Robin Steele is fervently and unequivocably opposed to the ill-advised and discriminatory legislative farce called IMBRA, or the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.
Beware the motives of anyone who tells you otherwise. In fact, beware of anyone who really cares what I think of IMBRA.
In fact, even I don't care what I think about IMBRA. Other than the fact I'm opposed to it. Fiercely and unequivocably.
The MRIs are at it again!
Since Men's Rights Inactivists (MRIs) are not burdened by things like, say, planning, lobbying, writing and publishing articles, demonstrating, promoting legislation, campaigning, and other things real activists do, they have lots of time on their hands. Many of them lately have spent their free time attacking the Femzilla Feminazi Robin Steele that they have fabricated out of straw, fear and hate. As they are unwilling or unable to address Robin Steele's actual views, they concoct Rube-Goldberg-Meets-Oliver-Stone-like exposes that reveal my REAL views, which meet the Femzilla model and allows them to use their boilerplate vitriol and prepackaged hatespeech.
Thanks to the MRI campaign to communicate what I really believe, I have learned that I am a strong and impassioned supporter of something called IMBRA, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. IMBRA, which has to do with disclosure requirements made by Americans using "marriage brokers" and matchmaking services to meet foreign women, has not seemed to me to be the priority issue of Men's Rights Movement. Why? It seems to me that an issue that affects a few thousand single men is not in the same league as issues related to parental rights, child custody and other issues that affect millions of divorced and divorcing men and their families.
According to www.IMBRA.org:
The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) makes it illegal for Americans to meet foreigners via social websites that specialize in such introductions, without first submitting to criminal background checks and having the foreigner sign an approval that contact is allowed. This outrageous law was secretly added as part of Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) and presumes that all American men are abusers and foreign women need to be protected from them. Few Congresspeople remember voting for IMBRA or now know what it is all about.
imbra.org contains the usual exaggerated nonsense and hyperbole that so many of these men's sites insist on using to ensure they are not taken seriously ("IMBRA traps foreign women into marriages to foreign abusers and traps American men into marriages to American feminists." IMBRA will bring pestilence, drought, and a plague of locusts will darken the sky for 100 years, weakening the economy for the Feminist oppressors and Al Qaida to take over...)
And of course, what Men's Activist site could resist the mandatory 7th grade wordplay, changing the name of Senator Cantwell to Senator Cuntwell. Clever? You bet it's clever.
IMBRA does seem to be a flawed, one-sided and questionable piece of legislation being snuch through the back door without proper scrutiny. A number of questions occurred to me reading through it, including, "If this is gender neutral legislation, why is it part of the VAWA Violence Against Women Act? Are the same background checks required of the foreign women, in order to protect American men from con-artists? Is it fair to poison potential relationships by disclosing PFAs, which foreign women might not understand are dispensed like fountain drinks in the U.S. family courts?
IMBRA.org also includes a dated but decent article by Wendy McElroy which spells out the excessive restrictions IMBRA adds in order to protect others FROM US? Here's an excerpt:
The disclosure requirement is detailed under the provision entitled "Obligations of International Marriage Broker With Respect to Mandatory Collection of Information."
An international broker cannot provide contact or general information on a foreign woman to an American man unless that broker first collects and discloses to the woman the following information about the man:
— Every state of residence since the age of 18;
— Current or previous marriages as well as how and when they terminated;
— Information on children under 18;
— Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction;
— Any court orders, including temporary restraining orders, which are notoriously easy to procure;
— Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from "homicide" to "child neglect";
— Any arrest or conviction for "similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law" without specifying what "similar" means.
U.S. law will provide foreign women with extensive government information on American suitors that is not similarly offered to American women — which it shouldn't it be either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Robin,
You've done it. You've converted me. You're right. We do nothing but whine about "poor men", but we never do anything about it. What we really need is a leader, and I nominate you, Robin! Lead us!
Tell us, what do we do? What are you organizing, Robin? Let us in on it. Come on. We're here, we're pumped, we're ready. You've got an army here, just waiting for marching orders. What's the plan?
Thanks for asking, Kellymac.
In my opinion, the first step is to determine what an effective Men's Rights Movement would look like. I don't believe there is one, currently.
