Felicity Grabiel,book on gringos & latinas

[Pete E]

... in response to Ditto...., posted by Hoda on Jun 18, 2005

I've been properly warned.
Reminds me of a cartoon.A guy is saying whats the worst thing that could happen.I forget the drawing,but they were about to get squashed.
Hey if I can walk around in El Centro and nobody f--ks with me why do I have to be scared here?
At least she is spending some time on it.Not a quickie dumb hit piece like some media stuff.I expect it to be thoughtfull at least.

Pete

[Hoda]

... in response to I guess you could say - - - , posted by Pete E on Jun 18, 2005

in a foreign land...

You said "Hey if I can walk around in El Centro and nobody f--ks with me why do I have to be scared here?"

I don't care where you live or visit....NEVER, EVER get too dayyum cocky! A little bit of fear/respect will always help keep you alive & well! One last thing in what you think her piece may be about.....Hope for the best, but expect the worse!

Always, watch your back....

[Pete E]

... in response to Pete, you're my man, but you're still a ..., posted by Hoda on Jun 18, 2005

Howard,
True,and I don't get casual about it.I was sort of making a joke.But I do take sort of a don't f--k with me attitude while there while still watching my back.

Pete

[Calipro]

... in response to Felicity Grabiel,book on gringos & l..., posted by Pete E on Jun 17, 2005

Who's on your list of people you think she should talk to while in Cali?

How does she intend to get into the TLC party? by pretending to be a caleña or is she up front about who she is?

[Cali James]

... in response to Felicity Grabiel,book on gringos & l..., posted by Pete E on Jun 17, 2005

[This message has been edited by Cali James]

Pete, her resume is rather interesting to say the least.  

http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/ppfp/schaeffer-grabiel-cv.pdf

Good luck in her book Pete!! And by the way, PLEASE don't give her my telephone number!!  (-:

[doombug]

... in response to Check out her resume....., posted by Cali James on Jun 17, 2005

[This message has been edited by doombug]

The path to clarity was tricky--and TIME CONSUMING!

Item #1:

An event held at UC Santa Cruz in January:

Felicity Schaeffer-Grabiel,
University of California,
President's Postdoctoral Fellow

"Planet-Love.com: Cyber-brides and Transnational
Masculinity between Latin America and the U.S."

"This talk draws from chat discussions,
interviews, and textual analysis of an Internet
chat board called Planet Love where U.S. men seek
advice and a sense of community as they search
for a bride in Latin America. Men turn to the
global marketplace to reassert a nostalgic vision
of a high-powered masculinity in the family and
nation, and to select more able bodies for the
engineering of a new post-national family
structure and imaginary."

http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/listserv/0055.html

A nostalgic vision of high-powered masculinity???

To select more able bodies for the engineering of a family???

Come on.  Fess up, fellas.  Salvage her credibility/non-bias and admit you were interviewed.  Seems a little underhanded on her part, especially if the interviews never took place.

In any case, we're now New-Age, Macho-bots, ravenously hunting innocent luv wabbits abroad.

Item #2:

In a conference held last year by the American Studies Association, one aspect of her round-table contribution consisted of the following:

"She discusses the ways the Internet enables new alliances between women from across Latin America who create e-mail exchanges once they migrate to the U.S. to marry."

http://chnm.gmu.edu/asa/viewabstract.php?id=251&cf=2

When I first read that, it seemed as if she was hinting at "secret networks" of Latinas here in the U.S. who were coordinating our eventual emasculation.  

I'm kidding!  I was only partially paranoid after reading that.

And, finally, I hit the big nugget.

Item #3:

"Cyberbrides and Global Imaginaries:  Mexican Women’s
Turn From the National to the Foreign," Felicity Schaeffer-Grabiel, University of Minnesota

Though this comes off as a little unfair...

"...the fact [Fact?] that the majority of men from the United States come to Mexico to find a traditional-minded woman, in the hope of reasserting their masculinity and power in the home and workplace, complicates this image of the foreign 'feminist man.'” [Sounds similar to Item #1]

...on the whole, the article was very balanced.  Despite what the previous items might lead some to believe, she appears to be quite neutral--maybe even a somewhat supportive--of the MOB concept.

A few clips:

"The owner of the Latina Connection (TLC) Worldwide gave me permission
to attend the tour for research because my bicultural identity set me apart from the 'feminist type' whom he assumed would write a scathing report on these interactions.  I, on the other hand, spoke Spanish and was part Mexican, an offspring myself of a mixed Anglo/Mexican union.
The owner’s distrust of 'feminist types' has to do with critical activism by members of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and Gabriella Los Angeles, who have helped shut down mail-order bride agencies that cater to the Philippines."

"Women from Colombia, Asia, Russia [a swath of PL forums?], and Japan similarly justify their search for foreign men by degrading local men..."

"Aware that women in the United States are more liberal, that families are nuclear rather than extended, and that many women are more materialistic in the United States, most [Mexicanas interviewed] state the importance of holding onto spiritual and family traditions. Many women, especially those with children, know that they will have to 'sacrifice' their professions and families to find happiness with a foreigner."

