Catty sent me a link to this article that appeared in Harper’s last month, and that I understand has already been widely discussed on the ‘net: A Foreign Affair: On the Great Ukrainian Bride Hunt. The author, Kristoffer Garin, spent a few weeks in the Ukraine with a number of American men eager to meet and marry the beautiful, traditional, submissive, much younger woman of their fantasies.
I’ve read this sort of piece before, and I’ve learned I have to be careful to watch my own emotional reaction. Reading about the men (Garin is a compelling writer with a knack for succinct characterization), I oscillate between anger, contempt, and compassion. I’ve thought hard about what it is that makes me so angry about these men in particular, and I’ve decided that it’s the colossal sense of entitlement. Over and over again, the men Garin interviews claim that American women aren’t giving American men what is their birthright: submissive, pleasing, beautiful, infinitely understanding companionship. In the Ukraine, a nation whose economy has forced countless young women into one form or another of prostitution, these men hope and expect to have the "natural order" of human relationships restored. The Ukraine, in the fervid fantasies of the middle-aged and the socially inept, represents an idyllic pre-feminist culture where women "still know their place". In a sense, traveling to Eastern Europe (or Southeast Asia, or South America, or wherever) is, in the hopes of these sad characters, an opportunity to live out their boyhood fantasies of time-travel.
My language is harsher than normal, because these men infuriate me. For example, when Garin nearly blows his cover by questioning the men about their decisions, he gets this response:
“You’re bringing all your value premises and laying them over relationships,” the New Englander objected. “You’re thinking about how you view it as, not what she’s looking for.” He became angry. “Have you been married and divorced before?” he continued, apoplectic now, forcefully jabbing his finger in my direction to punctuate each thought. “No? So you know nothing."
Garin may not have been divorced, but I have. Three times. Three times I’ve started over, more or less from scratch. Three times between 1992-2002 I found myself buying a basic set of pots and pans, a few pieces of furniture, a television. Once, I calculated the total losses from my divorces (based on real estate prices and so-called "lost opportunity costs"); the sum comes to around half a million dollars. No, I never had human children. But in each of my three previous marriages, there were beloved dogs, and each time, my ex-wives kept them. (There was never, ever, litigation — it just always seemed to make sense in the particular situations for these women to hold on to the pets.) So, I’ve got at least some sense of what it is to go through a divorce.
In March 2005, I wrote about marriage, divorce, and taking responsibility. I wrote then:
When faced with the end of a marriage, one has a choice. One can get bogged down in blame and bitterness, or one can honestly face up to one’s own myriad mistakes and shortcomings. One can point fingers, or one can take responsibility. Too often, on the subject of women and divorce, I see the men’s rights advocates trapped in that blame and bitterness. Too infrequently, I see self-criticism and a willingness to transform. When I became convinced that it was I who was the architect of my own adversity, and not my wives, I took the first key step towards healing and growing up.
If that sounds condescending, I’m sorry. But three divorces have earned me the right to speak on this subject.
And what makes me angry about the men visiting the Ukraine is that they are failing to do what I — and many other decent, thoughtful men I know — have done, and that is take their fair share of responsibility for their divorces. That doesn’t mean denying that one’s ex-wives have a share of the blame as well; it does mean refusing to play the childish but seductive role of the misused and abused victim of an angry, selfish harridan.
And yet, as exasperated as I get with the crude sense of entitlement I see in these men, as infuriated as I am by their misplaced rage at American women, as maddened as I am by their refusal to take responsibility for their past relationship failures and divorces, I also feel a genuine compassion for them as well. Their loneliness is real and profound, and though they may not recognize that their wounds are largely self-inflicted, their pain is genuine and acute. Garin describes the men following their first big "social" in the Ukraine:
By the time the social ended at 10:00 P.M., many of the men were positively radiant—the attention had transformed them, if only temporarily. The happy ones were positively brimming.
