Defending Your Right to Marry Foreign Women (part 2)

Amy: “I would like to say that I am sorry for launching a personal attack on you, a total stranger. I have just heard so many horror stories about these kinds of things. But I did let my anger at these injustices get the better of me, and I should not have.”

Amy apologizes for the personal attack, but what injustices and horror stories is she referring to? She appears to argue that foreign women from developing countries who marry American men are “at risk,” yet she never explains what the risk actually is, why it exists, how often it occurs, or whether it is any different from the risks any American man or woman faces in marriage. She provides no evidence, no data, and no specifics to support her emotional outcry. Her anger rests entirely on a false conclusion.

“That said, I do find your website extremely offensive and inflammatory in that you stereotype and degrade American women by saying that men can find “younger, more beautiful women than what is locally available” in Latin America.”

This fact does not degrade American women. It simply highlights the competitive advantage that American men have overseas because of the qualities foreign women value and often do not experience from local men. What you seem to find offensive is that American men may choose a foreign wife whom you regard as being of lower caliber than American women.

“That statement does not speak very highly of your customers – it also stereotypes them (as shallow).”

Why is it shallow to appreciate beauty and youth? You can insist that beauty is superficial, but the truth is that most people want to be attractive, and most men enjoy the company of attractive women. Telling someone that broccoli has more nutritional value than chocolate doesn’t make them superficial for preferring the taste of chocolate. Preferences exist whether they meet someone else’s philosophical standard or not.

“It is ironic because you imply that American women place too much importance on money and personality, and then you appeal to the superficial and shallow aspects of your customers who are placing importance on age and physical appearance.”

People do not consider youth and beauty as irrelevant as you do. I never claim that this is all men want, and wanting a young, attractive foreign wife does not automatically make a man superficial. What you are doing is the equivalent of calling someone shallow for choosing to play paddle ball on the beach instead of chess in the den.

“Do these men seem any more noble than the American women (as you describe them) that they are trying to avoid?”

I never said these men are trying to avoid American women. I am saying they simply have alternatives to American women and can extend their search horizon.

“I understand that these are marketing tactics and you must appeal to your customers. But marital relationships are not trade negotiations, where one party says: “o.k., I am bringing X beauty points to the table and Y personality points, what does that buy me?”

Every relationship is an exchange, and yes, a form of negotiation is taking place. Two people may be exchanging your love and support for my love and support, or any number of different roles and responsibilities. What each party brings to the table may not be explicitly negotiated, but both are evaluating how a potential partner’s attributes meet their desires and needs. None of this has anything to do with “buying” a person. This decision-making process occurs whether we are conscious of it or not, and it is a healthy way to determine whether both individuals are a good fit for a relationship.

“You say an American version of your Latin wife would not be interested in you. What exactly does that mean?”

When I said she would not notice me, I meant that I would not catch the eye of an extremely beautiful American woman who is 18 years younger than I am.

“What is an American “version” of your wife?”

The short answer is a top-of-the-line woman with supermodel looks, in the prime of her youth, with a college education.

“How do you qualify that statement?”

I will quantify it for you as a perfect 10.

“Does it mean that you are shallow and require a certain physical ideal woman whose arbitrary and fleeting beauty you desire?”

It means that I am normal and enjoy the beauty of attractive younger women. I don’t expect my wife’s beauty to diminish in my eyes. Beauty is not “arbitrary”; it is well defined in our society, though there is nothing wrong with an individual’s personal standards of beauty. While you like to throw around the word “shallow,” I considered all the tangible and intangible qualities when choosing my wife. If anyone is shallow, maybe it is you. You seem to want to eliminate looks as a factor in choosing a partner simply because they are fleeting. You are actually throwing less into the mix than I am.

“So, how does that make you different from women who are after men for their money or power?”

I have no objections to such women. They can set their criteria in any manner they so choose. I provide an avenue for men to counter such women. I am not trying to restrict anyone’s selection method for a spouse as you appear to be.

