It also happens at this side of the pond, in Spain; by the way, a country built against the Muslim danger by the wise politics of Castillian princesses such as Berenguela or Isabelle. England was united by Alfred, Germany by Bismarck and Italy by Garibaldi, but Spain is the work of a few women.

J Aquilar,

...a country built against the Muslim danger...

The reign of Isabella and Ferdinand is a pretty good example of tyranny, religious intolerance and racism (i.e., "limpieza de sangre" or "purity of the blood" was a major deal amongst 16th century Spainards). My suggestion is that we don't emulate it.

Yehudit,

Of couples I know, the husband is usually more dovish or more assured of the efficacy of diplomacy, and the wife is usually more hawkish, less squeamish about war.

Do you think that observation would be born out by scientific procedures?

Do you think that observation would be born out by scientific procedures?

Yes. The hypothesis is that women would be more variable in their attitude toward war. When threatened the woman has a much higher investment in seeing her offspring protected and will be more belligerant. When not being threatened she has no interest in martial displays. The question is when does she feel her offspring are being threatened? I suspect this is why wars of national survival will be fought far more viciously for any given society than wars of expansion.

Are there any longitudinal studies in which the response of male vs. female, pre and post 9/11 to the use of force and assessment of threat can be compared?

I think that the effects of radical Islam are more easily apparent to females. I'd suspect that more than a few females look on burqua-clad lumps with pity, and a bit of horror, thinking that such a thing could well be in their future if we lose. However, guys may need a more direct approach -- ads/posters saying things like "Islamofascists: they want to take away your beer" might make the guys realize that they have a LOT to lose, too.

Mrs. Davis,

When threatened the woman has a much higher investment in seeing her offspring protected and will be more belligerant. When not being threatened she has no interest in martial displays.

In other words, you don't know.

I suspect this is why wars of national survival will be fought far more viciously for any given society than wars of expansion.

I dunno, the Germans and Japanese were fairly vicious in their wars of expansion. So were the Romans.

Are there any longitudinal studies in which the response of male vs. female, pre and post 9/11 to the use of force and assessment of threat can be compared?

Didn't more women vote for Kerry than Bush? While it isn't a perfect proxy, it is a decent one.

Of course, one can ask (as long as we're trading in wholely unscientific anecdotal evidence) why the vast majority of war bloggers seem to be guys?

In other words, you don't know.

That's why it's called an hypothesis.

We can swap anecdotal evidence all day. That's why I suggested looking for a longitunidal attitude study.

Let me add an anecdote.

I am more hawkish than my mate, but not by much. I'm the male.

Mrs. Davis,

That's why I suggested looking for a longitunidal attitude study.

Well, look for one then instead providing us with a hypothesis.

Apparently your link doesn't work.

#5 from Castillon: "Didn't more women vote for Kerry than Bush? While it isn't a perfect proxy, it is a decent one."

I think this is a satisfactory proxy. It would take strong evidence to overturn it.

According to this link (see below), 51% of the women who voted, voted for Kerry. 55% of the men who voted, voted for Bush. Obviously any conclusions based on this information re: gender and hawkishness would depend on a whole series of assumptions*, but if we assume for a moment that this is a good proxy for measuring such things, then men are slightly more hawkish than women according to his data.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

*Including whether they represent the attitudes of non-voters, whether this data represents the views of the "couples" who are sub-set of this data, etc.

My husband is about as hawkish as I am. He voted for Kerry, because he prefers Democrat Party policies. He didn't really like Kerry, though. He put a 'Kerry haters for Kerry' sticker on his car.

I voted for Bush because Kerry's ideas, or lack of them, reminded me too much of Jimmy Carter. However, I liked Bush about as much as my husband liked Kerry. Next time, I'm writing in Giuliani, whether he runs or not.

I think we also need to look at trendlines. In 2000 women voted against Bush by 56% (54% Gore, 2% Nader, 1% Other). Men voted against Bush by 45% (42% Gore, 3% Nader, 2% Other).

So male support for Bush stayed constant at 55%, whereas female support for Bush increased by 5% to 49%.

Of course, hawkish/dovish was not an issue in the 2000 election, and if it had been I think it would have been disastrous for Bush, who ran on "compassionate conservatism" and planned on being the "Domestic President". However, it does seem to me that if we take the 2004 election to be a referendum on hawkish v. dovish, then we could infer that hawkishness improved Bush's standing with female voters, and and didn't change Bush's standing with male voters.

Castillon,
Scientific studies are well and good, but this is a blog. Shouldn't it be OK to share anecdotes here? And maybe a tenuous hypothesis or two?

THe issue I think relates more to overall attitudes towards world-views. Feminists mostly believe that the Liberal/Progressive attitude (white people=bad; others=good; no non-White non-Christian can be "evil" and any action against Anglos is deserved somehow).

This is basically the Chomsky view; more widespread than you think. Very heirarchical and designed to demonstrate the natural aristocratic superiority, moral and spiritual, of the person who holds these beliefs, over the lesser plebes (particularly the awful pocket-protector engineers and the like) who might actually leap-frog over them in status and social position.

If you are a Feminist GWB is a greater threat than "charmingly authentic" Taliban spokesmen at Yale, who defended the practice of pulling out fingernails of Afghani women caught with nail polish. After all GWB is against Gay Marriage, while Talibani spokesman are "the noble savage" providing a true and real tribal perspective; far more than the dreary reality of daily life were continued work and focus determin success.

More likely than not, more women than men hold Feminist viewpoints and thus discount the War on Terror or Islamist threat; and hold the real threat to be GWB not attending the Vagina Monologues or being an Evangelical Christian and such.