It’s odd — as I read those two sentences, I felt the pinpricks that signal the beginning of tears. I’ve known what it’s like to feel inept, unwanted, and, as Morrissey sang in my youth, "sixteen, clumsy, and shy." I’ve also known the euphoria that comes when suddenly, perhaps for the first time, someone to whom you are deeply attracted pays you real and sincere attention. After years and years of secretly believing that you are undesirable and unloveable, to realize that you are wanted is intoxicating and transforming. Just for a moment, reading the Harper’s piece, my heart ached for these sad and lonely men. Beneath their misogyny, their rigid traditionalism, their anger, their misplaced sense of entitlement, beneath all of their crap lie vulnerable and hurting hearts of boys who never got to feel like the handsome prince. Without excusing their actions, I can genuinely empathize with that sadness, that woundedness, and that desperation.
I oscillate between anger, contempt, and compassion. I’ve thought hard about what it is that makes me so angry about these men in particular, and I’ve decided that it’s the colossal sense of entitlement. Over and over again, the men Garin interviews claim that American women aren’t giving American men what is their birthright: submissive, pleasing, beautiful, infinitely understanding companionship. In the Ukraine, a nation whose economy has forced countless young women into one form or another of prostitution, these men hope and expect to have the “natural order” of human relationships restored. The Ukraine, in the fervid fantasies of the middle-aged and the socially inept, represents an idyllic pre-feminist culture where women “still know their place”. In a sense, traveling to Eastern Europe (or Southeast Asia, or South America, or wherever) is, in the hopes of these sad characters, an opportunity to live out their boyhood fantasies of time-travel.
You need to take the log out of your eye before you start pointing out the specks in your brothers’ eyes. You claim that MRAs are trapped in “blame and bitterness,” as you put it, yet you yourself are trapped in blame and bitterness directed at men. You like to phrase things in terms of “privilege” and “entitlement”; those are classical liberal code words at whose utterance or writing those who disagree with you are expected to hang their heads low in shame and be silent.
Your three failed marriages (and your current fourth marriage, also doomed to crash in the miserable flames of failure) do not give you any right to lecture men about marriage and their own pursuit of happiness in life. You refuse to admit that women in Western–and, in particular, North American–culture have any problems or shortcomings whatsoever.
You have, by your own words, failed miserably in marriage. Much more shamefully, you are willing to beat your breast publicly, wailing and gnashing your teeth in a bizarre and rather sickening form of public narcissism. However, those repeated failures and self-indulgent postings here give you no special ability berate other men or to project your own shortcomings and feelings of inadequacy upon them.
Your public claims are like the prayer of the proud man in Jesus’ parable of the proud man and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14). I quote here part of the proud man’s prayer from the New International Version, at which the proud man:
According to Jesus, that man did not go home justified. You are that man.
You are not following Jesus, not at all. Instead of following Jesus’ simple and eloquent commandments, you are elevating extremist feminist dogma above the teaching of the one you claim to be your Lord and Savior. Actions speak louder than words. Your actions roar like lions, deafening the mouselike squeaks of your words in these matters.
Quentin, I’ll let the rest of your vaguely eloquent screed slide, but the proud man in the Scripture admitted no fault. If I am guilty of anything,it is of exaggerating the depths of my own failings. (I sometimes am guilty of thinking of myself to be like Paul, the “chief of sinners” by his own account.
I am very much like other men — just touched by grace.
Hugo, I think don’t think these men’s loneliness “underlies” their misogyny. I think that their loneliness combined with their sense of entitlement causes their misogyny. They feel entitled to female companionship (on their terms of course) that they are not getting and this causes them to hate women.
Quentin, your statement that Hugo’s marriage is doomed to failure is so out of line that have completely lost all credibility.
Happy, you may well be right — male rage at women comes from a variety of sources: loneliness, disappointment, a frustrated sense of entitlement are just three.
Quentin’s remarks about my current marriage are sadly typical of at least one strand of men’s rights activists. (Some, to their credit, are capable of greater civility.) In Quentin’s case, the phrase “hoisted by his own petard” comes to mind.
Quentin, I’ll let the rest of your vaguely eloquent screed slide,
Hah.
but the proud man in the Scripture admitted no fault. If I am guilty of anything,it is of exaggerating the depths of my own failings. (I sometimes am guilty of thinking of myself to be like Paul, the “chief of sinners” by his own account.
Your admissions of fault are mere public displays of your narcissistic, man-hating agenda. You use them to draw attention to yourself, exactly as the proud man in Jesus’ parable did.
I am very much like other men — just touched by grace.
There you go again, with the ridiculous superiority complex. Other men are not touched by grace? Give me a break.
