I may not be a Clinton supporter, but when you have this level of misogyny floating out on the airwaves, all women are being slimed and it has to be called out. From the O’Reilly Factor, guest Marc Rudov, author of Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (no lie) said this:
Is this akin to the Homosexual Agenda? Do any of you gals out there have a copy of the plan for world domination?O’REILLY: Tonight, we begin a brand new segment called, “He Said, She Said,” where we’ll deal with issues from a gender-based point of view. The segment will run every Friday, but we wanted to debut it tonight with a very provocative question: What is the downside of having a woman become president of the United States?
…RUDOV: You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?
O’REILLY: But guys have mood swings, Marc. And you know —
RUDOV: Right.
O’REILLY: — they have other control issues, as we just heard with Governor Spitzer and we saw with various presidents. So come on now, let’s be fair.
RUDOV: Well, you know, I’m joking. Of course, the main problem I have is if a woman has a female agenda. If she doesn’t have a female agenda, if she just wants to be an executive for all the people, then all I care about is if she’s qualified. And I have no qualms about having a female president.
But if we take Hillary Clinton, she specifically does have a female agenda.
Even IF there were any sense whatsoever in his comment, and a female President DID have a specifically female agenda, she’d still be representing 55% of the population by definition, right?
Even that assumes no overlap whatsoever between a female agenda and a male agenda.
I’m not a particular fan of Senator Clinton, but WTF?
As loathe as I am to give Falafel boy any credit, he did at least offer a token argument against the idea that women are incompetent because their tiny minds are slaves to their hormones.
I mean, the man is still scum and it wasn’t actually the response that was required (which would have been, in a perfect world, “‘PMS and mood swings?’ Did the last five decades just roll by unnoticed in your tiny head or what?”), but, I dunno, I think that means he scores 2.4 out of a hundred on gender issues or something.
The female agenda is pink. And scented.
Oh, God, Mark Rudov. He’s on Men’s News Daily with the rest of the MRAs. I can’t read his tripe without my eyes rolling into the back of my head. His PMS comment didn’t surprise me in the least.
Of course, white men don’t have a “male agenda” or a “white agenda.” Indeed, we have a long tradition of white male presidents serving as excellent “executives for all the people.”
Female agenda? Is that anything like my Franklin Covey?
Wow, O’Reilly calling someone on (part of) their BS. I’m impressed?
From Amazon.com
“Marc Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley (Bay Area), California. Although formally educated in engineering and business, he possesses a vast informal education in relationships with women.”
Bwaahaahaa. That last sentence has to be one of the funniest I’ve read in a while.
The female agenda is pink. And scented.
Ismone’s right about the pink and scented thing. And the female agenda costs three times as much as the male agenda.
Other than that, it’s exactly the same.
Of course, white men don’t have a “male agenda” or a “white agenda.” Indeed, we have a long tradition of white male presidents serving as excellent “executives for all the people.”
Snide comment from a fiction writer’s workshop years ago:
“Women should only write female characters because they can’t write believable, convincing non-female characters. It’s the same way minorities can’s write convincing whites and gays can’t believable straight characters.
Straight white males, however, can write any kind of character and be perfectly convincing at every one.”
Must be the power of the pale penis, or something.
Why yes indeed, because all those other bipeds you see aren’t really “people,” you know.
They’re some kind of aliens with non-people-relevent “agendas”.
I saw O’Reilly’s reply as more of a way to throw a softball at Rudov, not actually taking on Rudov’s nonsense, which would have been easy enough to slap out of the park for anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
Dang it! I think I left my copy of The Female Agenda on the bus with The Gay Agenda! No wonder I miss all the meetings.
When Bill O’Rielly calls you out as sexist, you’re in a sad, sad place.
It’s interesting that “all the people” can’t include half of the people, or else it’s a “female agenda”. My admittedly Marxist radical feminazi view believes that women are part of “all the people”.
Oh, that Rudov. Below is a section from a diatribe he wrote recently. Where does he get this stuff?
_______________________________
Why were radical feminists from Tahirih (Tahirih Justice Center) so bothered about American-foreign romances that they felt compelled to create and lobby for IMBRA? The scuttlebutt is that they resent American men bypassing them — and the shackles of American feminism — for foreign women, who don’t seem to possess that unique American-style hatred of men.
Plainly said: Men are becoming increasingly sick and tired of American women, and they are looking elsewhere for romance. I get a fair number of e-mails from men saying that they have given up altogether on American women. Tom Leykis frequently mentions on his daily radio show that, for the same reason, he also has forsaken American women.
Let’s look at the cauldron of left-wing thinking — the American gynoversity — and how it breeds the radical feminism that drives men away from American women. There is no better example than Antioch College, nestled in Yellow Springs, Ohio. In 1991, the “Womyn of Antioch” designed the Sexual Offense Prevention Policy (SOPP), which requires that a man and woman seek mutual consent at every stage of intimacy.
Source: http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/05/13/unhook-that-bra/
Which is scary when you realize that Men’s News Daily thinks Glenn Sacks is a pansy, feminist-hugging lefty.
“My admittedly Marxist radical feminazi view believes that women are part of “all the people”.”
Don’t you realize 9/11 changed EVERYTHING?!?!?
Racism, sexism, bigotry against LGBT people, and religious bigotry are not just tolerated, they’re in high demand!
It’s a whole new world of hate!…
I got my female agenda as a tear-out appendix in my copy of The Feminine Mystique; if you bought a used copy of the book you probably didn’t get one. Mine didn’t come scented though (boo!) so I had to spritz it with some perfume. Now it’s perfect! I sleep with it under my pillow.
Oh god, the Antioch College canard. As teenagers, my boy and I jokingly had sex to those guidelines occasionally- it was hot.
That was half my lifetime ago. Dosen’t this stooge have anything more recent to illustrate how AWFUL consenting sex partners are?
Yes, I admit it. I’ve been leaking copies of the Female Agenda. Here’s todays:
- Fix a healthy breakfast
- Vacuum the living room
- Secretly replace Playboys with Oprah magazines
- Get a manicure
- Spike the water cooler at Fox News with estrogen pills
- Go shopping for new shoes
- Submit plans for world domination to my Jane Austen book club
- Bake brownies.
I had a copy of the female agenda but I menstruated all over it. Can someone help a sister out?
And it isn’t like all the old white dudes we’ve had so far haven’t had a “male agenda”. Because that seems to be the default for everything. That Rudov guy seems like a complete asshole and it’s a wonder he can even get a woman to speak civilly to him, much less anything else, as he seems to think we’re not part of “the people”.
I swear by Female Agenda Feminine Deodorant Spray, but I understand there are health reasons to eschew the Female Agenda Disposable Douche product line.
(Rudov: king of the disposable douches!)
@Floyd: Ha! You win.
I don’t suppose anyone else here has ever played INWO, because “The Feminist Agenda” would be an extremely useful addition…
… at what ’stage of intimacy’ does Mr. Rudov believe consent is no longer required?
Hmmm… maybe if I payed my Smith College Alumnae Association dues this year, they’d send me a copy of the Female Agenda. Cause if they don’t have it, I’m probably shit out of luck.
