<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why can&#8217;t I buy a girl like that?</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:04:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jaffe</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475845</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475845</guid>
					<description>You think that is scary?  Just read this regarding foreign women -

Breeding a Brave New World

American men can make a difference for themselves and the next generation.  Practice self-genocide and honor the marriage strike at home and stop the transfer of wealth to American women.  Earn locally.  Then marry and breed globally.

http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=1274.0

_____________________________________

There are photos at that link that really bring this nutjob's message together</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>You think that is scary?  Just read this regarding foreign women -</p>
	<p>Breeding a Brave New World</p>
	<p>American men can make a difference for themselves and the next generation.  Practice self-genocide and honor the marriage strike at home and stop the transfer of wealth to American women.  Earn locally.  Then marry and breed globally.</p>
	<p><a href='http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=1274.0' rel='nofollow'>http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=1274.0</a></p>
	<p>_____________________________________</p>
	<p>There are photos at that link that really bring this nutjob&#8217;s message together
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475417</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:43:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475417</guid>
					<description>Something that still bothers the hell out of me when it resurfaces in my mind - maybe it'll go away if I tell the anecdote enough times - is a brief exchange I had with a coworker. It started out as a discussion of a local fancy restaurant, which I'd said I'd recently had a chance to try out because a couple of friends were taking us all out to dinner to celebrate their recent marriage. Since they'd gotten married overseas, this was their first opportunity to celebrate with their US friends. In any case, as part of explaining the situation (which was probably a mistake on my part) I mentioned that the wife was Russian.

&quot;Oh!&quot; says my coworker, with a smile halfway between delight and wink-wink nudge-nudge smugness, &quot;Is she a mail-order bride?&quot;

&quot;No!&quot; I busted out, stammering. &quot;No! God no! They met while he was living in Europe! Fell in love, dated, etc., in the normal social human sort of way! Mail-order bride? No!&quot;

Which probably came out as &lt;em&gt;the lady doth protest too much,&lt;/em&gt; but the thought that only tact kept me from voicing (coworker, remember; burning bridges at work not a good idea) was, &quot;My God, woman, what kind of man do you think my friend is that you'd suggest he'd patronize a mail-order bride outfit? What kind of person do you think I am that you think I'd be friends with such a man? What kind of person are &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; that you seem so delighted by the idea?&quot;

Until then I hadn't realized that once you put the words &quot;wife&quot; and &quot;from Russia&quot; in the same sentence, people assume &quot;mail-order bride&quot;. It's &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; fringe anymore. Which is damn scary. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Something that still bothers the hell out of me when it resurfaces in my mind - maybe it&#8217;ll go away if I tell the anecdote enough times - is a brief exchange I had with a coworker. It started out as a discussion of a local fancy restaurant, which I&#8217;d said I&#8217;d recently had a chance to try out because a couple of friends were taking us all out to dinner to celebrate their recent marriage. Since they&#8217;d gotten married overseas, this was their first opportunity to celebrate with their US friends. In any case, as part of explaining the situation (which was probably a mistake on my part) I mentioned that the wife was Russian.</p>
	<p>&#8220;Oh!&#8221; says my coworker, with a smile halfway between delight and wink-wink nudge-nudge smugness, &#8220;Is she a mail-order bride?&#8221;</p>
	<p>&#8220;No!&#8221; I busted out, stammering. &#8220;No! God no! They met while he was living in Europe! Fell in love, dated, etc., in the normal social human sort of way! Mail-order bride? No!&#8221;</p>
	<p>Which probably came out as <em>the lady doth protest too much,</em> but the thought that only tact kept me from voicing (coworker, remember; burning bridges at work not a good idea) was, &#8220;My God, woman, what kind of man do you think my friend is that you&#8217;d suggest he&#8217;d patronize a mail-order bride outfit? What kind of person do you think I am that you think I&#8217;d be friends with such a man? What kind of person are <em>you</em> that you seem so delighted by the idea?&#8221;</p>
	<p>Until then I hadn&#8217;t realized that once you put the words &#8220;wife&#8221; and &#8220;from Russia&#8221; in the same sentence, people assume &#8220;mail-order bride&#8221;. It&#8217;s <em>not</em> fringe anymore. Which is damn scary.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Nancy</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475176</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475176</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;There have been societies, even western ones, which were harsh towards male adulterers as well as female, and societies that were fine with female nonmarital affairs.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Examples please.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>There have been societies, even western ones, which were harsh towards male adulterers as well as female, and societies that were fine with female nonmarital affairs.</p></blockquote>
	<p>Examples please.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Nancy</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475175</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:49:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475175</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;#

You mean that y’all let me in but deny entrance to others? I figured that if you let someone like me, who would challenge almost anything Amanda wrote more controversial than 2+2=4, participate, it was open admissions! :)
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yeah, what IS your obsession with Amanda anyway? I've addressed you several times and even suggested that you're timid, yet you won't respond.

What's the matter McFly? Chicken?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>#</p>
	<p>You mean that y’all let me in but deny entrance to others? I figured that if you let someone like me, who would challenge almost anything Amanda wrote more controversial than 2+2=4, participate, it was open admissions! <img src='http://pandagon.blogsome.com/wp-images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />
</p></blockquote>
	<p>Yeah, what IS your obsession with Amanda anyway? I&#8217;ve addressed you several times and even suggested that you&#8217;re timid, yet you won&#8217;t respond.</p>
	<p>What&#8217;s the matter McFly? Chicken?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mickle</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475150</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-475150</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I don’t know if they actually want to marry and have children, Helen, as much as they want you to give up your career for them.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

After which they will often &quot;jokingly&quot; ask you if you are ever going to work again.  Unless, of course, you've made the proper choice and simply given up your &lt;i&gt;career&lt;/i&gt;, but still work outside the home in a job that is only slightly less dull than cleaning house.