Most men seem to hold the view that right and wrong exist, the weak and innocent should be protected; and Islamists are the main threat. Most women likely hold the opposite, that "poor oppressed peoples" have a natural right to destroy Westerners and the real threat is fighting them. Hence Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, ANSWER, etc which are about 90% female judging by photos. If ordinary life and the middle class values are your primary enemies; then yeah this makes sense.

lurker,

It is as ok as it is for me to comment on such.

Jim Rockford,

The liklihood that the Taliban or any like group would take over the U.S. is very, very small. Indeed, the liklihood of croacking due to a terrorist attack is very, very small.

These comments are interesting. For instance, I didn't know that women only voted for Kerry 51:49.

Married women often do get the Security Mom complex that single women don't yet understand.

I do know that SINGLE American women were like 2:1 for Kerry while SINGLE American men were 2:1 for Bush.

The subject of defending our existence was too important for me to countenance ever marrying a leftist woman.

That sent me packing to Europe where I've lived ever since. Mathematically, 1 in 3 American males will die lonely or unhappy if he is forced to remain in the USA with a left wing feminist as his only marriage possibility.

Now here is what I am writing a book about:

Many of the pro-war Security Moms STILL ARE FEMINISTS of the worst kind.

When these women dream about slaughtering male chauvinists in the Middle East...they are also dreaming about destroying male chauvinists in the USA. They may be "for the troops"...but only in terms of the troops killing men whose views the Security Moms don't like. This would include most of the American troops themselves if the Security Moms ever thought of asking them their views on life.

And who are the men who date and marry conservative feminists? Metrosexuals. In the USA, too many men let the woman wear the pants in the family. Because of an alliance between right wing feminists and left wing feminists, the USA is the only country that has passed feminist laws that NO OTHER COUNTRY would ever consider voting on, and which no nation in 6000 years of recorded history would have thought about.

Sweden doesn't even come close in passing laws that restrict men's behavior "for the public good."

Take, for instance, a law that was snuck into the back of the renewal of the so-called Violence Against Women Act just before Christmas 2005: It was called the IMBRA law: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.

The law states that it is not a right but a privilege for Americans to meet foreigners for relationships. It gets away with this because it is wrapped in nonsense about "mail order bride" customers being losers and abusers, when the evidence actually shows that native-born Americans who date foreign women (via Internet sites and any other means of introduction) have the highest incomes and education levels.

The law never came into effect (at least in terms of regulating the way people meet each other) because a federal judge in Georgia saw that it was insane to force Americans to send their criminal backgrounds to foreign strangers before even being allowed to say "hello" and get a feel for the stranger's authenticity and personality. The law had been the equivalent of saying that a man who walks into a bar, must submit his background info to the bartender if he wants to talk to a woman in teh bar...and the woman must approve the info that the bartender gives her and give the green light for the man to come up to her and say hello.

What was shocking is that it wasn't only left wing feminists supporting such a law that branded American males as abusers before the fact. Every Republican politician except Tom Tancredo let this slide and said 'yes' (despite having voted no on the same law when it was presented as a standalone bill in October 2005).

It gets worse: When the Georgia court put a temporary restraining order on IMBRA in March, Fox News started a campaign against "those who date foreign women" with Tony Snow and Bill Oreilly as the primary "defenders of women"...who used what has always been known as radical feminist rhetoric to imply that it is the right thing to do to regulate the dating behavior of males (saying hello)!

Then on May 26th, a Republican judge in Ohio who has a wife and two daughters said "The Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized a fundamental liberty interest in Americans meeting foreigners for relationships." No other democracy would have judges muttering such garbage.

Not all Security Moms agree with this nonsense. But enough of them do. President Bush and the Republicans apparently rely now on the good will of these women who want to reign in the behavior and thoughts of American men as much as they want to reign in the behavior of Islamists in the Middle East.

The arch conservative website, FreeRepublic.com, as of February 2006, now has a policy of NOT condemning feminism.

Ask the moderators of FreeRepublic if criticism of feminism is allowed anymore. Do a search using the word "feminism" to see that the last post on the subject was last December (out of 200,000 FR posts since that date).

Maybe there will be more debate about this as we head into the 2006 elections. There are 3 Republican Senators who are within 1% in the polls of being defeated. These are Conrad Burns of Montana, Jim Talent of Missouri and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Ask these guys directly how much they kneel before the Security Mom type of feminist to keep their support for the war.

o-kay.

[o-kay]

The relevance of the above is that, yes, Security Moms can be more aggressive than metrosexual husbands in supporting the WOT as well as getting domestic social legislation passed in Congress.

I guess I could have just said all that in one simple sentence. But I backed it up. :-)

It bears repeating: not all pro-war "Security Moms" are feminists and not all feminists are out to control male behaviors with new laws. But it is true that there are conservative feminists as well as the traditional left wing kind.

There are plenty of great books like "Who Stole Feminism" and "The New Victorians" that were written by feminists without chips on their shoulders.

Here is an excellent essay by the editor of ifeminist on the above-mentioned IMBRA law for instance:

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html

Jack - you mean feminists like women who think that they should have equal opportunities at work? Or feminists like the soldiers in Raven 42?

Or just feminusts who want women to be able to vote.

Feminism - like all other -isms has more than it's share of silly people. And yes, sex roles in our era are more than a little fuzzy. But how about this - we simply let whoever in the household wants to wear the pants wear them?

But to use this issue as some kind of major cleavage line in modern society seems more than silly, and to ignore the interesting question, which is why it is that women are trending somewhat more belligerent than men are right now.

A.L.

Castillon --

So women who self-identify as Feminists are more concerned about GWB having lunch with someone from the Christian Coalition than say, Afghani women having their fingernails pulled out; or worse? That would not at least express thanks that GWB had made the Afghani women's lives better by overthrowing the Taliban.