In her conclusion, she notes:

"I hope to have disrupted an easy equation of the cyberbride industry, a global broker of love and marriage, as an institution that exploits poor, desperate, and unsuspecting women."

Find the entire article here:

http://sac.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/7/1/33

I think Pete won't have to wear the AFBC (Anti-feminist Body Condom) after all.  She appears to be genuine; no agenda; and is probably HOT!!

j/k.  Had to throw in some pig speak.

 

Peace out, yo!

[Edit:  to include final link]

[buster40]

... in response to Apparently, she's "interviewed"..., posted by doombug on Jun 19, 2005

I'm startin' to get that suspicious feelin' again.

[Felinessa]

... in response to Re: Apparently, she's "interviewed&..., posted by buster40 on Jun 19, 2005

Why?  Are you really surprised at anything she said?

If you play your cards right, you might get her to write about scammers - Cyber-Brides and the Leeching of the Unsuspecting Pocket.

[Felinessa]

... in response to Check out her resume....., posted by Cali James on Jun 17, 2005

Actually, her resume is solid.  She's gone through good programs with a decent reputation, not Harvard-on-the-Hill.  She's gone to a hell of a lot of professional conferences and she has legit publications under her belt in peer-reviewed journals.

It seems that a lot of those who put her down are unable to read: her PhD was in Latin American Studies, with a MINOR in Women's Studies.  The MINOR part is important because feminism provides the critical framework, while Latin America provides a sphere for factual research.

"If you look at her career, she has basically been paid by fellowships and grants since 1996. She seems to be tied into the money for her movement."

You make her sound like a prostitute.  She wasn't "paid." She won those fellowships because she published a lot, is professionally active, and her research is relevant to current policy making.  The money didn't come from "her movement" (you make it sound like a sect), but from research councils.  

Also, comments about how she is a femi-nazi or a lesbian, coming from people who know jackshit about what she does and who haven't bothered to actually read her work before passing judgement, are stupid and childish.  I'm sorry, guys, but opinions based on your uncultured prejudices aren't going to convince anyone.  Those who had read her expressed moderate or positive opinions, which says something.

Pete, you have a brain of your own and you can decide for yourself.  Read her past articles and her PhD thesis - that will give you a fair idea of her framework and methodology, as well as of her interests.  That's a much more sound basis for a decision than uninformed opinions coming from pure hatred and prejudice.

[larrydarrell]

... in response to Re: Check out her resume....., posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

Almost everone who has gone to graduate school knows that outside of the sciences (I mean real sciences, not "social sciences"), graduate school, conferences, Ph.D programs, fellowships, publishing, etc. are welfare programs for middle-class layabouts.  No one ever reads the rubbish that these people produce apart from the other layabouts.

[buster40]

... in response to Re: Check out her resume....., posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

[This message has been edited by buster40]

"It seems that a lot of those who put her down are unable to read: her PhD was in Latin American Studies, with a MINOR in Women's Studies. The MINOR part is important because feminism provides the critical framework, while Latin America provides a sphere for factual research."

I can read as well as you can and without cherry picking words, it is obvious she has focused her career on FEMINIST studies.  It's not like she parlayed her "Latin American Studies" into anything else.

"If you look at her career, she has basically been paid by fellowships and grants since 1996. She seems to be tied into the money for her movement."

I stand by this statement because it raise the issue of bias. Many times, grants are funded by people who are pushing for some type of change whether legislative or otherwise.

"You make her sound like a prostitute."

Those are your words, not mine. I am raising issues that a reasonable person should be able to ask. We still have a right to question in this country. Don't forget it. You may have just come over here, sweetie, but some of us have been around a while and have legacies of family members dying for this right to stand up and question. Dont' get too emotional.

"She wasn't "paid." She won those fellowships because she published a lot, is professionally active, and her research is relevant to current policy making."

These grants were sought out by her. What policy is she trying to make? That's what I'd like to know.

"The money didn't come from 'her movement' (you make it sound like a sect), but from research councils."

Again, don't put words in my mouth. I never called it a "sect.' You are trying to classify my right to question and diminish it. That's not right. I never used terms such as "femi-nazi," etc. You are lumping everyone together and this is typical of someone who is unwilling to address real concerns. My concern is that she appears biased not just from her resume, but from her work. I looked for her articles on the web and have not been able to find any. You claim she is unbiased from these articles. Do you have any links?

Why don't you point us in the direction of those articles instead of attacking us as being childish, prejudiced, stupid and uncultured. It makes you sound arrogant and emotional. By the way, some of us might have gone to Harvard. Did you?

[Felinessa]

... in response to Re: Re: Check out her resume....., posted by buster40 on Jun 19, 2005

So if my work is about the Renaissance, does that mean that I am biased against modern literature?  Does that mean that any grants I receive are given by someone whose political agenda is the extermination of modern authors?