(sorry, Thanksgiving with the family was fun, but my brother-in-law still gets on my nerves on a regular basis)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>I don’t know if they actually want to marry and have children, Helen, as much as they want you to give up your career for them.</p></blockquote>
	<p>After which they will often &#8220;jokingly&#8221; ask you if you are ever going to work again.  Unless, of course, you&#8217;ve made the proper choice and simply given up your <i>career</i>, but still work outside the home in a job that is only slightly less dull than cleaning house.</p>
	<p>(sorry, Thanksgiving with the family was fun, but my brother-in-law still gets on my nerves on a regular basis)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mister Nice Guy</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474971</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474971</guid>
					<description>Ad at the top of the front page for beautiful Chinese wives!  Topical!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Ad at the top of the front page for beautiful Chinese wives!  Topical!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jesurgislac</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474866</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:43:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474866</guid>
					<description>Dana wrote: &lt;i&gt;Marriage was supposed to be the legal, economic and cultural cementing of personal relationships, to aid in their stability, assist in their permanence, and provide a recognized and stable structure for procreation and child-rearing.&lt;/i&gt;

Sure, but then the anti-marriage types - like you, Dana - started arguing that couples who aren't interfertile shouldn't be allowed marriage as a  legal, economic and cultural cementing of personal relationships, to aid in their stability, assist in their permanence, and provide a recognized and stable structure for procreation and child-rearing. 

Since you yourself have argued consistently that marriage is solely about the ability of two people to be interfertile, that marriage is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; for people who want &quot;a  legal, economic and cultural cementing of personal relationships, to aid in their stability, assist in their permanence, and provide a recognized and stable structure for procreation and child-rearing&quot; but is all about a couple being physically able to conceive children together, it is ironic that you complain now.

Odd, isn't it? Same-sex couples who want to get married would agree wholeheartedly what marriage is &lt;i&gt;for&lt;/i&gt;. Yet you yourself, Dana, have argued that marriage is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; for these couples - because though many same-sex couples have children, you insist that a couple must be interfertile before they can marry: merely having children by adoption, fostering, a previous marriage, or AID is not good enough for you. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Dana wrote: <i>Marriage was supposed to be the legal, economic and cultural cementing of personal relationships, to aid in their stability, assist in their permanence, and provide a recognized and stable structure for procreation and child-rearing.</i></p>
	<p>Sure, but then the anti-marriage types - like you, Dana - started arguing that couples who aren&#8217;t interfertile shouldn&#8217;t be allowed marriage as a  legal, economic and cultural cementing of personal relationships, to aid in their stability, assist in their permanence, and provide a recognized and stable structure for procreation and child-rearing. </p>
	<p>Since you yourself have argued consistently that marriage is solely about the ability of two people to be interfertile, that marriage is <i>not</i> for people who want &#8220;a  legal, economic and cultural cementing of personal relationships, to aid in their stability, assist in their permanence, and provide a recognized and stable structure for procreation and child-rearing&#8221; but is all about a couple being physically able to conceive children together, it is ironic that you complain now.</p>
	<p>Odd, isn&#8217;t it? Same-sex couples who want to get married would agree wholeheartedly what marriage is <i>for</i>. Yet you yourself, Dana, have argued that marriage is <i>not</i> for these couples - because though many same-sex couples have children, you insist that a couple must be interfertile before they can marry: merely having children by adoption, fostering, a previous marriage, or AID is not good enough for you.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jovan1984</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474861</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474861</guid>
					<description>I see that there are a lot of posts about mail-order brides.  Tyra Banks actually did a show about how international women are expolited (and even killed) by their American husbands (her show was then in Los Angeles).

And Jennifer Armstrong -- you're a natural blackbelt!  Maybe you should kick some Nice Guys®' ass so badly, he'll think twice about bothering you or the rest of us Pandagonians.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I see that there are a lot of posts about mail-order brides.  Tyra Banks actually did a show about how international women are expolited (and even killed) by their American husbands (her show was then in Los Angeles).</p>
	<p>And Jennifer Armstrong &#8212; you&#8217;re a natural blackbelt!  Maybe you should kick some Nice Guys®&#8217; ass so badly, he&#8217;ll think twice about bothering you or the rest of us Pandagonians.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Cara</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474824</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474824</guid>
					<description>inge:  &lt;i&gt;Yeah, well, they only want to be loved for their money.&lt;/i&gt;

Of course.  It's much easier than being a decent person.  And even a lazy slob without MUCH money can get pussy if women remain the sex class.  If women turn into &lt;i&gt;people&lt;/i&gt; it just raises the bar too high.  What's a lazy selfish pig to do?


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>inge:  <i>Yeah, well, they only want to be loved for their money.</i></p>
	<p>Of course.  It&#8217;s much easier than being a decent person.  And even a lazy slob without MUCH money can get pussy if women remain the sex class.  If women turn into <i>people</i> it just raises the bar too high.  What&#8217;s a lazy selfish pig to do?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: inge</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474797</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/16/6448/#comment-474797</guid>
					<description>Amanda: &lt;i&gt;In short: I the MRA have to pay women to have sex with me. This proves that I'm actually very desireable &lt;/i&gt;

Yeah, well, they only want to be loved for their money. 
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Amanda: <i>In short: I the MRA have to pay women to have sex with me. This proves that I&#8217;m actually very desireable </i></p>
	<p>Yeah, well, they only want to be loved for their money.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
