girls are half bull dykes who beat me up in fights... ohhhhhh...

I wish they all could be Venezuelan girls..."

MOBs and Western men = blech. North American men should work on work-family policies, equal pay, etc. so feminists don't have to work so hard for their rights. Our uncooperative government may make us "shrill" and "scare off" weaker men so this is more reason for them to be feminists not knuckledraggers. Deal, knuckledraggers? Oh they didn't hear a word I said.

The remark about there being no indication that men are "more likely" to abuse international wives is a total non sequitur... it's not about being "more likely" to abuse someone. It's about finding out if your husband-to-be has a *history* of violence. Because men with a history of violent behavior are more likely to abuse their wives, period, American or non-American. And any man who is "angered" by this is probably precisely the type of man this law is designed to protect these women from. Jeebus.

As for the men who are "sick" of us uppity American women (because we all know only American women stand up for equal rights and equal respect. *snork* -- yeah, guys, good luck dating those British and French and Aussie women whose accents you find so charming, I'm sure they'll just roll over and cowtoe to you... lol, how ignorant and nationalist) I would almost say "good riddance" except that I'm worried for the poor foreign women who might see an abusive American man as their only way out of a tough situation. Frankly, I think as feminists, it's our job to educate and help these women so that the cretins have nowhere to turn for their "wives" and ultimately die out of the gene pool... man, what a world that would be.

Men like the jerks in the article make me think we need a domestic abuse registry along the lines of the sex offender registry... any man who would *beat his wife* (or any woman who would beat her husband) deserves all the shame and reprobation society can pile on him. It takes a real coward to use physical violence to get his way.

Following up on what The Law Fairy said, the issue is one of using an opportunity one has -- as the Catholic Church would phrase it "the sin of ommission is as great as the sin of commossion".

Which is why, e.g., the Catholic Church is culpable in those sexual abuse cases. Are Catholic priests more likely to abuse kids than Protestant Ministers, Rabbis, Imams, or what have you? I doubt it. If an abusive priest gets shuttled to another parish is that really different than an abusive minister leaving his congregation and finding another? Not really at a certain pragmatic level.

But since the Catholic Church has a hierarchy that can serve to prevent such abuse from happening (rather than covering it up), they have a responsibility to use that hierarchy appropriately to prevent preventable abuse.

Similarly, since there is an opportunity to possibly prevent spousal abuse in these relationships, the authorities have the responsibility to take advantage of that opportunity. Not to do so would be a sin of ommission.

The first link gives me a 404 error from chron.com.

"...it's true that there hasn't been data compiled on this--but shelter workers say it's definitely a problem... And seriously, what is the problem? So you have disclose your criminal history to the person you're marrying--so what?"

From what I've read these people's problem seems to be rampant hypocracy and a suspicious that this legislation is being supported because feminists don't like the fact that these guys aren't feminists and want to make their lives difficult. I've some sympathy.

I agree there isn't a problem with disclosing your criminal history to the person you're marrying. So:

(a) Why just pick on international relationships? Why shouldn't US couples have to disclose this information? Isn't this a patent double standard.

(b) Why does this apply to the US party, but not the foreigner? Isn't this a patent double standard.

When I read posts like the above I hear: 'I don't like people who want traditional marriage, so let's use the law to give the bastards a hard time'. I don't like these people either, but that's no reason to pass laws against them. It's not even as if you've got evidence showing mail order brides suffer more domestic violence. 'Shelter workers say it's definitely a problem', and they don't say violence between US couples is a problem?

MOB are far more likely than American women to be cut off from friends, family, a familiar support system, even their own language. That makes them far more vulnerable to wife abuse, and also far less likely to have the resources and confidence to escape it--especially if they're concerned about visas, etc. The American in question isn't cut off from any of his normal context, and so isn't half as vulnerable. Furthermore, domestic violence is a not a crime that is equitably distributed with respect to gender. Overwhelming, men abuse women, not the other way round. So asking why the women in question aren't being forced to disclose their past is almost willfully ignoring the issue.

This law doesn't make any requirements for international relationships per se. If a man falls in love with a women from England or Botswana or wherever, it has no effect on him. It has an effect on marriage brokers, agences that exist to turn a profit on arranging these marriages. I see no reason why they shouldn't be held to minimal safety requirements.

But to answer your question, I would be completely in favor of a law requring men with a history of abusing women to disclose that to their partners before marrying.

The kind of men who go wife-shopping in other countries -usually, developing and impovershed other countries- represent one of the more disturbing trends associated with this bull-shit "back-lash" to feminism. They are impossibly insecure, misogynistic, bigots who cannot seem to grasp that if they only seem to date women who will never cook them breakfast (or whatever else they're whining about and attributing to evil American women) they need to add "bad in bed," to their laundry list of faults.

An American woman may or may not bother to look into a man's past and research any criminal history he may or may not have but she has the right to do so. Any of the trogolodytes participating in these formally arranged "marriage tours," who cannot agree to disclose all such information, or object to even being asked should be barred from participation by the "agencies" that arrange these trips. After all all of the complicated passport and visa requirements that this industry involve work through our government and with our tax dollars. We do, in fact, have a large enough problem with domestic violence right here state-side that we don't need abusers importing victims.

I remember reading the linked article when it first came out. I used it to compare and contrast with a similar piece recently published in Essence about Black American men going to South America to "party" with Brazilian women. One of the things I find interesting about both articles is that neither publication arranged for their writer(s) to have a translator assist them with an indepth interview with any of the women involved.

What EG said. Also, the act is also non gender-specific.

How about a general law of "You must disclose your criminal and marital history to ANYONE YOU WANT TO MARRY" of no marriage license can be granted.

Because, ya know, it's fucking insane that anyone would expect to hide this. But they do.

The people who would cmoplain about this law are the type who need it most.

What sickens me is the sense of entitlement these men have. "I DESERVE a beautiful, young woman that will do whatever I want." and to that end, will exploit a decaying nation-state run by a gaggle of thugs.

EG, I'm totally with you on this one.
I've known so many women who have been subjected to domestic violence. The only problem, of course, is that I lot of these guys have no criminal record because the wife is afraid to press charges as the events occur. Its incredibly sad. And also, many abusive relationships don't involve marriage.
Still, it would be great if the guys who do have criminal records were forced to be upfront with future spouses.
The guys protesting this seem more than a little sketchy to me. So they think that this is biased against them. Well then, they can also support such a rule regarding all US marriages and including criminal histories for both partners. Jeez.

leederick, the following is what international marriage brokers are all about. From the article:

Historically, IMBs have declined to provide any information about their male clients to the women with whom they seek to match them; and, in fact, this one-sidedness has been a selling point. A New York‒based advocacy group called Equality Now demonstrated it in stark terms in 1999, when they sent a blanket email inquiry to dozens of IMBs, purporting to be from a physician who had assaulted two ex-wives; his email asked whether this history would be an issue. Out of sixty-six responses, only three IMBs turned him down, and only two others expressed serious reservations about taking him on as a client; a few actually praised him and commiserated regarding the occasional need for violence when it comes to keeping women in line. Among the responses:

“Having also been accused of assault by western women, who are usually the instigaters of domestic violence I can tell you: A) don't let it bother you and B) most Thais avoid confrontation, Buddhist philosophy, so they are not likely to start something that may end in violence.� (www.loveasia.com)

“Thank you for your open and honest letter. I believe we all have skeletons in the closet and do not let them fall out when we meet someone. When I look into my past it also does not look too rosy. In heated arguments we all say and do things we did not mean, it does not make us a bad person. What I am trying to say is, let the ladies get to know the real you.� (www.russianwives.com)

“We are an agency and our purpose is to try to help people meet each other. We never refuse any clients that come to us with the exception of incarcerated people. So the answer is yes we will do our very best to help you, as we do for everybody else, but you should try to work on these problem you have for your own benefit and the benefit of your future wife.� (www.missright.com)

At the AFA orientation in Kiev, the point was made in a similar way when one of the men asked if the women at our events would have any sort of access to information on his age, financial status, or anything else in his personal history. “Oh no,� said Dan the Man, shaking his head emphatically. “Absolutely not. We don't tell them anything. That's your job.�

Here's some eye-popping reading for your this evening. Equality Now's report on the willingness of MOB companies to provide services to violent men.