As for that bit up there at #13, about American women and Antioch… My paternal grandparents met during their first year of college at Antioch and got married that summer. Decades of marriage, 5 kids, 16 grandkids, 1.5 great grandkids, and a masters degree held by granny later… That’s one American man who was perfectly happy with an American woman.
ithaqua, the real dogwhistle in that is the bit about men being driven away from “American women”. Wingnut MRAs have this fantasy that men will simply go buy themselves mail-order brides (because dark-skinned women are all submissive little cherry blossoms) and then we’ll be sorry!
lol I’m curious to know what exactly the female agenda entails- I mean at least the gay agenda is supposed to mean gay people are “recruiting” helpless straight souls, but what are these gangs of women going to do? Perform sex changes on men while they sleep?
I have a copy of the Female Agenda, too. It comes with baking yeast and OB tampons just to confuse matters.
Wingnut MRAs have this fantasy that men will simply go buy themselves mail-order brides (because dark-skinned women are all submissive little cherry blossoms) and then we’ll be sorry!
Or they’ll go to Russia, the Ukraine, or one of the former Soviet republics, where they can get a woman white as the proverbial driven snow yet who “knows how to treat a man.”
Anyhow, men like these, to paraphrase what Amanda wrote in another thread, think that feminism is all about teh wimminz getting together and raising the compensation they exact for touching men’s pee-pees. Of course, feminism HAS meant that women don’t have to marry choads in order to live apart from their parents, have sex, and support themselves, so men who choose to remain choads have fewer options.
Oh, and the title of Rudov’s book? I pray thee, WTF? Did he crib it from the Onion or something?
“Female agenda”?
Apart from the lack of acknowledgement of the “male agenda”…don’t women make up 51% of the population anyhow? And didn’t Bush carry the country in 2004 with less than a 1% popular vote margin and call it a “mandate”?
mister falafel again. didn’t he get sued for harassment or something?
mythago wrote:
ithaqua, the real dogwhistle in that is the bit about men being driven away from “American women”. Wingnut MRAs have this fantasy that men will simply go buy themselves mail-order brides (because dark-skinned women are all submissive little cherry blossoms) and then we’ll be sorry!
___________________________________
Rudov is promoting this fantasy along with hundreds of legal international dating websites. American men with the financial means (and there are many) who don’t want to “put up” with an equal dating relationship can (and do) fly a few hours south to Central and South America for care-free escapades. Yes, Rudov is a clown, a bafoon, but putting foreign women on some superiority pedastel is bad for both American and foreign women.
murcielago:
Wait! By that logic, we women have a mandate! To advance the female agenda! Woohoo!
Heather:
Methinks it is worse for the foreign women than the American ones. A friend of mine born in the former soviet union was asked by client two decades older than her (she was a trainer at a gym) what “race” she was so that he could get a mail order bride “from her country.” Ewwww. She was so shocked she actually told him.
As Carol Tavris long ago pointed out in The Mismeasure of Woman, this is pretty much the opposite of the truth, because women have had to study men throughout their lives, just in order to keep afloat. Anyone in a lower-rank position in a hierarchy has to study the behavior, thoughts and desires of the dominant class, or else they’ll get clobbered.
So all of this is just another great example of projection — rich white males have ignored everyone else’s interests for so long that they can’t imagine anyone in power doing anything else.
Most directly, it is worse for the foreign women. However, the messages promoted by the foreign matchmaking industry may justify, in the minds of American men, a new-found disrespect for American-born women and expectations of equality. In addition, men who travel to arranged parties in the third world (arranged by US companies!) may return with a very different view of women they date and work with. It has take five decades for men to come around at least a little and pushing supposedly “non-feminist” foreign-based women into the dating mix seems like a setback.
Ismone, wouldn’t our “mandate” include switching this word to “WO-mandate”?
Here- take a pink Sharpie and just write “WO” in front of every word starting with “man-” in your dictionary.
womanners, womanual, womanifest, womanipulate, etc.
BTW, does anyone else have this at the top of their page over the Pandagon logo?
Not on your life, sport!
And didn’t Bush carry the country in 2004 with less than a 1% popular vote margin and call it a “mandate”?
Technically, he *lost* the popular vote, and still declared that he had a mandate. That is a fabulously low bar.
No no, louise, you’re doing it wrong. Not only do you have to write “wo” in front of all words that begin with “man,” you have to change the a to a y. Ex: womyndate. Granted, that does sound like a 1980s lesbian dating service, but them’s the breaks.
Um, what? Not in Clinton’s case, unless the “PM” in PMS stands for “post-menopausal”…
Heather wrote: …but putting foreign women on some superiority pedastel is bad for both American and foreign women.
Is it really a “superiority pedestal” when the main reason such women are theoretically superior is because they’re easier to subjugate?
The disconnect in thinking like this — America is superior, but I want a non-American wife because she’ll be more like the 1950s era American fantasy I’m looking for in a wife, and she’ll do a good job of teaching our many children how to hate those filthy communist foreigners — just boggles my mind.
(headslap) Thanks, Betsy… also, I just realized we gotta rearrange the dictionary pages, too! Skaters reverse; Z is now first so W is way before M…
Um, what? Not in Clinton’s case, unless the “PM” in PMS stands for “post-menopausal”…
Seriously, every time someone brings up Ye Olde PMS Explanation for anti-Clinton views drives me crazy. Other than the duh fact that PMS does not inhibit a woman from effectively performing her job, there’s the fact that this woman in particular is 60. While I am not privy to the innermechanics of her uterus, I’m going to take a shot and say that PMS is probably not an actual factor in her life at this point.
Marc Rudov seems to be a little tiny gigantic bit of an arrogant controlling douchebag to me. But I’m a PMSing woman, so disregard my opinion completely.
The snide comment from writing class reminds me of Dorothy’s Sayers’ wry essay, where a man asked her how she could write such convincing male characters when she’d gone to an all girls’ school and hadn’t had much contact with men until she’d turned 21. She just said “I didn’t think of my male characters as men. I thought of them as human beings, so it was easy to write about them.”
Back to the subject, here’s a fun link for those who are wondering about whether sexism or racism is stronger in Presidential preference. Apparently, women voters prefer either Democrat to McCain, while male voters prefer McCain to either Democrat.
Hilary’s “female agenda” is to become president while female.
If we could get a female candidate without that agenda, I’m sure everything would be fine.
Brian @ 11
You’re probably right. After listening to O’Reilly spout reactionary gibberish, you kinda grasp at the tiny semblances of quasi-lucidity like a drowning man clutching at driftwood, though. It’s odd enough that he even makes sense that anything that seems reasonable at first glance, even if it’s just a softball, can shine like a star of reason in a dark miasma of bullshit.
I was pleasantly surprised that woman who spoke in response to Rudov did a pretty good job hitting all the right points (except for a couple of weak moments when she accused Hillary of playing the gender card.)
I wouldn’t give O’Reilly too much credit. After all, this was his segment. Even asking whether there is a downside to having a woman president gives credence to the idea that this is a debatable point.
I always think it’s funny how MRA’s think American women have problems getting married. They actually buy all that patriarchal crap about it being easier to be killed by a terrorist than find a mate after 30 and that your eggs have all aged off by then anyway.
