What's Good?
In Part I, I argued that the modern man seeking a woman worthy of marriage and family should set his sights overseas. Unfortunately, the majority of Western Women have succumbed to the feminist super virus, and are unsuitable for married life.
Before I speak about my experiences with meeting and marrying a woman from distant shores, I feel it is necessary to slay the feminist inspired myth that many men and women both believe in; that anyone who seeks out a foreign wife is a loser who simply couldn't hack it with "normal" Western women.
A key tenant of this myth is that Western men are only interested in non-feminized traditional women because they want door-mats and slaves that will obey without question. This point of view, that non Western women are simply too stupid and naive to exercise their own judgment in matters of love and marriage, leads to the passage of blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional legislation such as the IMBRA law.
Of course, such attitudes are perfect examples of feministic "shaming language;" demeaning rhetoric that is not based on logic and common sense, but is intended to produce massive quantities of guilt, stifle debate, and squash all possible dissent.
Shaming language, according to Harvey Mansfield's Masterwork Manliness, was a huge part of the early twentieth century feminist movement's stunning success:
"Manly in substance, feminism is womanly in manner. Rather than by violent revolution, feminism undertook to bring on the gender neutral society by raising consciousness. Unlike the manly suffragettes, who broke the law and demonstrated scandalously in public places, the feminists... were so law abiding that none of them spent a moment in jail. Raising consciousness was intended to make women and men aware of how much society is prejudiced against women... (Mansfield, Manliness, p. 149)."
The thinker continues:
"By working through changes of language, feminists were able to correct social prejudice without having to demonstrate or even argue for reform. How could one answer them that the impersonal pronoun "he" did not favor men or that women were not equal to men (p. 150)."
The author goes on to expose the real villains behind feminism, and their brand of "shaming language":
"Consciousness is a word used by Marx, and conscious-raising is a compound of neo-Marxist origin that was apparently first used in 1969 in the Red Stocking Manifesto, coauthored by Shulamith Firestone when she helped found a radical feminist group in New York... the term is a reminder that feminism came from the left and that it owed much to Marx's critique of Liberalism; many of the early feminists considered themselves to be Marxists, and (Betty) Friedan herself was either a communist or close to communists in the 1940's (p. 150) [a][b][c]."
Long time readers know that feminism is the Bastard Red Headed stepchild of Marxism and Platonism. And now you know how dangerous "shaming language" is, and why men must be inoculated against its toxic effects before any attempt to improve their situation is undertaken.
Women, especially feminists, have the gift (or the curse) to talk a man right out of his head. Believe it.
The fact of the matter is that the war against men isn't being fought in the streets, at least not yet. It is being fought in the halls of government and the courts, it is being waged in the media and in academia, but most of all, the war is being waged in the darkest interiors of YOUR OWN MIND.
It is impossible to fully embrace the freedom that the MGTOW philosophy provides, nor is it possible to begin the long struggle for social change, until you yourself purify your mind of all the feminist brainwashing that you have ever received, and start making decisions and choices that benefit you, within the boundaries of reason, morality, and common sense.
I have walked the walk. I don't talk about, I AM about it. I have gone out and found the woman who is most worthy to be at my side as I resist feminist tyranny day in and day out. I want to share my knowledge and my experiences with you so that you too, if that is your desire, can find a quality woman worthy enough to bear your last name.
But none of what I write will help you, until you free your mind of the bullshit, and put MGTOW into practice in your own life.
Having information at your command is knowledge; applying knowledge is true WISDOM.
Let go of the feminist orthodoxy, and everything else will fall into place.
(Niccolo Machiavelli)
Because, as the Great Machiavelli tells us:
"I conclude, therefore, that as fortune is changeable whereas men are obstinate in their ways, men prosper so long as fortune and policy are in accord, and when there is a clash they fail. I hold strongly to this: that is is better to be impetuous than circumspect; because fortune is a woman and if she is to be submissive, it is necessary to beat and coerce her. Experience shows that she is more often subdued by men who do this than by those who act coldly. Always, being a woman, she favors young men, because they are less circumspect and more ardent, and because they command her with greater audacity (Machiavelli, The Prince, p. 81)."