Obviously, it would, by definition, have a focus on movement, on activism. It would be founded on the belief that change is possible. Those who were not actively interested in gearing their words and deeds toward acheiving tangible goals and upholding the image and stated values of the movement would clearly be identified as non-movement members. Not ostracized or reviled, but not allowed to represent the movement.
Seconf, it would be imperative to make the credibility of this men's rights movement a top priority, as it's critical to effective change.
Do you agree: If we are to fight for fairness and justice for all, we need to uphold that principle even for those we disagree with?
We cannot campaign for men's right to privacy if we tolerate our own members trying to publish real identities of bloggers we disagree with, and actively trying to damage their careers and companies. Do you see the irony of people attacking me for supposedly not campaigning to protect men's privacy, while the same people are trying to discern my identity to publish it on the Internet?
Don't you feel a bit hypocritical KellyMac, or a bit ashamed that your friends complain about losing their right to privacy, while actively working to deprive others of theirs?
And that those who speak out so fervently against sexual violence against men are willing to abide, welcome and defend pro-rape and pro-violent messages of Bob Allen without a second's hesitation?
I am sure you will be content to disregard these points, and simply launch more insults and sarcasm onto Robin Steele, while disregarding the substance of my argument. As usual, I hope for the best, but expect the worse.
I hope you have a Happy New Year.
In my opinion, the first step is to determine what an effective Men's Rights Movement would look like. I don't believe there is one, currently.
Obviously, it would, by definition, have a focus on movement, on activism. It would be founded on the belief that change is possible. Those who were not actively interested in gearing their words and deeds toward acheiving tangible goals and upholding the image and stated values of the movement would clearly be identified as non-movement members. Not ostracized or reviled, but not allowed to represent the movement.
Ok, this is where the disconnect starts. There is something you don't understand, Robin, and you really need to. I'm just gonna be blunt. Men are not women. You can't run the men's movement in the same way as the women's movement. You may get them to agree on the goals, but they're gonna go about it in their own way. Just because it isn't your way, or my way, doesn't make it wrong. There is no dogma.
It isn't about making everyone feel good and included, either. Men really don't need that. If someone stands for something that a man doesn't support, that man will say so. In both the men's rights and the feminist movements, there are some real radicals. The difference is, MRA's as a whole will not tolerate a man who advocates violence against women, for instance. They will condemn the idea and “disown” the man. Feminists as a whole may not appreciate a woman who advocates violence against men, but they will not speak out about it. They may tell you privately that they don't approve, but we hear no loud condemnations.
The other thing is, there will NEVER be a female leader in this movement. Never. A woman can be respected, accepted, even looked up to. But she will never lead. All we can do is offer support, and possibly a voice. But that's just what it is: A voice. Not THE voice.
Second, it would be imperative to make the credibility of this men's rights movement a top priority, as it's critical to effective change.
Yes, this makes sense. I just don't trust you. You are going to have to come up with a convincing reason for the abrupt about-face in your policies and beliefs, and more importantly, you are going to have to SHOW that they have changed. I have to admit, you talk a good game, but so far, I've seen nothing to back it up. Men are used to being lied to by women, and they're used to women changing allegiances as the wind blows for whatever reason. They're not used to be able to trust women, or anyone for that matter, unless and until that trust has been earned. You're a long way from that.
Do you agree: If we are to fight for fairness and justice for all, we need to uphold that principle even for those we disagree with?
Of course. But really, if someone is interested in fairness and justice for ALL, we have no reason to disagree with them.
We cannot campaign for men's right to privacy if we tolerate our own members trying to publish real identities of bloggers we disagree with, and actively trying to damage their careers and companies. Do you see the irony of people attacking me for supposedly not campaigning to protect men's privacy, while the same people are trying to discern my identity to publish it on the Internet?
Don't you feel a bit hypocritical KellyMac, or a bit ashamed that your friends complain about losing their right to privacy, while actively working to deprive others of theirs?
Not really, no. You brought that on yourself, 100%. I'd even say you worked hard to do it. Women talk; men take action. If you're going to get in peoples' faces, you're a fool if you expect them to roll over and take it. That's not turning the other cheek. That's putting a “kick me” sign on your back.