Quentin, your statement that Hugo’s marriage is doomed to failure is so out of line that have completely lost all credibility.
I’m not overly concerned about your assessment of my credibility. Hugo’s marriage is indeed doomed to failure. A leopard does not change its spots.
Hugo, I think don’t think these men’s loneliness “underlies” their misogyny. I think that their loneliness combined with their sense of entitlement causes their misogyny. They feel entitled to female companionship (on their terms of course) that they are not getting and this causes them to hate women.
Of course, the old “men hate women” canard. Why do you hate men, ‘Happy’?
I read things like this and it makes me angry.
I’m 50, female, and plain; in the dating world, those facts outweigh my qualities of intelligence, adventurousness, kindness, sensuality and serenity.
Many men in my age range, seem to feel entitled to a pretty young woman, no matter what they themselves look like, and no matter whether they have anything else in common.
I’d like to get married or at least have a life companion, but 10 years past my divorce I’ve accepted that it’s probably not going to happen.
Feel sorry for those guys if you want. I don’t. They can move on with their lives just like I have, and make friends to travel with, to go to cultural events or movies, camping…whatever I want to do, I have a friend or two who’ll share the experience with me. And there’s a little dog at home to greet me.
I don’t have to buy a mail order spouse to somehow make my life OK. Neither do they.
Ugh, before this thread gets taken over by trolls I thought I’d mention that a sort of imitation-documentary movie on this subject came out a few years ago titled “A Foreign Affair” in Britain and “2 Brothers & a Bride” in the U.S. The tone was similar to your article, in that it was horrified by the abuse and degredation it could enable but took a fairly sympathetic approach to the men and women who would resort to this. You might enjoy checking it out - Emily Mortimer plays the documentarian and she’s great.
Quentin’s remarks about my current marriage are sadly typical of at least one strand of men’s rights activists. Some, to their credit, are capable of greater civility.)
When one makes a career out of hating men, one does not inspire civility.
In Quentin’s case, the phrase “hoisted by his own petard” comes to mind.
How amusing. Like a parrot, Hugo has seen a phrase on other blogs, so he repeats it here without a clue as to its meaning. How feminist of you!
BTW, what does your ‘wife’ think about your discussing the following topics publicly with the nubile ‘Mermade’?
fantasy and masturbation
the sexuality of women’s breasts
your supposed ‘hotness’ [barf]
And your toady ‘Happyfeminist’ wonders why I don’t think your ‘marriage’ will last.
They feel entitled to female companionship (on their terms of course) that they are not getting and this causes them to hate women.
And yet a great deal of what is termed “misogyny” is in not giving women male companionship on THEIR terms. And I say this because I only keep company with women who share “my terms” and understand fully where I stand on marriage and “forever love” and I’m still called a misogynist for it.
Quentin has earned a ban. Future comments like his will be deleted, though I leave those he has posted to stand.
Quentin, what makes you think all men with liberal/left views think divorce in the West is only men’s fault? I’m more or the less the same Marxist I’ve been since adulthood and I happen to think the failure of my one marriage was a tango: you know, something it takes two to enact. And my last relationship ended with my ex more or less admitting I was a means to an end, not an end in myself (kind of like guys who’d stoop to getting mail-order brides). If Hugo is guilty of anything, it’s not emphasizing sufficiently that he more or less speaks for himself; even then, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern that. Sorry, Quentin, the claptrap you espouse is the connubial equivalent of terracentrism. With Christians like you, I don’t know how the old Padre manages to keep his faith; this old Breaker lost his because of fellows like you.
In a sense, traveling to Eastern Europe (or Southeast Asia, or South America, or wherever) is, in the hopes of these sad characters, an opportunity to live out their boyhood fantasies of time-travel.
I am well acquainted with Thailand - have been there 5 times - last time was for 5 months. I am going back there later this year for another 6 months. I see many couplings of western men and Thai women. I personally know of 3 married couples. One couple live in the UK, 2 out in Thailand - 5 years, 8 years and 12 years - that’s how long each couple have been married. From my own subjective, firsthand experience, all marriages look very steady. I also have heard about Thai/Western marriages that fail utterly. When it comes to knowing a person for a few years, making sacrifices for them (time, effort, commitment on BOTH sides), you get to understand that these kinds of relationships require REAL dedication to make them work. These are real people who HAVE to get on together - just like any other couple. In fact, it’s probably harder with the culture and language differences and one spouse inevitably having their family on the other side of the world. Hugo - you make international marriages (for that is what they are) sound very casual and sleazy. Even in terms of legal paperwork, they sound very difficult. It’s not something to ‘just try it and see’. On the otherhand, I do know it’s incredibly easy for two western nationals to marry in the west - just go down to the local registry office, sign a few papers and you’re done.
