"If you touch, it's battery."

[doombug]

In another thread, someone brought up the topic of domestic violence and a class of special visas available to those who are victims to it. Rather than double post there (my last post in the thread was already too long), I wanted to split this off into its own thread.

Why is this topic important? Because most of you who've fled the lions' den to find your potential bride will eventually be bringing her back to the very same lions' den to make a life together.

I especially wanted to post this because of some hilarious (and shocking--and true) revelations I uncovered about what constitutes domestic violence. The title of this post is just one such revelation. It's an actual quote from a female juror in a domestic violence case.

"The same year, Michigan Judge Joel Gehrke made headlines when he gave convicted spouse abuser Stewart Marshall a literal slap on the wrist, citing the wife's adultery with her husband's brother as a mitigating factor. This episode, which provoked cries about judges who go easy on wife beaters, should have raised questions instead about frivolous prosecutions. Aside from the fact that many of the jurors believed Chris Marshall had set up the incident as a leverage-gaining divorce tactic, Stewart's assault consisted of grabbing her by the sweatshirt and pushing her; she did not suffer a single scrape. A woman juror who backed Judge Gehrke's decision explained that the jury 'had to say guilty' because 'if you touch, it's battery.'"

But that is the most "brutal" of the examples cited in the article.

Continuing:

"In her landmark book, The Battered Woman (1979), psychologist Lenore Walker writes that 'a battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something' (emphasis added). While Walker focuses primarily on women who have been physically assaulted, she also talks about men 'battering' their wives by, for example, being inattentive. Pamphlets distributed by family violence programs stress that one doesn't have to be hit to be abused and list such forms of abuse as 'calling you names,' criticizing you for small things,' or 'making you feel bad about yourself.' A booklet published by the state of New Jersey, Domestic Violence: The Law and You, informs the reader that she is a victim of domestic violence if she has experienced 'embarrassment or alarm because of lewd or shocking behavior' [such as farting in public while she's shopping? ] or 'repeated verbal humiliation and attacks.'"

How did the judicial system get hoodwinked so easily?

The same way the House, Senate and President got hoodwinked on IMBRA. With a mix of flimsy and distorted evidence:

"Surveys by pioneering family violence researchers Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire and Richard Gelles of the University of Rhode Island have found that half of all spousal violence is reciprocal while the rest is evenly split between female-only and male-only violence (though men are more likely to inflict serious damage). Those findings are confirmed by a host of other studies. Nonetheless, materials distributed by advocacy groups and used in training for judges, prosecutors, and police assert that 95 percent of domestic violence is male-on-female and dismiss mutual brawling as a 'myth.'"

The above quoted text comes from an article titled, "Domestic Violations." It's an excellent read.

[doombug]

According to the Immigrant Women Program, more than half of you are abusing your subservient sex slaves foreign brides:

"Close to 60 percent of married immigrant women experience domestic violence, according to research cited by the Immigrant Women Program. In a 1998 study conducted by the Migrant Clinicians Network, more than 50 percent of migrant farm worker women reported that they were physically or sexually abused in the past year."
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1271

Though, if MOB numbers hadn't been lumped in with those of migrant farm workers, maybe the industry wouldn't be looked upon/legislated against so harshly.

Some funny comments from the riffraff over at Alas, a blog regarding the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, MOBs and the enigmatic "U" visa. (The posts are a little dated, though, going back to 2005):

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing the whole “mail-order bride” industry closed down.

How should the law “prohibit” MOB’s and still allow people who have legitimately “fallen in love” (or who wish to marry for some other reason) to marry? How to deal with women who want to get to the US or the West at any price for whatever reason, who then claim domestic abuse? How to keep ugly, geeky (but reasonably well-to-do) men from in effect “buying” a bride? Can we? Should we, between consenting adults?

[...]

There is nothing, after all, to keep the lovely young foreign woman from actually discovering loveable qualities in the ugly geeky man and genuinely coming to love him, and vice versa.

Actually, I think the chances of getting killed are not that great, and I think that there are a lot of people who would be willing to ge[t] beaten up once or twice, even severely, in order to be able to live in the U.S.

“Mail Order Brides” are a rather blatant form of marriage-as-prostitution: the difference (and it doubtless looks like a large difference enough to the women involved) is that the woman is only required to have one client, must live with that client and do other work for him, and gains certain legal rights. But the key point - the exchange of sex for money - is still there.

Any time a man purchases a “wife”, he is prostituting a woman. Why would one argue differently? Who benefits from classing a bought wife separately from buying a prostitute?

In Asia, where I am living, unlike in the USA, introduction services for marriage are very common among the locals - nothing wrong with it.
It is not only for poor local women looking for rich foreign men.

It has nothing to do with the living standard of the man or the woman. Introduction services are existing legally in Thailand, Malaysia, China but also in Singapore, Hongkong and Japan.

The MOB industry is IMO creepy and very disturbing and should be banned. But, as that appears to be unrealistic right now, at least this legislation is a step in the right direction.

These websites [IMBs] have strong implications of prostitution.

“Absolutely true. These websites have strong implications of prostitution. ”

Certainly, the writers of IMBRA must have recognized that fact. After all, they are smart people.

You join a dating service. You read a lady’s bio, it seems nice, it interest you so you want to contact her. At this stage, that is all you know of the lady–her bio. You have no idea if this lady is legit or not. In other words, she could be prowling the internet collecting personal information that could violate your privacy.

[...]

Why not take this privacy issue and bring it to the traditional dating world. You are in a club looking around. You see a lady you want to meet, walk up to her and ask her for her phone number…..she smiles and says, show me your paperwork first. Most of us wouldn’t tolerate this type of invasion of our privacy at initial contact with another person. Even more ironic, in a traditional dating scenario, a man could meet a lady, get her phone number, call her and ask her out for a date. At that date, the man is physically in the lady’s presence. Now tell me who is more at a danger during the introduction stage…the lady on a traditional date or a lady who is a thousand miles away.

As I've said before, the safest place in the world for an immigrant woman is in the arms of an American man--black or white, brown or yellow. Their life expectancy, education and income levels, and quality of life will all most assuredly improve. That our politicians have been convinced otherwise reveals just how easily they'll cave to any pair of pumps with a projector and an agenda.   

And since domestic violence is a cottage industry in many a Third World country, one has to wonder why feminists are so resistant to their immigrant "sisters" marrying out. (For reference, the U.S. rate is roughly 22%; Colombia, 44%):



So, overall, where was she worse off? Where has she the potential to be best off? Find your wife's country of origin and see for yourself.



Graphs are so pretty.

Maybe they'll lure a feminist lurker to chime in.

[Ray]

Thanks doom, you just ruined my day!