Anonther Moscow Approval

[shikarnov 7]

#######

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

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

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

Z

[eekee 182]

Mense words... Good pun.

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

#######

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

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

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

Z

Edited April 3, 2008 by eekee

[eekee 182]

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

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

i thought it was purposeful.

[shikarnov 7]

Mense words... Good pun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Z

[eekee 182]

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

All of the stuff you mentioned is really small potatoes.

Mense words... Good pun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Z

Edited April 3, 2008 by eekee

[eekee 182]

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

[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!!