MOB companies employ alot of pimps and madames from the tone of the letters.

Well, I suppose if an abusive man is shopping, a MOB broker is the perfect place to look. A lot of his work is already done for him - the woman is isolated, broke, and cannot speak the language. Of course, he can also tell her that she has no options but to take his abuse. All he has to do upon receipt of his "goods" is start hitting.

That article was really interesting. All the while I read it I kept thinking "Wow, what a bunch of pathetic jerks." It sounded like a lot of these guys knew deep down that they're pathetic jerks, too.

The first of "Charles North"'s sixty-three MOB agency acceptances:

"The government couldn't care less if you're Jack the Ripper, as long as you're out of jail and free to marry. As far as bitches go, I think I understand. They assert that "No" means "No" except when they're nagging in which case "No" means "Keep nagging and try to get beaten." I think the language barrier actually helps here; it's hard to squawk through a language barrier."

"it's not about being "more likely" to abuse someone. It's about finding out if your husband-to-be has a *history* of violence."

Absolutely. I'd go even further. I'd require all people who wish to marry to have to go through the same requirements; disclosure of any criminal record, and government oversight to ensure compliance.

Anyone else like this idea?

Another pathetic jerk disguised as a human being and his views on the IMBRA:

http://www.online-dating-rights.com/blog/lestat/index.php?showentry=30

Blessings.

MOB are more likely to be abused because they're isolated, cut off from family and a support system, lack language skills, are less aware of their legal rights and have a hard time escaping their situations because of Visa or citizenship reasons. American women are more likely to have family, friends and a support system, are more aware of their rights and don't have to stay in a situation since their citizenship does not depend on it.

Well, speaking as a man who has been married to a Chinese woman for over five years now, any man who marries a Chinese woman expecting a "submissive" wife who'll do anything they say is in for a really nasty shock. It Just Ain't So, and in fact Chinese wives tend to have more power in their family, culturally, than their husbands. (That's not to say, of course, that there aren't inequities that more than make up for this, sigh.)

For the record, I strongly support the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. It is something that is desperately needed and in fact I agree with the person who said that it should be the law for all marriages, not just international ones.

Of course, I didn't go through a broker, I did it on my own and actually got to know her family (her sister and father were here, actually in LA at the time) before I met her for the first time. So I guess I don't really fit the "angry misogynist" demographic. I personally have nothing but contempt for those men.

I would even go so far as to say that the women should be fully informed of the circumstances to which they are committing themselves, long before they actually make the commitment. For an immigrant, it's a far cry from living in a place like LA or New York to living in Bumfuck, Tennessee, where the number of immigrants can be counted on the fingers on one foot.

The difference between MOBs and American women is that the latter know they can look up criminal records online through peoplefinders, etc.

"The difference between MOBs and American women is that the latter know they can look up criminal records online through peoplefinders, etc."

Do you believe that American women have successfully avoided marrying men with violent histories?

Or women could get smart and stop dating abusive criminals. Being weak and stupid, they apparently need to government to protect them.

tfree32,

By your logic we don’t need a criminal justice system either, because everybody can get smart and strong instead of weak and stupid, and nobody will need the government to protect them. You know, it is our fault if we were born in a poor country, we were not privileged enough to get a good education, we have no prospects and we don’t have sixth sense to know that some asshole with money has in fact assaulted his two ex-wives. We then certainly deserve to be abused and of course it is not the government's job to require the asshole with money to disclose his criminal record to us, you know because we would have figured it out if we were smart. Only weak and stupid people get abused, raped, robbed, murdered, etc. Who cares about weak and stupid people anyways? So let's get rid of the police all together.

Do you believe that American women have successfully avoided marrying men with violent histories? --Raging Moderate

This is what you said earlier:

I'd require all people who wish to marry to have to go through the same requirements; disclosure of any criminal record, and government oversight to ensure compliance. --Raging Moderate

IMBRA and this thread have been about the release of criminal records. Violent men without criminal records are a different issue.

I met my fiance via internet. We got caught up in the law when Homeland Security cancelled 10,000 visas and now he can't get his visa. We have had to re-apply and we had to cancel the wedding we had planned in July. Eventually we think he will get the visa, but it has made a wreck of our plans and our emotions.

Sara, as one poster noted here the law is gender neutral. So if you got caught up in it that could not be helped. Plus, I have been reading the postings on this law at visajourney.com and I see that those delayed applications are now being processed. So just think about it this way, that you had a slight delay in your wedding but millions of women will be safe from predators because criminals and abusers (with records) will go to the bottom of the pile.

By the way, how did you meet him? Did you do a criminal background check on him?

Yeah, you're right. It is good for women to have this protection. I met my fiancé on match.com. For some reason the law does not include match.com or the other big companies like friendfinder. I guess the government must have done all kinds of studies and found that men who meet through match.com aren’t abusers. So they should give him the visa, If not, maybe they can do the criminal background check on me now, although that seems silly for them to have to check the woman when men are the problem.

I dunno ladies, doesn't sound like anybody is very happy. I have 2 wonderful daughters and I'll put my post-feminist credentials up against anybody's. My guess is that women bought the argument that it is a man's world and in order to be successful you have to act like a man. There is very little feminine about feminism as it is currently promoted, it's mostly about the masculinization of women. It seems to the casual observer that American women have forgotten what it's like to be feminine. Go ahead, point out one example in the public media of a feminine woman; I can point to a host of pseudomales like Ann Coulter and Nancy Grace (grates). American women seem to equate femininity with weakness. Globalization has hit the relationship scene: the fact is that American men are right at the top internationally, whereas American women don't even register in terms of desirability as mates. Better that you study your competition instead of bashing them.

The fundamental question is whether balls are compatible with technologically advanced civilization (I doubt very much that male nature has changed much in the last 50,000 years.) Clearly men cause most of the mayhem on the planet, but we also drive almost all of the progress (for all the ballyhooing women contribute proportionately little to technological advancement)

Apparently you missed the point: the law says that a background check has to be submitted BEFORE ANY CONTACT TAKES PLACE. Requiring pre-qualification is a HUGE step. The common law principle of innocent until proven guilty is turned on its head: one has to prove that that they are harmless BEFORE THEY CAN PROCEED. In this day and age perhaps full disclosure before marriage should be required, but to require it before even reaching the starting line is patently Fascist. I am appalled that feminists who have spent their lives trying to keep government out of intimate personal decisions seem to act without restraint when it comes to imposing controls on others; how much do you want the government to get involved in decisions about who can date whom? All political knives cut both ways so be careful what you ask for.

I do think the law should be applied both ways. I believe True.com does a background check on all its members, not only for criminal records, but also for marriage ones, to ensure that those who utilize the site are not only law-abiding, but legitimately single. I wish more dating sites did that sort of thing.

