Anonther Moscow Approval

[shikarnov 7]

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

*slaps forehead*

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

I dont understand why that's ridiculous, but my examples were small potatoes? One man who will have his job options limited, who will forever be an immediate suspect whenever there's an assault near to him, who will face protests whenever somebody gets curious enough to research sex offenders and finds a "rapist" in their midst. A woman ostracized by a community of women who purportedly are fighting for choice - but only support women making choices then they agree with them. Or my ex-girlfriend having to, essentially, sign exactly the same kind of consent form the Australians propose to have it on record that she's actively choosing to be with me.

Z

[proberts1 0]

Congrats!

[eekee 182]

Considering the vast amount of rapists/sex offenders who weren't prosecuted or who were let free who roam free on the streets, yes. Obviously there was enough evidence to convict this guy. As I said, it is incredibly difficult to actually prove that someone raped someone else. Usually it is the girl's word against the guy's with no witnesses.

Sex=power. There is no denying this fact, and your workplace just wanted to make sure that your relationship was not one about power or workplace mobility. Many work places ban office romances altogether for this reason. At least you had an option to have a relationship without being fired.

I dont understand why that's ridiculous, but my examples were small potatoes? One man who will have his job options limited, who will forever be an immediate suspect whenever there's an assault near to him, who will face protests whenever somebody gets curious enough to research sex offenders and finds a "rapist" in their midst. A woman ostracized by a community of women who purportedly are fighting for choice - but only support women making choices then they agree with them. Or my ex-girlfriend having to, essentially, sign exactly the same kind of consent form the Australians propose to have it on record that she's actively choosing to be with me.

Z

Edited April 4, 2008 by eekee

[eekee 182]

Oh, and by the way, I know several girls who have pressed charges. None of the guys were convicted.

[Bobalouie 0]

Here are the questions that were asked during the interview:

Where/How we met

How many times I have been to Russia to visit

How long I stayed on my trips

What do I do for a living

What does she want to do for work in the US

She asked about our house in the US and wanted to see pictures (we didnt have any with us, and that was OK with the consul)

Asked about the agency we used

When I started writing to her

Wanted to know what information the agency gave to her when we started communicating

Asked if I had been married before, had any children, any brothers or sisters

And then jokingly asked if I was a criminal.

Rubber stamp Rubber stamp, you will have your visa in 7 days.

The interesting thing here as this is the first time I have heard of the IMBRA line of questioning (I checked the box and provided info on the agency on the I-129F petition). She said the interview was about the same for all the girls that she talked to. I wonder if they are getting ready to start cracking down on the IMBRA stuff because I have not read any reports about the in depth questioning regarding an agency and what they provided. It appears to me that the consul was attempting to put together a timeline of events to make sure that we were IMBRA compliant. Something to keep in mind.

I forgot to mention, even though they asked a lot of IMBRA type of questions, they didnt seem overly concerned. My fiancee told me that they asked her several questions along the lines of the IMBRA stuff that she didnt know the answer to. She could not remember the questions either. So, it would seem that they are not cracking down too hard because they accepted 'I dont know' as a valid answer.

[Bobalouie 0]

Mense words... Good pun.

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

#######

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

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

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

Z

Here is exactly what I have a problem with: One of the cornerstones of our society is the presumption of innocence UNTIL proven guilty. It permeates not only judicial matters but the way that we interact with people. IMBRA assumes from the word go that I am a liar. That I am being untruthful with my significant other about my life. I have never raped, sexually assulted or otherwise harassed any woman in my life. Why should I have to prove that I am not a good and truthful person to the government in order to LEGALLY marry a foriegn woman, simply because I met her through a 'marriage agency'? I have to prove all that and more to the government's satisfaction before I can even say, 'Hi my name is Bob, how are you' in an email.

I dont have to do any of that before I marry a woman from my own country. Whats more, I dont have to do it with a foriegn woman as long as the place that I met her through does not charge men 'significantly' more for membership than they do for women. I also dont have to prove it when I meet a foriegn woman on a free website or through a church sponsored website or a website like Match or Yahoo Personals. Why is that? Are women on free websites or match or yahoo better equipped to protect themselves? I dont think so.