Funny how the facts show that American women are still getting married.
My copy of the Female Agenda has
“Castrate Marc Rudov”
as the first item.
Must be why he fears it so: he knows we’re after him….
@Ali:
Wow, O’Reilly calling someone on (part of) their BS. I’m impressed?
Yeah, he used to do that more often before he degenerated into the worthless bigshot windbag phase of the political journalist’s lifecycle.
@Betsy:
I thought GWB only lost the popular vote in 2000. Could you point me to evidence that he lost the popular vote in ‘04? At any rate, all this mandate stuff is crap; if an action is correct lawful and in the public interest, it shouldn’t matter whether the president has a “mandate” or not. Similarly, if it is incorrect, unlawful, and against the public interest.
All I can say is thank god for this segment, because if there’s one person I want to hear talk about gender issues, it’s Bill O’Reilly.
I’m still shocked at the thought of O Really having a segment on gender issues. Is this some kind of bizzaro mirror universe I’ve entered?
Whoa…interesting thread.
First of all, Heather, Marc Rudov has steadfastly refused to mention IMBRA or VAWA on national TV.
He told me that he was scared to do so…that the conservative men on Fox News might agree with the IMBRA law out of misguided chivalry and “would be too stupid to understand” VAWA before turning the channel to sports.
Then he told me, the number 1 fighter of IMBRA, that he never wanted to talk to me again as long as he lived, because I insisted he was wrong.
So, by not mentioning IMBRA or VAWA on television, he is basically doing your work for you.
You have him in your pocket when all he says on TV is that Hillary might have a PMS attack.
He is a great comedian. Don’t knock it considering he has the IQ and the knowledge to be a lot harder on feminists…simply by mentioning the actual legislation they have gotten passed recently and by mentioning the illegal funding mechanisms such as the Office on Violence Against Women at the DOJ funded secretly via the Commerce, Science & Justice Appropriations Bill every October.
If he only used the opportunity he now has by being promoted to being on OReilly as well as Cavuto…to say light hearted thngs like “Hillary Clinton will probably institute background checks for men to get Passports”…then maybe he would do the victim-feminist movement some damage (as opposed to the equity feminist movement which is cool.
While there is a VAWA lawsuit going on in NY, Rudov doesn’t mention it on TV. Then again, maybe OReilly and Cavuto won’t let him get serious.
VAWA was, of course, struck down by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in US vs Morrison because you cannot have a law that says that violence against women is a federal hate crime while men are dying left and right from violence and that just remains a state’s right’s issue.
Only a matriachy/gynocracy, facilitated by eunuchs singing in the Castrati choir could have such a law as VAWA.
If Rudov were to mention IMBRA on national TV, there would be hell to pay for the Tahirih Justice Center and their unconstitutional funding…not to mention the federal funding of most feminist groups that don’t deserve it.
Heather explains why IMBRA was passed: Feminists have an insecurity about the foreign women and they use the words of a few arrogant men to console themselves that only “jerks” go to Europe and date the competition.
Russia has two universities that equal Harvard in international estimation. I date a student at one of them.
Do you want to know what foreign women think of the concept that American men who date them are losers? Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihW4P8Bcrxc
You tell our girlfriends that we chose them because they are BENEATH you…and then you have the nerve to say you represent them and feel sorry for them.
Do you understand the extreme depth of your arrogance when you do that?!
IMBRA prevents foreign women from exercising the basic human right of giving out their contact information and accepting a “hello” based on their OWN terms, not the US Government telling them that they are not allowed to receive a man’s letter or call or text message until they have background checked him to the bone.
Plus IMBRA deliberately makes it so women without email can NEVER be contacted because they will not be able to “sign in writing” that they read a man’s background check.
People are going to go to jail for having pushed through IMBRA dishonestly.
I would like everyone here to seriously examine this law and join the fight to get at least part of this vicious law overturned. Check out OnlineDatingRights dot com for more details and, if you want to ridicule the ideas there, then start an argument and see if you win intellectually.
Another thing about IMBRA is it is the mangina Congress arrogantly ignoring what the Supreme Court already upheld, which is the right of Americans to be anonymous in contact with others.
Also, reread “1984″ by George Orwell (the anonymous screenname-knickname for Eric Blair).
“1984″ was about the government interfering with a personal relationship. They felt they needed to disclose to Julia that Winston had betrayed her under torture. She broke up with him based on the information. Orwell meant to say that it was the government that was evil for doing that, even though the information was enough to cause Julia to break up with him.
The book ends with Winston cheering for his country’s attack on a new enemy seen on TV. He has forgotten what his government did to him and he believes that the enemy his country is attacking is his enemy. The reader is inclined to think otherwise.
And by the way, MRAs often love American women. Some of the best even post at MND. Look at Dr. Helen. There is no reason to be insecure about the foreign competition. Yes, it is brutal competition because, with cheap airfares and Internet, there will always be someone younger, smarter, prettier waiting in the wings. But that is certainly no reason to make up stories about how the men who travel don’t respect you enough so you are going to say they tend towards “domestic violence” and get them regulated as the first subgroup of American men to be regulated since blacks had no rights.
IMBRA is not being complied with by the way. Cherry Blossoms is ignoring the law. Others just pretend to follow it. Clinton will have to replace her own retiring Supreme Court justices before working into the other 5.
Only a matriachy/gynocracy, facilitated by eunuchs singing in the Castrati choir could have such a law as VAWA.
It always comes down to balls with these guys.
Rudov’s point that HRC will be the woman’s candidate:
“As president, Hillary will continue her lifelong fight to ensure that all Americans are treated with respect and dignity.”
But HRConly mentions one gender - that she will stand for the rights of women. Other leaders represent their constituents; no need to tell one group they will be represented by her.
I want a president that will not give preferential policy planks to one group or the other. I want a president that will represent ALL Americans, and representing women and mentioniing NOTHING about men is not leadership.
It’s advocacy.
““1984″ was about the government interfering with a personal relationship.”
…okay, along with a lot of other important stuff, like constant government spying, government torture, continuous warfare, etc.
And most of all, the need of authoritarians to diminish/eliminate the individual. On the extreme left, that would be called “collectivism”, and on the extreme right, it would be called “patriotism”, or “love for the homeland”, etc. In either case, it is an unremitting evil…
“They felt they needed to disclose to Julia that Winston had betrayed her under torture. She broke up with him based on the information.”
Now we have a problem. Winston and Julia were in the middle of one of their trysts, when they were both arrested and taken away. They only saw each other again after the torture each endured had completely broken them as human beings. They never “broke up”, they were forcibly separated. Any communication given to either one about the other was just another mindfuck…
Are you sure you actually read 1984?…
“Orwell meant to say that it was the government that was evil for doing that…”
I don’t know why it’s necessary to put words in Orwell’s mouth that are already quite explicit on the page, but…
“…even though the information was enough to cause Julia to break up with him.”
Huh? Still doesn’t look like you actually read the book.
I do find it fascinating that all you got from the book is the government depicted in 1984 doesn’t want you to have any relationships.
What that has to do with the American government, and this thread, and Loofa Billo, I’m not sure. Perhaps when your buzz has worn off, you can explain a little more lucidly…
You mean this Marc Rudov?