These are the type of absurd conclusions that come when you say she has a bias just because she has a specific interest.  She writes a lot about women because she's interested in women's issues, not because she's biased towards women. She never published an article called "Men Suck."  

"Many times, grants are funded by people who are pushing for some type of change whether legislative or otherwise."

Is that change implicitly bad?  Look up her specific grants instead of generalizing: most come from the schools she attended, which means they were for academic excellence.  Then there were the Macarthur ones - http://www.macfound.org/.  This is a generic human rights organization, and not a "femi-nazi" one.  As far as legislative change goes, last time I checked it was necessary in order to update antiquated laws. I know, the right doesn't like that.

"I looked for her articles on the web and have not been able to find any. You claim she is unbiased from these articles. Do you have any links?"

I'm sorry, you'll have to use a library.  Universities need to make a buck too, so scholarly journals, even when available online, can be retrieved only though a project - like JSTOR.

" By the way, some of us might have gone to Harvard. Did you? "

Sounds like Harvard doesn't teach critical thinking anymore

[buster40]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Check out her resume....., posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

So far, if you read my prior posts, I haven't yet drawn a conclusion as to what exactly her agenda is as you suggest I have by your analogy.  I am questioning it though.  Also, I am not so naive as not to think that people behind the money do not have an agenda.  Do you think her article will be entitled, "Why American Men Seek Foreign Women:  The Impact Of Feminism On The Weakening Between Male And Female Relationships In Our Society?"  Haha, doubt it.  

I never suggested change is implicitly bad....why do you jump to such conclusions?  You have a habit of falsely positioning me. (augmentation, distortion) You have suggested I am "Right" wing.  False. (Contrivance) As far as her grants, again, I never used the phrase "femi-nazi" to describe her work. You must have aced Rhetoric 101.

Can you tell me what antiquated laws need updating?  Sometimes, using the ones on the books works just fine.

You might ask Larry Summers about someone's ability to think critically at Harvard.  He sure got torched when he suggested that that the under-representation of female scientists at elite universities may stem in part from “innate" differences between men and women.  Some think the "Left" has hijacked the field of critical thinking.  

[Felinessa]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Check out her resume......., posted by buster40 on Jun 19, 2005

"I haven't yet drawn a conclusion as to what exactly her agenda is as you suggest I have by your analogy. I am questioning it though."

But your rhetoric is surreptitious and implies certain conclusions even though you don't come out and say them  Basically, it sounded to me like the questions were a bit leading.

"Do you think her article will be entitled, "Why American Men Seek Foreign Women: The Impact Of Feminism On The Weakening Between Male And Female Relationships In Our Society?" Haha, doubt it."

Honestly, I don't think there is anything new, revolutionary, or dangerous in this article - or anything that isn't really obvious.  Now I will qualify this by saying that I'm not a sociologist, I've never taken Cultural Studies, and this is just my own humble opinion from what I've observed on these forums: there are a lot of nice men who simply happen to prefer women of other backgrounds.  These men will seek women who match their interests, just as if they were dating locals. But there are also some who constantly criticize Western women for working, making their own money, and not taking crap, and who seek out, on purpose, women who are both poor and poorly educated, and whose only capital is their beauty; these guys need to know that they are in charge, and their MOBs will give them that in exchange for prosperity.  This is as old as the hills.  I wouldn't say that feminism weakened couple relationships, because most men, at least those who are straddling the political fence, treat women as equals and EXPECT their wives to work and contribute to everything.  Those who aren't down with this (or are simply very insecure human beings) have a number of choices, and finding a MOB from a traditional society is one of them (that's not to say that a guy with "liberated" views wouldn't want a foreign woman).  I do think, though, that the geographical area the bride is coming from would be determined by a man's gender politics: if you want a housewife, don't go for a Russian woman - they are educated and ambitious, for the most part, but a lot of men don't know this and get burned; I don't know Latinas and Asians enough to know how submissive or domestic they are, but I imagine Asians would be more likely to be both of the above.

As far as the changes in policy go, I think that the situation of the MOBs while in the US should be monitored closely.  Now you are (I imagine and hope) honest men who just want a wife; but I don't think that there aren't those who abuse their MOBs, or those who run sex-slave operations. I'm not saying you should have a social worker knocking on your door every week, but both partners should be able to periodically prove that their well-being was not affected.

"You have suggested I am "Right" wing."

Nope, I said the Right wing wouldn't like it.  I didn't say YOU were Right wing.  Others on this forum are, though, and my first post was actually addressing issues I'd culled from a number of  posts, so you shouldn't take everything personally.  The same for "femi-nazi" or the lesbian accusation.

"I never suggested change is implicitly bad"

Maybe I misunderstood you.  You talked about people "pushing" for change, whose motives should be questioned.  I find "pushing" to be a bit of a charged word, but maybe you didn't mean it like that.

And wow, do you make me sound machiavellian :p

[buster40]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Check out her resume..., posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

whew!  you talk a lot.  I gotta run.  And don't be mean...geez..."You are God's Mistake." That's harsh...be funny, not mean.