This law is obviously significantly catywampus with respect to its 'protection'. It makes distinctions that completely undermine what the law is trying to accomplish. It is ABSOLUTELY man-centric and I have to wonder why that is. It seems to me that its bias is clear - if you are an American man actively seeking a foriegn woman for the prospect of marriage, SOMEONE has decided that things should be more difficult for you. BUT, if you are an American man who HAPPENS to meet a foriegn woman and you DECIDE to get married, you dont need to jump through the hoops.

This law was based on a sample size of occurances that was so small it has no statistical significance.

[eekee 182]

I don't support IMBRA, BTW.

Mense words... Good pun.

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

#######

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

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

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

Z

Here is exactly what I have a problem with: One of the cornerstones of our society is the presumption of innocence UNTIL proven guilty. It permeates not only judicial matters but the way that we interact with people. IMBRA assumes from the word go that I am a liar. That I am being untruthful with my significant other about my life. I have never raped, sexually assulted or otherwise harassed any woman in my life. Why should I have to prove that I am not a good and truthful person to the government in order to LEGALLY marry a foriegn woman, simply because I met her through a 'marriage agency'? I have to prove all that and more to the government's satisfaction before I can even say, 'Hi my name is Bob, how are you' in an email.

I dont have to do any of that before I marry a woman from my own country. Whats more, I dont have to do it with a foriegn woman as long as the place that I met her through does not charge men 'significantly' more for membership than they do for women. I also dont have to prove it when I meet a foriegn woman on a free website or through a church sponsored website or a website like Match or Yahoo Personals. Why is that? Are women on free websites or match or yahoo better equipped to protect themselves? I dont think so.

This law is obviously significantly catywampus with respect to its 'protection'. It makes distinctions that completely undermine what the law is trying to accomplish. It is ABSOLUTELY man-centric and I have to wonder why that is. It seems to me that its bias is clear - if you are an American man actively seeking a foriegn woman for the prospect of marriage, SOMEONE has decided that things should be more difficult for you. BUT, if you are an American man who HAPPENS to meet a foriegn woman and you DECIDE to get married, you dont need to jump through the hoops.

This law was based on a sample size of occurances that was so small it has no statistical significance.

[visaveteran1 33]

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?

[native 0]

Seeing the big scars people who went to school in the soviet union have from their immunizations, her upset is understandable. Ouch!

As i recall, someone on this board--Blues Fairy?--was in the same situation as Nadya and she just went to the nurse or something of a local school and had them fill out an immunization history for her of the standard ones USSR schoolchildren had to get.

Yeah I think it was Blues Fairy.

Nadya's a nurse so I'm sure she's got connections to hook her up with the right documentation. As Slim is fond of saying, these ladies know their way around a system. I'm not too worried. And if we don't have to pay for more immunizations, no complaints here.

thats AWESOME!!!! congratulations!!

[slim 1,514]

But, while I knew the US government has been doing some shady stuff in recent years, this is just simply maddening.

Doesn't anybody in government believe in the Constitution anymore? In its spirit or its written text?

There are still a whole bunch of people out there who swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic... however the other part of that oath they took states they must obey the orders of the President, and he's the first one in line to ignore the Constitution whenever it's convenient. So, kind of hard to hold everyone accountable when the BS starts at the top and rolls right on down hill.

But I think there are a lot better ways to protect these women than what I'm seeing from IMBRA.

These women can be protected much in the same way any women can be protected - .357!

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

All of the stuff you mentioned is really small potatoes.

You are correct that the vast majority of rapes go unreported and a large number of those reported go without convictions. However, there's a HUGE difference in being one of the four women who get sexually assaulted in their lives and someone who is raped.

The instances that you list above place you at just as high a risk of being victimized in any type of crime as they would in rape. The fact that you're a woman definitely increases the probability of being raped, as the specific crime, but your probability of being victimized doesn't change. In fact, you're much more likely to be a victim of robbery or assault (possibly together) than any other crime while you're walking alone.