Discuss.
His style is deliberately confrontational, but he’s not completely full of shit.
Oh, come on…Rudov said that if a woman were qualified, he’d have no problem with her presidential candidacy.
Plus he seriously said that Clinton has a woman’s agenda, and for that reason he wouldn’t want her as president. The woman on that episode pointed out that Clinton’s woman’s agenda make her unattractive to her, too.
I love Marc Rudov. He says what I want to hear. I rarely agree with O’Reilly.
bombadil1977
don’t feed the don’t feed the don’t feed the - damn it just once
cause it’s all about younger and prettier - heh
don’t feed the don’t feed the
Oh, come on…Rudov said that if a woman were qualified, he’d have no problem with her presidential candidacy.
Plus he seriously said that Clinton has a woman’s agenda, and for that reason he wouldn’t want her as president. The woman on that episode pointed out that Clinton’s woman’s agenda make her unattractive to her, too.
I love Marc Rudov. He says what I want to hear. I rarely agree with O’Reilly.
bombadil1977
Oh, come on…Rudov said that if a woman were qualified, he’d have no problem with her presidential candidacy.
Plus he seriously said that Clinton has a woman’s agenda, and for that reason he wouldn’t want her as president. The woman on that episode pointed out that Clinton’s woman’s agenda make her unattractive to her, too.
I love Marc Rudov. He says what I want to hear. I rarely agree with O’Reilly.
bombadil1977
Oh, come on…Rudov said that if a woman were qualified, he’d have no problem with her presidential candidacy.
Plus he seriously said that Clinton has a woman’s agenda, and for that reason he wouldn’t want her as president. The woman on that episode pointed out that Clinton’s woman’s agenda make her unattractive to her, too.
I love Marc Rudov. He says what I want to hear. I rarely agree with O’Reilly.
bombadil1977
aahh yeaa
Considering that the Castrati, who agree with everything the radfems say even when contradicting, don’t have them anymore. The rest of us would like to keep them.
And then there are the macho guys who think they “don’t need to go abroad to get a broad” (usually the guys who are to dense to learn other languages - lower class men poll for Clinton):
Imagine being a rooster in a pen (cage) with 10 hens. You know there are 1000 hens outside the pen but you are satisfied knowing you will spend the rest of your short life with those 10 hens. A man who would accept being regulated (technically blocked in most cases) in his communications with foreign women is, at best, like a macho rooster who feels that at least there are plenty of hens inside the cage he’s just been locked in.
Or he is like the wimps in Braveheart who didn’t want to fight the English who let them have their land as long as they paid taxes.
Taking the analogy further. The rooster in the cage with 10 hens has 12 other roosters in the cage as well and those roosters seem more desperate to impress the 10 hens.
Is he still going to say “Gee, I don’t mind being forced to choose from the 10 hens inside the cage I have just been locked into”?
After being free the first years of his life, is he going to be OK, in general, with learning he must now be caged or put on a leash?
That is a better analogy to what IMBRA tries to do to men.
If there are 50 million American single women, there are 500 million foreign single women.
Smart roosters don’t appreciate being penned up in a cage with only a small fraction of the possibilities.
Nothing in this analogy says that there is necessarily anything wrong with American women (the 10 hens).
In fact, a man who learns other languages and travels the world and dates in other cultures, often does better with and appreciates American women more.
Oh, come on…Rudov said that if a woman were qualified, he’d have no problem with her presidential candidacy.
Plus he seriously said that Clinton has a woman’s agenda, and for that reason he wouldn’t want her as president. The woman on that episode pointed out that Clinton’s woman’s agenda make her unattractive to her, too.
I love Marc Rudov. He says what I want to hear. I rarely agree with O’Reilly.
bombadil1977
I for one am amazed that not a single one of the comments above address the iniquities that have created the need for Marc in the first place. Has a single one of you looked at his site and tried to place yourself in the opposite sex’s shoes? What happened to the famous female compassion? Has it too, gone the way of Bambi’s mom? If you cannot say anything nice use a baseball bat? There is enough inequallity to go around for all sexes, races, and ages, why head hunt someone (even if he does make bad jokes) who is trying to bring to light that our justice system might be headed too far toward inequality for others. As far as I could tell he blames (Marc) male legislators for doing stupid things too (that includes GWB), to unbalance equality for all. Or is it just that you have to have revenge for YOUR victimization of a hundred million years? BTW I am not a “rich white male”, but I do see the inequality of laws being pumped out by the educated idiots in congess! I think all of govenment should be run like “jury duty”, that way we would eliminate lobbiest, NRA, NOW, and others vernight. Plus replace the current deadbeats, losers and retired scabs with real ones in government
Oh, come on…Rudov said that if a woman were qualified, he’d have no problem with her presidential candidacy.
Plus he seriously said that Clinton has a woman’s agenda, and for that reason he wouldn’t want her as president. The woman on that episode pointed out that Clinton’s woman’s agenda make her unattractive to her, too.
I love Marc Rudov. He says what I want to hear. I rarely agree with O’Reilly.
bombadil1977
Oh, come on…Rudov said that if a woman were qualified, he’d have no problem with her presidential candidacy.
Plus he seriously said that Clinton has a woman’s agenda, and for that reason he wouldn’t want her as president. The woman on that episode pointed out that Clinton’s woman’s agenda make her unattractive to her, too.
I love Marc Rudov. He says what I want to hear. I rarely agree with O’Reilly.
bombadil1977
I for one am amazed that not a single one of the comments above address the iniquities that have created the need for Marc in the first place. Has a single one of you looked at his site and tried to place yourself in the opposite sex’s shoes? What happened to the famous female compassion? Has it too, gone the way of Bambi’s mom? If you cannot say anything nice use a baseball bat? There is enough inequallity to go around for all sexes, races, and ages, why head hunt someone (even if he does make bad jokes) who is trying to bring to light that our justice system might be headed too far toward inequality for others. As far as I could tell he blames (Marc) male legislators for doing stupid things too (that includes GWB), to unbalance equality for all. Or is it just that you have to have revenge for YOUR victimization of a hundred million years? BTW I am not a “rich white male”, but I do see the inequality of laws being pumped out by the educated idiots in congess! I think all of govenment should be run like “jury duty”, that way we would eliminate lobbiest, NRA, NOW, and others vernight. Plus replace the current deadbeats, losers and retired scabs with real ones in government
God, my blog is going to be swamped by whiny, humorless MRAs. These people think PMS jokes are the cutting edge of humor. Really, the should be so personally ashamed of their lack of intelligence or perspective as to shut up until they grow up, but that’ll never happen.
So…all those leaders through the centuries who proclaim their love for “mankind” and “man” were really only interested in men? After all, they don’t explicitly mention women, so those guys must not have been real leaders.
Benquo - of course, you’re totally correct. My apologies. i was thinking 2000, even as I read 2004. Maybe my brain doesn’t want to remember that one.
Has a single one of you looked at his site and tried to place yourself in the opposite sex’s shoes?
Yeah, ladies! Haven’t you ever thought about THE MENZ? God knows they have no one to look out for their interests.
