In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The Middleman

piny

In the Chronicle today, Ruthe Stein reviews Cowboy del Amor and manages to anticipate and support all the misgivings I had about the entire setup and the comedic treatment it gets in a few short lines:

As Thompson, a former horse breeder, tells filmmaker Michele Ohayon in the fascinating and distinctly politically incorrect documentary “Cowboy del Amor,” the horse business and the woman business are a lot alike. If you can peddle one, you can peddle the other.

Apparently, these guys are just like other men who want mail-order brides:

His clients are lonely Americans in the market for Mexican wives, whom the men hope will be more docile than their compatriots.

And Mr. del Amor sounds kinda like other mail-order bride agencies:

Thompson insists on no sex at these introductory meetings. “I’ve never run a whorehouse, and I don’t want to insult the women,” he explains, looking earnestly into the camera.

And the women seem to have pretty much the same options and expectations as most other women who agree to become mail-order brides:

American husbands are considered a catch in Mexico if for no other reason than they provide entree into a country with a higher standard of living. Accomplished professional women respond to the ads and don’t make a beeline for the door even when it’s obvious that they have a lot more going for them than the stranger across the table.

So it’s basically the same sad commodified story all over again, except with a Texas twang.

You’re left wondering at the end about what becomes of the women after they say their “I do’s.”

Quite.

7 thoughts on The Middleman

  1. Hmm, this is interesting. First wave feminists frequently had temperance and anti-prostitution agendas, in addition to woman’s suffrage. After all, the nineteenth amendment is right next to the eighteenth. One might guess that the early feminists thought that without the evil temptations of liqueur and loose women, men would drastically reduce their anti-social ways and might settle down and be better domestic partners.

    I’m almost afraid to bring this up, but no one else has made a comment. Since feminists aren’t generality against immigration per se, I’m having trouble understanding the hubbub over “mail-order brides”. Wikipedia states [1] that the marriages are “successful” more frequently than average, and furthermore it seems that wives with a credible claim of abuse by their husbands can be granted a permanent green card, allowing them to leave the abuse, stay in the country and hold a job.

    A “mail-order bride” (admit it, it’s a propaganda term) doesn’t exactly appeal to me, but it doesn’t seem to be taking what a liberated woman might consider prime marriage targets out of circulation. What exactly am I missing here?

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail-order_bride#Marriage_success_statistics

  2. Hmm, this is interesting. First wave feminists frequently had temperance and anti-prostitution agendas, in addition to woman’s suffrage. After all, the nineteenth amendment is right next to the eighteenth. One might guess that the early feminists thought that without the evil temptations of liqueur and loose women, men would drastically reduce their anti-social ways and might settle down and be better domestic partners.

    Riiiiight. Feminists oppose prostitution primarily for the good of women who aren’t prostitutes. That makes all kinds of sense.

    Keep guessing.

    The problem with them is the problem that feminists have fought since feminism existed: the exploitation of women locked into an unequal system. The women who become mail-order brides are doing it because it’s the only way they can emigrate. These are not love matches.

    The men who want mail-order brides are typically the kind of guys who want a woman with fewer options and less autonomy. A lot of them, including the Cowboy del Amor, say so in so many words. That desire, and the belief that they’re entitled to gratify it, shouldn’t be uncritically accepted just because the women getting the short end of the stick are from somewhere else. Feminism is about fighting for the rights of all women, not protecting some women at the expense of others. Outsourcing abuse is not an acceptable solution.

    It’s true that women with a credible claim of abuse may find protection–just as it’s true in theory that any non-foreign woman may walk away from an abusive marriage. However, many mail-order brides are isolated and dependent. They may not speak the language or have any friends or relatives inside the country. They may not know their rights or believe in them. Their husbands, particularly the abusive ones, may purposely mislead them. All of that is very, very dangerous. There’s nothing original or hypothetical about the idea that immigrants are more vulnerable to exploitation.