“It just seems so cynical when people view relationships this way. To use a really silly example, it is kind of like the fictional relationships depicted on “reality” television, Joe Millionaire wants a trophy wife who is beautiful (his shallow criteria) and the women are looking for money (their shallow criteria). [I gather from all the hoopla about it that the woman who won was not actually in it for money, but who cares.] Anyway, the premise was such that he would get his beautiful trophy wife, but that when she finds out he is not rich she will want nothing to do with him. I suppose that the intention of shows like this is to stereotype women as gold-diggers and men as shallow people seeking trophy wives. This just seems so cynical and jaded to me. I bring this up because that is the overall impression I get when looking at foreign brides websites such as yours.”

I don’t see the cynicism you see. International Introductions promotes optimism and hope about discovering a different kind of woman who may be better suited for some men and for the compatibility of their relationship. It is not cynical for two adults to decide for themselves how and on what basis to form a relationship. It appears that the cynicism comes from you as the viewer, not from what you are viewing.

“And I guess what I’m saying is that maybe there are gold-digging women and shallow men in the world.”

Men seeking beautiful foreign wives are not shallow. If Albert Einstein wanted an attractive, young, beautiful foreign wife then by your definition he would be shallow.

“And maybe they deserve each other when they end up together, and they don’t mind what their relationships are based upon. (I can’t imagine that they would actually be happy, but hey). And I feel like the general message of your website is to take the man’s portion of that shallow relationship and do away with it. As though you are saying: “Hey you! Want a gorgeous wife but don’t have the money to attract one? We have the solution!”

Your belief that wanting a gorgeous foreign wife makes someone shallow is wrong, but even if I accepted your conclusion, what exactly is the problem? If I prefer watching cartoons instead of what you consider “better” television and you call that shallow, then fine. It is still my preference. What does any of that have to do with your involvement or your concern about two adults and the relationship they choose for themselves?

“I know many, many beautiful American women who don’t care about the finances of their significant others.”

I accept that.

“And I also know many American men who look for more in a wife than physical appearance.”

This is the case for every man I know.

“And before you think to correct me on this I am aware that beauty and age are not the only selling points of your introduction service, they are just important enough to be mentioned prominently on your main web page.”

You should know by now that men are visual, which is why beauty and youth carry a prominent role for them. That is simply how we are, and there is nothing wrong with it. Calling men shallow for responding to visual attraction is like calling a man a plate. The word has no real sting, no negative relevance, and it does nothing to change how men naturally evaluate a partner. It doesn’t make us ashamed, and it doesn’t lessen the importance we place on beauty when choosing a wife.

“I feel like you are catering to a clientele who are only capable of having shallow relationships.”

I cater to all men. You just happen to think that men are shallow for being men.          

“And if that’s how you want to make a buck, I guess that’s good for you. But all the cynicism you are pandering to is just causing more cynicism to grow.”

The cynicism is in your head. There is nothing cynical about helping two adults find each other and build a happy marriage.

“There is also evidence of unfair bias against Colombian men mentioned in your website or your last correspondence, I can’t remember where. But it says that these men are not desired by Colombian women because they drink and/or are unfaithful. I get that this is your angle; I mean you’ve got to put down American women and Colombian men to justify the need for your business.”

I do not put down Colombian men any more than a football player saying to another football player from another team that we are going to win, because we believe we are the better football team. The quote you are referring to is from a Colombian woman. This is what many Colombian women think of Colombian men. I do not create an “angle”; reality itself is ample promotion for the business. The “need” is natural. I cannot create such a need, nor do I have to. You just don’t like the fact that American men are seeking beautiful foreign women who are eager to meet them.

“But I believe that people are people, no matter where they come from or what they look like or how much money they have.”

“People are people” only in the broadest sense. People are different, and different places have different types of people. The differences that American men have are desired by many foreign women.

“Stereotyping people based on sex or appearance or culture is hurtful and destructive.”

I apply generalizations where they are appropriate. However, there is no substance behind your accusations of “stereotyping,” “pandering,” “put-downs,” “cynicism,” or “shallowness.” These are just strong words wrapped around an empty claim.