What is remarkable is that women who self-identify as feminists (Feminist Organizations on campus at Yale) SUPPORTED the admission of former Taliban Spokesman to the school, while denying Afghani women the same privilege. This spokesman made defended the public execution of women for "immorality" and the various other brutalities inflicted upon them. And also never recanted his support, indeed he supports the Taliban to this day.

As for Islamist threats, the large rallies for the Party of GOD (that's Hezbollah) and the public threats of Hez to strike against America in America here in this country should give everyone pause for concern. Only Al Qaeda has killed more Americans, and the FBI believes Hez sleeper terror cells are a huge risk to the nation.

Feminists care more about erasing the nuclear family and living a fantasy of some gender-free uber-PC society. [Read Millet or Greer or Friedan or Ehrenreich]. Seeing Pat Robertson (Christianity is essentially a dead/dying religion that no one really believes in) as scarier than Hassan Nasrallah who's said "We are not fighting you to get anything from you. We are fighting you to kill you." Christianity is dead, no one believes in it. Divorce, infidelity, birth rates (birth control) among even evangelicals bear this out.

Donaldson -- stats paint a different picture wrt Feminism. Sweden, home of the Feminist Party (which seeks to abolish marriage with twenty-year max "contracts") is a good example. The marriage rate there is very low; compared to that of America's. Even comparing mostly White Americans to mostly White Swedes and excluding immigrant groups from both nations. [Feminists hate Marriage and Family. Friedan called it a prison. So did Millet.]

It's more a function of the Welfare State. When the State makes reasonably reliable promises to look after the welfare of children, the incentive for choosing a reliable and dependable partner goes out the window and a parade of romantic but unstable men ensues. [The two traits are highly correlated IMHO] In America middle class women know that the path to say, Yale for their children depends on marrying and staying married to the father of their children, and choosing him wisely. About 75% of Yale Freshmen came from intact families with the biological father living with them; according to a 2001 study.

Feminism is of course completely separate from Women's Rights, equality under the law, fair shake and all that. As seen by the reaction (non-reaction) by feminists to the Yale Taliban. Really more of an upper-class white woman movement to feel "special" and live out an Updike novel without the annoying husband. [Friedan lived in a mansion with maids] Very successful in penetrating the Media, Academia, and Hollywood. Not so much with ordinary women in this nation who don't want to give up their husbands for a ten year "renewable one time only" contract.

Jim, Jim, Jim -

Might I gently suggest opening your eyes and doing some research if you'e going to look at this issue and talk about it?

Again, there's interesting critiques to be made of the "womyn's" movement folks, who are a fairly marginal subset - I don't even think they are driving the memes these days, as evidenced by the "grrl power" movement which is pretty different.

But welfare had little to do with divorce rates and the dissolution of the nuclear family.

Three things - first, women could make their own living (even if slightly less good than men's) and those women so inclined could be financially independent - which meant that they could choose to stay or go.

Second, mores changed, and divorced women didn't lose their jobs, or pews in churches, etc.

Third, we continued, as a nation, to consume beyond our means. We've masked it by bringing the Mrs. into the worforce to help pay the mortgage. But that's fully valued at this point, and so unless we're going to send Little Timmy to work, we're due for a long slide in our standard of living.

Which is what happens when you overspend and undersave.

A.L.

Good Morning Armed Liberal (morning in Europe),

I am surprised that you didn't comment on anything I wrote except that you think you understand "feminism" more than I do. This is important because you, as a blogger, are quite influential.

It often takes five minutes in person but 3 days online to convince an American that some feminist laws in the USA have left the train tracks and gone out of control, with the Congress basically cheering them on for fear of appearing like they "don't support women's rights".

In Europe, including Sweden where I go often enough, it takes 10 seconds to convince any woman that American feminist laws are going off the tracks. Sweden, for instance, doesn't have any laws meant to discourage marrying Americans.

One would get the impression that I must be one of those unenlightened neanderthals who doesn't care about "equal opportunities" or the right to vote for women. But, problem is, where did I ever say that?

And how, pray tell, is it an equal opportunity for American women to place a veto on American men dating and marrying European women? The Constitutional right to do that just isn't there, but plenty of Americans think otherwise. To them, social globalism must be stopped in the same way that economic globalism must be stopped.

It is no fringe group that got IMBRA passed. Did you read the editor of ifeminist criticizing other feminists about the law:

Great ifeminists article

Then there are sites like Online-Dating-Rights.com where you can and should debate if you think the law is OK. You can read the actual law at http://www.IMBRA.org/legal.html

Have you noticed that more than 10,000 fiance visas are backed up now because of IMBRA...a huge battle is happening inside the government on how to interpret the law and its restraining order.

I am a business executive with American women working with me and I would never say anything to insult American women or imply that there isn't an "equity feminism" as opposed to a "victim feminism" or whatever.

Sure, I may have just said "the feminists this or that" just like Jim did...but heck, blog comments don't always get proofread. I should have said "victim feminists".

And, besides, you know as well as I do that the victim feminist crowd is so sensitive that, in the USA, only women are allowed to cricize even the victim feminists in public. Don't assume that the old days when a famous man could make a remark and get away with it are better off gone.

One of the things that I am noting is that it is the definition of "metrosexual" for a heterosexual male to always feel he has to be "defending feminism" and to give the impression that he really would rather not have a beer with the guys but, instead, hang out somewhere with the women being sensitive and politically correct.

And, sadly, a lot of fundamentalist "Christian" males fall into this category now in that, for instance, they could not bear to listen to another male talk about how he met a gorgeous woman and things happened that brought the man happiness or enjoyment (can't have that can we).