And that those who speak out so fervently against sexual violence against men are willing to abide, welcome and defend pro-rape and pro-violent messages of Bob Allen without a second's hesitation?
It says very prominently and clearly on Bob's site, “All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts.”
I did a search on his blog for the word “rape”, and it does get mentioned a LOT. But the only thing that could be possibly construed as “pro-rape” is when he referred to “faux statutory rape”. Come on, Robin. That's a hell of a stretch. I didn't do a search for “violence”, as it didn't seem like it would be productive to finding where violence was promoted to search on that word. If you're talking about the “blue thug” thing you wrote about on your blog, we've been around and around on that. It's also a hell of a stretch. If you can't find anything better than that, then you really don't have a leg to stand on here.
I haven't seen anything on your blog condemning the blatant hate speech of mainline femininists, by the way.
I am sure you will be content to disregard these points, and simply launch more insults and sarcasm onto Robin Steele, while disregarding the substance of my argument. As usual, I hope for the best, but expect the worse.
I'll admit that I was being facetious when I wrote that you should be our leader, Robin. But I do appreciate that you answered as if I hadn't been.
Excellent analysis, Kelly. The one exception I would take is that it is not up to women, neither you nor Steele, to decide whether or not men will advocate violence against women. A lot of men are very angry right now, and for good reason. There is a lot of history of angry men forming violent clans, tribes, and armies. Whether or not men form violent gangs or armies in the currently forming Men's Rights Movement or not will be decided by the men involved, not female supporters or critics. Your analysis is generally good, and that one, violenc, is no differnet from the rest of the men's movement. It will be men, not women, who decide.
It's been 5 days and not a peep out of protoplasmic waste matter Steele.
HA!
Robin Steele - Men's Rights Inactivist.
Steele's probably having to lay low at InterMune, Inc.
It was a week ago and a couple of Days that two Sisters from Lewisville Texas were murdered in an Honor Killing by their Father. They were according to their Mother abused by their Egyptian Father for years. Their Great Aunt said it was an honor Killing. Yet if you read Feministing.com, Pandagon.net, and the NOW web site. This never happened. NEVER. Real Oppression, violence and Murder. Where Robin is your comments and condemnation of Feminists silence in the face of this outrage??? Where?
We have a Mother in DC who murdered her 4 Children all Girls by the way. Who claims they were possessed by Demons. Again?
Feminists and American Women are calling Barack Obama a Token candidate. And reviling him. Because they favor Hilliary. Still not a single comment.
Finally we have the Man in Dallas freed after 27 years in Prison for a Rape he did not commit. He was offered Freedom if he only admitted his guilt and he refused. He is the 15th Man in Dallas County freed since 2001. More important 450 cases are under review. Where is your comment on this perversion of Justice?? You are a Fraud.
Maybe your Buddy Ginmar who was banned at Amptoons has some prize comments of Misandry to make.
I agree with Khankrumthebulgar when he said:
"IMBRA is tryanny disguised as Social Policy. It is a blatant abuse of the Bill of Rights, and an attack on the Civil Rights of Men only. Next will be a tax on the Men who dare to Marry Foreign Women to exclude Men from doing so. Men are being reduced to ManNiggers in the US. Wage Slaves to US Women who are controlling Men in ways that violate their basic rights and that labels them as Sexual Criminals and Abusers. And does nothing to protect them."
Do you all want to be ManNiggers? I don't. Do you?
Feminism is about waging a Gender War against Men and Children. Open your eyes to the reality of the Damage being done by Feminism to the Family, marriage, and Society.
Feminism is about promoting Women's Entitlements above everyone else. It is not about equality. How can Women have Minority Status when they are the Majority of Voters? Live Longer than Men? Have the majority of Consumer Dollars spent on them? Have the Majority of Retail Floor Space 85% devoted exclusively to them? When Men are 94% of those who die on the job.
When Health Care Dollars for Breast Cancer is four times what is spent on Prostate Cancer. How can you say that Women are oppressed? Its utter nonsense.
Quality of Life, Longevity (the ultimate entitlement),retirement dollars, who inherits the money. And now in the US 60% of College Grads are Women. Get a clue. Or we'll all be ManNiggers. Like Khankrumthebulgar said.
Post a Comment