To johnreeds:
As you're so clearly opposed to this law, one assumes you're also opposed to people being informed when a convicted pedophile moves into their neighborhood.
After all, just because they've broken the law once or twice doesn't mean they should have to reveal that fact and warn off potential future victims, right? That would be patently fascist!

"The law says that a background check has to be submitted BEFORE ANY CONTACT TAKES PLACE. Requiring pre-qualification is a HUGE step...one has to prove that that they are harmless BEFORE THEY CAN PROCEED"

No one missed the point. I disagree that American women are not desired. They have more money and power by prozy than women elsewhere. The definition of femininity proscribed by the dominant culture is weakness. The opposite is masculinity which is strength, success, competitiveness, taking risks, lack of feeling and that which is not feminine. Why should those with a criminal record have contact with impoverished women who are at greater disadvantage than American women? Like Vervain said, online dating services are requiring the same. There's not been a huge uproar about that.

Also, I am very tired of pointing out that "innocent until proven guilty" applies only in a court of law--not in any other context! Further, this law applies to men who have been proven guilty in said court. Why on earth would they have a right to hide that?

Now, as to competition. Let's see: I can do the work I love to the best of my abilities, thus supporting myself, becoming independent, and finding personal fulfillment and develop my true personality...or I can be appealing to the kind of men who seek out subservience and want to hide their records of abusing women. Decisions, decisions. Which one shall I choose?

Oh, wait. That's not a hard choice at all.

Donna is right. American women are desired abroad. After all, I landed a rich Brit! But EG, this law applies to everyone (including me), not just people with criminal records. The only reason we might skate is that we used Match.com where they must do some kind of screening to keep the scumbags out.

I'm confused, Sara. How does the law apply to you? According to info above, it requires that

"dating agencies that specialize in matching American men with women overseas must first obtain information about a man's criminal record and marital history, relay it to the woman and then get her consent before disclosing her contact information. Men must also provide this information to the government when applying for a fiancee visa."

Match.com doesn't specialize in hooking American men up with foreign women, and it specifically talks about criminal record and marital history. From what I understand, it doesn't apply to individuals outside of these agencies, just those who use mail-order bride sites.

It sounds like governmental incompetence to me.

EG, what you quoted is correct except it applies equally to men and women. Apparently the law was written to require certain companies to get these criminal records but not others. I think that Match.com has tons of international listings. I don't know how many the mail order bride sites have, but for some reason they are not included in the law. My guess is that the government knows that men who use match.com aren't abusers, otherwise why would they have this exclusion?

Sara, the press release from 2004 shown below was the warning shot that has lead to the most contentious and first-ever federal-level gender battle in our nation's history. In addition to their political and financial power, I suspect that Match.com and other large sites were excluded as they do not offend feminists and feminism, pit American women against foreign women, AND enable American men to snub their noses at feminism while sidestepping the "feminist principles that took so long to instill upon them."

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/prweb138739.htm

Promoters of the INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT strategically link international matchmaking organizations with human trafficking rings in effort to gain bipartisan support.

Strategic linking of marriage brokers with human trafficking rings aids in gaining bipartisan support for law intent on eliminating international matchmaking companies and websites.

(PRWEB) July 4, 2004 -- To gain bipartisan support for the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, we endorse the strategies of (1) using "womens' protection" as the main theme of the law; and (2) claiming that American-based marriage brokers are part of global human trafficking rings, however unfounded.

We also support provisions of the Act that will require brokers to conduct large quantities of consent verifications and background checks before American men can write love letters or make any contact with foreign women. These provisions will make it very difficult for American-based marriage brokers to organize those disgusting overseas introduction "parties" where women outnumber men 100 to 1. These provisions will also drive up costs to the point of putting most brokers out of business. In addition, this law effectively places "warning labels" on American men thus decreasing demand for them among foreign women over time.

Although this law is long overdue (and hopefully not too late), we welcome the Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003 as a means to regulating the often arrogant and brazen international marriage broker industry. This industry has gone from the fringe to the mainstream. The American male population is now overly exposed to the message that it is acceptable to desire and actually marry women "unspoiled" by American materialism and most troubling, "uninfected" by American feminism. This message may impede the progress of feminism here at home and give American men the idea that it is acceptable to not respect feminist principles that took so long to instill upon them.

The marriage broker websites promulgate the "message" that American men are highly desirable outside the U.S. and can have access to women not intent on upholding over 30 years of hard won womens' rights. These sites also offensively elaborate on the reasons for rejecting American women as part of a campaign to promote the desirablity of foreign women. We find this to be most appalling.

Certainly, the existence of this industry is indicative of the sad state of romantic relationships between men and women in North America; however, it by no means should be allowed to continue unregulated. Sites such as www.americanwomensuck.com and www.nomarriage.com are problematic enough.

American women seem to equate femininity with weakness. Better that you study your competition instead of bashing them. --johnreeds

Stereotypical feminine characteristics

passive
follower
emotional
weak
physical

Good luck with your clingy, emotional mail order bride.

Vervain said: "As you're so clearly opposed to this law, one assumes you're also opposed to people being informed when a convicted pedophile moves into their neighborhood."
-Following the logic of the law, not only would the pedophile have to notify all of the neighbors and receive their approval BEFORE he moved into the neighborhood, but EVERYONE who moved in would have to submit their application for review, am I correct? I am opposed to government interference in personal decisions: who gets to be the judge...you? me? This is in no way equivalent to endorsing abuse of women and to suggest that it does is a logical fallacy of the first order.

Donna wrote: 'Stereotypical feminine characteristics
passive,follower,emotional,weak,physical"
-Nowhere did I, have I, or would I equate the feminine with negative qualities; without it I'd die (or have little reason to live). WHY DO YOU??? Look at the Yin/Yang symbol: at the center of the Yin is the Yang, and at the center of the Yang is the Yin. If you can't find God in the feminine, you sure as hell won't find Him/Her in the masculine.

The judge in Ohio wrote that the law was justified in the interests of reducing domestic abuse. Lordy, talk about an open invitation to governmental supervision! You wanna look up close and personal at the thought processes that will lead to Fascism, there it is.

Yes you miss the point entirely: one does not have to endorse abuse of women in order to oppose government interference in personal decisions...isn't this your song for abortion rights? You're just not familiar with the tune played by a different artist, but the melody is the same.

p.s. informally polling here, what percentage of men that go fishing in foreign waters do you think are actual convicted criminals? There is a strong sense here that nen who do so are losers/failures at home...as if buying a Honda instead of a Ford is an indication of poor judgment ;-)
p.p.s is the graphic at the top of the page giving the finger or the #1 sign?

Hi Jessica,
You wrote: "For a really great read on the kind of guys who think it's just awesome to buy wives, check out A Foreign Affair. It's great/terrifying and gives you a good idea of why laws like this are necessary."

I read the article. NOWHERE was there any indication that ANY of those men were criminals! Cads, sure. Losers, a few were. Nor was there ANY reference to "buying" wives. All in all a fairly typical cross-section of Amercan manhood. American women had apprently already passed on most of these guys anyway, so where's your loss? The writer was rather condescending since he was still basking in the afterglow of a happy (and brief!) love affair, but what about those not fortunate enough to share the same fate? Is this the behavior you wish to enforce legal constraints over? Is this your "good idea"? Some overweight farmer looking for a Ukranian girl to love him is hardly terrifying, but someone using the coercive power of the State to enforce their personal likes and dislikes is very scary indeed.