    An assertion on wikipedia to the effect that fewer of these marriages end in divorce doesn’t argue against the idea that women in these marriages have fewer options and less control, or less protection from abuse. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

  3. Riiiiight. Feminists oppose prostitution primarily for the good of women who aren’t prostitutes. That makes all kinds of sense.
    Keep guessing.

    Then what exactly was the first wave feminist temperance angle anyway? Surely you noticed that Prohibition didn’t happen until after many states recognized the right of woman to vote.

    Heck, the early suffrage movement didn’t aim to bring all women the right to vote, only white woman. Extending the right to vote to all humans was considered too radical for the time. There’s no shame in admitting that fact.

    The problem with them is the problem that feminists have fought since feminism existed: the exploitation of women locked into an unequal system. The women who become mail-order brides are doing it because it’s the only way they can emigrate. These are not love matches.

    I find this mildly insulting. Just because a wife is from a third world county, does not make her a clueless idiot. In her home county she may be regarded as chattel. By seeking out a mate in the US, they very well may be liberating themselves and providing a better life for themselves and their future kids. And who says they’re not in love and happy in their marriage? The statistic that Wikipedia linked to seems to indicate otherwise.

    An assertion on wikipedia to the effect that fewer of these marriages end in divorce doesn’t argue against the idea that women in these marriages have fewer options and less control, or less protection from abuse. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

    Actually, no. I was completely flummoxed by this statistic.

    It’s true that women with a credible claim of abuse may find protection–just as it’s true in theory that any non-foreign woman may walk away from an abusive marriage.

    I assumed that most marriage brokered by these overseas firms would typically end in divorce as soon as the foreign born partner achieved permanent residence. I even assumed that a good many might be tempted to “cry wolf” and exit the marriage early, but the stats don’t seem to bear that out. Shame on me for assuming as much.

    In the same vein, I find that your assumption that the men are all chaining their new brides to the kitchen stove and keeping them barefooted, a little over the top.

    Outsourcing abuse is not an acceptable solution.

    I wholeheartedly agree, but unless I see some evidence that this is being used to circumvent the laws against indentured servitude, I’ll have to assume this is just a mean spirited attack against these men.

  4. I can see your comments as logical on their merit, but empirical observation and experience being a female and having been subjected to male behavior toward my feminity for the last thirty or more years leaves me to doubt the Wikipedia stats.

    Not that I think Wikpedia is wrong, just that I am certain that it is unlikely that women who have been raised in more conservative and much more patriarchical cultures are going to adopt American feminist thinking all too soon. And also, as Piny states, we would have to consider that the man in the relationship will indeed control the context and content of her assimiliation if such threatens the function of the original ‘package’ as it were.

    The type of women a man chooses speaks volumes about the man himself. When there are more eligible women in this country than men, men pretty much have their pick.

    But what they pick are women who come from cultures and economies that are far regressed from ours. Among nearly all, if not the sum total of these women originate from countries where the culture they grew up in and formed their identity is one in which subservience to a man and complete obedience to a man are considered unquestioned absolutes.

    As a woman I can say with great confidence also that there is a groundswell of men who for whatever reason want like nothing else to have a woman who will serve them faithfully and unquestionably. They are men who have had trouble adjusting to the last thirty years of change where American women are more and more often demanding equal representation and duty sharing in their relationships.

    Therefore as a feminist, it is of concern if not just sheer disappointment to see that there are men who still will go to great lengths to find a way to find a woman who will live out the outdated construct of women as mere gratifyers of a man’s needs and desires.

    Your comment about the temperance movement; is this a history discussion? What the hell do turn of the century women have to do with women of today other than a research paper a parlor discussion?
    Clue me in.

  5. Then what exactly was the first wave feminist temperance angle anyway? Surely you noticed that Prohibition didn’t happen until after many states recognized the right of woman to vote.