It is like, the 1990s fight between those who wanted to differentiate between victim and equity feminism and those who wanted to pretend that all feminism is monolithic and good...was lost. Those who want to pretend that feminism is monolithic and always good have won the day.

Do you see how your post showed this? You shouldn't have even thought of sarcastically asking another man if he believed in equal rights. I hadn't said anything along those lines.

Not differentiating between the types of feminism is like saying that all 350 dead Lebanese civilians were really all civilians. The act of pretending there isn't a credible "other side to the story" fills an agenda in and of itself.

Asking if a critic of feminism believes that women should vote...is exactly the same rhetorical tactic as saying that "Israel is destroying Lebanon".

Now, what I am saying is that more Republican males than usual are exhibiting this kind of "let's defend the feminists" behavior. The supposedly conservative FreeRepublic.com used to be a place where "men could be men". But now it is completely verboten to mention the word feminism, unless in the narrow sense of some women's groups being against the war and pro-Taliban or pro-abortion or pro-lesbianism.

Jim Rockford, in his posts above, seems to be operating in the area that is still allowed: he is concentrating on leftist feminists' views on foreign policy. That plus abortion and lesbianism are still, as of 9 Oclock this morning, still allowed as a way of "dissent".

Jim Rockford is ignoring the right wing feminists who happen to support the War on Terror for their own reasons, especially particular ones who are now close to George Bush and want to liberate Iran like many of the rest of us do...but for a different reason.

No, the victim feminists (womyn's groups) are not a fringe group either on the left OR on the right. Please use Google to see what the likes of Senator Brownback (Republican) of Kansas has to say in praise of "women's groups" that are otherwise highly controversial. It wins votes these days to support anything that has the word women in it. Sounds like these "fringe groups" have a lot of leverage in the Republican Party.

And the websites of Republican politicians are filling up with pages on "Women's Issues" with no sign of interest in "Men's Issues."

A warped sense of chivalry is also at play here.

It just simply isn't about "equal opportunities" anymore. As another example, it is verboten on FreeRepublic now to say that a 35 year old man might date a 22 year old woman (equal opportunity means dating your own age now apparently). My 25 year old girlfriend knows that I prefer skirts and dresses to pants. :-)

It is one thing to say that it is hypothetically OK to let the woman "wear the pants" in the family. It is another thing altogether not to be able to ask your wife to put on a mini-skirt while you both clean the house on Saturday. ;-)

Metrosexualism is often defined as simply being "urban men who care as much about defoliating face creams as women do"...but there is more to the definition.

And, no, I think it is horrifying to see some American women more into the WOT than their husbands!

Finally...fringe groups multiply their power exponentially by choosing certain career paths such as "Congressional legislative assistant."
They take very low pay (that business executives couldn't accept of course) but then they can wreak havoc and get their way over time.

These days, Republican Congressional offices no longer care if these legislative assistants are actually Republican themselves. Check it out: Call any Republican Senator or Congressman and ask the assistants if they are Republican or not.

If anybody, male or female, disagrees that I am presenting a valid viewpoint (whether you agree or disagree with the viewpoint itself), please hop over to Online-Dating-Rights.com and get into a discussion where they will be polite and professional and show you how and why the Internet is under attack from "fringe groups" with a lot of leverage.

And a tendency to aggressiveness, whether towards Muslim or American men.

Here is the logic as a mathematical formula:

1) Man posts specific criticism of what a supposed fringe group of feminists has wrought in Congress because the fringe group's support is needed in the war on terror.

2) Male moderator accuses man of being against women?

3) QED: the fringe group mentality is obviously not fringe. In fact, if criticism of the fringe group is stifled in mainstream commentary, the fringe group wins more than just mainstream status.

4) Next week, when the fringe group goes further (domestic version of IMBRA requiring all American males to submit to background checks before they can even say hello to an American woman)...a division of male "protectors of women" will be ready to stifle any criticism.

Will that include the major bloggers? Glen at Instapundit is a lawyer but hasn't looked even at the various feminist-related laws that have been overturned by the Supreme Court in the past few years. You'd be surprised at the progressive laws that everyone was so proud to vote for a few years ago...that have been silently overturned and not talked about in the MSM or on major blogs.

The idea is, if you don't talk about laws being overturned, Congress can rewrite them and try again.

Did you hear how in Japan...there are now "women only" subway cars and restaurants and hotels? This only happened in the last six months in response to male strangers pinching women in public too much.

Please research how Japanese men feel about this "solution to the male problem." It is an eye opener.

Try reading comments in Japanese on Japanese blogs.

If you Google you will see general approval of all this coming from Americans. They say "if Japanese men tend to grope women, they should be herded into their own subway cars and business establishments". And the amount of metrosexual American males who post agreement with the final solution...makes me proud to be living in Europe where, despite the alleged opposition to war, men aren't likely to go quietly with the trend.

Europeans went down this road before with another three ideologies.

But have major bloggers tackled the Japanese trend? No. Especially not the most conservative blogs like FreeRepublic or Little Green Footballs.

Why? Because many conservative American men would like to say they'd put Japanese "gropers" up against firing squads...so they really don't care if Japanese business executives miss important meetings because the male-only subway cars were filled (which is a big problem).

This tendency of too many American male conservatives to go along with the idea that such laws are "chivalrous" and serve "the common good" is frightening.

A great book to read on this subject is "Lipstick Jungle" by the author of "Sex in the City".

Nathan,

I like your poster idea, but it only appeals to Joe Sixpack. Why not add, "and your electric shaver" and get the urban metrosexuals on board, too? :-)

Armed Liberal: In short it is important to note that the incredible and seemingly welcome aggressiveness of a good chunk of conservative American women in the war on terror (or war on male chauvinist arabs as they might see it) can be connected as well with an incredible aggressiveness of certain new "bipartisan" women's organizations to push through legislation that American men may or may not agree with...and which the courts won't agree with.