You know, a lot of Southern neo-Confederate types see the Civil War as a grotesque imposition. They’ll talk or type for hours about states’ rights, about liberty, about unConstitutional power grabs and how federal law has unjustly limited their freedom of association, and so on, and so forth. And they’re correct. The Civil War was fought over states’ rights: specifically, the ‘right’ of white men and women to own darker-skinned men and women as slaves. And the same people who will talk for hours about how the Civil War deprived their (white) ancestors of their basic rights don’t spend even a second considering the rights - say, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - that the Union victory granted (or began the process of granting, at least) to Southern blacks. The idea that a law might justifiably limit their actions in order to protect the rights of other people is inconceivable, they think; they have a ‘right’ to oppress and exploit others, especially non-white, non-male others, and any law that prevents that strips them of their ‘God-given rights’.
The relevance of this analogy to the comments of Mr. Peterson, et al, I will leave as an exercise to the readers.
(Also, I apologize if this posts twice.)
dude, if you’re blaming some kind of international law i’ve never even heard of for your inability to get laid, eeeevil feminists are not your problem.
Jess, the disconnect is even more apparent when you realize the other half of the ‘perfect 1950s wife’ - she was supposed to be a gold-digger. Oops.
Dorothy,
Surely, please, surely this was sarcastic, no???
Damn, who turned on the MRA tap?
For manly men, they sure whine a lot.
Presumably, the female agenda would involve stuff like childcare, health care, stronger health and safety regulations, paid family leave, equal pay for equal work, reproductive freedom, etc. You know, girl stuff.
As a man, and a father, I think we need more of that. Bring on the female agenda!
(I mean, Jeez, how could it be any worse than what we have now?)
Well he said it 5 or 6 times, so let’s say:
Yeah, but he also said he wouldn’t vote for a woman who has a “female agenda”. Which is so loosely defined that it could rule out all women except for ones who are blatantly anti-woman. So, no, that’s not a good faith argument. Thanks for playing.
Regarding Rudov’s use of the word “female agenda” instead of “victim feminist agenda”…I am as shocked as anyone here about that.
Did OReilly tell him he could NOT use the word feminist?
It doesn’t make sense to use the word female instead of feminist unless you want to be over the top confrontational.
But show-biz is show-biz. Rudov is in the enterntainment industry more than he is an MRA.
If he was an MRA, he would launch a federal challenge against federal funding of women’s shelters based on the fact that the Constitution prohibits the feds from getting involved in state police matters.
Then he could report on TV how dense some of the judges are.
To the guy who thinks that men who fight for their rights are doing so “because they can’t get laid”, you are like the rooster in a cage with 10 hens. You are OK with the 10 hens and don’t mind that you are in a cage and would be regulated if you wanted to date any of the good looking hens outside the cage.
That is not freedom.
The idea that a man who, like me, likes dating American women but wants more variety, is greedy…is pathetic.
A man should want to date both American and foreign women…and slowly decide whom to marry based on having seen a variety of options.
I have as much contempt as anyone here for those people, men or women, who marry someone after meeting them once or twice.
[“…even though the information was enough to cause Julia to break up with him.”
Huh? Still doesn’t look like you actually read the book.]
It sounds like you have neither read the IMBRA law or “1984″. And stop calling him Orwell. The IMBRA law requires that men be identified and background checked by their real names, in this case the Englishman Eric Blair.
IMBRA interferes in relationships from the moment two people try to say hello.
And a Republican judge (Bush lackey Thomas Rose) commented about IMBRA saying “The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner”.
Does anyone here agree with this Republican judge?
Do you feel that American women have no fundamental right to say hello to a foreign male?
And for the person who made that bizarre comment about guys like Peterson somehow wanting outdated patriarchal rights and not “considering the rights of foreign women”…the worst thing about IMBRA is the way it takes away the rights of the foreign women!
They have the right to broadcast their contact information and to be approached in real life on the street or in chat rooms. They have that right and they are lined up to testify before a US federal court that IMBRA takes this away from them.
These women know that Americans might come to their city or village for a few days or hours and want to contact them ASAP…not after a website owner gets the chance, during California business hours, to do a background check and not after the woman signs on to a website with a password she might have forgotten so she can click a button that she read a background check.
It is really bizarre to say that the right to say hello to someone is akin to the southern white males feeling they had the right to own slaves.
It is the feminists who consider the foreign women their slaves: IMBRA is the US Government (feminists) FORCING foreign women to do something they have not asked to be forced to do,
And it is supposedly for their own good.
This is where the modern Democrat mentality breaks down.
This “positivist concept” of democratic government, discussed well in the book “The Constitution in Exile” says that a majority vote CAN take other’s rights away if it is for the common good.
The problem with the Republicans and the media is that they keep harping about how their choice of judges should be based on the abortion issue.
Bush and Clinton are really the same in wanting big government to make more and more laws.
Do I have to repost the link I made above to foreign women commenting on IMBRA?
Never mind because here is ANOTHER video of the foreign women discussing how idiotic Congress was for assuming that IMBRA deals with their rights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE6dfxZ-5eQ
You cannot win the argument that foreign women’s rights are helped at the cost of men’s rights. IMBRA only helps aging feminists in the US spite the men who wouldn’t have anything to do with a woman who could support IMBRA.
So, in the end, IMBRA only helps older women in the US who pretend that they are against this law, but benefit from the fact that the competition has been effectively removed from the Internet (many sites have deleted the profiles of all women who don’t have email addresses).
But IMBRA is only going to be effective as long as the feminist allies in the press refuse to discuss its ramifications and as long as Marc Rudov fails to discuss it on TV.
IMBRA was passed for political purposes. As Baby Boomer women get older and their husbands, like the sex crime fighter Eliot Spitzer, seek out younger women (Spitzer chose the 22 year old prostitute route like the weak mangina he is), then the older women are going to seek out legislation to stop the men from dating or seeing the competition.
Correction: I mean to say that Elito Spitzer was famous as the big “sex trafficking” fighter.
At least until he “sex trafficked” a 22 year old from New York to Washington.
Today on CNN there was a woman from Equality Now crying about how “we thought he was on our side but he was a perpetrator all along”.
Darned right: the men who side with feminists against other men are often trying to overcompensate for some dark secrets. Spitzer wanted to go without a condom and do some really bizarre stuff, which was all caught on the type of wiretap that Democrats like him loved to use to investigate the personal lives of white male patriarchs.
The guy who tried to earn brownie points above by pretending that anti-victim-feminists have a problem with maternity leave and other equity feminist concerns: You REALLY need to start reading books and the Internet regarding the difference between victim (or gender) feminism and equity feminism.
Start with Christine Hoff Somer’s book “Who Stole Feminism” and then maybe Naomi Wolff’s “Fire With Fire” and then move on to “Misandry”, etc.
On an educated forum like Amanda’s you can get away with pretending that there are not competing forms of feminism.
In fact, Marc Rudov is a friend of real feminists.
When Rudov says that women should pay for themselves on the first date, he is openly saying that he would REJECT most foreign women and non-feminist women.
Plus Marc, at 53, says he prefers women 40 and above. He, like me, recognizes that many older women can be gorgeous and really have their head together.
Think about that.