I've visited many foreign countries over the years, and I really don't think that foreign women are submissive. I suppose a lot of them haven't had the opportunity to work out their thoughts on feminism, and might even reject it for the same reasons that American coloured women do, but for the most part, they don't like being kicked around any more than American women do. These men are deluded if they really think that they're going to end up with a beautiful, submissive wife who considers herself a baby-making machine. If she really grew up in poverty, she's probably more likely to skim money off what he gives her for groceries and household expenses, and then stick in a secret bank account so she has a safety net if things go wrong and she needs to escape. It's like embezzlement on a small scale, and I personally know women who do it or have done it.

It is my fond hope that the majority of these men end up with strong foreign women, and discover that treating people with respect is a universal concept, and not just a selfish demand of American women. Submissive? Maybe for the three years until she gets her citizenship. After that, she'll most likely be speaking English, familiar with all the local laws and customs, and perfectly willing to kick out a guy who isn't treating her right. I look forward to that day. There are plenty of women who walk at the first sign of domestic abuse, especially when they feel secure. (Thank you, secret safety net.)

HOWEVER, none of that negates the problem. I'm just saying that these women aren't always as helpless as they appear. They still remain in a bad position, especially in the three or so years before they become citizens. A lot would probably just take abuse because they think they don't have a choice, get pregnant within those years, and remain stuck in the situation. (I think that if someone is raised in a culture where getting divorced after having kids is bad, it'll stay with them even after leaving it.) They could end up with a man who won't given them any experience with the outside world, deliberately keeping her in limbo.

Keep in mind that these women are leaving their whole lives behind, and deserve to know what they're getting into, especially because they can't easily go back to their old lives and might not even want to. At the same time, remember that they deserve all the same respect that we demand.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if a criminal history should be required in all cases, because I think that there should be enough natural trust in a relationship to share things like that. I won't argue that I should know if my future husband killed his last wife, but do I deserve to know that he was busted smoking weed when he was 19? Does he deserve to know if I was once caught shop-lifting? (I wasn't, by the way. Just to clarify.) I would suggest that maybe it should only apply to violent crime, but I would also like to know if my future husband went to jail for tax evasion and left his ex-wife with the bill.

It's an iffy question. I can see both sides when it comes to all crime, but I don't see any leeway on violent crime without sounding like a criminal.

Sara234 wrote: "My guess is that the government knows that men who use match.com aren't abusers, otherwise why would they have this exclusion?" (re: match.com not being covered by IMBRA)

OMG!!!

What blind faith in the ability of Big Brother to protect you! I'll let you in on a big secret: do you know what governments are made up of?
PEOPLE
Humans, same as you and me.
Same likes and dislikes, gems and flaws, greatness and perversions. Naturally people fear criminals and wish to be protected from them, but historically governments have caused far more damage to life and property and that is why we constrain them legally. No one here has disagreed with disclosure of personal data per se, what we are dead-set against is pre-qualification, having to disclose PRIOR to ANY contact taking place. There is NO basis for it under Common Law, and it sets a frightening precedent. That is the problem with IMBRA. I don't see anybody having a problem with disclosure as part of the marriage or visa process, but to require it BEOFRE EVEN GETTING TO THE STARTING LINE is a vast expansion of oversight that cannot be jsutified in an inter-personal context. Just because you don't like men doing this stuff doesn't mean you can outlaw it at your whim, which is what I hear a lot of the female responders saying.

John, I've just been reading this thread and I'm curious to know
a) what you define as "feminine qualities"
b) what evidence you have that marrying American women is undesirable.
As for the relationship between having daughters and post-feminist credentials, I know quite a lot of men who have daughters and are complete misogynistic arseholes.
And, for the record, women don't necessarily view other women as "competition".

“It seems to the casual observer that American women have forgotten what it's like to be feminine.� I suspect when you say feminine what you really mean is brainless, submissive, selfless, and girly. Who the hell are you to tell us what feminine means!

Johnreed, you said I was naive to think government would determine that men who use match.com are not abusers and that is the reason they are not covered by this law. I hadn't really thought about the reason but I stayed up last night researching this. I am fearful the fact I met my fiance on match could keep us apart.

But I cannot find the reason. Neither the US senator who sponsored this law or two womens right groups that speak about it give these details. But it doesn't make sense. Naturally a man with a history of violence can log on to match. An ax murderer can log on to match. In fact, since the MOB sites are now covered by the law, all the violent men who can no longer use them will use match. This spells disaster in my opinion. American women should get ready for a wave of violence like they have never seen before. All the men who were beating up these foreign women will start beating up American women.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want this law to include match - or at least until my fiance gets his visa.

Sojourner notes that "I suspect when you say feminine what you really mean is brainless, submissive, selfless, and girly. Who the hell are you to tell us what feminine means!"
WOW!
Where did I say that? I did note that American women tend to equate feminity with weakness; you've proven my point and then some! I've seen no man here even speak in anywhere near those terms. Is what you're doing akin to black people calling each other n&gg@r?

And I can no more define feminine than I can describe a sunset, but I'll tell you that I won't choose a mate who is not. I vote with my p&@cker.

Nobody has taken my bait, so I offer the challenge again: point out a woman in the national media who has strongly feminine qualities. I cannot watch Nancy Grates, she is like a man with t&ts (I presume she has them).

John, go troll somewhere else.

It started. A man is accused of raping three women in CA that he met on a marriage site. This is American on American. So that makes me wonder: just why is this law only protecting foreign women> Why would we protect foreign women and not ourselves???http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15833372.htm

Sara, as already pointed out earlier, women who come to the US in these circumstances need extra protection because they're leaving all their relatives behind, they generally don't know anyone in the country, most of them don't speak the language very well and don't know US laws, so they don't know their rights. Not to mention that their passports can be taken away from them. Women in these situations are generally more defenseless than American women. Can you picture yourself stranded in a foreign country, without knowing anyone who could help you or even understanding the language? It's much more difficult to find help, go to the police, etc. Besides, it's easier to pressurize an immigrant into submission because they can be threatened to be sent back to their countries.

It's a good thing IMBRA was passed then. Like it or not that list of characteristics is what socially constructed femininity is. Some men will try to mystify it because they need to feed their ego. This to me describes a child

passive
follower
emotional
weak
physical

Stereotypical masculine characteristics

aggressive
leader
rational
strong
intellectual

which to me describes an adult more than anything. I like these characteristics for myself more than the first list.

These men want a child so they're pedophiles.

Sara, as already pointed out earlier, women who come to the US in these circumstances need extra protection because they're leaving all their relatives behind, they generally don't know anyone in the country, most of them don't speak the language very well and don't know US laws, so they don't know their rights. Not to mention that their passports can be taken away from them. Women in these situations are generally more defenseless than American women. Can you picture yourself stranded in a foreign country, without knowing anyone who could help you or even understanding the language? It's much more difficult to find help, go to the police, etc. Besides, it's easier to pressurize an immigrant into submission because they can be threatened to be sent back to their countries.

Scarlet - do you really believe this? I believe most of the women who come here to marry our men are sophisticated enough to know to call the police if they are being abused.

I think to characterize them as you have done above is not as accurate as we would want to believe. I just don't believe that they are that helpless. Maybe I am off base?

I also do not mind JohnReeds posting his opinion. I think we should be open to what he wants to say.

I only know three women who came here as mail order brides. Two have masters degrees and one is a CPA. All three speak English well. Maybe you know many other women who don't fit that category.

I'm not saying these women are illiterate. No matter how many degrees you have, being alone in a foreign country can be a difficult experience. If you add an abusive relationship to it, people can become trapped pretty easily. It seems pretty obvious to me. It's not about intelligence or literacy, it's about trying to get out of an abusive relationship in a foreign land, which is unarguably more difficult than for women who have a family or friends to help them, give them shelter, etc. (and we already know how difficult THAT can be).
Christine, I don't think someone who enters a discussion complaining about the lack of "feminine qualities" in feminists has anything worthwhile to contribute. Johnreed pretty much exposed himself as a troll early on.