“I probably won’t be surprised if you comb over my letter thoroughly and get out your hair splitting devices and over-analyze every last semantic or grammatical nuance of my e-mail. I am not gifted at the art of argument or even communication for that matter.”

This is just an excuse for hiding behind sloppy reasoning and unsubstantiated concerns. You presented a case filled with falsehoods and expect it to go unchallenged. I agree you have difficulty with the art of debate and communication, but that is due to your faulty thinking. It would be impossible for anyone to logically defend your position, regardless of how skilled they were at communication. Instead, you attack and avoid any questioning that would clearly define your position and its likely contradictions. I asked you twenty questions and you failed to answer a single one. Why answer any question that might make you look foolish, right? It doesn’t matter that I answered every one of yours. Returning the courtesy simply doesn’t occur to you, even though I specifically requested it so that we could fully understand your position.

“I address only the overall impression I gleaned from your website – that I find it derogatory – and the documented abuses and anecdotal evidence that the mail order bride industry is a sketchy one.”

Your “impression” was void of facts.

“Whether or not you agree with anything I have written, you must admit that one unkind turn deserves another. That’s only fair right?”

Yes.

“You describe American women in unkind terms, even saying that we all think we’re the best or something like that.”

I specifically said, “To attract the premium American woman (and they all think they’re ‘premium’) requires you to be at the top of your game.” That is hardly unkind. This, along with the three other sentences that directly or indirectly reference American women on the website, are actually positive. I consider a strong sense of self to be a desirable trait. I have made it very clear that I do not need to insult American women to highlight alternative avenues for American men that may better suit their preferences. Why you object to men having this additional option is still a mystery to me.

“Then you show a picture of a table of young Colombian women “vying” for a customers attention. And this is not degrading to the Colombian women?”

I never thought it was degrading for me to vie for my wife’s attention, nor for the attention of the other women I pursued in the past. So why should it be any different for women? If anything, it puts them in control of whom they choose to pursue. When I was in my twenties, I had women pursue me, and I never thought less of them for it. In fact, the brightest and most accomplished women tended to do exactly that. The Colombian women who participate in these social gatherings describe the experience as fun, interesting, and safe. Many have never met an American man before, so what is wrong with them speaking with other women, comparing impressions, and deciding whether they have mutual interest in a man they agreed to meet after viewing his photo and profile?

“Having to vie for a male’s attention?”

So you must believe only men should have to vie for a woman’s attention. This is typical leftist feminist thinking: they want everything balanced between the sexes, even when it goes against human nature, unless the “equality” is not in their favor.

“Hey wait a minute, this is getting to look even more like a reality television show every minute!”

No, Amy. Reality follows the laws of nature. You are trying to imagine a bad ending that has no basis in reality.

“So you perpetuate more negativity towards yourself and your introduction service.”

Now this is quite a leap. Women vying for a man’s attention somehow “perpetuates more negativity” toward me and my services? Amy, you have yet to validate even one negative point, let alone “more.” Your view of the world is tainted by your own cynical outlook. I feel positive about what I do, and the foreign women and American men we introduce who get engaged feel positive about both the way they met and the outcome. But we should freeze all of that and listen to your shouts of negativity instead? Has it occurred to you that you are the one who does not belong in the picture?

“Mail order bride jokes are almost as prevalent as lawyer jokes. Come on guy, you know that!”

I have never heard a single “mail-order bride” joke. But I have heard countless dumb-blonde jokes, and that has never stopped any man I know from pursuing a blonde, nor has it discouraged any woman from dyeing her hair blond. So what exactly do these supposed jokes have to do with anything? What part of life isn’t joked about? Are you saying someone shouldn’t be a lawyer because people make lawyer jokes? Is this really your logic?

“Viewing your website and others like it does not leave me with a positive impression about your business.”

I don’t have a positive impression of mail-order bride websites either, but it’s a serious oversight on your part not to recognize how different mine is.

“The next time I am with friends and we see a repugnant obnoxious male with a wedding band, would it be insensitive to crack a male order bride joke? Insensitive to laugh at one? Perhaps.”