Take his words figuratively, not literally, and remember always:
Fortune favors the brave.
So then, in order to destroy the myth that foreign women are the preserve of malcontents and ogres, I would like to share with you a post that a friend, who has since retired from the MRA game, wrote in response to the following article entitled A Rare Moment of Sanity Out of the Bush Administration, by Ms. Bonnie Erbe.
I repost portions of it now.
A rare moment of sanity out of the Bush administration
Let's not just make it tougher for American men to hook up with "mail order brides" over the Internet and import them, let's ban the practice altogether.
(Oh? I thought Americans were free to choose who they could associate with! Sounds racist and xenophobic to me, but I could be wrong.)
In one of the more laudable acts of his tenure in the White House, President Bush earlier this year signed into law the "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005" or IMBRA. The law imposes some tough restrictions on men seeking to import wives. Some of the men complain the law presumes all such American men are abusers.
(Yes, because it does.)
But I say the mere act (to wit, the bizarre act) of deciding to marry someone from a foreign country who is just about guaranteed to be less well educated and a lot less well off financially, creates such an incurably unhealthy imbalance of power in the union, even horrifically burdensome regulation won't suffice.
(Really? Again your prejudice shows my lady. My wife, and many foreign women who meet and marry Americans, are very well educated. Probably better than you are!)
The law requires before any foreign woman's contact information is sold (by an Internet marriage broker) to an American man, he must disclose his criminal and marital background. It also requires the agency brokering such relationships to obtain the man's record from the National Sex Offenders Public Registry database, translate it into the woman's native language and give her a copy.
An Internet search for the words, "mail order brides abuses" brings up articles entitled, "A license to Abuse" and "Mail Order Misery" among many others. Tales of brutalized and murdered women are legion. The situation is not new, although the Internet is clearly increasing opportunities for men to find developing nation wives (very few so-called mail order marriages if any are between American men and women from other developed nations.)
(Yes because no one wants to go through the time and effort of bringing home a FemiNasty woman from a foreign country. If I wanted someone who would mistreat me, refuse to do the most basic of marital duties, and subsequently divorce me, I would have married American. In my post, FemiNasty Portolio Risk, I calculated that the probability of unilateral divorce from a foreign woman was only 15%, whereas the probability with an American woman is a whopping 32%!)
The New York Times reports, "In 1998, fewer than 2,500 foreign women applied to become permanent residents under the Violence Against Women Act (of which IMBRA is a part) which allows abused wives to apply for residence without the support of their husbands. In the fiscal year that ended in September, 9,500 applied." That's a 400 percent increase in six years. The paper quotes the INS saying some 37,500 women entered the country last year on fiancee visas or temporary visas for spouses of American citizens _ up 50 percent from three years before.
(Yes Ma'am. FemiNasty women like you are being outsourced. Deal with it.)
A 1993 Yale Law Journal article described several cases of unimaginable abuse including the tale of one Maria who came to the United States from the Dominican Republican to marry a man who began brutalizing her shortly after they married.
"I had eight stitches in my head and a gash on the other side of my head, and he broke my ribs .... He would bash my head against the wall while we had sex. He kept threatening to kill me if I told the doctor what happened."
(Ahh playing the abuse card. A few cases does not a trend make. Show me your studies! Show me your evidence! Then I will take you seriously Madam. Until then, enough with the shaming language!)
Who pays these women's health care bills when their husbands beat and abandon them? Most likely, the American taxpayer.(Again, prove than American men are beating and abandoning their foreign brides on a wide scale.)
I don't assume all such marriages end badly. Perhaps many last long and end blissfully "until death doth them part." That aside, it still seems a bizarre and unappealing choice for an American man to set out to marry a woman on the basis of a preconceived notion that she emanates from a submissive culture. And submissiveness is key, as the men portrayed in the Times article make clear.