Besides, he can't even define what these precious feminine qualities are:

"And I can no more define feminine than I can describe a sunset, but I'll tell you that I won't choose a mate who is not. I vote with my p&@cker."

If he's not a troll, I don't know who is.

What this absurd John doesn't get, is that it's not a matter of whether or not he would choose me. I would never choose him.

But clearly the concept of active female sexual agency is beyond him.

Scarlet, I see your point. But what bugs me is having to have the criminal search done before you can write to someone online. If it is done when a visa is applied for it makes sense, but we all know how many times we write to someone we meet o nline and it never goes anywhere. Frankly, I would feel creepy sending all my personal information to a guy I don't even know. I mean, maybe he will sell it to a Nigerian scammer or something. Does that make sense to you? Surely they are smart enough in Congress to know this.

I'm not saying these women are illiterate. No matter how many degrees you have, being alone in a foreign country can be a difficult experience. If you add an abusive relationship to it, people can become trapped pretty easily. It seems pretty obvious to me. It's not about intelligence or literacy, it's about trying to get out of an abusive relationship in a foreign land, which is unarguably more difficult than for women who have a family or friends to help them, give them shelter, etc. (and we already know how difficult THAT can be).

Scarlet - I can see what you are saying if someone is TOTALLY alone when they come here. But I think the vast majority of MOB do have a either a family member of friend here in the U.S. I have also heard that they can network with people from the country the come from and easily learn what options they may have in an abusive relationship.

I think we are not considering the current support systems in place that these women can turn to. The same resources available to someone from the U.S.

Scarlet - you seem like a smart, capable woman. If you were in the same situation in another country, I bet you could handle yourself just fine.

Am I off base here? I still feel these MOB are not as helpless as we think.

Christine, I think you're not considering the fact that the first thing an abusive man does is to cut "his" woman off from her support systems. Are you honestly arguing that this isn't a lot easier to do to a woman who's thousands of miles away from her support systems in the first place? That this kind of situation wouldn't have a particular appeal to an abusive man? That a woman whose passport has been taken away and whose visa depends on her abuser isn't more vulnerable than a citizen?

I'm a smart, capable woman. And if I were being beaten by my husband in Thailand--or even in France, where I have some basic linguistic skills--I would be far more vulnerable than I am here.

It's hard enough to get away from abusive spouses here. There was a movie about the Framingham 8 who killed their significant others in self defense. It's a psychological game. Even when these women moved away, got restraining orders, changed their identity, they were stalked, assaulted, etc.

What's with the ban-happiness lately?

I feel kind of sad that feminity has such a negative connotation here...of all places on a feminist board! BTW I don't hear the guys doing much of the negative defining, so one has to ask how this "socially constructed femininity" gets put together. If a guy wants to slam another guy he refers to the target's woman-ness (p*ssy, wuss etc), but I've never heard a man put down a woman by referring to her female qualities....to do that they refer to her sexual (mostly imaginary) activities. IMHO we'd be better off confronting any and all efforts to portray feminine qualities as negative or not desirable!!!

"we'd be better off confronting any and all efforts to portray feminine qualities as negative or not desirable!!!"

We'd be better off getting rid of gender stereotypes. The idea we're trying to convey is that the qualities perceived as "traditionally feminine" do not apply to all women, far from it. BTW, none of the guys who are so attached to feminine qualities has been able to define them so far.

Are you sure you want a guy to submit all of his backgound information for your review before he even says hi to you in a bar? That's how the law is written, except that right now only foreign nationals with no legal rights in the US are entitled to teh protection (which is itself weird). No doubt women might enjoy some kind of barrier to smarmy guys hitting on them, but to require all of the cards to be on the table before the first contact seems draconian. I think I hear the refrain that women are not confident in their own bullshit detectors and need somebody to guard them; this is exactly how your civil and personal liberties will be eroded away, by well-meaning but intrusive and bureacratically dictated forays into managing the dance between two people.

And another thing. If men are the problem why does this law require women to have background checks? It would be the same if the government declared a new health law to detect prostate cancer and then required all persons to get checked. Wouldn't it be stupid to check women for prostate cancer? So why do women like me marrying foreign men have to be checked? The more I learn about the law the more I realize that something fishy is going on.

Scarlet: "We'd be better off getting rid of gender stereotypes"

So do you have short hair, unshaved legs, never wear skirts, never use makeup, pick up the check when on dates with men...and think all other women should do the same?

The only meat to this law is that it severely limits the fiancee visa application that a US citizen is allowed to apply for. Since there is no meaningful way to require a foreign business to implement the disclosure requirements, it will remain largely toothless. It will, however, keep such businesses marginalized and less transparent.

For those who want to argue that such precautions should, in fact, take place (for men and women alike)...are you willing to disclose your name, mailing address, social security number, children's names and ages and former spouses name(s) to the bar owner or the gym owner or coffee shop owner or laundromat, or even church where you might meet someone? How about if that owner resides in Russia?

This is bad law and that s why they backdoored the vote during the holidays late last year.

I think IMBRA is a necessary law to help protect foreign women. A bit draconian in some aspects, but its worth it if it protects women. By the way, check out some sick thoughts of this guy.

http://www.online-dating-rights.com/blog/lestat/index.php?showentry=40

FaceDos says that the only meat to this law is that it severely limits the fiance visa application that a US citizen is allowed to apply for. Let me be more specific as this affects me: if a US citizen does not comply with IMBRA, that is if SHE meets a British man on the internet without getting her criminal past searched and giving all kinds of highly personal information to a complete stranger BEFORE she ever writes to him, then the US Government will NEVER allow him to enter the US. This law is anti-women!

Yes, Sarah234, that was my point...

Further, it is bewildering to me why anyone mistakes this law as supporting 'feminism'. Feminism is supposed to be the movement to legal, economic, and social equity in genders.

When any cause tries to sell me the notion that they must steal the rights of person A to enhance the status of person B (as is the case with this law), then I know it is bogus, both legally as well as philosophically.

I can't believe Johntroll is challenging us to come up with ONE feminine woman in the media. John, do you not have channels? Isn't the fact that a woman is a woman testimony to her femininity? Or do you think that no "real" woman would ever do anything so brazen as speak in public, write an article, produce a show?

I'm glad this law passed. Antiquated thinking like yours needs to go the way of the dinosuar.

Notanalphamale, obviously, men want to obscure what socially constructed femininity is because it's pathetic and not how most adults want to behave. Most women are not child-like, period but some men want to bring back stereotypical femininity. Feminists want to expose it.

Sara, revealing criminal records to prevent abuse clearly protects women more than men but maybe match.com, etc. made men and women reveal their criminal records so they wouldn't look gender-biased. I wouldn't say it's anti-woman but an oversight by those who proposed the law.

I mean, doesn't this remind you of the fifties?

Socially constructed femininity

passive
follower
emotional
weak
physical

Socially constructed masculinity

aggressive
leader
rational
strong
intellectual

I don't know many women who are "feminine" with all five characteristics. It's a false dualism because men and women do not fit into these two separate categories. The mass media tries to construct stereotypical femininity but women relate better to average or strong characters.

An oversight to exclude match.com, friendfinder.com, amigos.com? But these are the biggest companies. They have many thousands of international members. And just think about this: if you were a man with a criminal record, why on earth would you waste your time seeking a foreign women through a regulated site? Just meet women on match.com and they will never be the wiser when you start beating them.