Supporting the war on terror lends leverage in America today. Look at Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell: they can get what they want because they are proud of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As a result, we may have female-only New York subway cars by Christmas.

Castillon (#2)

...a country built against the Muslim danger...

The reign of Isabella and Ferdinand is a pretty good example of tyranny, religious intolerance and racism (i.e., "limpieza de sangre" or "purity of the blood" was a major deal amongst 16th century Spainards). My suggestion is that we don't emulate it.

That was not the point of my comment and you know it. In the building of Spain as a nation, women had more to do compared to the rest of European countries or the U.S. That is a fact.

You may suggest whatever you want, but today the Muslim threat is there as it was then. And Berenguela, Isabelle, Ferdinand and all those tirants (no wife's head rolling like in England), religious intolerants (less than many other kings in Europe) and racists (largest Jewish and Muslim community in Europe) did what it was needed then to contain the enemy, with pretty limited resources.

I hope someone emulates some of their actions today.

Men and women generally became more hawkish after 9/11 because people react to threats against their lives and their families that way. If the immediate threat doesn't loom large, people tend to return to their old attitudes. The elections in 2002 were probably a better indication of how things had changed.

In short it is important to note that the incredible and seemingly welcome aggressiveness of a good chunk of conservative American women in the war on terror (or war on male chauvinist arabs as they might see it) can be connected as well with an incredible aggressiveness of certain new "bipartisan" women's organizations to push through legislation that American men may or may not agree with...and which the courts won't agree with.

That idea had never occured to me before, but thanks for suggesting it. I'll see what the sisters say at our next world domination meeting - you know, those impromptu smart-mob gatherings we hold in the ladies room (which explains the lines) If we can get the international alliance of fembots on our side, all your subway car are belong to us.

Mary,

That was cute but let's make one thing clear: you are not expected as an American woman to sympathize with victim feminism or deny its existence. So there is no reason to be defensive or sarcastic. If you are for the WOT, it doesn't mean that you, yourself, are part of the phenomenon I described.

You were not being criticized so there is no reason to defend...unless you are for what I was criticizing and no what you are talking about.

I wish we really were talking about a phantom "movement," but you can look up Tahirih Justice Center and IMBRA via Google and you will see that there now is an extensive left and right wing backed "women's rights" movement...that has gotten more empowered since 9-11 and has the full backing of Republican Senators like Brownback.

That could be a great thing, especially if it helps get "honor killings" and mandatory burkhas eliminated from the Muslim world.

But power corrupts. So the TJC is now very happy with a federal judge in Ohio saying the following about IMBRA:

"The Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized a fundamental liberty interest in Americans meeting foreigners for relationships."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

I have never met a woman here in Europe who does agree with that and they aren't even Americans.

In other words, the US Right to Assembly mentioned in the First Amendment is only between Americans and other Americans...according to this "women's rights" organization (TJC).

Google the Internet and you will see the raging battle over control of Internet dating. The TJC isn't kidding about making damn sure men don't use the Internet to date foreign women...and then there is a strong lobby to background check everyone who signs onto any social site (look up the MySpace.com lawsuit on Google).

I am assuming that you've read this article by a reasonable feminist OPPOSING the new law:

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html

I posted this twice already but two critics didn't acknowledge having read it and I honestly believe that they respond to my posts without having read it.

The IMBRA law is under restraining order from another judge in Ohio. But meanwhile, 10,000+ American women and men are suffering from the delays involved in waiting for the permanent injunction.

I think that creating separate subway cars like in Japan and Brazil would be less of a problem.

The good thing is that these new attacks will help get some great new Supreme Court decisions that will protect Americans in the future.

But one would have assumed that the right to association was already nailed down and iron-clad.

You can Google all the laws that have been overturned by the courts, and see that half of them might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but really were against what the Constitution envisioned.

Apparently the founding fathers didn't expect some women to ever get so engaged in trying to get the interpretation of that document twisted around.

you are not expected as an American woman to sympathize with victim feminism or deny its existence. So there is no reason to be defensive or sarcastic. If you are for the WOT, it doesn't mean that you, yourself, are part of the phenomenon I described.

I'm just trying to point out that you seem to be, umm..overtheorizing, seeing plots where none exist. Yes, there has been a recent moronic convergence between the extreme right and the extreme left. Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader agree on most points, Pat Robertson cheers for Howard Dean...these extremists have very little popular support so they try to accomplish their goals through the state, not by appealing to the general public. I don't think it's part of a plan or anything, it's just a trend that's becoming popular among all political losers, not just the women..

[Pat Robertson cheers for Howard Dean...these extremists have very little popular support so they try to accomplish their goals through the state, not by appealing to the general public.I don't think it's part of a plan or anything, it's just a trend that's becoming popular among all political losers, not just the women..]

I agree. The left and right often come together to amplify their frustration with the reasonable people in the middle. That often gets laws passed that are overturned after 2 years of someone getting heartburn defending everyone else's rights.

One shouldn't get perturbed, even though the Supreme Court is not always predictable.

It is a theory that Security Moms are demanding a pound of flesh for their WOT support.

But it is not a theory that the Ohio judge made the above quote.

I live in Europe now so I really shouldn't care. :-)

J. Aquilar,

That was not the point of my comment and you know it. In the building of Spain as a nation, women had more to do compared to the rest of European countries or the U.S. That is a fact.

Whether it is a "fact" or not (and Philip II might have a word to say on that), your statement prompts a comment about how Spain actually met the "Muslim danger."

...religious intolerants (less than many other kings in Europe)...

Whether they were or not, what they did isn't something that we modern, Western types should emulate.

