Due to our incredibly crappy economy, there has been a change in the advertising policies at ScienceBlogs recently. Which leads me to ask, what do you think of those Russian Brides ads that are popping up here recently? I ask because I think they are incredibly tacky, offensively sexist and worse, I wonder if "Russian brides" aren't somehow tied in with human trafficking? Does anyone else know about the human trafficking angle, or can you point me in the direction of information related to the Russian Brides racket and human trafficking? I'd appreciate your comments about the ads, since I've already complained to the overlords about the Russian Brides ads in particular (although I do not want to damage SB's money-making abilities since ad revenue is one way to keep things going), and I want to point them to a comments thread where my readers provide their input into this "necessary evil."
- Log in to post comments
I know that traffickers pose as those companies to capture women all the time. The ones that actually do become brides are being bought as well, and it is extremely easy to abuse someone who has no other resources or support system in place. There is not really anything to ensure that the women aren't being treated like slaves. I am sure they would not do any of it if they could obtain food and shelter some other way, these businesses prey on the desperation of poor women.
I saw a forensic files where a man killed four foreign brides before he was caught, he kept sending money to their families so they did not have a reason to think their relative was dead. I am pretty sure it was the same case mentioned at the bottom of this link:
http://www.catwinternational.org/factbook/usa1.php
I haven't seen the Russian bride ads myself, so I can't comment of them specifically. However, advertising mail order brides is ethically questionable at best, both because of the potential for human trafficking and because the practice encourages sexist ideas about the proper role of women (i.e., obedient and in the house). Once in this country, mail order wives are particularly vulnerable since their immigration status is dependent on their husband, they may not speak the language, and they have few contacts here, all of which may make it difficult for them to leave an abusive situation.
This is especially offensive on a website that promotes critical thinking and that includes the work of many professional women scientists.
I would be interested as well,
I've also blogged on the topic (http://tinyurl.com/brides-on-Sb).
But I do want to point out that a complaint about this ad might be inconsistent. Our major sponsor, it appears, has felt in the past that assassination of those opposed to them is OK (heard of Shell Oil?). As in homicide. It seems odd to complain selectively about the ads.
Having said that, an open discussion of the issues is very appropriate, and I applaud you (and me) for raising it.
A similar thing has happened at my stat site and I find it really disgusting--sexist, racist and preying on all kinds of other stereotypes about women and the readers of this site. Whether there is straight-up trafficking happening or merely tasteless advertising methods on the sites' part I don't want to see it or be affiliated with it in any way.
I'd also venture to guess that some fraction of the Russian bride market is scams designed to bleed money from desperate creepy old men. All told even in the best-case scenario it's a staggeringly nasty "business" and I'd personally much prefer Seed not being associated with it at all.
If someone wants a Russian wife they ought to fly to Russia and try to actually meet someone the old-fashioned way.
If I WERE looking for a Russian Bride, I don't think I would go to SB to get one. Seriously though, I agree with you that they are tacky and inappropriate for a reputable site. The business faces ethical challenges on multiple levels, even if they are not into trafficking, which they likely are.
This is one of the reasons that I removed ads from my site, I could not control the inappropriate ones.
"I'd also venture to guess that some fraction of the Russian bride market is scams designed to bleed money from desperate creepy old men. "
Damn, I wish I had the cash to spare, I've got the other qualifications down cold.
C'mon, we all know that Natasha was too good for Boris!
*rolls eyes*
Businesses of all sorts are blaming the economy for all sorts of foolish and disgusting decisions.
It seems my original comment got eaten. In any case, I finally saw an image of one of the ads over at DrugMonkey. I agree with you that these ads are sexist and promote exploitation of vulnerable women. They really should not appear on a science blog (or anywhere, for that matter).
I think the Russian brides ads might conflict for many people with viewing ScienceBlogs as a quality source of reliable information.
The Russian brides thing is a very old story - even older than me. Although organizations involved in trafficking humans may also be involved in some operations there is no reason to believe apriori that all organizations advertising Russian brides are engaged in such activity (even though they may all be extortionate - hint: if you want a Russian bride, go live and work in Russia for a few years and get to know the people).
The basic premise for the operation (which has since grown to Estonian brides, Asian brides, etc) is that there are good-looking women trained to please you who have grown up in a society that they would like to escape. On the other side you have people who might think "none of the women around here suit me - maybe women from a different place would be better suited." So there is that faulty assumption that the grass is greener on the other side. Some couples may be happy and many not.