Again, what does any of this have to do with the reality of the situation? It seems you’re the one stereotyping men who marry foreign women.

“But seeing your website has understandably not made me feel sympathetic towards your cause.”

Amy, I’m not asking for your sympathy or your support — only your non-interference. I’m not the one with a ‘cause.’ I simply defend the right of adult men and women to freely choose whom they marry. You’re the one promoting a cause that restricts that freedom.

“Instead of trying to increase understanding about your service, you seem to want to alienate American women. I suppose you would, seeing as how women do not use your service.”

Amy, I don’t need uninvolved outsiders to “understand” my introduction service. I run a marriage agency, not a public welfare project. The men and women who use our service understand exactly what it is. Your objections have instead helped others understand the mindset and real intentions of people who share your intrusive, freedom-restricting views. You hide your true aim, which is to limit men from marrying foreign women who want to marry them. You attack without evidence, without facts, and you insult both American men and foreign women for exercising their right to choose whom they meet and whom they marry. You blocked any fair, honest exchange by ignoring every question I asked you, which makes it impossible to continue this one-way “discussion” built on emotion instead of evidence, reason, or basic courtesy.

Jamie
Engage The Exotic

“Listen to my advice: do not encourage wifey to learn English, put a lock on the T.V. set. Beware: no books, no papers in English. No contact with compatriots who might be cynical of the American way of life, of men and women, including the whole concept of shopping for a foreign wife. Good. Living with a girl whose brothers hates you and laughs at you might be a good start for a lesson in masochism or guilt. (Depending how you see the whole schemer). They will be married to very exhausted and boring husbands who will die quickly. Good riddance, as my Peruvian friend says happily when her waspy husband has left for the office. My Peruvian friend has a business husband from Colorado who is often away, a child, and a Chilean lover. She is quite pragmatic.

Above all: prevent any contact with American women (the sluts and the bitches). In fact, keep wifey in a white suburb; lock her safely with her kids and NO visits except the priest and your obese male friend. Let her go buy candies at the grocers. No loitering.

In that way, everything will be – almost – in control.

Ahhhh … it feels so good that some countries are so poor. No? No reason to worry: will stay like that until you ‘make a deal.’

Oh, sorry, I forgot, Black American women do not seem to fit either. Would you explain why, sir? I am hungry for sociological clues about your wonderful country.

Noticed that you are comparing yourself with Einstein on the ‘beauty exchange-money exchange’; subject. This is called ‘megalomania.’ To help you get down to earth, a little help: you are a) a salesman b) a manager c) a broker d) a lawyer. I will, again help you: Einstein was a great physicist, with a funny accent, who was famous internationally. If you think that you have any resemblance with him, you should be more precise. Then, maybe, you deserve, as a secret Einstein (who pretends to be a little white salesman living in a little clean and white suburb) not one BRIDE, that is petty, but 70 VIRGINS. Hum?

About Megalomania: It is a relatively common form of psychosis. Drug problem may be? Common in America too. Overdose of advertising for Viagra … terrible! Poor screwed up, desperate U.S. waspies! Think they can buy everything with dollars. Some of your best writers warned you a long time ago. What a pity! Your fathers rebelled against their roles as daddies-husbands of crazy and bored mummies-at-home (watch your own films read your own books… . Mostly male production!) Feminism has nothing to do with this male rebellion against male traditional roles: it followed it.

Beware: if you START flashing money when you ‘DATE’, you end up living with a money problem for sure. Your mummy or your daddy never told you?

The first day divorce was allowed in Chile, 50 000 women rushed to the ‘divorce department.’ You’d better run fast!

Note: women from Latin America do not like flat-assed men. Gringos have flat asses. They also like to dance. Gringos do not know how to move.

Latin lovers are superficial, but they have humor and sensual qualities. Hard to match! Brief… gringos are stiff. Culprit? Cowboy-pilgrim culture mix. Masculinity will serve feminism, better than feminists themselves will ever do.

If American women cannot marry American men, as you say, they will have to acquire more knowledge and work harder, or choose amongst men from the South.