You have yet another ally on television.
Don’t knock Rudov because he likes real feminists and plays softball with the rest of you (silly PMS jokes about a postmenopausal Clinton are actually like playing Nerfball).
Wow. I just did a little on-line research on IMBRA. And it’s fascinating. Apparently, IMBRA (among many other provisions) provides a process for foreign women to obtain legal status in the U.S. if they are being abused by the men they came here to be with. This means foreign women are less likely to feel they need to stay with an abuser for fear of losing residency. What a kick ass idea!
(And when the hot foreign chick leaves her abuser, that frees him up to date me! Bonus for me!)
Margaret - Yes that is a great, kick ass idea. Women no longer have to fear reporting the abuse. That provision is also great for foreign women who seek a “back door” route into US society since it is very difficult these days for any foreigner to enter and remain here, let alone legally work. Most of the foreign brides are not stupid - they know the law (and IMBRA makes sure that they know) and VAWA states that abuse does not have to be physical. The newly arrived foreign bride only needs to claim, without much evidence, that she is being abused and she will then be granted a taxpayer-funded place to live and allowed to stay and work. Being awarded half the man’s assets via the divorce industry is a convenient added benefit.
VAWA/IMBRA works on so many levels. Hats off to Layli Miller Muro of the Tahirih Justice Center and the good folks at Legal Momentum (legal arm of the National Organization for Women).
There are many other great provisions in IMBRA. I have to get to work now but if I had the time, I would go through all of them for discussion.
When someone calls the pen name or “nom de plume” of a pre-internet author a “screen name”, he makes it VERY hard to take the rest of his rant seriously.
Strangely enough, happily married women support the idea that women in long-distance relationships should know if their date beats or rapes women. So,gee, maybe this isn’t about wanting to keep all the abusive mens for our desperate selves.
And I loved the book 1984. It’s about Winston and the State. Anyone getting a futuristic Romeo & Juliet vibe off it has failed their literature courses.
Sorry. Under IMBRA Eric Blair would not be allowed to send a woman his books without indicating his real name instead of George Orwell.
He would also have to get her to approve of his background check BEFORE she was allowed to see the text of the book.
That is Winston and the State. Your double-talk does not change this reality.
IMBRA and “1984″ go together hand in glove. So please reread the book.
Talking about this book is to my advantage. Keep it up if you want to lose any argument you are trying to make in favor of background checking men because “it is a long distance relationship”.
IMBRA interferes with Americans when they are in other countries where the women have their language and support systems. It violates the rights of the American and it surely violates the rights of the foreign women who do not want to have to always check email.
For instance, on a Saturday morning, a woman might not see email until she is at work on Monday. If an American is in her town just for the weekend and she wants all Americans to have her easily replacable cell phone number, IMBRA violates her rights by forcing her NOT to get his phone call.
Did you see the foreign women in the above links complaining about IMBRA?
Obfuscating and ignoring what is above only causes repetition.
Eric,
Surely, please, surely this was sarcastic, no???
Yes, it was a snide sarcastic response from a female writer who had been told she shouldn’t use a male protagonist, because…well, I guess it was the girl cooties.
Wait, you mean a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s show hates women in power?!?! No way. I refuse to believe that.
[happily married women support the idea that women in long-distance relationships should know if their date beats or rapes women. So,gee, maybe this isn’t about wanting to keep all the abusive mens for our desperate selves.]
Most American women would be appalled if they were allowed to hear about the details of this law. Any plaintiff could pull female witnesses off the street to tell the judge that this is a fascist law.
If you would support that this be law for all American men who want to talk with American women…then you would be advocating complete fascism.
But, because Americans simply do not date and marry internationally so much, and because the media is astonishingly in the tank for the radical feminists…nobody knows about IMBRA yet.
Too many idiots also think that these dating services actually marry people over the mail.
Has Rudov ever considered that his hatred of empowered women could interfere with his stated goal of cranking women’s engines & whatnot?
bombadil1977
March 12, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Could you say that about twelve more times? I don’t think I got it the first five.
[should know if their date beats or rapes women.]
In “1984″ the government could have just told Julia that Winston beat up his ex-wife and produced forged papers to prove it.
But they chose to tell her that he said “do it to her” when they tried to torture him.
That information ended the relationship.
You are saying that it would have been OK for the government to inform Julia of Winston’s past, at least as far as the Ministry of Truth could credibly produce evidence, correct?
Maybe someone should produce a movie remake of “1984″ where the government simply tells Julia that Winston was arrested for raping someone 5 years ago (no conviction, but who cares).
Then feminists will see the movie as an example of how a government is supposed to be, correct?
Correct?
I am waiting for the answer to that.
Then feminists will see the movie as an example of how a government is supposed to be, correct?
Correct?
I am waiting for the answer to that.
Wow, are all antifeminists seriously this dumb?
“Considering that the Castrati, who agree with everything the radfems say even when contradicting, don’t have them anymore. The rest of us would like to keep them.”
Personally, my right one seems to itch a bit when I read some ranting nut (pun intended) who can’t understand “1984″ trying to enforce how I should think or act cause we’ve got the same plumbing. Sorry, chuckles, never asked, nor needed, your approval.
But good luck with your sad bastard liberation front.
[Has Rudov ever considered that his hatred of empowered women could interfere with his stated goal of cranking women’s engines & whatnot?]
Actually, Rudov loves empowered women. He is the biggest feminist-lover of them all.
He just does not think that women who expect men to pay on the first date are empowered.
Many feminists agree with him on that.
Many men would agree with you that what would turn women OFF about Rudov is his unwillingness to pay on a blind date.
But that would be a defense of the patriarchal system.
Rudov would turn tradional women off…or more likely confuse them a bit. In the end, his sense of humor and looks would determine how well he got along with any given woman.
Most women do not get turned off at the mention of the word feminism or the criticism of a radical feminist idea. Statistics show that the word feminist is a pejorative among most women.
In other words, a man cannot be kept in line by the mass withholding of admiration and attention unless he remains politically correct all the time.
I realize that manginas think otherwise. They, like Eliot Spitzer, feel they have to say what women want to hear all the time.
Spitzer kept saying “Sex trafficking is wrong and I am going to be the crusader to stop it”.
We all know now that he was only saying what he thought women wanted to hear.
Conceptually, criticism of Rudov is confused here. He dates women CEOs and lawyers. I am the one who dates college students. You should hate me more.
Normally, I would try not to go along with the derailment, but this is now a rapidly aging thread, so what the hell…
“Sorry. Under IMBRA Eric Blair would not be allowed to send a woman his books without indicating his real name instead of George Orwell.”
…sounds good to me. Why should he be allowed to solicit a relationship with her under an assumed name? Now, sending her - blind - a copy of his book IS a little weird…
“He would also have to get her to approve of his background check…”
…so far, so good…
“…BEFORE she was allowed to see the text of the book.”
He could be sending her rape pr0n, or some other hideously misogynistic crap, and he himself could be some kind of stalker/pervert/sex-offender/etc. Why shouldn’t she be allowed to know those things up front?…
“That is Winston and the State. Your double-talk does not change this reality.”