...and racists (largest Jewish and Muslim community in Europe)...

Which Spain summarily booted out or persecuted following 1492. Indeed, part of the reason that Spain became such a European backwater was due to it stupidly kicking out a highly literate Jewish population and a highly skilled (as artisans and the like) Muslim population. But having a "pure" Christian population was apparently more important to them.

...did what it was needed then to contain the enemy...

Were the executions (of Jews and Muslim "conversos") that followed a "auto de fe" what was needed? Like I wrote, I hope that we don't emulate the racism, religious intolerance, militarism, etc. of 16th century Spain.

I have travelled widely to Europe and Asia and I want to share this well-known observation - American feminist women have a terrible reputation among men around the world. They are widely perceived as obese, selfish, spoiled, boorish and emotionally demanding. They are also considered rather overbearing and hysterical. It's well known amongst expat communities around the world that American feminist women are shunned by men outside of U.S.A.

On the contrary, decent and well-off American men are generally viewed as the "cream of the crop" - highly coveted and desirable.... These gentlemen enjoy a great reputation among foreign ladies who perceive them to be respectful, nurturing, responsible, well-educated and financially secure. In addition, these women believe that American men make great husbands, especially in contrast to native men, who are often disrespectful, abusive and unfaithful.

The problem in this country is that the "best in the world" are often paired up with the "worst in the world".... a complete mismatch. It's like a highschool Prom King dating an ugly, domineering and boorish girl. It's very unlikely that this type of relationship will work out. Sadly, this seems to be the case, as the marriages "made in America" have a higher divorce rate (55 to 60 percent) than in the cross-cultural marriages (15 to 20 percent). So why is the risk of divorce so much lower when an American gentleman marries a "mail-order bride"? In a nutshell, it's because our Prom King is marrying a Prom Queen, who is beautiful, intelligent, feminine, appreciative and devoted.

A growing number of affluent American men are rejecting American feminist women and going overseas to embrace loverly, young foreign brides. A nearly fourfold increase in foreign women entering the U.S. on fiance(e) visas (over the last 7 years) supports this contention. It's no secret that by pursuing foreign women, men can find much younger, more attractive and devoted partners than what's available at home.

Take Tiger Woods, for example. This man has essentially rejected all American women and instead, he went overseas and married a lovely Swedish woman. Tiger is a one very smart gentleman.... I bet he knows (that) marriage to a foreign lady would mean a lower risk of future divorce!

Let me tell you about the relationship between my loverly Russian wife and myself. Despite our 21 year age difference, our relationship is based on mutual love and admiration.... our love is real and valid. Also, our bond is strengthened by our common interests, continual romance and mutual respect for each other. As with most Russian women, my wife is independent and has a strong will. Our relationship is a 50-50 equal partnership. There is no control and no domination.

My experience, as described above, is very typical of most marriages to "mail-order brides" - in contrast to many marriages "made in America", there are no bitchiness or nagging, no hysteria or drama and no belligerant or confrontational behaviors.... only mutual love and admiration.

Therefore...., when a decent and affluent American gentleman marries a young, loverly foreign bride, what's created is truely, a match made in heaven - the best matched with the best....

And IMBRA is really a scornful feminist response to this growing international romance.

http://www.online-dating-rights.com/blog/lestat/index.php?

I want to inform modern American feminists of this new reality: most American men do not want you. They do not want to date you and they certainly do not want to marry you. Do you know why? Because any relationships with you pose too much legal and financial risks to American men. The enormous risks of divorce and financial insolvency that men face when they marry you is no longer justified by paltry (often minimum) rewards that you bring to a marriage. Thus, you are being scorned and ignored by a growing number of affluent American men who prefer more feminine and traditional foreign women who offer youth, beauty and loyalty, the qualities you lack. These men realize that by marrying foreign women, they incur lower risk of divorce and greater probability of successful marriage and happiness. Therefore,... many of you will never marry or have children... you will end up like one of your own, Maria Cantwell - old, un-married, completely childless, living with mommy... You need to understand that by depriving and denying your biological instinct to create, love and nurture a family, modern feminism has created a royal road to oblivion that ends with your emptiness, bitterness and despair. Whatever traits or value you carried in your genes will stop with you. No children, no legacy... When you die, you truely die.

A growing number of men now make no apologies for rejecting any modern feminist women. The enormous risks incurred in marrying an American feminist are simply not justified by minimal or no rewards that these relationships bring. An American gentleman now has to walk through a minefield of risks including false abuse claims, financial bankrupcy (from divorce), and denial of child visitation rights. Thus, any intelligent and self-respecting man would reject this modern feminist paradigm of marriage.

IMBRA And American Feminist Women Scorned And Ignored

I want to inform modern American feminists of this new reality: most American men do not want you. They do not want to date you and they certainly do not want to marry you. Do you know why? Because any relationships with you pose too much legal and financial risks to American men. The enormous risks of divorce and financial insolvency that men face when they marry you is no longer justified by paltry (often minimum) rewards that you bring to a marriage. Thus, you are being scorned and ignored by a growing number of affluent American men who prefer more feminine and traditional foreign women who offer youth, beauty and loyalty, the qualities you lack. These men realize that by marrying foreign women, they incur lower risk of divorce and greater probability of successful marriage and happiness. Therefore,... many of you will never marry or have children... you will end up like one of your own, Maria Cantwell - old, un-married, completely childless, living with mommy... You need to understand that by depriving and denying your biological instinct to create, love and nurture a family, modern feminism has created a royal road to oblivion that ends with your emptiness, bitterness and despair. Whatever traits or value you carried in your genes will stop with you. No children, no legacy... When you die, you truely die.