Okay, I see what you mean now. It discriminates against women because they do not have criminal records to the extent of men that jeopardize the lives of foreign spouses.

"...men want to obscure what socially constructed femininity is..."

What on earth does that mean? You are speaking as if there is a universal definition of femininity. There is not. There never will be. With 4+ billion humans on earth, there are, according to my calculations, something like 4 billion different stories, sets of preferences, and lifestyles.

What IMBRA does is severely curtail EVERY US CITIZEN'S constitutionally implied right to free association. Forget the criminal disclosure nonsense, it can be easily bypassed. Just put it out of your head, because it is moot.

The only real point about IMBRA, as I already posted, is the serious and arbitrary limitation in fiancee visa applications that a US ciizen can request. That is why everyone should be against it.

Don't be taken in by the Wizard of Oz. The mirrors and fireworks of disclosure are a gimmick to cause you to look away while the Visa door gets slammed shut.

We have at least three men on this thread who cannot define femininity. This is what socially constructed femininity is like it or not. If the three men on this thread who cannot define femininity because it's so mystical and mysterious came up with a definition of femininity, it would be some variation of "weakness". Women's weakness has been prized throughout the ages to separate the classes and to determine which women were most desirable. Weakness is the most desirable even today. An example of this is footbinding which separated upper classes from lower and minimized women's agency and mobility.

Weakness conveyed luxury and class. The opposite were women who had to work and be strong.

Well it is clear that your definition of femininity is wholly negative. I think you are confusing passivity with weakness. It seems to me that many women (not all or even most necessarily) tend toward passive personalities. Perhaps passivity has a negative connotation in western thought, but the reality is yang does not exist without yin. There is no superiority, but an equilibrium.

The tango cannot be performed by two lead dancers. If it was attempted, I think the result would resemble bad breakdancing.

I have seen many couples with traditional roles, more than a few with almost perfectly reversed roles, and still others with mixed roles. If feminism has a brought a harvest after three generations, it is that any person has the right to try any lifestyle they find appealing, and keep it or adapt to something else.

On the other hand, I have seen several posts here that imply that there are good and bad roles for men and women and men.

If a person tries to tell me that my life does not reflect their ideals, and that perhaps I should change, I would suggest they read some George Sand and then get drunk. Not necessarily in that order.

It strikes me as goofy that you suggest that footbinding is a good example of anything, when various parts of the continent of africa, today, are rife with misogynistic behaviors.

Look, this site is not Women's Studies 101. If you'd like an introduction to the concept of social construction and gender roles, I suggest you read de Beauvoir's The Second Sex and some early second-wave texts.

Second, thank goodness FaceDos is here to tell us all what our priorities should be! "Forget about the criminal disclosure nonsense," indeed. Right. Just forget about abusive men and the danger they put immigrant women in. That's not what's important here. Funny how that's been many hard-core leftists response to women's issues for years.

Footbinding was the best example I could think of for weakness. FGM came to mind first but it promotes sexual passivity more than weakness. Of course, it can lead to illness and death, which can be called weakness. Corsets and high heels also promote weakness and immobility.

Anorexia and the cult of thinness in the US shows how weakness is desirable. Every model, actress, celebrity who is considered desirable is skinny with few exceptions.

Intrusive laws like this that Big Brother just loves (new government jobs, more cops, more work for lawyers) are just the same idea from a different angle: women are unable to protect themselves and need somebody else to do it. Most of the liberated women on this list have bought that idea without a second thought...isn't this the same as weakness? "God made some men big and some men small but Colonel Colt made them all equal" i.e. men's physical superiority is easily negated by technological means, us scrawny guys figured that out long ago.

notthealphamale, take a more nuanced look at the situation. like i said it's hard enough for american women to get out of abusive relationships. i have a neighbor who married out of high school, beaten regularly, had to hide out at another neighbor's cabin for months with a gun at the ready. the police can't really protect you, men harrass women at their jobs until they are fired and once again isolated, they are stalked, threatened and restraining orders are a joke. abusive relationships are not about weak women because it's psychologically difficult to get out of a abusive situation. the other issue was the perception foreign women were weak. it is something western men want to believe until reality hits them and their foreign wife asserts herself. they buy into the stereotype that weak women are desirable and are in for a surprise after they get married.

the framingham 8 for example became very strong through the brutal torture and abuse they endured. they were typical working class women who did everything they could have possibly done in a their situation and still couldn't get out. defending our lives is a great documentary. pretty shocked when i saw it. one of them got out of prison this month when she never should have been there.

so foreign women need to know their rights more than women here. they need more assistance because they don't speak the language, can get deported back to bad situations at home, don't get citizenship for three years while their lives are in limbo, don't have family or friends when they arrive, don't have their own funds, can't get jobs right away without language skills. they are at a complete disadvantage.

Donna you just said men are in for a surprise when the realize the foreign wife is not what they thought. And probably you know that some of the foreign wives are scammers. So instead of concentrating on protecting ONLY the foreign women, why doesn't the government protect the American men. I mean, after all, this is the American government.

donna said

so foreign women need to know their rights more than women here. they need more assistance because they don't speak the language, can get deported back to bad situations at home, don't get citizenship for three years while their lives are in limbo, don't have family or friends when they arrive, don't have their own funds, can't get jobs right away without language skills. they are at a complete disadvantage.

AGREED

But, tell us, why in YOUR opinion should a man be required to provide very personal information to anyone BEFORE he can JUST SEND HER AN EMAIL? Not talking about meeting, not about dating, not about marriage - JUST TO SAY HELLO? What is the purpose of this provision in the IMBRA? Good luck, because no one has really answered this question, at least rationally...not even the lawmakers.

sara, imbra will hopefully discourage the process altogether. looking at some of those company emails, it's like trafficking. the companies employ madames who sell sell women and obscure any important information about men. they leave it completely to the men to tell the women who they are. as long as you're out of jail and free to marry, they don't care if you're jack the ripper as one said. the men can tell any lies they want or hide anything they want. the women are at a much greater disadvantage. it sets up an environment for abuse.

the purpose of imbra is to protect women who are at a disadvantage. the purpose of men emailing these women is to get to know her and marry her. that's what this post and thread was about and discussed AT LENGTH.

that last part was for the male commenter. my mom always said men don't "just want to say hello."

if you want to get graphic, she'd say, first they say hello, then they buy you a cup of coffee, then all they care about is YOUR HOLE, then you get HOOKED.

"that last part was for the male commenter. my mom always said men don't 'just want to say hello.'... if you want to get graphic, she'd say, first they say hello, then they buy you a cup of coffee, then all they care about is YOUR HOLE, then you get HOOKED." - donna darko

This explains so much for me. Thank you.

Yes, moms are always right.

Ha!!! Right you are. ;)

I'm outahere. After reading the tortured logic by supporters of this law who have little or no knowledge of critical facts I realize this is no place for answers but for women like Donna to express their deepest, darkest fears about men, although I do thank her for revealing the true intention of the supporters of this law: to prevent American men and American women from marrying wives and husbands abroad.

You girls can have the place to yourselves.

No, Sara. To prevent them from using mail-order bride brokers.

And that's "women" to you.

I heart you, EG.

Right back atcha, Sylke! Thanks.

A love fest all around mwah mwah. Yes, Sara, it's only to protect women from this racket. Good luck with your hubby-to-be. I'm sure you won't have any problems with all the requirements.

I comment alot on this thread only because trolls keep coming. Trolls go nuts on posts about mail order brides. *eye roll*

You too, donna! Yeah, you took on a lot here. It's some kind of weird MRA thing, I think--like somehow men have a right to a mail-order bride.

