Do Mail-Order Brides Make "Good Wives?"

[Ban Hammer 14,800]

They must be the ones I dated

[SMR 368]

I must not have received the updated feminist agenda, because I've never been taught to be "me first" and force my husband to "take a back seat to my desire for power and control". Rather, what you wrote in bold is what I see as the ultimate goal, as a feminist. However, I don't think that is the "traditional" marriage that is generally being sought.

I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth or define what type of feminist you are (or if you really are one at all). There are naturally different types of feminists and what a feminist is has certainly changed.

My point is that the quote that the article took from whatever book it is criticizing simply states that some men don't feel like some women are interested in having an equal partnership and that those men are looking for women that are interested in that type of partnership. It takes a certain type of cynical feminism to state that when a man says he wants a equal partnership in his marriage he is really saying that he wants a submissive wife who will do whatever he tells her. Essentially that is what the article is implying.

Take a step back from the article and just read the quote. It's not really stating that men want submissive wives. It's pointing out that men want an equal partnership with their wives.

Once again, nothing is personally directed at you. If you don't feel like you identify with the type of woman talked about in the quote, it's likely that you don't. I certainly don't feel like this quote applies to all or even most women or American women. I happened to be in Russia for a couple years and met a Russian that I decided to marry. But I really don't have anything against American women nor was I driven away from them to look elsewhere.

And, feminist revisionism? Do you really think the idea that fifty years ago marraiges were largely male dominant is that extreme of a concept?

Whether or not it's extreme is relative and not really the point. I don't think it was the reality. I look at my grandparents and other elderly couples that I know. For the most part they have balanced, loving relationships. Naturally, I know some elderly people who had bad experiences in relationships and were abused and taken advantage of. But I know roughly as many men for whom this is the case as women. Of course in most cases I only have one side of the story. But I've got no reason to believe that the women were abused while the men are making it up.

[Captain Oates 911]

The fact is that 'love' is relatively modern concept and a husband expressing 'affection' or 'fondness' for his wife was all that was necessary in the past where simply forming a partnership to get through life was more important

There are few men who want to be bossed by a woman and many men who want to lead. Many modern men are weak and candidates to have the house taken over by a strident and bossy woman who naturally enjoys that role if she can get away with it.

The military does not have everyone the same rank for a reason. That reason is that leadership is necessary and that means there are leaders and the lead. Imagine a million military personnel where everyone was equal.

Most men don't like to be lead by a woman but some see the sense of allowing that when the woman has leadership qualities and the man doesn't. My father acknowledged that my mother was cleverer than him and followed her advice on anything complex, but he still shut her up quickly when she got lippy with it and tried to run the joint and become demeaning and abusive..

Male subservience is not natural in the primates - one look at a silver back male gorilla will confirm that.

Opposing nature will always lead to adverse consequences including cancers brought on by stress. Low sperm count among dominated men is only a minor consequence.

[Ban Hammer 14,800]

The military does not have everyone the same rank for a reason. That reason is that leadership is necessary and that means there are leaders and the lead. Imagine a million military personnel where everyone was equal.

led, not lead

and if everyone had the same rank, they'd be arguing over dates of rank.

[Jenn! 918]

I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth or define what type of feminist you are (or if you really are one at all). There are naturally different types of feminists and what a feminist is has certainly changed.

My point is that the quote that the article took from whatever book it is criticizing simply states that some men don't feel like some women are interested in having an equal partnership and that those men are looking for women that are interested in that type of partnership. It takes a certain type of cynical feminism to state that when a man says he wants a equal partnership in his marriage he is really saying that he wants a submissive wife who will do whatever he tells her. Essentially that is what the article is implying.

Take a step back from the article and just read the quote. It's not really stating that men want submissive wives. It's pointing out that men want an equal partnership with their wives.

Once again, nothing is personally directed at you. If you don't feel like you identify with the type of woman talked about in the quote, it's likely that you don't. I certainly don't feel like this quote applies to all or even most women or American women. I happened to be in Russia for a couple years and met a Russian that I decided to marry. But I really don't have anything against American women nor was I driven away from them to look elsewhere.