Dude, 1984 is not about some creep trying to buy a foreign bride, with the cruel State preventing him. You seem to have entirely missed the point(s) of the book…
“IMBRA and “1984″ go together hand in glove.”
…just like the EPA and 1984 go hand-in-glove, and the IRS and 1984 go hand-in-glove, and the DHS, and the FBI, and the NSA, and the CIA, and the DOD, etc., etc., etc.
Are you 12-years old or something? Are you some kind of mindless Randroid? Does your mother let you walk to the store alone?…
“So please reread the book.”
Seems like SOMEONE needs to follow his own advice. Maybe buy the Cliff Notes for it too, so you can actually learn what the book is about…
“Talking about this book is to my advantage.”
Other than the thread derailment, I hardly think exposing your own ignorance by making asinine observations about 1984 really helps your “cause”…
[who can’t understand “1984″ trying]
If “1984″ had a movie remake where Julia was told officially by the government that Winston was arrested for raping a woman 5 years ago, would you say the government did her right?
And Witless: Do you know all about IMBRA and agree with it?
In other words, a man cannot be kept in line by the mass withholding of admiration and attention unless he remains politically correct all the time.
I realize that manginas think otherwise. They, like Eliot Spitzer, feel they have to say what women want to hear all the time.
Spitzer kept saying “Sex trafficking is wrong and I am going to be the crusader to stop it”.
We all know now that he was only saying what he thought women wanted to hear.
Are you actually as whiny and stupid in real life as you are trying to sound here?
I am waiting for the answer to that.
[sounds good to me. Why should he be allowed to solicit a relationship with her under an assumed name? Now, sending her - blind - a copy of his book IS a little weird…]
Where is it your right to decide that contact between two people is soliciting of a relatíonship?
Whether weird or not, Blair probably sent his manuscript to a lot of people unsolicited.
[“He would also have to get her to approve of his background check…”
…so far, so good…]
So gay men should be forced to provide affidavits of an AIDS test before they communicate on Gay.com?
Would you be OK with Match.com and Adultfriendfinder implementing IMBRA?
Black men who have been to a liquor store should be so regulated before being allowed in Harlem churches…because studies show that black men who frequent liquor stores commit DV more often?
Remember that a woman who has stated that everyone and anyone should have her cell phone number (which costs $5 to replace), has the right to have her wishes honored.
If a foreign woman only uses email at work and an American is in Moscow on a Saturday and wants to phone her…should she forgo ever meeting him because some US law stretches all the way to her own country and prevents anything from happening until Monday afternoon when some California webmaster gets up early and does a background check?
Is she allowed to sign a waiver asking for this nonsense to be waived?
[“…BEFORE she was allowed to see the text of the book.”
He could be sending her rape pr0n, or some other hideously misogynistic crap,]
I see. And you are a Democrat? You want the Nanny State to apply this to the US domestically as well?
[and he himself could be some kind of stalker/pervert/sex-offender/etc. Why shouldn’t she be allowed to know those things up front?]
By federal mandate right? Would you like this applied to the US domestically as well?
If Congress decides it is necessary, correct?
[“That is Winston and the State. Your double-talk does not change this reality.”
Dude, 1984 is not about some creep trying to buy a foreign bride,]
What about CEOs and other businessmen and US State Dept officials who want to meet someone nice for coffee? That is “buying”? Do you think, after 6 years of high oil prices, that Russia is still a third world country?
[ with the cruel State preventing him. You seem to have entirely missed the point(s) of the book…]
Do you honestly think that Supreme Court justices would describe the book “1984″ as having nothing to do with IMBRA’s desire for the government to interfere in the relationship of two people?
You have entirely missed everything the book is trying to say about the Nanny State.
I’ll just repost my comment about IMBRA from another thread:
“but, but but…she can just accuse me of abuse and get a green card, even if I didn’t do anything!!”
This is a common complaint of the MRA. Notice how the complaint boils down to horror at the impossibility of marrying a foreign woman who actually likes you.
She doesn’t even have to love you, just find a couple years of marriage preferable to going through the legal system with groundless abuse accusations, which even MRAs know is no picnic for the accuser.
Not only do these men think, deep down, that they are totally unlovable, they think the women they intend to marry would do just about anything to get away from them.
Atheist,
MRAs would gladly debate you publicly in real life.
Name the city. They would love to see what someone is like in real life who agrees with everything the feminists say…and when the feminists disagree (as with Wendy McElroy and Christine Hoff Somers disagreeing with radicals) agree with the radicals.
Be prepared for the MRA to bring maybe his educated foreign-born wife who can let you know that you don’t speak for her.
Let her say this in front of an audience of college coeds.
Seriously, if you think you would come across OK in front of college coeds, it should be good for you.
But if you go to OnlineDatingRights dot com, you will see that TV shows where they try to humiliate men and foreign-born wives, always backfire.
The audience always goes to the side of the married couple being attacked by the ideologue who has a stick up the backside, for no good reason, about Americans marrying foreigners.
In the end, buddy, you are only here because you think you are impressing the women with your chivalry.
We won’t have guys like you in government anymore.
Spitzer was one of you on Friday.
He was the feminist’s best gofor boy.
Boston.
I’ll debate you anytime, anywhere, dearie.
Marry foreigners, with my blessing.
But. y’know, if they do really like you, and aren’t coerced into it for money and/or citizenship, you won’t have to lie to them.
Jim Peterson, you are indeed a treasure.
Sometimes it’s difficult to get people who don’t regularly browse blogs to understand just how weird and unhinged some of you guys really are.
Fortunately, if Amanda keeps this stuff around, we can always point to your comments.
One small criticism: If you added some stuff about Black Helicopters, secretly implanted chips, alien abduction and probing, your rants would be perfect. Oh, and don’t forget to slather on a good portion of racism too…
The audience always goes to the side of the married couple being attacked by the ideologue who has a stick up the backside, for no good reason, about Americans marrying foreigners.
In the end, buddy, you are only here because you think you are impressing the women with your chivalry.
We won’t have guys like you in government anymore.
It truly amazing what you think you know about me, government, feminists, and the book 1984. My question still stands, are you actually like this in real life or is this some kind of bizzarre act?
Sometimes it’s difficult to get people who don’t regularly browse blogs to understand just how weird and unhinged some of you guys really are.
The tendency to try to bring every single issue under the sun into a debate about one issue is often a tell.
[But. y’know, if they do really like you, and aren’t coerced into it for money and/or citizenship, you won’t have to lie to them. ]
It is not about preserving the Constitutional right to lie (free speech, 9th amendment, etc).
It is not even about the right to anonymity already upheld when the Communications Decency Act was overturned.
Well, it is about all that…
But the worst part of IMBRA is when an American is in Moscow on a Saturday and the woman will not see her email until Monday morning when he is gone home.
She has given permission that her cell phone number, easily replacable for $5, be given out to anyone and everyone (nobody stalks these women).
But the US Government, like the government in “1984″ has taken on the Nanny State function of saying that HER DESIRE to be phoned in real time when American businessmen are in town…is to be completely ignored.
Would you be OK with an IMBRA waiver, where a woman signs before a notary that she wishes NOT to have to approve of everyone in writing?