As for western men who choose to marry foreign women - they love their partner, their children, and their lifestyle just as much as men who choose women from their own country. In fact, some guys frankly have a wonderful life out in Thailand with their family. I look at them with some envy, not pity. Thailand has a much lower divorce rate than any western country - you could say western guys are just hedging their bets. To say the least Hugo, your post is incredibly condascending to these men who wouldn’t even recognise that the strawmen you’ve described are supposed to be them.
I think you need to make a distinction between international marriages and sham marriages and not equate international marriages with being sham marriages.
Disclaimer: I have not read the article, and so may be commenting on something other than the kinds of “mail-order brides” it is talking about.
My observation is that, though both MRA’s and feminists hate it, economic/social status is one factor in who is willing to marry whom. Very few people–feminist or not–want to marry someone who doesn’t raise or insure their social status. Since gaining the ability to get a US visa is an advantage if you aren’t a US citizen, but has no value otherwise, a US citizen has something to offer to a potential spouse who isn’t a US citizen that is valuable to the non-citizen, but trivial to the citizen. Thus, it would be entirely reasonable that one could make a “better” match with a citizen of another country (since the spouse’s citizenship is valuable to a non-citizen). I don’t see any reason that this is, in itself, a bad thing.
I guess I’m agreeing with your last paragraph. I see no problem whatsoever with “I want to marry someone who considers me desirable and attractive.”
Perplexed, I’m not decrying marrying someone from another country — though I think that exploiting another person’s need for security or a passport is beneath contempt. It’s rank colonialism at its shabbiest.
The men you refer to in Thailand perhaps did not travel there on a tour where they were exposed to hundreds of desperate and impoverished hopefuls. My current marriage is interracial; so was my first (the middle two were to WASPs) — I certainly have no beef with love across cultural lines. But if you read the Harper’s article, the dynamics of the Ukrainian trip are appallingly exploitative and ugly.
(begin delurk)
It’s odd — as I read those two sentences, I felt the pinpricks that signal the beginning of tears. I’ve known what it’s like to feel inept, unwanted, and, as Morrissey sang in my youth, “sixteen, clumsy, and shy.” I’ve also known the euphoria that comes when suddenly, perhaps for the first time, someone to whom you are deeply attracted pays you real and sincere attention. After years and years of secretly believing that you are undesirable and unloveable, to realize that you are wanted is intoxicating and transforming. Just for a moment, reading the Harper’s piece, my heart ached for these sad and lonely men. Beneath their misogyny, their rigid traditionalism, their anger, their misplaced sense of entitlement, beneath all of their crap lie vulnerable and hurting hearts of boys who never got to feel like the handsome prince. Without excusing their actions, I can genuinely empathize with that sadness, that woundedness, and that desperation.
Well done, Hugo. These are the sort of guys who have had it drilled into their heads from day one that (1) men must exude independence and self-confidence and be respected at all times and (2) having emotional wants or needs is a sign of unworthiness of respect - and a lot of sexist/misogynist behavior just follows directly from taking this dogma too far, and the resentment that it produces. Because many of these guys probably genuinely do want a loving relationship, but how to pursue a real one and reconcile it with the demand that you be an impenetrable, invulnerable fortress of manliness? Can’t do it - pursuing a real relationship involves some risk of humiliation (and thus loss of Manly Mojo) and a bit of giving, and not just in the “I go to work and you cook/clean/spread your legs” sense. And they just don’t get that.
Most women, especially those of the feminist persuasion, probably can’t sympathize with these guys - unsurprisingly, as they are the unfortunate recipients of a lot of these men’s neuroses. But as a guy, I can still see where they’re coming from, even if they’ve got it wrong.