(It seems bizarre to you. It makes perfect sense to men with intelligence. Why buy a ford pinto when you can drive an Audi? Foreign women, as a whole, are simply more feminine and better mothers and wives than most of today's modern American women. Women are always in a state of flux, unsatisfied with their souls. Men, on the other hand, haven't changed much. We want what we have always wanted, a happy family, a little bit of cash in our pocket, and a little respect.)
"'It all started with women's lib', said Sam Smith, a former salesman of insurance and mutual funds, who founded I Love Latins in Houston six years ago. 'Guys are sick and tired of the North American me, me, me attitude.'"
(Yep!! And its too bad women no like that we have an opinion, but women are free. They answer to no one, not even to God himself. It's only fitting that we men also claim our freedom. That freedom involves meeting, mating, and marrying foreign women, NOT FemiNasties!)
Two thoughts in closing. We are already a nation divided on mass immigration with polls showing more and more Americans want limits to the number of foreigners granted citizenship. Do we really want another 40,000 plus people entering the United States per year to satisfy men who cannot seem to find suitable mates among America's already copious supply? And, if the mail order marriage industry is so great for women, then why aren't American women flocking to the Internet to find foreign husbands?
Why not indeed?
Something to think about.
In any event, those who are considering going overseas to find your dream girl should be aware of the prevailing prejudices that having a foreign wife will bring upon you, and should also know how to counter the shaming language that you will inevitably receive. An unwavering belief in the validity of your wise decision to marry an non-feminist foreign woman is an absolute must!
Educate yourselves gentlemen. I recommend that you read the outstanding Shaming Language countermeasures, and check out the awesome Online Dating Rights website for more in depth information concerning IMBRA.
Next time on Kumogakure School:
How I met my young wife, solid advice on how to meet foreign women, how to deal with IMBRA, and how to successfully handle the immigration process.
Be there!
Kumo.
4 comments:
Powerful writing Kumo.
This particular quote from Bonnie Erbe jumped out at me:
"But I say the mere act (to wit, the bizarre act) of deciding to marry someone from a foreign country who is just about guaranteed to be less well educated and a lot less well off financially, creates such an incurably unhealthy imbalance of power in the union, even horrifically burdensome regulation won't suffice."
The bigotry of this is gob-smacking. It reeks of the haughty self-importance of the privileged, so well described by Schopenhauer:
"..it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank."
150 years later and still accurate.
Rob Case
Rob,
thanks for the kind words. It really is amazing how hypocritical many American women are when it comes to the American man dating a foreign woman. But, this is a natural outcropping of woman's "posessiveness" in that the AW does not want some interloper stealing what, in her view, is rightfully hers.
Being married to an obviously foreign woman, I get all kinds of (very subtle) flack from women who wonder why I bypassed them entirely.
However, being the guy that I am, I simply smile, ignore, and continue to happy go my own way!
Kumo.
Very nice website. I especially like your pointed rhetorical questions about where are the studies. I am admin of a website devoted to defeating IMBRA and exposing the cultural and political forces that allowed it to become law unnoticed. I am Tristan and we are at www.onlinedatingrights.com
Well, here's one for you.
A professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, Nicole Constable, has published the results of her exhaustive two-year study of international relationships.
Professor Constable interviewed hundreds of American men, Filipina women and Chinese women, American and foreign NGOs, American and foreign women's rights groups, government officials and last but certainly not least she interviewed the owners of many international dating companies.
The results are contained in a book available on Amazon.com entitled "Romance on a Global Stage". It was published in 2003.
This is exactly the kind of scholarship needed by society for this issue. In December 2005 the United States Congress passed an unconstitutional and man-hating law called IMBRA based on phony research prepared by women's advocacy groups. The law was passed in the dead of night with no committee hearings and absolutely no scientific research.
Now, we have discovered that top-quality and exhaustive academic research has been done by a university professor and published for all the world to see in 2003. And yet Congress did not see it, and no women's group that pushed IMBRA was willing to tell Congress about it.
