Why can't they just leave us alone

[JackofTrades]

You have got to see this

http://boards.lifetimetv.com/WebX?14@17.MYXWbUSFRH8.7@.ef23c73!skip=top

Here is a piece from a recent message

The linking of American men with trafficking was a strategy that we devised as part of our propaganda program to get the law passed by any and every means possible. The program also involved promoting claims of abuse despite the lack of evidence that internationally-matched marriages result in any more abuse than domestic marriages. The main goal is the banning of the international matchmaking websites as they are now reaching the mainstream American male population - men of all ages, careers and political affiliations. Through these websites, men are being drawn into a way of thinking about women that is counter to their upbringing. This a clear and present threat to the feminist social, political and economic paradigms that have taken over 30 years to establish. If we can't stem the time of mens' discontent with feminism, we certainly will try to stem the tide of their escape into the arms of foreign women.

[doombug]

... in response to Why can't they just leave us alone, posted by JackofTrades on Nov 5, 2005

LOL!  Finally one of them has the "balls" to admit it.    

Just as it took only a single, selfish atheist (I'm agnostic, so this is not a pro-/anti-religious example) to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned from schools, all it will take to block men from FREELY chosing a life-mate abroad is a single, crafty feminist.  We are heading in the direction of most, if not all, laws being rewritten to soothe the sensitivies of every single activist who has a gripe.

[lapentier]

... in response to Why can't they just leave us alone, posted by JackofTrades on Nov 5, 2005

The tone of that message makes me wonder if there isn't a "male" in disguise that has crept into Lifetime's forum.  Phrases like, "despite the lack of evidence" indicate intentioinal duplicity.  Unfortunately, most of the confirmed feminists I have encountered are "true believers" in their cause, and actually believe the stuff being spewed out as propaganda.

Mark

[doombug]

... in response to I wonder..., posted by lapentier on Nov 6, 2005

That poster wasn't bluffing.  In a sense.

The link a post or two down from hers provides further details:

"We also support provisions of the Act that will require brokers to conduct large quantities of consent verifications and background checks before American men can write love letters or make any contact with foreign women. These provisions will make it very difficult for American-based marriage brokers to organize those disgusting overseas introduction "parties" where women outnumber men 100 to 1. These provisions will also drive up costs to the point of putting most brokers out of business. In addition, this law effectively places "warning labels" on American men thus decreasing demand for them among foreign women over time."

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/prweb138739.htm

It's funny how they tried to make the article look all official-like; as if it were a AP/Reuters wire release.

Regardless, I wonder if even a small percentage of male posters here who read such threats are even the slightest bit angry.

This is bigger than the simple fact that they are "feminists".  Men should be outraged as individuals that someone else is trying desperately to infringe on their HUMAN RIGHT to seek as a mate another consenting adult--no matter where in the world she resides.

They push this garbage because no man desires them.  Continuing the paragraph quoted above:

"Certainly, the existence of this industry is indicative of the sad state of romantic relationships between men and women in North America; however, it by no means should be allowed to continue unregulated."

Bitter woman can't find date; bitter woman assumes that romance is dead in America; bitter woman resolves to remedy this by preventing single, American males from seeking romance anywhere BUT the U.S.  Does she subconciously think that this will somehow better her own odds of getting hitched?  

Come out, feminist lurkers!  Speak up!  I know yall follow these boards.  

[Hoda]

... in response to Not entirely propaganda, since they are ..., posted by doombug on Nov 6, 2005

more on the "the sad state of romantic relationships between men and women in North America" to borrow from the link, than on the less than 2 percent (guesstimation on my part) of the men who honestly seek a lifemate outside the U.S. My heart goes out to those women who were & are being abused. Along with the "men" who are also being abused to a certain extent.

About the American male being "overly exposed to the message" that they have an option outside the U.S. & ""warning labels" on American men".....YOU'RE TOOOOO DAYYUM LATE HONEY!!!! As much, as you "bitter feminist lurkers" want to try...it's TOO LATE!!! The news is out & a few men are looking elsewhere! My apologies for not knowing all the particulars of the legislation....but I'm still seeing ways that men (no matter what their true intentions are) can get around it....

BTW...if any woman associated with the article/link wishes to post...COME GET SOME!!!!!

[doombug]

... in response to They should focus their energies....., posted by Hoda on Nov 7, 2005

[This message has been edited by doombug]

"...than on the less than 2 percent (guesstimation on my part) of the men who honestly seek a lifemate outside the U.S."

Nearly dead on.    