When you look at actual figures from the "one in four" women who are sexually assaulted, there's a figure that is often overlooked, and that is their relationship with the offender. More often than not, women are assaulted by someone they know and are close to. Women who are raped almost always know their rapist. While I'm not going to go so far as to say the "one in four" placed themselves in situations where they allowed themselves to be victimized, I will say they definitely increased their probability of being victimized, and that's not something that's fair to blame on the other sex as a whole. No one ever deserves to be victimized, but placing yourself in a position to be victimized is not something that can be accurately represented in a different figure later, and often times, it is cited as the figure for victimization.

And since we're already here...... My personal belief is if you get raped, you should have two black eyes, a couple of broken ribs and at the very minimum a big knot on the back of your head. If you don't, then you were raped before you were victimized.

Someone busting down your door, holding a gun on you while their friends take turns gang banging you, and you don't know who they are, sure, I can see not having the black eyes and not fighting back. However, in this type of scenario, or the "walking alone late at night" scenario, "one in four" doesn't apply.

You can't use the "one in four" to argue that women need special protection.

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

Dave Chappelle does a nice bit on this very subject. He talks about having the woman sign the consensual sex agreement BEFORE engaging in any sexual activity..... "and sign here for #######."

Oh, and by the way, I know several girls who have pressed charges. None of the guys were convicted.

Women, (and men too) please educate yourselves and each other on the course of actions necessary to convict someone in your state.

As illustrated above, the "he said she said" simply does not hold up in court. Why? Because as shikarnov also illustrated, there is an extremely high instance of folks being "a little bit drunk and going too far..." only later to realize they were "raped." In the case of walking to a parked car late at night and someone jumps out of the bushes, the social stigmata associated with being raped by someone known isn't present and the conviction rates go up astronomically.

Why? Because of the actions taken by the victim immediately after the incident. The "pressing charges" is something that's usually done WAY after the fact, (anything more than 24 hours is WAY after the fact) and that's why there's a very small conviction rate. If you report the crime immediately and comply with the local procedures, conviction isn't guaranteed, but it's way more likely. If that were to happen, you'd see that "one in four" statistic decline dramatically.

What does all this have to do with IMBRA? Absolutely nothing. IMBRA is as useless as every other "background check" the govt. does. You don't stop criminal activity by making them voluntarily conform with the law. They don't follow the law, that's why they're criminals. (Unless they're the President, then they can just do whatever they want.)

[shikarnov 7]

There are still a whole bunch of people out there who swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic... however the other part of that oath they took states they must obey the orders of the President, and he's the first one in line to ignore the Constitution whenever it's convenient. So, kind of hard to hold everyone accountable when the BS starts at the top and rolls right on down hill.

< snip >

What does all this have to do with IMBRA? Absolutely nothing. IMBRA is as useless as every other "background check" the govt. does. You don't stop criminal activity by making them voluntarily conform with the law. They don't follow the law, that's why they're criminals. (Unless they're the President, then they can just do whatever they want.)

The only thing I'd say to this is that the POTUS is only the head of one branch of government -- and that's not even the part that makes laws. So, when you have Congress passing things like IMBRA, it can hardly be considering following orders from the top. Additionally, the President can't do anything without, at the minimum, the implicit approval of Congress.

We're supposed to have a system of checks and balances designed to protect the Constitution. The folks who framed it understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that each branch should stand independent with the goal of ensuring that no one branch, or indeed one person, would ever attain the power to do anything they desired. Unfortunately, that system is broken, but it's not because people serving as POTUS are naturally clamoring for more and more power -- it's because everybody else allows it to go unchecked, unbalanced, and undisputed.

Z

Edited April 4, 2008 by shikarnov

[slim 1,514]

The only thing I'd say to this is that the POTUS is only the head of one branch of government -- and that's not even the part that makes laws. So, when you have Congress passing things like IMBRA, it can hardly be considering following orders from the top. Additionally, the President can't do anything without, at the minimum, the implicit approval of Congress.