NOW and Tahirih Justice Center and all the other women's groups that care so much about women completely ignored telling anyone about this detailed study that sheds light on...women.
Professor Constable is an academic. She is not a politician. She is not a leader of a women's advocacy group (although she is an avowed feminist and at times even considers herself a radical feminist). She has devoted her life to anthropological research and teaching. Websters says anthropology is: the study of man, esp. the study of man in relation to distribution, origin, classification and relationship of races, physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture.
Prof. Constable's book repudiates IMBRA and the kneejerk feminists who advocated it. Here are some quotes from the book:
"Men and their perspectives, I learned, are - like the women - often misunderstood or glossed in stark and stereotypical terms."
"I have come to see the men involved in correspondence relationships as a very diverse group of people; many are decent and well-intentioned human beings who have learned a great deal in the process of their relationships."
"Many went to great lengths to ensure their partner's comfort and happiness in the United States."
"Troubling to some critics is that many women who opt to marry US men express a preference to remain at home and not to work if there is no financial incentive to do so, and a willingness to define themselves primarily as wives and mothers."
"Mail order brides are often depicted as buying into images of their own subservience and marrying out of economic depression. These views are seriously flawed for their orientalist, essentializing and universalizing tendencies, which reflect many now-outdated feminist views of the 1970s."
"Anti-trafficking NGOs often include mail order brides among the ranks of trafficked women. Definitions of mail order brides, as discussed below, are often so broad as to be meaningless."
"Women may quite literally put their best face forward, but the market metaphor [that women are being sold] should not be taken literally in this context. Would this metaphor be applied to western women and men who use dating services or place personal ads, or does it reflect more pejorative assumptions about foreign or Third World women?"
"Assuming that Asian women are objects who are bought and sold...is not only a bad feminist argument, but it is one that fits with the most demeaning and essentializing images of mail order brides. Such images rob women of their ability to express intelligence, resistance, creativity, independence, dignity and strength."
"Overall I argue that women involved in correspondence relationships are not merely pawns of global political economy or the victims of sexual exploitation, nor are men simply the agents of western sexual imperialism."
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9922.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~pittanth/faculty/constable.html
I am one of those "mail-order bride" husbands with a wife from the Philippines. I find it offensive and demeaning that I am referred to by the media and government officials as a "sex trafficker", an "abuser" and a "loser" who just wanted a power imbalance with a "weak, submissive" foreigner so I could "exploit" her.
I am a college educated computer software engineer living in a suburban house with my "mail order" wife of 14 years, and our two boys, aged 12 and 3. We rarely fight, and have had a harmonious and wonderful relationship for nearly a decade and a half! She is a highly valued employee at a local daycare center where she was recently promoted from Instructor to Program Coordinator. She repeatedly receives employee of the month awards and her skill with children is so valued that people come from miles away to bring their children to her classes. She was an active member of the PTA and participated heavily in Cub Scouts when my son (who is now only merits away from Eagle status) was a member. Other den mothers constantly relied on her creativity and resourcefulness, repeatedly giving her honorable mention at award ceremonies. One highly educated and respected den mother often said, "I would be lost without her". Is this the stereotype of the "mail order bride" that President Bush, Sam Brownback, Maria Cantwell, Bill O'Riley, Tony Snow, The New York Times and Newsweek are talking about? I hardly think so!
You will never hear stories like mine discussed in the media or the halls of Congress.
Sadly, we live in a society today that believes that "success" and "productivity" are measured by the number of restraints we can put on people to prevent them from the possibility of doing wrong, or even inadvertently doing harm. We live in a sterile world of bicycle helmet laws, swimming pools without diving boards, "no skating" signs posted on every naturally frozen lake and rules against children playing unsupervised at the local schoolyard like I did countless times as a child. Is it any wonder that adult freedoms are being stripped from us one by one? This is not the model that the Founding Fathers had in mind, or that made America a great nation.
If we don't reverse this trend, we will continue to see our freedoms erode, and who knows what the world will look like 10 or 15 years from now. I shudder to think of it!
Post a Comment