"According to data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 2,395,000 marriages in the U.S. in the 12 months ending June, 1997 (and 1,154,000 divorces in the same period). The 4,000 to 6,000 marriages involving international services represent, then, a tiny portion (.021 percent) of the women who marry U.S. men."
["The 'Mail-order Bride' Industry and Its Impact on U.S. Immigration"; http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/repsstudies/Mobappa.htm]

These are just marriages from "international services".  I think most of us are already aware that a majority of international marriages occur without the use of such services.  Total international marriages between U.S. men and foreign women numbered a little over 106,000 (from the same 1997 time period)--which was roughly 4.5% of all U.S. marriages.

[lapentier]

... in response to Not entirely propaganda, since they are ..., posted by doombug on Nov 6, 2005

Just read the link.  This is incredible!  You are correct; this group actually appears to be serious.

At first, when I read the post, I thought it was a bit of sarcasm, really subtle humor on someone's part, or someone on Lifetime's website attempting to draw out the more radical elements on the left in order to get them to say something stupid.  At this point, it would appear they managed to do it all by themselves without any outside assistance.

Since someone on the radical fringe has actually put what they are thinking in writing, the appropriate response is to contact your representative or senator.  Send a copy, and hand write a note that says something to the effect of, "If you voted for this, you've been 'had'."

If our elected representatives bother to read their correspondence, that should elicit a response.  They are human, and they don't like to be duped any more than we do.

Mark

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Not entirely propaganda, since they ..., posted by lapentier on Nov 6, 2005

[This message has been edited by doombug]

The petition that they pushed to get this act before Congress was financed by some organization called Women's Funding Network--which itself is supported by a hodgepodge of feminist groups, victims rights groups, etc.

I tried to join their site to browse the forums, but they have cleverly excluded anyone who doesn't have an "Organization Access Code".  To get such a code, you must belong to one of the numerous groups who support them.

It appears that our legislatures haven't enough sense to do some very simple research to discover whether or not these initiatives are being pushed by organizations with ulterior motives.  They're told of a couple of cases of spousal abuse in the North West--a few cases among a hundred-thousand-plus international marriages per year--and are then expected to go along with this nutty link to human trafficking.

Anyone who might be curious about this exclusive and shady organization (which, not surprisingly, is based in the ultra-liberal core of America--San Francisco) here's the site:

http://www.wfnet.org/

And the petition they sponsored:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/763669991?ltl=1130442445

[Hoda]

... in response to Re: Re: Not entirely propaganda, since t..., posted by doombug on Nov 7, 2005


"I tried to join their site to browse the forums, but they have cleverly excluded anyone who doesn't have an "Organization Access Code". To get such a code, you must belong to one of the numerous groups who support them."

.....now ain't that some shit!!! Maybe we should have something similar, to keep them outta our business :-)

[Keith NC]

... in response to A "secret handshake" to join &..., posted by Hoda on Nov 7, 2005

Hoda,

Right on!  I think we should have something to exclude those man hating bitches from our business.  None of us guys are bothering any of those women but they have their damn noses all up in our business.  

I don't think they will be able to stop men from marrying foreign women.  The Genie is out of the bottle and men have a choice now.

[stefang]

... in response to Re: A "secret handshake" to jo..., posted by Keith NC on Nov 7, 2005

All you have to do is file a discrimination suit against them for taking away your equal rights to join their club. The Feminazis have been doing it for years to men's clubs.

[Keith NC]

... in response to Re: Re: A "secret handshake" t..., posted by stefang on Nov 7, 2005

That is a good point, Stefang.  Throw it right back in their faces.

[WS244]

... in response to Why can't they just leave us alone, posted by JackofTrades on Nov 5, 2005

Actually you are correct, however when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, its primary purpose was to help the colored people.  What happened over the years was the woman's movement hijacked the intended purpose of the original act.  (and if this is not true you would not see so many black men in jail as they were just left behind in the dust of the woman's movement).  You are probably not old enough, but in those days one never heard the term "minority" or even the term "woman minority".  This Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 caused this country to cease being a "Republic" and hence eversince has been a "Democracy."  Basically the result being men are being outvoted in almost every avenue.  We are now a Democracy in its purist form, where political correctness and equality come before everything else in life, like wide open borders for example, illegals by the millions here on your tax dollars and yet one's soon to be Colombian spouse can not even get a tourist visa. You see your girfriend has only one vote-yours, and the illegals have thousands of votes, there families already here as citizens.  Or another example are the Cubans, just need to walk on our shore and no questions asked.

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Why can't they just leave us alone, posted by WS244 on Nov 5, 2005

"You see your girfriend has only one vote-yours, and the illegals have thousands of votes, there families already here as citizens."

That is an OUTSTANDING observation!  One that I've yet to hear discussed on talk radio, debated on television, or mentioned in the periodicals.

[Spanky]

... in response to Why can't they just leave us alone, posted by JackofTrades on Nov 5, 2005

why do want a bunch of overweight couch potatoes who live their lives watching imaginary tv relationships then go to lifetimetv.com to post their jaded feelings on the subjects to leave us alone?