We're supposed to have a system of checks and balances designed to protect the Constitution. The folks who framed it understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that each branch should stand independent with the goal of ensuring that no one branch, or indeed one person, would ever attain the power to do anything they desired. Unfortunately, that system is broken, but it's not because people serving as POTUS are naturally clamoring for more and more power -- it's because everybody else allows it to go unchecked, unbalanced, and undisputed.

No, it's because the system has become too big to function effectively. When something like IMBRA has to be included in a Justice Department bill that has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, then you start having various forms of government overlapping the others. When that happens, there are no checks and balances. Even when they're designed to be checks and balances. (Like IMBRA.)

And as far as the President not doing anything without the implicit approval of Congress, how can you justify his blatant disregard for the Constitution and international laws? Not even the U.N. or NATO has stopped him.

Plain and simple, the America that our forefathers attempted to set up does not exist anymore. It's supposed to still be there, and you have the right to believe it is, but it's more perception than practice.

[eekee 182]

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?

Edited April 4, 2008 by eekee

[shikarnov 7]

No, it's because the system has become too big to function effectively. When something like IMBRA has to be included in a Justice Department bill that has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, then you start having various forms of government overlapping the others. When that happens, there are no checks and balances. Even when they're designed to be checks and balances. (Like IMBRA.)

And as far as the President not doing anything without the implicit approval of Congress, how can you justify his blatant disregard for the Constitution and international laws? Not even the U.N. or NATO has stopped him.

Plain and simple, the America that our forefathers attempted to set up does not exist anymore. It's supposed to still be there, and you have the right to believe it is, but it's more perception than practice.

I don't justify President Bush's action with regards to the Constitution or International Law. I think its reprehensible what the Congress is allowing him to get away with. Congress passed the PATRIOT Act. Congress approved the changes in the Executive Branch that unified many separate agencies into a single monolith force. Congress has not stood in this president's way as he sought to consolidate and centralize power around the Executive Branch and his own office.

And the founders of this country understood that centralization is a bad bad idea. They understood this basic Aristotelian principal that inefficient democracy is far preferable to efficient tyranny. They chose our system because it wouldn't be efficient. They knew that government could be a force for good or for evil. Rule by many is slow work, for good or for bad. Rule by one is efficient, in being good, or doing harm.

Consider the following table:

As for NATO -- that organization isn't designed to stand against the United States. Its principal purpose is to mount a credible threat to Russia. That's all that it ever really was. I don't see what the European members would do about things like our PATRIOT Act, or other erosions or violations of our Constitution, as long as we stand with them when the time comes.

Z

[shikarnov 7]

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.

This is an often quoted statistic that has been explained many times by the fact that it's an overall average that doesn't take into account the number of women who take years off or leave the workforce entirely for one reason or another. It also doesn't take ambition, or lack thereof, into account. Men are more likely to fiercely climb to the top of the corporate ladder, where as women (in general) are more likely to wait for rewards to be handed to them as a form of recognition.

By and large, two people working in the same position, with the same experience, bringing the same zeal, and offering the same contributions will make the same money - regardless of gender.

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.

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 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...

That's real feminism that you're talking about. And I don't disagree with it. Unfortunately, more often than not, feminism is about women's rights instead of equal rights. Why does there need to be Violence Against Women Act (of which IMBRA is a part), when we already have all kinds of laws protecting all citizens from all manner of crime, violent and other. The message is clear: women are special. They have special needs, and require special considerations. It's not about equal rights.

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.

If Ira comes home after a hard day's work to clean the house and cook supper, bathe the kids, and put them to bed, I'd be astounded. I never went overseas looking for a new wife, even though I'm coming back with one. And I'd never expect her to be some kind of glorified maid. But it is nice that she appreciates me opening the car door for her, whereas I've been on dates with women would bristle if opened the door for them, paid for dinner, or did anything else that, in the civilized world, is considered good manners.

IMBRA is not really a feminist issue per se.

Maybe it's not to you, but to NOW and other members of the feminist lobby it certainly is. Maybe you didn't read some of the quotes upthread about their involvement...

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

Extremism, in any form, is never good... Unfortunately it often goes unchallenged. And all that's needed for evil to reign is for good people to do nothing.

Z