Your war is not very frightening, at least not for women from the North. Most of them, thanks to people like you, will stop to believe in the hunt-for-a-husband culture. North American women will be single, but richer and more powerful in North America, since North American men will slave in the South (to raise their extended families). So why are you masculinists so angry?

We all have a great future.

OLE!
Barbra.”

Barbara, it is hard to follow your disjointed commentary and clumsy sarcasm. I am sure you intended it to be loaded with wit, but it reads as incongruent babble. My wife is free to go, see, visit, read, and do whatever she likes. She is encouraged to learn and explore new things on her own or with me, as she chooses.

I never compared myself to Einstein, nor did I ever state that American women cannot marry American men. You need to read more carefully or seek the help of a competent English translator. Divorce should always be an option, so good for Chile. Is this “war” something you declared? I am not aware of any war with women, and I certainly carry no anger toward women. I am pro-woman; the richer and more powerful women become, the better. They will not achieve that, however, because “North American men will slave in the South.” As for your Peruvian friend, it is unfortunate that she has an unfulfilling marriage. She should have chosen differently, but instead she belittles her husband to you and betrays him over a decision she made. By the way, your geography is as weak as your English. I live in Colombia, South America. Pay us a visit—unless, of course, poor countries are not on your travel agenda. Please write again and send a picture; it will make dreaming about you all the more pleasant. Unless, of course, you feel a picture would interfere with such dreams.

“Feminists do not look necessarily like furniture movers. Would you be, by any chance, one of those gringos who speak only one language, but think members of all other nations should speak English better than they do? In North America, people tend to think that dollars and brains are the same thing. You can frown at the word war between sexes but there is a war even in your ‘love El Dorado.’ It can be silent or open. This does create a tension between the two sexes. In this game, women win (they manage to make of you a real father) or they will bitch at you, leave in bitterness or take revenge.

You affirm that men go after the women they want, but seduction does not take place in a vacuum. Women, I have to remind you are also hunting and they are aware of the sexual competition and what it implies. Most women do not have a sexual anxiety, because copulation is a very easy thing to get – for them. Men very often do carry this anxiety with them all the time.

The sexual real is very different for men and women. Any girl from age 14 knows that men have some kind of sexual reactions towards her (or feels the need to pretend he does) whether he is a professor holding a doctorate degree, a car salesman, a football player or a garbage collector. Copulation is not a problem from women whereas it is for men who equate marriage with sexual welfare or want to pretend for other men that it is. Women have a different agenda.

The middle class marriage model has more or less always been in crisis, and feminism has not much to do with it. North American masculinists express the rage of a class in decline. They have developed populist and fanatical positions on a subject they do not really grasp. They have no clue about dialectical thinking and no sense of history. Before this funny ‘antifeminist’ war, White American low middle class men have mounted a war against the Black and Hispanic American men (against affirmative action). They have ‘progressed’: now the war is waged not against feminism, but against all women (those who work, those who do not work, those who like sex, those who do not, those who have children, those who do not, etc… it is endless. Very hard to please those little guys.

White men from the low middle class who are looking for a ‘conjugal El Dorado’ in the South will actually deepen the crisis of White America (marrying women whose origins are mostly Amerindian). For outside observers, this trend is a very amusing phenomenon, and if this is favorable to women in the South, this is, to my opinion, very good. But it will take time before we know for sure.

White America might be, at last, finished.