And, yes, best wishes to Sara.

Sara: "So do you have short hair, unshaved legs, never wear skirts, never use makeup, pick up the check when on dates with men...and think all other women should do the same?"

So you had to pull that old feminist stereotype out of the closet? You forgot bra burning and male castration...
I don't "think" women should behave in a given way, I happen to think we are all human beings and all unique and there is no such thing as a universal definition of "femininity". FYI, I have long hair, wax my legs, wear make-up and skirts (and bras).

"It seems to me that many women (not all or even most necessarily) tend toward passive personalities. Perhaps passivity has a negative connotation in western thought, but the reality is yang does not exist without yin. There is no superiority, but an equilibrium."

Anybody else spot a dinosaur?

Donna said

the purpose of imbra is to protect women who are at a disadvantage. the purpose of men emailing these women is to get to know her and marry her. that's what this post and thread was about and discussed AT LENGTH.

Are you implying that a foreign woman (or any woman for that matter) is at a disadvantage upon receiving an email? How is the intent of the sender relevant to her safety any more than the safety of an American woman?

Would she be at any less of a disadvantage if she received background information about the man during the visa process WHILE she was still in her country? Or does she really need her hand held like a child by the Tahirih Justice Center, a group that seems to think these women are not fully evolved adults who can think for themselves.

Like EG said, this isn't Women's Studies 101.

I'm sick of the troglodytes on this thread who feel entitled to mail order brides due to male privilege. Maybe someone else can answer these knuckledraggers' questions.

Finally, what is your intention in emailing a mail order bride? Unless your Nicholas Kristof doing an undercover assignment to protect a few of these women, why are you interested in emailing someone in this situation? Why do I have no interest in emailing mail order brides? Is it because I'm not romantically interested in any of them?

Finally, what is your intention in emailing a mail order bride?

Actually, I am emailing an adult woman. I prefer to not use derogatory terms.

Since SHE decided to join a dating site, my intent is exactly the SAME as hers - to communicate. Why must she have my personal background information before she is allowed to do what she elected to do in the first place? After all, her intent when signing up with the site was not to review my personal background information - it was to receive and send emails. Do you think that is because she slept through her women's study class?

Donna notes:
"I'm sick of the troglodytes on this thread who feel entitled to mail order brides due to male privilege. Maybe someone else can answer these knuckledraggers' questions."

I thought we've been thru the whole legal thing about controlling other people's bodies, or did I miss a step? Perhaps you should tell me why I need your approval and/or legal permission to marry whomever I choose, wherever they happen to have been born?

Live by the sword, die by the sword. You establish the legal precedent of governmental supervision of inter-personal relations, the REAL bad guys will ram it right down your throat.

This is from another site where the discussion is about Bonnie Erbe's recent article.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/10/a_rare_moment_o.html

The greatest defense against feminism and its attempt to level the social playing field or otherwise re-engineer society in this country is actually provided by the government, and only costs about $50! That’s right, a passport. It gives American men exposure and makes them aware of how good life can be with a woman; a woman who really believes in and practices equality – the equality of loyalty, the equality of honesty and the equality of desire to establish a family. They are beautiful, slim, hygienic, accommodating, family oriented. Yes, it is all true. The fact that they exist and are accessible by American men does not sit well with feminists. Couple this with the fact that there are millions (and growing) of these women and you have one of the best platforms for escalating feminist ire.

The international dating websites really set the feminists off. Imagine that, a handful of small after-hours garage businesses created a scornful and bitter storm. So much energy, money, time went into addressing less than 10,000 marriages per year (the majority of foreign-bride marriages are not even web related). That alone tells you that this is an emotional issue; a whining issue that is aimed at the “message� promoted on these sites. The foreign dating websites represent so much of what feminists can't stand: they offend feminists and feminism, pit American women against foreign women, AND enable American men to snub their noses at feminism while sidestepping the feminist paradigm that took so long to instill upon them. The feminists will do anything and everything they can to put a stop to it.

But in the big picture, they can’t stop it and they cannot win. As long as there are multitudes of non-feminist foreign women in the world, they cannot win.

As long as multitudes of non-feminist foreign women exist, no law short of prohibiting foreign travel by American men will stop men and women from acting on these powerful forces. They will find each other and there is nothing you can do about it; there is nothing IMBRA can do about it. IMBRA, as a defacto ban of international matchmaking sites, may affect the "message" that men have a way around the feminist paradigm of social re-engineering (and temporarily cool feminist anger) but in the big picture it is meaningless.

Rather than getting all bent out shape in an effort to support IMBRA, you should use your intense hateful energy for spreading feminist doctrine overseas (bring a bodyguard or two) as that may get you closer to your goal.

yes lee, feminists dont like it cuz what we really want is to keep all our men to ourselves :barf:

although this statement was enough to make me realize whatever you said would be complete crap:
"a woman who really believes in and practices equality – the equality of loyalty, the equality of honesty and the equality of desire to establish a family. They are beautiful, slim, hygienic, accommodating, family oriented."

uh what? you might have well said the "equality to serve me". and all foreign women are beautiful and slim? wow, i didnt know you knew every woman who didnt live in america, and there dress sizes!

::barf::

:D

Lee, if you want to marry one of these women and she wants to marry you, more power to the both of you. Seriously. But if you have priors on your record of beating the tar our of your partner/stalking/rape etc., then you shouldn't have wooing privilidges. There are consequences of the above-mentioned behaviors, and those consequences aren't satisfied once you step foot out of jail or pay your fine. If these foreign women are as appealing as you say, then they should have their pick of men who are crowding the internets seeking them and should be able to make an informed choice. I don't know many women who go looking for a nice wife-beater to settle down and have a family with.

Or do you think a violent men needs only to find the "right woman," and he will suddenly sprout angel wings? This kind of thinking is particularly dangerous, since any woman who got a beating would surely have "earned" it, right? At least that's what several MOB brokers alluded to in their letter to Equality Now when they posed as a repeat offender man.

I get the feeling that a lot of men seeking foreign brides feel they're entitled in some way to a young, beautiful, subserviant woman. They're not, and you're not. These women aren't playthings, they're people, and if you have violence in your past then they are entitled to know.

I think a lot of the uproar about IMBRA is coming from men who have something to hide.

Word, Sylke.

"They are beautiful, slim, hygienic, accommodating, family oriented."

It's the "hygienic" that cracks me up--what is this woman, a lemon-scented wet-nap? Do American women not shower enough for this guy, or something? That bad feminism: not only does it make women decide to have goals and careers of their own, they don't wash their hair enough, either! Trust me, Lee, non-American women shit and sweat just like the rest of us.

Really, Lee, you and all the other MRAs who hate this legislation need to try and wrap your minds around the fact that feminist women are not upset at the thought of losing your precious penis to foreign women: we do not want to marry a man who wants and expects a woman to cater to his needs and submit to him. If we did, sad to say, there are plenty of opportunities to do so.

The idea that he is the center of the universe, that all women really secretly want him, and that the true source of feminist anger is that we just can't get a man is so central to these MRAs--clearly the possibility that he is not the king of the mountain is deeply disturbing to men like Lee.

"These women aren't playthings, they're people, and if you have violence in your past then they are entitled to know."

100% AGREED. In fact, no person who posted here has stated that she is not entitled to know.