Hugo,
You have a knack for identifying the human side of many circumstances. As I read the Harper’s article the men struck me as pathetic, whiny losers willingly shelling out some serious jack to prop up their well-justified lack of self esteem. The Harper’s article portrays them as socially inept and desperate for any kind of status – ‘I own two businesses’, ‘I’m a doctor.’
Then I remembered a friend from High School – so hungry for female attention he’d listen to any advice anyone would give him about getting to know women. His focus was solely on getting the date – anything beyond that was all but inconceivable to him. His ideal date was some magical mystery evening of flowers and dancing, a bright eyed woman peering adoringly at him all night, hanging on his every word, feeding his ego.
I think he was so wrapped up in the fantasy that he never wanted the reality. A real female wouldn’t simply conform to the reality of his fantasy – she would be an inconvenience to the fantasy. The fantasy was also completely safe – no risk of rejection. My friend would unintentionally undermine relationships with our female classmates (normally through completely bizarre behavior and questionable hygiene). He could ascribe the failure to her inability to be his fantasy. Safe from rejection, my friend could return to his fantasy of the pliable, demure, adoring woman who needed him.
The men in the Harper’s article could easily have been the adult incarnations of my long lost friend. I wonder at the level of emotional need they feel that they’re willing to waste thousands on a trip to Kiev rather than invest in decent therapy.
It reminds me of the Law and Order episode where the American man embraced the most anti-female version of Islam, murdered a women’s studies professor all because he was rejected by the woman of his fantasies. Rather than move on, rather than accept that she wasn’t interested in dating him, this character allowed his feelings of rejection to dominate him, to destroy him. Fictional yes, but with the ring of truth. And somehow, these men going to the Ukraine to find wives are just acting out a different scenario of the same emotional dynamic.
Perpelexed: My mother is Korean. My father has been married to three women from Asia. My brother is married to a Thai, whom he met here in the U.S. She’s no boat-person; her father is a Thai army officer. They dated for two months before they were engaged. We’re estranged, but from what my other siblings say, they’re miserable, my sister-in-law especially. This after 20+ years and two grown children. I can you tell from first-hand experience and much observation that some of that lower divorce rate you bring up comes from a certain type of socialization Asian women are subject to: put up and shut up. Proof? My father has been married to his current wife, a Taiwanese, not once but twice. He left her briefly for a younger gal (also Taiwanese) and when he went back, my step-mother took him back, no questions or comments (they have a daughter). And we’re talking here about relationships that employed no brokerage of any sort. Is it any wonder that feminists and even non-feminists look upon so many of these sorts of marriages with jaundiced eyes? Not to me it isn’t, even as I recognize many such marriages do involve love, affection and respect.
Sam Chevre: Of course status and “the goods” make a difference in who marries whom; it helps to remember that marriage is still a contract. I don’t have a problem with marriages that reflect that fact, so long as the principals don’t pretend it’s a love match. I myself came close to enacting a green-card marriage, something I’m not ashamed to admit. But I think you should ask yourself: who’s the one that’s expected to clear the ashtray in these situations? Any bets on whether the chromosone structure is XX or XY? Before my father quit smoking, the limit was two; any more and he’d never fail to say something. No, Sam, the guys in this article are losers. The world passed them by and they think it’s unfair. When their mail-order marriages transpire, you can bet your bottom dollar that a) they’ll be offended if anyone suggests they were engaged in anything but love with a capital “c” and b) there’s a laundry list of expectations for the wife, while the husband’s duty is simply to work and provide. These guys should stick to brothels, but that would require them to admit they’d pay for sex.
Hugo,
Can you clarify the difference between “exploiting another person’s need for…” and “entering into a relationship that is mutually beneficial”? (I think there is one–just not sure how I’d define it.) In other words, almost everyone who gets married gets married because they think they would be better off married to this person than staying single. The reason they would be better off varies a lot, but social/economic status is one of the common ways in which people are better off.
Sam, I think that radically asymmetrical relationships are generally a bad idea, be that asymmetry chronological, educational, or financial. There are some magnificent exceptions, but in most cases, they weren’t SOUGHT. The lads on the plane to the Ukraine were actively seeking out a woman who would be “one down” to them — that’s highly problematic and different from by chance falling in love with someone whose income is significantly above or below one’s own.