A growing number of men now make no apologies for rejecting any modern feminist women. The enormous risks incurred in marrying an American feminist are simply not justified by minimal or no rewards that these relationships bring. An American gentleman now has to walk through a minefield of risks including false abuse claims, financial bankrupcy (from divorce), and denial of child visitation rights. Thus, any intelligent and self-respecting man would reject this modern feminist paradigm of marriage.

IMBRA And The Tahirih Justice Center's Hypocricy

Online-dating relationships essentially involve three distinct, progressive stages:

1. Stage One is the Introduction Stage, in which people first greet each other ("hello"), exchange letters, e-mails, phone calls, etc.

2. Stage Two is the Courtship Stage, in which people actually meet, get to know each other better and advance their relationship. If the couple met via an International Matchmaking Organization (IMO), the gentleman usually travels to meet the lady in her native country.

3. Finally, Stage Three is the Consular Visa Stage. At this time, the couple is engaged (or married), and the lady applies for a fiance(e)/spousal visa so she can move to the U.S. to join her partner (if her visa is approved).

IMBRA imposes two extensive criminal background checks on all U.S. male clients of IMOs:

1) at the Introduction Stage (at the level of initial contact) and

2) at the Consular Visa Stage (during fiance(e)/spousal visa application)

The two current lawsuits against IMBRA challenge the mandatory background checks at the Introduction Stage, but not at the Consular Visa Stage.

It is very important to emphasize that there has been no documented cases of violence against foreign women (by American men who met them via IMOs) during the Introduction and the Courtship Stages of online-dating relationships. This suggests that for foreign women, there is virtually no risk of physical abuse at these stages. Therefore, it is completely senseless to require unilateral disclosure of personal and criminal information of all American male clients of IMOs at the Introduction Stage (level of initial contact).

Foreign women will be adequately protected by having extensive criminal background check done on their fiance(e)s/spouses at the Consular Visa Stage, before they immigrate to this country.

The Tahirih Justice Center (the main proponent of IMBRA) have failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why mandatory background checks must be done at the Introduction Stage, even though there is no risk of harm (to foreign women).

What is also very disturbing about IMBRA is that Domestic Matchmaking Organizations (DMOs) are completely exempted (from having to do any background checks on male clients), despite numerous cases of brutal murder, rape and torture of women that have occurred as result of contacts "facilitated" by these agencies..... Furthermore, what I find most sickening is Tahirih's desperate attempts to defend these exemptions in Courts, even though these exemptions, if upheld, would increase murder, rape and exploitation of women..... It's obvious that the Tahirih has turned a blind and self-serving eye to this appalling problem.

IMBRA: Foreign Women Admired, American Feminist Women Scorned:

This post has been inspired by a recent opinion article published (August 22, 2006) in Forbes.com, "Don't Marry Career Women", by Michael Noer.

Guys: a word of advice. Marry Asian women or Russian women. Latin or non-Latin. Romanian or Bulgarian. Just, whatever you do, don't marry an American woman.... Why? Because if many surveys are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage and a divorce....

The spread of radical feminism has led to decline of family values and higher divorce rate in American marriages. The consequences of divorce are devastating and include financial, emotional and physical losses. Moreover, divorce leads to higher psychological and behavior problems in children.... With high failure rates of marriages "made in America" (over 50 percent) and subsequent tragic consequences, it has become important for many American men to think "outside the box" and go abroad to find a bride. Every evidence indicate that marrying a foreign woman (instead of an American woman) leads to more successful marriage and significantly lower risk of divorce, reflecting perhaps, a greater degree of mutual devotion in these inter-cultural marriages.

Ahh....foreign women!
Beautiful, sophisticated, devoted, accomodating and appreciative....
Many foreign ladies come from a culture where family values are of paramount importance. Simple things often make them happy, such as a loving relationship, security and comfort. Most women care about their appearance and like to look feminine but they are not submissive. They also value personal responsibility and strong work ethic.

Foreign ladies naturally admire men, especially American men. These American gentlemen enjoy a great reputation among foreign ladies who perceive them to be nurturing, responsible, well-educated and financially secure. In addition, these women believe that American men make great husbands, especially in contrast to native men who are often abusive, cruel and unfaithful. (Unfortunately, American women are way down the scale in terms of desirability and are virtually ignored by foreign men who prefer to marry their more traditional native women).

It's no secret that by dating foreign women, an older man can find much younger, more attractive and traditional women than what's available at home. Most young foreign women judge a man more by his honesty and character than by his age or looks. Thus, it is realistic for an older American gentleman to find a considerably younger, more attractive foreign bride, often with an age difference of up to 20 or more years. Youth and beauty translate to fertility, or the ability to have healthy babies and for an older man, this is much more likely to occur with a young, loverly foreign bride than with an obese, middle-aged American woman.

International romance has grown considerably over the recent years as the world has become more globalized, bringing together many decent, successful American gentlemen with lovely, exotic foreign ladies. In most cases, these marriages are very successful, as indicated by a much lower divorce rate compared to those "made in America". Many of these inter-cultural marriages are built upon strong family values, true companionship and mutual devotion. By the way, Tiger Woods, who is married to a beautiful Swedish lady, is a one very smart gentleman.... I bet he knows that marriage to a foreign woman would mean lower risk of future divorce!

American men who have not been exposed to foreign women have no idea what they are missing out. And for those gentlemen who do have foreign bride dreams, do not let an idiotic law such as IMBRA get in the way of your happiness.

IMBRA: Russian Women Admired, American Feminist Women Scorned And Unwanted

Russian women - beautiful, intelligent, feminine, stylish, and mysterious. These are the words that I often hear that describe these lovely European ladies. Women such as pictured above are looking for a decent American husband to share their lives with. Like any of us, they want to love and to be loved. They seek a strong family unit marked by devotion and loyalty.