Whether or not it's extreme is relative and not really the point. I don't think it was the reality. I look at my grandparents and other elderly couples that I know. For the most part they have balanced, loving relationships. Naturally, I know some elderly people who had bad experiences in relationships and were abused and taken advantage of. But I know roughly as many men for whom this is the case as women. Of course in most cases I only have one side of the story. But I've got no reason to believe that the women were abused while the men are making it up.

But I think the quote implies that many, if not most women must be this certain type of feminist ("the types of women we meet now"), i.e. selfish and power-hungry, otherwise they wouldn't have to be "looking back" to a more "traditional" woman. I just don't think that this is reality. Of course, as you point out, it's all a matter of perspective, I guess.

If you are of the opinion that the way most relationships work nowadays is equitable, than it is implied that those who want to go back to a more traditional arrangement are looking for something less equitable. On the other hand, if you think that the way most relationships work nowadays has the balance of power shifted to the female, then it is implied that those who want to go back to a more traditional arrangement are looking for something more equitable.

As for our grandparents' marriages. I think they were loving, but no, I do not see them as balanced. That is not to say that they were abusive.

[Captain Oates 911]

led, not lead

and if everyone had the same rank, they'd be arguing over dates of rank.

Damn yankee spell checker.... led it is.

I will buy her indoors a corporals stripes to sew on her work clothes and I will buy an Argentinian Admirals' uniform

Date of rank works for me...

Nancy Grace is my worst nightmare - shudder - just imagine getting in at midnight in her house

[Captain Oates 911]

I think we ignore genetics and the large portion of our being which is ape, at our peril.

The reason we are 'all the same', is genetics and not philosophical or agreed between us.

Admitting that 80% of our actions and daily routines are animal is actually a great argument against racism because we are essentially all the same.

It does follow that we would be (virtually) the only mammal to be equal between the sexes and certainly the only primate - so equality is not natural to humans. Different roles is much more natural and if that is seen as equal then fine - but when stick comes to lift, it isn't natural for the woman to take charge. As humans we are talented and do lots of things which are against nature, so it's perfectly possible to strive for equality and for a man to have a female boss - but we fight nature every time we do it

I am not against women joining the army and dying in the front lines instead of men. Women have the vote and it's good that they should get a taste of what they have been urging men to do for millenia (handing out white feathers etc), and then vote accordingly if they survive.

The British troops overwhelmingly voted in 1945 to throw out Churchill and the war mongerers and establish a socialist government. They had experience to draw on.

The bride agencies know what men are looking for and the girls dress in silk and try to look demure. They know the market. Any Thai woman who comes over like Margaret Thatcher will stay on the shelf.

Western women do the same at a lower level - until they marry and the guy signs - and then the gloves come off

[Krikit 1,166]

Rob and ALC: Please stop trading insults. Thank you.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Some of the most controlling women I know are those who have the most traditional views about marriage.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Can I trade a 40 for two 20's?

[Captain Oates 911]

Some of the most controlling women I know are those who have the most traditional views about marriage.

and they are the smart ones... softlee softlee catchee monkey

They will get far more out of life than the jack booted Nancy Grace types who end up wondering why he went off with the hairdresser who had no college degree but had pink fluffy cushions at her apartment...

The Thai ploy will work forever unless some Janet Napolitano type stops it because she is driven by her own dark resentment of men's preferences

Edited January 4, 2011 by Alan the Red

[rin and john 71]

Can I trade a 40 for two 20's?

No problem, but given the low trade-in value of the 40, you will need ALOT of cash to complete the transaction....

[Captain Oates 911]

No problem, but given the low trade-in value of the 40, you will need ALOT of cash to complete the transaction....

I would never go back to 40 year olds - mere novices

[Ban Hammer 14,800]

Can I trade a 40 for two 20's?

that only works with guns.....trading in your old .44 for a pair of nice .22's

[Captain Oates 911]

that only works with guns.....trading in your old .44 for a pair of nice .22's

A good 40 will supply your health insurance while you goof off and post junk all day on VJ and drink coffee and eat choccy biscuits

A 22 will take your credit card to town and go off with Jose the gardener and pull a Lindsy Lohan on you and her dad is still young enough to punch ya

No contest

Edited January 4, 2011 by Alan the Red