There is a quite interesting book called The Decline of Males (Lionel Tiger). The book seems at first quite logical, but a few puzzling questions are not treated. To sum up, Tiger acknowledges – as you do in a very irrational way – that women have reproductive strategies which make them choose mates who have the means to raise their families. This seems to be relatively exact, except that women could also be forced to play this game with men who obviously think working more and making more is the absolute advantage. Anyways, this book raises many questions, the most fundamental being that: marriage and reproduction are not only a question of individual pleasure (which they seem to be at first) but of a commitment to society. Until the 17th century, and in many countries, marriages were arranged. Adultery, in a small village is simply not possible, for instance. Children did not marry according to their taste, but according to the suitability of the marriage. Industrialization changed which had lasted, in fact, for centuries, even in hunters-gatherers societies. Mostly marriage was about group alliances. That is collective survival. Tiger asks the question: why are women so angry? To my opinion, he does not answer correctly, and in fact it depends in which milieu. Women are angry because they have to work and still have to care for the children in a work context that did not evolve enough. Visibly men take a pride in long hours and… submission to the bosses demands. Women use strategies to care for the children and work. Nevertheless, they are relatively successful (the considerable increase of the number of small enterprises created by women). And they are successful because they have children: it gives them the willpower to survive. Men are adapted to ‘protein hunt’, in a society where for most tasks you do not anymore need muscles. In fact, in traditional societies, there was male cooperation. In the modern society, female cooperation is much more obvious than male cooperation. And while you’re waging this war against women, most men do not care a straw about these little boys. Women do and help very concretely other women who are mothers.

The problem is that male biological program in a hunter-gatherer society seems to be less adaptive than the female biological program in our modern society.

Comment on your picture: Your picture looks more like a picture of People’s magazine or of a Club Med ad. There is something totally artificial in it (like showing off for the audience). You have quite a sensual and youthful mouth but there is a lot of anxiety in your eyes, which gives you a frozen gaze. The bottom part of your face is young, but the eyes, the hair and a type of ‘skinniness’ classify you within the 40 and up age group: the panicky one. You need a bit of flesh on your face (and probably on your bum, which I cannot see on the picture) and a more relaxed way of considering life. I have many brothers, many male friends, a young boy and a man who does the cooking and does not drive. So I know men very well and I actually feel pity for them. They do not find their ‘center’ and screw up often. I wanted to know why.

By the way, marriage agencies have historically been in the hands of women. This is the proof that male social bankruptcy has its very good sides: it has forced you to acquire some of the skills that used to be women’s specialty.

Your site: There is a picture of your customers: one man looks like he suffered from foetal alcohol syndrome (the postal service man), the second is a fat man who looks like an alcoholic manager of a slaughterhouse: I understand this as an encouragement to the mainstream clientele. We do understand that Di Caprio’s pictures would give a few complexes to the average customer and scare him away. I understand you do not want to be compared to your customers. Many of those men are alcoholic, which has been confirmed by a few studies and by many Russian women (who are of course disappointed because this was exactly what they are fleeing from back home).

I have a figure somewhere that says that, on about 1000 requests made (monthly) by its senile and pathological clientele (not an insult but a diagnosis), the industry is making about 200,000,000 dollars. Much less, I must admit, than the pharmaceutical companies which peddle Viagra to the same group.

The U.S. Brings, as we all know, democracy, peace, progress and chewing gums to the entire world. The other nations have not yet come out from the dark ages. You have internalized the American style: Greed hidden behind the charity discourse. But until someone tells you, you are not personally guilty. It is true. No doubt, arrogance, vulgarity and stupidity exist everywhere. It would be very unfair not to admit that we are talking here about humanity. But your business is a splendid metaphor: We have here the marriage between hegemony, greed and blindness to other cultures. Mental impotence and infertility is much more serious than the physical one.

Have you noticed? When the product is very cheap, the Hollywoodian marshmallow covering is always very thick too.

If your customers run after ‘exoticism’, it is precisely because they live in segregate areas and do not want to mix. Don’t you think it is ironic? So, exoticism will magically transform their lives. And this will be effortless. Why should life require an effort when one has dollars. To learn Spanish? Are you kidding! Let’s all remain proud, unilingual Americans (ss Jamie who still is, after having lived in Colombia for several years with a Colombian woman!) Your site also shows that those guys are worried about their own security. The old boys are afraid to get their balls cut in Colombia and they want to get married to Colombian women? We are talking here about the post-modern purveyor, no? We commit you to protect you with dollars? Amen! But please walk first and protect me in Barranquilla streets.

How very amusing!

You cannot ignore the bad reputation that most American tourist have in all Latin American countries. This marriage theater will keep the good old tradition going.