    Given the contemporary arguments in favor of temperance, I wouldn’t be surprised if first-wavers believed that it would mitigate domestic abuse.

    Why are you conflating “women” with “first-wave feminists”?

    I find this mildly insulting. Just because a wife is from a third world county, does not make her a clueless idiot. In her home county she may be regarded as chattel. By seeking out a mate in the US, they very well may be liberating themselves and providing a better life for themselves and their future kids. And who says they’re not in love and happy in their marriage? The statistic that Wikipedia linked to seems to indicate otherwise.

    Learn to read, will you? No one is saying that these women are not rational actors, or that the choice they make is not the best among the options available to them. In fact, that premise would pretty much contradict the idea that these women are making these marriages for economic reasons, wouldn’t it? The problem is that this option is the best one available.

    I assumed that most marriage brokered by these overseas firms would typically end in divorce as soon as the foreign born partner achieved permanent residence. I even assumed that a good many might be tempted to “cry wolf” and exit the marriage early, but the stats don’t seem to bear that out. Shame on me for assuming as much.

    If these women are just looking to “liberate” themselves, and if they can just go ahead and get divorced, why would so many of them stay in these marriages with total strangers? Do you think a setup like this is likely to produce lasting love?

    In the same vein, I find that your assumption that the men are all chaining their new brides to the kitchen stove and keeping them barefooted, a little over the top.

    Where did I make that assumption? And who’s over the top, again?

  7. piny Says: Given the contemporary arguments in favor of temperance, I wouldn’t be surprised if first-wavers believed that it would mitigate domestic abuse.

    How is that different from what I said?

    Standard Mischief Says: One might guess that the early feminists thought that without the evil temptations of liqueur and loose women, men would drastically reduce their anti-social ways and might settle down and be better domestic partners.

    kate Says: Your comment about the temperance movement; is this a history discussion? What the hell do turn of the century women have to do with women of today other than a research paper a parlor discussion?

    I’m drawing a parallel. The first-wavers saw alcohol and prostitution as a social problem rather than an individual problem. The sometimes very religious suffrage movement thought they were curing society’s ills. (And BTW, Prohibition didn’t work)

    So do you think this trend of foreign born partners is a social problem? Does the heavy had of the government need to step in and meddle, even if the immigration screening process already in place is not showing signs of abuse? Are these not consenting adults here?

    kate: When there are more eligible women in this country than men, men pretty much have their pick.

    Tread lightly here. This could easily be seen as a either xenophobic or something like “protective tariffs”, in support of domestic women.

    piny: Learn to read, will you? No one is saying that these women are not rational actors, or that the choice they make is not the best among the options available to them. In fact, that premise would pretty much contradict the idea that these women are making these marriages for economic reasons, wouldn’t it? The problem is that this option is the best one available.

    piny: If these women are just looking to “liberate” themselves, and if they can just go ahead and get divorced, why would so many of them stay in these marriages with total strangers? Do you think a setup like this is likely to produce lasting love?

    piny: However, many mail-order brides are isolated and dependent. They may not speak the language or have any friends or relatives inside the country. They may not know their rights or believe in them. Their husbands, particularly the abusive ones, may purposely mislead them. All of that is very, very dangerous. There’s nothing original or hypothetical about the idea that immigrants are more vulnerable to exploitation.

    OK, now I’m confused. Are these just “rational actors” in it for just the green card, and then just happen to stay in the marriage past when they get their papers? Or are they cunning females, willing to become loyal, loving wives, in exchange for a better standard of living? Or are they adults in age only, kept in the marriage by being left ignorant? No driver’s license, no English, no contact with peers?

    That’s three stereotypes. Personally, I don’t know any foreign born wives. I’m the only one who interjected any statistics in to the argument. So I’m still standing by my original statement.

    Standard Mischief: …but unless I see some evidence that this is being used to circumvent the laws against indentured servitude, I’ll have to assume this is just a mean spirited attack against these men.

Comments are currently closed.