As for being sexist, just look at the contemporary USA - you still find a lot of sexist old fogies even at universities. There are also hordes of sexists in the younger generation. Other nations may not have developed as much with regards to gender roles in society (or may simply have developed differently). So the advertisers might not even see themselves as sexist at all (I don't promote 'cultural relativism' though - 'cultural relativism' is a lie and a poor excuse for a lot of evil).
Keep in mind that the "brides" on offer are probably mostly hard-off not terribly well educated people hoping for a better life - they probably have the same misplaced hopes that many of the potential husbands have. The companies are looking to match them up for profit - hey, what would you pay for happiness? I don't like it but I can't say it's a fundamentally evil business.
I went to school with someone who got a Russian bride. I wasnât that close to him, and donât remember all the details, but it seemed to me that it was going to be a marriage of equals and that he was treating her as he would treat any other woman. When I met up with him it was about a year and a half into the process and they were waiting for immigration stuff to go through. He was learning Russian and she was learning English. I sure got the impression that he was going to treat her right and try very hard to make the relationship work.
I suspect that many of the foreign bride ads are scams. On myspace I have gotten many friend requests from women half my age from all over the world, mostly from Africa. Sometimes the same picture with different names, addresses and details that donât match.
I never noticed the ads. Ah well, I don't know if the science market is so hard up that the readers are in the market for mail order brides. I say, let them waste their money.
I'll say something controversial, but it needs to be said.
Mail-Order-Brides are a symptom, not a problem. The problem is that society doesn't care much about beta-males.
To top it off, lately, the biggest trend sweeping the western world is mega-doses of man-bashing. Currently, "man-bashing" is considered the way to female empowerment.
What we don't see is the hidden side of masculinity. When we want to say men have it easy, all we have to do is look at the tops of corporations and politics. We fail to see the men in the sewage channels and digging your dumpsters.
Now, I am not justifying men doing mail-brider ordering... But the knee jerk reaction of "uuuuh sexist, bla bla, offensive, bla bla"... Is kind of uneven.
In the history of humanity, between 60-80% of all men ever born have died as virgins. Very few women have. (no, its not all about sex...) The point is that we don't care about the men cast aside by society and not given status, girls, money. We ignore them... that is until they dare to for at least once in their lives get to see what its like to be with another person. Then we bash them like heck.
Now, obviously, I don't suggest letting mail-ordering continue to happen. But I don't think the solution is to bash the symptom... I think the solution is to start taking care of all these men who spend most of their lives in solitude.
AlekNovy @ # 7: In the history of humanity, between 60-80% of all men ever born have died as virgins.
A fascinating claim, and one even more dubious than your others - care to provide any supporting evidence?
(Gotta say, though, that your "society doesn't care much about beta-males" observation has a lot of pithy validity, from my observations.)
And it looks like the GrrlScientist's complaints have had an effect. Either that or the entrepreneurs involved have already run out of future babuschkas.
You're joking, right?
Care to give us some actual resources?
I would love to know, just out of curiosity, how many of our collective readers clicked through the Russian Mail Order Bride ads vs. the Gay Friendly Connections Web site which seems to have replaced the former, vs. bought a book from the Seed Book Club.
In the history of humanity, between 60-80% of all men ever born have died as virgins.
That is TRUE! But only in certain mammal species like Elephant Seals and we don't call the males in those species "men."
This would be an example of pop evolutionary psychology coming back and biting us.
Greg, its been shown in humans as well. Monogamy is a recent invention designed to get lower-status males breeding opportunities in exchange for engaging them as labor.
======
Marilove Asks: Care to give us some actual resources?
======
Sure.
The percentage of men who never procreated can be argued in terms of what model you use to calculate, but one fact is CERTAIN, and no one can argue. We have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Considering women have always been roughly half the population... Either a lot of women gave virgin births (lol)... or, some men procreated more where others didn't at all.
====Resources====
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-…
=================
Now, the first thing that might pop into your head is something like... oh oh, but that's gotta be because of cave-people, that doesn't happen with modern people...
Wrong.
Even today, even with the invent of contraception, the percentage of paternal fraud is mind-boggling. A lot of married men out there are raising children which aren't their own. This is also indisputable. Children's DNA simply doesn't match their "official" father's DNA.
The most optimistic percentages for today's population anyone has come up with is 10%, and some of the more pessimistic ones are at 40-50%.
The difference in percentages comes from whom they are testing. There is no country where every single resident is tested to see if their mother lied about who's the father.