Do you see the danger that someday you, as a woman, will not be allowed to give out your contact information, even for business purposes, because you are a woman who could be stalked as a result?
Do you see the danger if IMBRA ever goes domestic?
Now realize that the judiciary, if it approves of IMBRA, will be saying that it would in fact be OK if it were domestic.
Liberal judges uphold US vs Corpolene Products of 1937 that says Congress can pass whatever it considers reasonable.
A Republican judge already said of IMBRA “The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner.”
Do you agree with that?
First, I would be thrilled if Match and many of the online dating sites had IMBRA-like protections. It would have saved me the trouble of doing a lot of “checking” first before I went on dates with the six men I dated through match. (I’m marrying the sixth, so color me happy.) I would also be okay if those protections applied to me. My dates should be protected too.
Second, the reason to apply these protections to foreign women (and clearly they only apply if you are getting a fiance visa, so what is your beef?) is because they do not have the same rights as citizens, and do not have the same understanding of the rights they do have. Many of them speak foreign languages. In fact, outside of the foreign spouse community, language and cultural barriers are a real problem with regard to law enforcement. In certain communities, robberies happen where the victims know who stole their stuff, and yet they don’t report it because they are afraid of the police. I see that as a bad thing.
Third, how many of you who are seeking brides in other countries actually have the respect to learn your intended’s language. I speak Russian. Why can’t you? Also, if you don’t want this government’s interference, why don’t you live in your bride’s country, or another country?
Fourth, why would it bother you if these women still want citizenship? Why insist on “sending them back to their support structure?” If they want to stay, they should be allowed to do so. As someone pointed out upthread, if these are legitimate marriages, there is no reason to fear manipulative behavior of the type you describe.
Fifth, WRT to all of this nonsense about VAWA and federal funding, the federal government provides funds to all sorts of state agencies, not just law enforcement, and there law enforcement funding spans beyond domestic violence. And only part of VAWA was struck down, the part allowing women to require rape/DV prosecutions to be brought. While a somewhat novel idea, it was not without precedent, as in the earlier part of this country’s history (and in England) there were no public prosecutors; private individuals (with the court’s approval, e.g., indictment) could bring prosecutions on their own.
By the way, it is a long flight to Moscow. Just make sure she gets the background check on Thursday or Friday. Many times agencies are involved. Or fax it. Or bring a hard copy and have it delivered by messenger.
Faint hearts never won fair ladies. (Yes, that is from the animated version of “Robin Hood and Little John.” Whatevs.)
Mike and Atheist,
Should gays be forced to give each other results of AIDs tests before being allowed to communicate? Tragic results could happen when an older man befriends a younger one and lies to him. You are Democrats right? So this law would be OK?
You do feel that there is no right of assembly correct?
Or do you feel that the right of women to be forced to see background checks of men, even when they want to sign a waiver telling the US federal government to go blow, is more important?
What about the young gay man’s right to know if the older guy has AIDs?
You would want to stop them from ever saying hello until the paperwork was cleared up, correct?
Did one notice that feminist men are far less reasonable than the actual women who support radical laws?
Miss Pink in Boston is reasonable and she is willing to debate an MRA in Boston, which can be arranged.
How about the pro-radical males? What city should we organize a debate in?
Can you call your local station to arrange it to be televised?
Keep in mind that the media knows that the couples always win when these debates are televised. Thus, the scandal talk show hosts have all learned not to try to do any “Mail Order Bride” shows anymore. The message always gets out that these marriages, mostly between two people born to the upper middle class of their respective countries, are mostly stable and great for both parties.
Margaret–
Yeah, IMBRA does sound awesome. And I can see why the MRAs would oppose it–if they’re bringing women from other countries to be their perfect submissive wives, then no way do they actually want them to be able to stand up for themselves and decide “hey, America’s cool, but my husband/fiance’s a jackass.” If they’re going to make the effort to bring a woman to America, they want the ‘full rights’ they would have had before the American feminists started ‘taking them away.’ I say we keep IMBRA. Protect women in other countries.
If you want to read a book about foreign mail-order brides, Anya Ulinich’s Petropolis is awesome–it’s a novel, and it doesn’t get into any legal elements, but it’s just a damn good book, in my opinion.
Sigh…you know it’s going to be a long day when you see the words “mangina” and “coeds” used non-ironically.
Jim, honey, we radfemnazibots really and truly don’t think men should beat or rape women.
When you come from that POV, it’s really hard to see what’s so bad about VAWA or IMBRA. If you don’t beat or rape, what’s the problem?
We can argue over whether or not the State should mandate disclosure, but I really don’t see any downside to rapists/beaters having a harder time getting a date. Consequences for your actions, you know? Responsibility?
If I weren’t married, and chose to use some internet dating service, I would WILLINGLY pay more for my profile to be shown ONLY to men who had passed a basic criminal background check, and to show my profile only to men who had passed it. (It should go without saying that I would also be willing to take such a background check and allow it to be viewed).
Would that make you happier? If it were more voluntary? Is your only problem the State?
Or is it the disclosure at all that’s problematic to you?
You may be invisioning some poor guy who’s ex- made up lies about him having a hard time getting a date. He’s already suffered, so why should a new relationship be made more difficult.
I’m envisioning Ted Bundy. Forewarned is forearmed. If you believe a guy has really changed, feel free to take a chance. Unfortunately, rapists usually repeat themselves, which is why it’d be nice to get a ‘heads up’ about the potential harm.
Should gays be forced to give each other results of AIDs tests before being allowed to communicate? Tragic results could happen when an older man befriends a younger one and lies to him. You are Democrats right? So this law would be OK?
You do feel that there is no right of assembly correct?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything, you dumb-ass whiny fuck? Try to communicate like a normal human being for a second. What are you trying to say?
Of course I believe in a right to assembly, it’s in the Bill Of Rights. I believe in a right to assembly to have sex. I believe in a right to talk to foreigners, even if the Sup. Court does not. What does it have to do with anything?
I came in when you accused feminists of wanting a totalitarian state, to tell you that you were out of your mind.
So, where exactly IS my “mangina”? Do I need to have a “Mynacologist” to look after its health? Are there sick people in some parts of the world that cut off certain parts of the mangina and then sew up the rest?
And why the hell were we not told about the mangina in high school?!?!?
I’m with Caren. I’m currently engaged, but if I was single, I would be willing to pay more money to ensure that my profile was being only being shown to men who had passed a basic criminal background check. Things like civil disobediance or even minor drug offenses I could handle, but domestic violence and/or rape is a dealbreaker for reals. I’d be willingly to bet that a lot of women would agree with me, give or take on the minor drug offense angle.
And hey, Jim Peterson, you may have plenty of pretty, young coeds waiting breathlessly for the attentions and ministrations from your manly self, but I’m happy over here with my healthy and adult relationship.
Don’t dating sites also ask if you’re widowed, single and never married or divorced? You get to veto divorces if you want, so why not be allowed to veto former rapists?
I come late to this thread - and what a humdinger. Back to the beginning though - one of the top items on the female agenda is to paint the white house pink. a nice pale shade. also, make every woman’s restroom three times as large as the men’s. and make our work day half that of men’s so we can fit in the necessary shoe shopping.