The men you refer to in Thailand perhaps did not travel there on a tour where they were exposed to hundreds of desperate and impoverished hopefuls. My current marriage is interracial; so was my first (the middle two were to WASPs) — I certainly have no beef with love across cultural lines. But if you read the Harper’s article, the dynamics of the Ukrainian trip are appallingly exploitative and ugly.
Then let me state (what I think is obvious): don’t then expand on that article to include vast swathes of land (and people) with this kind of comment:-
In a sense, traveling to Eastern Europe (or Southeast Asia, or South America, or wherever) is, in the hopes of these sad characters, an opportunity to live out their boyhood fantasies of time-travel.
I just want to make a clear distinction for you Hugo : of course there are ’sad characters’ who you describe; but there are also a huge number of western men who don’t fit that (straw)stereotype. Like I say: don’t confuse international marriages with sham marriages (or anything shameful).
Perplexed, I’m not decrying marrying someone from another country — though I think that exploiting another person’s need for security or a passport is beneath contempt. It’s rank colonialism at its shabbiest.
This sounds incredibly idealistic. Romanticism blows hot and cold. It’s wonderful for 5 years, and then there’s a messy divorce. A pragmatic relationship is built on stronger foundations than romantic love (which is a need anyway, just a very unstable feelings-based need). I have seen that strong partnerships are based around pragmatic needs of some sort - it’s the glue that holds marriages together. You can keep your romanticism and ideals til the next divorce - I’ll take pragamatism everytime - much more robust and stable.
Douglas, you give me anecdotes and I give you anecdotes. You know what this proves? It takes two individuals to make a good marriage. I also know of bad marriages in Thailand (as I mentioned). Guess what - happens all over the world. And because of that fact, I hate to see Hugo make sweeping generalisations about international marriage here as something sleazy and shameful (and c’mon Hugo - people in glasshouses and all that). Aso, in the west, I rarely hear of women marrying down. Sure, I know some people here will give me the exceptional cases, but nevertheless this is a general fact.
Thanks Hugo!
Both you and Douglas seem to think of the ideal marriage as more “identical” than I do. (And, of course, I married someone very like me in almost all respects, so I’m not speaking from experience.) I tend to think that if two people are both better off married to one another than whatever the plausible alternative is (single, married to someone else), I don’t object to them marrying. I guess I don’t see the Ukranian women as “one down”–they have a relative disadvantage (being Ukranian) and several relative advantages (smarter, younger, prettier). It’s assymetrical, but not (IMO) unequal.
And–having now read the article–the marriages I’ve seen work have been those like the farmer, not the other guys.
“I think you need to make a distinction between international marriages and sham marriages and not equate international marriages with being sham marriages.”
Who is equating international marriages with sham marriages? The post wasn’t about international marriages generally, it was about relationships “brokered” by internet companies capitalizing on the socioeconomic desperation of Eastern European women. IMHO, you’re completely missing the point.
Per their own comments, the men profiled in the Harper’s piece are looking for a “traditional” wife they can dominate and control. They know that these women have few options, know their “place”, and would be happy to put up with nearly anything to have some economic security. Is that the foundation for a healthy, happy, successful marriage? Hardly. It’s simple exploitation. While I can empathize with feelings of loneliness, isolation, and rejection (who can’t?), I just can’t see how one’s self-esteem can be lifted by “buying” companionship from poverty stricken young women without options.
Hugo, many experts in the field feel the mail-order industry provides a “legitimate” front for sex trafficking and forced prostitution rings. The patterns and dynamics are certainly the same. The Ukraine is a major supplier of trafficked persons.
EXCUSE ME?!?!?!?!?!?!
Quentin writes, “BTW, what does your ‘wife’ think about your discussing the following topics publicly with the nubile ‘Mermade’?”
Thank God I just came back from an anger management session at church and am resisting the urge to, “strike when the iron’s hot.”
I am too mad to respond to Quentin now. But quite frankly, I don’t think he’s worth my time anyway.
Thank you for banning him, Hugo. Your control and humility in dealing with irate people such as him is inspiring. I don’t think that, if he were in one of you classes and I was listening to him say those things, I would have had ANY patience. Thank you for being a good example and handling rude comments with calmness and class.
Who is equating international marriages with sham marriages? The post wasn’t about international marriages generally, it was about relationships “brokered” by internet companies capitalizing on the socioeconomic desperation of Eastern European women. IMHO, you’re completely missing the point.