Moreover, your claims that a lot of wives are gettin' some on the side directly contradict your assertion that "beta males" aren't gettin' any. Didn't you notice that?
====Greg quotes the following====
On average, about 10 percent of children are not sired by their supposed fathers. ... Actual figures range from 1 percent in high-status areas of the United States and Switzerland, to 5 to 6 percent for moderate-status males in the United States and Great Britain, to 10 to 30 percent for lower-status males in the United States, Great Britain, and France.
=================================
I'm a bit confused, on the one hand it seems you're disagreeing with me, and then you post data that agrees with me. I am confused? In fact I am writing what I am writing based ON sperm-wars, a fascinating book everyone should read.
I said the exact same thing as the quote. It depends on the research, and who we're counting in it.
Beta-males get cheated on (are being used solely as providers), but high-status men (alpha-males) don't get cheated on. And this is today, in modern society. AFTER the invention of contraception.
The absolutely most optimistic number for beta-males is 10%, and some say as high as 40-50%.
========
Moreover, your claims that a lot of wives are gettin' some on the side directly contradict your assertion that "beta males" aren't gettin' any. Didn't you notice that?
========
Did you notice you're not reading everything I am saying, but only certain parts and then debating just those parts?
Its only contradictory if your mental filter jumped over the part of the invention of monogamy. Monogamy was invented as a way to give beta-males a higher chance to score offspring.
==>I never said beta-males get nothing. I said beta-males in the course of the **ENTIRE human history** got a lot less. <==
I was very careful in what I wrote, it seems you weren't careful in what you read. Monogamy has only existed for a very very very small percentage of human history and only in some societies. Before the invention of monogamy, you either had a harem, or nothing at all.
The DNA proof is still there and completely undisputed. We have TWICE as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Do you get this? Think about it. TWICE as many.
I never said beta-males get nothing. I said beta-males in the course of the **ENTIRE human history** got a lot less.
Maybe you forgot what you wrote earlier. Let me remind you:
In the history of humanity, between 60-80% of all men ever born have died as virgins.
A virgin is someone who has never had sex, ever. As in, zero sexual partners. A virgin is not an unmarried person who has occasional flings with married people.
Anyway, I fail to see what your bizarre claims have to do with the questions Grrlscientist posed. The question at hand is whether Seed, the owner of Scienceblogs.com, should be selling ads for mail order bride companies.
"Either that or the entrepreneurs involved have already run out of future babuschkas."
Huh? I thought they were selling brides, not grannies. Then again, I guess granny *could* remarry.
I bet I would make a fortune putting up ads for Star Trek toys.....
Extremely embarrassing. I wouldn't have seen them if I hadn't happened to be running a new web browser without built-in ad filtering. Really bottom of the barrel.
==========
In the history of humanity, between 60-80% of all men ever born have died as virgins.
A virgin is someone who has never had sex, ever. As in, zero sexual partners. A virgin is not an unmarried person who has occasional flings with married people.
===========
The ***undisputable fact*** is how many men never pro-created (this one is a fact)... And the percentages on how many died alone and in misery is a projection (60-80% on different estimates). So... We know as a fact how many never impregnated a woman, and based off of that, there are different estimates how many never even tried (virgins claim).
=====================
Anyway, I fail to see what your bizarre claims have to do with the questions Grrlscientist posed. The question at hand is whether Seed, the owner of Scienceblogs.com, should be selling ads for mail order bride companies.
=====================
WOW... Damn, how dare I make the issue as complex as it is and put it in the OVERALL context. I should just simplify it, bash all men, make fun of russian girls, and do some smarky comment like everyone else. How unscientific of me :(
1) Grlllllscientist posts how incredibly sexist, misogynistic mail-order bride service are... etc.. etc.
2) I say we shouldn't simplify the issues, as its not so SIMPLE, its not just another "sexist, misogynist issue", its a bit more complex
And I direct you to the FACT that MOST MEN EVER BORN IN HISTORY NEVER PROCREATED. Do you get this? This is not a "bizarre claim" its a biological fact that's indisputable. The "virgins" thing is just to get your attention, and the percentages on it can be argued. The fact that most men EVER born in human history haven't procreated is a fact, not a "bizarre claim".
But in today's society of knee-jerk men-bashing and blaming every single sexual problem on "sexist misoginy" its considered politically incorrect to point out ways in which men get f*ed over by society. There's an immediate backlash for even posting facts about it.