With the U.S. having one of the highest divorce rates in the world (over 50 percent), I think it has become important for many American men to think "outside the box" and go abroad to find a bride. Fortunately, the social globalization and the Internet have made this feasible for many men.

As a group, the male clients of International Matchmaking Organizations are well-educated, financially secure and professionally successful. Most of these men are in the age range 35 to 55 years old. Like Russian ladies, these gentlemen seek strong family relationships.

It's no secret that by pursuing Russian women, men can find much younger, more attractive and traditional women than what's available at home. Moreover, American men would also enjoy a significantly less risk of divorce and better chance of having healthy babies with younger, slender Russian ladies (such as ones pictured above) than with overweight American feminist women. All available evidence indicate (that)compared to marriages between two Americans, these inter-cultural marriages enjoy greater degree of mutual devotion and loyalty, stronger family ties and lower divorce rate.

IMBRA And Tahirih Justice Center's Destructive And Hysterical Behavior

In the last post, "IMBRA And Tahirih Justice Center's Hypocrisy", I have shown (that) there is no justification to force unilateral release of personal and criminal information of all American male clients of International Matchmaking Organizations (IMOs) at the time of initial contact because at that stage, there is no risk of harm to foreign women.

I have also stated that unlike IMOs, Domestic Matchmaking Organizations (DMOs), such as Match.com and Friendfinder.com, are given a complete exemption (or a "free pass") on having to do any background checks on their male clients. Proponents of IMBRA justify these "free passes" by claiming that in DMO-facilitated relationships, men and women are charged and treated the same and therefore, the balence of power is not skewed to empower the male client. As result, they claim, there is less risk for abuse in these relationships.

This assertion is a complete hogwash - in fact, all evidence indicate that there is a significant threat of harm against women and girls as result of these initial contacts made via DMOs. There have been numerous documented cases of brutal murder, rape, torture and exploitation which have occurred as result.

Here are some examples:

(1) A 14 year old girl met a 37 year old man in an American Online Chatroom in 2000. The man was convicted of taking her across state lines to have sex with her. http://www.dangersofinternetdating.com/int...tcrimelinks.htm

(2) A 13 year old girl, Christina Long, was murdered by a 25 year old man she met in an American Online Chatroom. He has confessed to strangling her. http://www.dangersofinternetdating.com/int...tcrimelinks.htm

(3) The body of a young woman who posted her profile in myspace.com was found near Richmond, VA. The suspect is a man whom she met through myspace.com. http://www.bobparsons.com/october2005.html

(4) A 13 year old girl was killed by a 47-year old SanDiego man (who later committed suicide) whom she met in an internet chat room. http://www.bobparsons.com/october2005.html

(5) An affluent real-estate agent in California is charged with with raping three women, two of whom he met through MillionaireMatch.com, a domestic marriage broker.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ia/15833372.htm

(6) A man has been charged with raping 10 women in the Philadelphia area. He met these women via Match.com Hey Tahirih, why isn't Match.com regulated?
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=...&id=4713302

(7) A man is charged with having sex with minor, whom he met via MySpace.com
http://www.nbc5.com/news/10205650/detail.html#

These are just a few examples of hundreds of vicious murder, rape, torture and exploitation against women and girls which have occurred as result of contacts facilitated by DMO's. Many of these horrifying acts of violence may have been prevented if DMOs were forced to do extensive personal and criminal background checks on their male clients.

Now, here is the most heinous part - Tahirih Justice Center, a main proponent of IMBRA, has been fighting in the court of law to preserve these exemptions for DMOs, despite the fact that these "free passes" have enabled many cases of horrendous rape, torture and exploitation against women to occur. We can not let Tahirih prevail regarding these exemptions because if Tahirih gets its way, it will allow murderers, sexual predators, pedophiles and premeditated torturers a free pass to find their next victims. Tahirih's behavior has been deplorable and deeply destructive to efforts to protect women and girls.

Therefore, I urge everyone to fight against Tahirih Justice Center's efforts to preserve exemptions for DMOs....

Now I come to think of it, this is the same Tahirih Justice Center that recently appeared on a case of false and fabricated rape/abuse claim (against David Dickerson, WJLA (Baltimore), Scott Thuman reporting) and hysterically cried about immigrant woman abuse.
And guess what? Now, they are desperately defending IMBRA exemptions (for DMOs) which would allow a "free pass" for murderers, rapists, pedophiles and premeditated torturers to find their next victims.

So Tahirih, which side are you on - are you FOR or AGAINST women's protection?

Are American Feminist Women Becoming Obsolete?

Check this article out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301371.html

This article essentially confirms the validity of what many American men seeking foreign brides say about American feminist women - many of these feminists have become rather selfish, materialistic, superficial, immature, unloving and divorce-prone. As result, an increasing number of American men believe (that) feminist women are no longer worth the effort or the risk of courtship and marriage. It's as if, increasingly, American feminists are now being labeled with some invisible "scarlet letter" - a group of fringe dwellers to be avoided, ignored, belittled and certainly not worthy of any male protection or chivalry. Hence, a growing number of affluent American men are going overseas and walking into the loving arms of foreign brides.

The article also notes that many young American (feminist) women say that they want to be happily married and raise children SOMEDAY. However, to many, SOMEDAY means when they are in their late 30's or 40's when their biological clocks are fast approaching their end and many men do not want or need them. Thus, I believe many young women, through their care-free and exploitive lifestyle (as described in the article), are throwing away the best years of their life when they could have used that precious time to find someone who would love them for the rest of their days. What American feminist women often realize too late, when their looks and hopes have faded, is that lasting love is much more valuable and meaningful than a few more dollars in their pockets.