Very few people from the South who move to the U.S. pushed by economic reasons manage to like your country. The closer they get to it, the more they dislike it. They just tolerate it. It will not be different for these women: It will be worse, Who has never experience the boring life of cheap American white suburbs in America? If boredom and loneliness was not the real enemy, these men would not spend a cent to get married. The problem is that they do not know why they feel bored and lonely. And they will not understand why they still are, even with an exotic wife. And she, of course, will be the culprit. How could this be different: Someone has to be guilty: No?

Anyways, I thank you to have provided me with raw material for a wonderful political and cultural exploration.

To sum up:

c) It is obvious that women in the South get married sometimes in this way, in the hope of getting away from violence, poverty and lack of perspective, but they are lured to something they do not know of, except from what they see in sitcoms. They leave a country where they have extended families and friends, where hospitality still exists, to go live with a man who is desperate, bored and totally lonely, not even very rich, in a sinister white suburb. The men who choose this “option” will try to control their wives BECAUSE they choose it out of desperation and loneliness and they will try to lock them in with them. I think you take advantage of those stupid men and you lie furiously about the better success rate of these marriages. A very ordinary census could be used to verify if the claims that those marriages work better than the typical American one. This could be done by an independent organization paid by your industry (and submitting itself to audits). You flatter these men, you incite them against feminism which has nothing to do with their situation and in general with the marriage crisis. Among other things, you do not even recognize the fact that many men, especially artists and intellectuals, were extremely tired to be dragged through marriage into the role of the provider. Marriage has always been fragile. Even in richer families, marriage was a difficulty, because families wanted to avoid dividing their property. The eldest son could marry, and the younger elements were more or less scarified for the perpetuation of the name and the defense of the “patrimony.” Younger sons had to move to other cities, become priests or enter the military.

The problem of libertarian and masculinists is that they know absolutely nothing of history. They produce… bad smelling air to vent their anger.

Bonne journée and good luck in your new love El Dorado. Barbra

There is no point in debating Barbara. She rambles with scattered sociological and literary references, drags in random irrelevancies, and repeatedly misstates both the facts and my actual positions. She calls herself a feminist, but in practice she comes across as an angry anti-male, anti-American leftist. She claims to “pity” men, who in her belief system hold the monopoly on “screwing up.” You can be sure, however, that she does not express this supposed pity to her “brothers, many male friends, son, and man.” She tries to argue that women are better suited for the modern world and will be more successful, as if men should simply accept this and step aside. Yet she contradicts herself by saying I acquired a woman’s “specialty skill” that was “forced” on me, instead of acknowledging it for what it was: a choice I—and many others—made in a changing market. By her own admission, I adapted, but then she claims that men are biologically less likely to adapt. There is no evidence for this. Men work as nurses just as women work as doctors. We both adapt. She insists there is a “war” between the sexes, but in reality it is only a small, loud group of leftist feminists who are trying to wage that war to gain an upper hand over men who largely are not interested in fighting it. Their goal is not equality—which most men support—but advantage. She says women “win” this “game” or war, but defines winning as complaining, walking away in bitterness, or taking revenge. How can such negative feelings and destructive behavior be considered victories for anyone?

Barbara’s prejudice against men shows clearly in her “diagnosis” of those who use marriage agencies. To her, they look like alcoholics, and she even claims that “studies” prove many of them are. Barbara admits there are no statistics on the divorce rate of men with foreign wives, yet somehow there are statistics on what percentage of these men are alcoholics. This is the standard leftist feminist tactic: first invent a “fact,” then insult you for something that is not true. Feminists say they want to know the divorce rate for cross-cultural marriages, but instead of doing the work to find out—something any feminist organization could undertake—they prefer, in true leftist fashion, to demand that someone else do the research and pay for it.

Leftist feminists not only want to distort the truth; they want to distort who you are. According to Barbara, you are boring, controlling, stupid, lonely, scared, desperate, and ignorant of history. Yet somehow I am the one who “incites,” not Barbara—the name-calling leftist feminist who does not even believe you have a right to marry. If marriage is not a right, then people like Barbara can justify taking it away from you.

Others Weigh In