==> Again, my point is that mail-order brides are a symptom, not the disease. We as a society ignore men who aren't at the top. And then we bash them when they desperately try to fix their position. I'm not approving their solution (mail order brides)...
In fact, I was talking to one of those guys bride-ordering guys, I'd bash him and teach him that there are ways to raise his status and get women without money. But in terms of this discussion on this site, between intellectuals I think it incredibly damaging to always over-simplify issues to "men are a bunch of idiots". That's the default answer these days to any gender issue. Its considered forbidden to mention that men as a gender ever get any disadvantages.
i don't recall anyone, myself included, saying that "all men are idiots." on the other hand, i've also neglected to mention that i wear a necklace made of dried human penises that i've snipped off their former possessors using my trusty hedge shears that i carry with me everywhere. i think it has something to do with my not-so-latent penis envy issues. except everyone, men included, envy all my peni now, hahaha!
AlekNovy: ...Greg quotes the following... I'm a bit confused ...
Well, yeah, you are, since it was Pierce who quoted that bit.
The part about mixing up men "who never procreated" with men "who died virgins" compounds the confusion. Saying, "The "virgins" thing is just to get your attention..." only shows you don't deserve our - or anyone's - attention.
The DNA proof is still there and completely undisputed. We have TWICE as many female ancestors as male ancestors.
In spite of the foregoing, this I gotta see. What DNA proof? (Hint: it's not mentioned in Sperm Wars.) The only way I can think of for that to happen is for every human to be the product of father-daughter incest, for every generation. That's rather hard to believe - even for a native Mississippian!
MadScientist - I said they were peddling future babuschkas.
And, just for the record: though I deplore Seed's choice to run the Russian (and Chinese) mail-order bride ads, the ads which replaced them on some blogs yesterday, the ones featuring Ann Coulter close-ups, were even more viscerally unpleasant.
Grrl: All men are idiots.
Alek: I just want you to know that I'm not reading this comment thread . I love to keep up with Grrl's blog and I'd read every word of it every day, but I can't. Looking quickly over what you a saying, I think you are being very selective in your use of information. You have a conclusion that you like and you are trying to reach it, and you ad doing whatever it takes to get you there. Good luck with that Does not look good, though.
@AlekNovy
1st, perhaps the "man-bashing" you denounce so loudly is in part a response to attitudes such as yours that men for some reason ought to be "given status, girls, money." Notice what you did there? If men are "given" women and they are comparable to status or money, aren't you implying, at best, that women's preferences should be ignored (given that you seem to think more men should be "given ... girls", as though they are gifts or earnings rather than people), and at worst that women are little more than livestock to be distributed as (male) society pleases? What a way to convince people that men (like you?) are not deserving of verbal bashing!
2nd, ignoring for the moment your lumping access to women in with money and status, certainly our society (along with most others) is quite inequitable in these and many other matters. Have you any suggestions for remedying this situation that are more concrete than "taking care of these men who spend most of their lives in solitude"? It's all very well and good to argue that there is a problem, but people tend to be much more willing to listen to arguments that also propose a solution.
3rd, it would be perfectly appropriate to write a blog post jumping off of this one on the topic of beta-males and their treatment in our society - I suspect your position would garner interest and (at least if you got rid of that subtle whiff of feeling entitled to women's bodies and/or attention) agreement. However, in a discussion about whether Seed's advertising policy is actively supporting human trafficking, it is not appropriate to say, in effect, that we should overlook the trafficking (if that is what is occurring) until we have improved the lot of beta-males in our society, especially given that you have provided no evidence that this will alleviate the trafficking issue.
Alek:
Guess you've never heard of the Sykes study, have you? Your "statistics" are a bunch of just-so stories to justify your hatred of women.
Take your "men's rights" garbage somewhere where it'll be, erm, welcomed. Like Pandagon or Feministing. And I say this as one of the beta males whose interests you claim to be defending.
===
In spite of the foregoing, this I gotta see. What DNA proof? (Hint: it's not mentioned in Sperm Wars.) The only way I can think of for that to happen is for every human to be the product of father-daughter incest, for every generation. That's rather hard to believe - even for a native Mississippian!
===
I quoted it above, 3 times. The original resource. Funny how your mental filters keep missing it.
You still don't GET IT. For someone reading a scientist blog, it should be VERY easy.