However, no person who posted here has been brave enough to rationally answer this question:

...why should a man be required to provide very personal information before the woman is allowed to send him her very first email? Not talking about meeting, not about dating, not about marriage - JUST SO SHE CAN SEND AN EMAIL. That is, what is the purpose of this "hand-holding" and patronizing provision in the IMBRA? Why is not enough for full disclosure to be made when (AND IF) she applies for a visa? (That is mandatory already and there is NO uproar coming from any men regarding this).

No one has really answered this question, at least not rationally...not even the lawmakers.

Please keep in mind, I am not using childish or offensive words so a DIRECT answer, rather than a weak and SIDEWAYS childish response, with insults such as mail order brides and knuckledraggers, would be appreciated. Your writing seems to be smarter than Donna's.

dear lord there are a lot of trolls around this week!

If men aren't made to give up information about a violent past at the beginning of a corresponence, when will they? Will they at all? The woman can still correspond to a violent man if she wants to, it's just an informed choice. There are women who meet and marry men who are serving life sentences for rape and murder.

I see it as part of "the weeding out proccess." I would think a woman would be thankful for this (I know I would), since she can choose not to waste her time with someone who has a violent past. I know I wouldn't want to. You beat your wife? Were convicted of a rape? Buh bye.

Why are we whining about the "rights" of abusers? If a man has nothing violent in his past, then he has nothing to worry about. If he does indeed have a violent past, then he should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that, whatever they may be.

If someone has HIV/AIDS and is dating, isn't it ethical to tell potential partners quickly so the person can assess the risks and choose to be involved or not? When violence is concerned, the women overseas who marry offenders are the ones who will no doubt bear the brunt of exactly what it is they don't know. That's why they need to know.

This policy is so blooming obviously necessary that I can't believe anyone actually opposes it.

Q: Who is more likely to want submissive mail-order brides? A: Someone who has a need to dominate, can't find any local partners, and doesn't mind having that kind of control over another person's life. Hello?

There might be some decent men in that category, but most of them are going to be scumbags, and some of those scumbags are going to be especially dangerous scumbags. When they have a documented history of being especially dangerous scumbags, their prospective victims deserve to know it.

I wonder if these MRA jokers also oppose Megan's Law?

Cheers,

TH

Reading some of the posts here, the inferences are unmistakable:
#1, many feel perfectly comfortable requiring men to prove that they are harmless before they can proceed;
#2, women have no control and are apparently unable to make healthy relationship choices, therefore need ever more layers of "protection" (from their own bad judgment?);
#3, sexual identity is paramount, even if only one guy is an abusive ass then the other 99 guys also have to take the litmus test;
#4, if folks here were really concerned about the health and welfare of foreign women, they'd be busting their tails to get then married to American men because American males are far less abusive than foreign males.

Lee pointed out that no male here has argued against disclosure during the visa or marriage process. None. The point that pre-qualification is totally against our entire legal and civic tradition is repeatedly lost in the drumbeat of "protect us from dangerous males".

Folks, I have no need to insult you, make reductio ad absurdum arguments (Megan's Law {rolling eyes} please!), appeals to fear, or use blanket references to aberrant social behavior to justify my position. The law as written is flat-out UNCONSTITUTIONAL and will not survive judicial review. Personal data disclosure is part of the process, but most definitely not the part that happens before anything else.

{Jennifer, since Tom is a guy can I nail him? Please? Might be fun for the ladies to watch the bulls face off ;-)

It's a rare ability to be able to pack so many logical fallacies into such a short space.

While you are still in school Tom, be sure and read up on why we do not apply group classifications, preconditions, and a priori assumptions of guilt. Does providing your personal information to unknown foreign nationals appeal to your sense of civil liberty?

Tom doth protest too much anyway. Do share with us the source of your insights into scumbag male psychology, especially as it pertains to mate selection.

While we are at it, please update your terminology to the proper century. Mail-ordering of brides was a well-documented historical practice which was quite acceptable at the time, but we are now in the 21 century and nobody can order anything much less thru the mail.

notTheAlphaMale, maybe now would be a good time to mention that when I said in another thread that I enjoy whipping it out in public, I was joking--and, that being the case, I have little interest in a cockfight.

You did make one legitimate point in all that mess, which was that the law may well turn out to technically be unconstitutional. There were some sections of the VAWA that had the potential to turn out to be unconstitutional. That is not a moral judgment; very bad laws can sometimes be found constitutional and very good laws can sometimes be found unconstitutional. The Constitution is essential to our system of criminal justice, but it can't turn shit into shinola, or vice versa.

Whether or not the law is constitutional is debatable, and best left to the judiciary. My concern is whether or not the law is oppressive or immoral, and I don't believe that it is.

And I will happily update my terminology to the proper century when gentlemen such as yourself update your gender politics accordingly.

Cheers,

TH

And I do have one question for you, Mr. Male: What legitimate reason could anyone possibly have for hiding his criminal history from a mail-order bride? Doesn't she have a right to know what she's getting into?

Cheers,

TH

Wow. It's hard for me to think of a man less bullish than Tom, so no, Male, slamming a thoughtful long-time commenter is not so much fun for me to watch.

Suggesting that our support of this legislation is indicates that we think that women have "bad judgment" is absurd. How on earth is a woman who may well be corresponding in a second language, over email, which hides many if not all of the affective cues that we use to judge character and safety, whose correspondent is deliberately hiding a violent history from her, supposed to form reliable judgments? Is she telepathic all of a sudden?

This legislation would allow women to make better judgments, earlier in the process, before they've mired themselves in visa applications, and before they make any emotional commitments. That's not insulting: it's empowering.

"if folks here were really concerned about the health and welfare of foreign women, they'd be busting their tails to get then married to American men"

Are you kidding? Are you really suggesting that marriage to men is the best, most feasible solution to women's problems worldwide?

"if folks here were really concerned about the health and welfare of foreign women, they'd be busting their tails to get then married to American men"

I love how the answer to the problems of the world from American men is...American men. Soon they'll all think they're so awesome and too good for the rest of us that they'll be looking on Mars for a "worthy partner."

Delusions of grandeur much?

I really did leave, but just came back to give a link to a news story about a man accused of raping dozens of women he met on match.com: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=4713302

There is also a CNN video running today on this at their site.

I tried so hard to find out from the law's supporters on this site why they thought the law excluded match.com and if I recall there were few responses other than to say that American women don't need the protection foreign women need.

This news may cause some of you to rethink that position.

But it there is an IMBRA for American women that would apply to match. com, would that not mean that I would have to reveal that I had a DUI almost 15 years ago?

I think that would be irrevelant since I am now 36 years and this happened when I was 21 years old.

Christine, you just don't get it. Men need to know about your DUI even if it was a youthful discretion. They even need to know if you were arrested by mistake. And they need to know it BEFORE you can speak or write to them.

I just want to point out that abused women do not necessarily start out as submissive as we often envision them to be. I am definitely NOT saying the anyone ever deserves to be abused, because they don't, but that those who end up as abuse victims often didn't start out that way. Saying (or implying) that empowered women won't become subject to abuse is completely disingenuous and ignorant, and it does even more harm to victims of abuse. ANYONE can become a victim of abuse, no matter how strong or weak they are; whether or not they are abused is entirely dependent on the ABUSER, not the victim.

Also, very relevant to this conversation is a clear list of the reasons "immigrant women...face specific problems" (you have to scroll down a little).

Jennifer,
Here's my blog. I don't need censorship. I'm not afraid of people with different opinions ("trolls", in your parlance). You are free to reply to direct questions from other posters. I am not afraid of free speech, as you so clearly are: this alone shows how weak your position is.

Let's see how much backbone you really have.

http://www.online-dating-rights.com/blog/johnreeds/index.php?