===> Resource http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-… <===
======
Complex Explanation:
On average (and over evolutionary time), any given human female has been more likely to reproduce than any given male. Said another way, males have had a higher variance in reproductive success than females. As a consequence, more different females have contributed to the modern gene pool than males. Rather spectacular examples of this phenomenon have been inferred from historical times using genetic data. Asian conquerors (such as Genghis Khan and Giocangga) and their male relatives appear to have made a vastly disproportionate contribution to modern Asian populations. Niall of the Nine Hostages seems to have had a similar effect on the gene pool of the British Isles. These types of events, where one person (or set of related individuals) experiences tremendous reproductive success, can have an effect on the gene pool that lasts for many generations. On the other side of the equation, we have to infer that there are many more males than females who do not successfully reproduce at all.
======
==An explanation even a 12 year old can get==
Yes, each baby has one mother and one father, but it is nonetheless possible for combined ancestors to include more females than males. Here is a simple example. Suppose an island contains two men, Bob and James, and two women, Sally and Maria. Bob is rich and charming, while James is poor and uncouth, so both women marry Bob. James remains celibate. Soon, Sally gives birth to Doug, and Maria gives birth to Linda. Count the ancestors so far. Dougâs parents (Bob and Sally) are 50% female. Lindaâs parents (Bob and Maria) are also 50% female. But added together, their parents are 67% female (Bob, Sally, and Maria).
Next, suppose Doug marries Linda and they have a baby named Max. Max himself now has more female than male ancestors: Linda, Doug, Bob, Sally, and Maria. Thus, it is possible even for one person to have a family tree that is not 50-50. This is true even though we started with equal numbers of males and females (but poor James was a dead end) and though each child has one mother and one father.
In actual life, incest taboos might have prevented Linda from marrying her half-brother, but if a couple generations had intervened, there would have been no objection. We have more female than male ancestors because of some men having multiple mates (and other men having none) and because of some mating partners having the same male ancestor.
========
====
Guess you've never heard of the Sykes study, have you? Your "statistics" are a bunch of just-so stories to justify your hatred of women.
====
That was an interesting projection. My only assertion in the entire thread is that we as intellectuals have an OBLIGATION to never over-simplify problems to cliche explanations and look at them in all their dimensions. So if I refuse to give a cliche "explanation" that makes me a woman hater. If I don't blame all of the world's problems on men, that makes me a woman hater?
How about neither ;)
========
Take your "men's rights" garbage somewhere where it'll be, erm, welcomed. Like Pandagon or Feministing.
========
For this being a site about science you're trying very hard to oversimplify and place things in super-simple categories of black and white, either or.
I have NO respect for men's rights groups. They are extremist, oversimplifying whiners.
=======
And I say this as one of the beta males whose interests you claim to be defending.
========
I never did. I have no interest in "defending beta males". If you're a beta male, I have no respect for your position. You alone are responsible for getting there. Its not women's fault, it's not alpha males fault. You did it yourself.
Again, my only interest in life is where I see things reduced to oversimplified PC explanations... to bring them in their full context and light. I have no interest in being in any "group" or defending anyone. My only interest is science.
====Alkali Says====
1st, perhaps the "man-bashing" you denounce so loudly is in part a response to attitudes such as yours that men for some reason ought to be "given status, girls, money." Notice what you did there? If men are "given" women and they are comparable to status or money, aren't you implying, at best, that women's preferences should be ignored (given that you seem to think more men should be "given ... girls", as though they are gifts or earnings rather than people), and at worst that women are little more than livestock to be distributed as (male) society pleases? What a way to convince people that men (like you?) are not deserving of verbal bashing!
===============
All I said was "get girls"... And then you PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Meanings never said, thought or even conceived by me.
The word "get" can have many meanings.
We can say: "Susan got a boyfriend" or "The hot girls get all the guys"
ARE we implying she's treating him like an OBJECT? Or that women treat men as objects!?! Of course not, we just say she got a boyfriend.
You took the word "get" and then derived ALL these super pessimistc, most negative possible meanings that the word could possibly ever mean and you ascribed them to ME. Things I have never said, or even thought.
Alkali, I've responded to your questions with a blog post, and I have followed it up with suggestions on how to handle the problem of mail-ordered brides and beta males.
http://aleknovy.com/?p=46
Alek:
If it quacks like a sexist duck...
Who want to find a nice Russian woman, write me on my e-mail m19mm19@yahoo.com
i will help you to find your love!
LOVE?? puhleez! i am looking for a nice (russian woman) person to clean my apartment because my severe allergies almost put me into the local emergency department every time i clean.