Hugo is. He’s basically saying that if a man marries a woman from a second-world country, it is by default a sham marriage.
Perplexed, I am not saying that. I am against brokered marriages that play on women’s economic desperation, not marriages between two people from different countries who happen to fall in love.
What is despicable is Western men, too insecure to approach Western women as their equals, traveling to Third World (or second world) countries for the express purpose of using the lure of citizenship or their great wealth to attract the vulnerable and the desperate.
Mermade, I’m sorry you were dragged into this. If I lost my cool at every MRA who came my way, I’d have blown a gasket long ago…!
Can I have Quentin’s “Q”?
See, here’s where I think the problem is perplexed:
You’re talking about divorce being the ultimate bad. Many people see miserable marriages as the ultimate bad.
I see the high divorce rate in the US and go “Wow, too many people are getting married” you see it and go “not enough people are staying together”.
An exploitive relationship isn’t healthy. Seriously, why would you WANT someone dependent on you? Do people have this low of self-esteem that they think their spouses wouldn’t stay with them unless they coerced them?
Quentin wrote: A whole bunch of abusive trolling nonsense with no actual point
I’m sure Mermade is quaking in her boots from your devastating rhetorical sallies…
Creep
Viagra didn’t help, eh Quentin?
bmmg, after his last comment, I don’t know that you want Quentin’s Q. If you’d like a non-contaminated one, I’m sure there are extras floating around.
I get a feeling that this “Quentin” would be the type to happily engage in sex with a prostitute fully knowing that she has benn trafficked against her will. In his mind, women have the p***y and as long as he’s not clubbing the woman and raping her, it’s his right to exploit and use it to his will.
Anyhoo… it’s amazing. People always accuse progressive activists of “hating.” If we’re against war, then we “hate” soldiers and America. If we’re against rape, then we “hate” men. If we’re for protcting the environment, then we’re “against” people. Asking people to change towards more compassionate action isn’t “hating.” It’s called self-respect and loving in my book. If love is about coddling bad behavior and denfending the indefensible, then maybe I’m full of “haterade.”
Hugo, I think Quentin needs to be re-banned.
I have no idea how I got involved in all of this in the first place…
Perplexed: What our anecdotes show is that anecdotes say a lot, though not everything. As someone who does think people in glass houses are entitled to throw stones, but would rather they just make their points succintly, I can’t help but feel that you see something in what Hugo and I said that simply isn’t there. Hugo has a PhD; if he thought all marriages between First Worlders and Third Worlders were shams, I think he’d say so, as would I. We don’t, but do you blame us for wondering? You yourself admit the men are often hedging their bets by marrying Thai women. Hedging against what contingency? I can’t help but think the contingencies are what impinge on the wonderful life these guys lead in Thailand or the Phillipines: an attitude on the part of women that there might be more to life than hearth, home and obedience to their husbands.
SamChevre: I don’t think there is an ideal marriage model (sorry Hugo, I just don’t). You miss the point. Marriage for romantic love, whatever that means, is the ideal of Western societies and what brokers offer is prostitution in which the currency is First World residency status. Having no compunction against paying for sex, I’d have little to say about such arrangements, were it not for the fact that the men pretend and want peers to believe that love is in the air. Don’t kid yourself; how many of these guys take their Ukrainian brides to Aunt Tilly’s on Thanksgiving and introduce the woman with something along the lines of, “Auntie, this is the hooker I brought back from Lviv. Ain’t she swell?” Besides, look at the supposed advantages these women have: intelligence? Maybe, but that would be hard for the men to tell on the basis of conversations that need the services of an interpreter. Youth? Looks? Passports, my friend, that’s what they are and you know the thing about passports; they eventually expire. No, if we can say communism would probably lead to impoverishment and tyranny, we can say with equal confidence that brokered marriages of this sort are flesh markets for men who can’t the home-grown gal to give him the time of day, usually for good reason.
Quentin is changing his IP address. His comments will be deleted regardless, sooner or later, and he will eventually tire of this. Or not. Either way, all future comments from him will be banned — I’m not even reading them, just deleting them as they appear. Thus some of the ebb and flow of this thread will be affected. Folks, no matter what the trolls say, try not to take the bite.
Perplexed, I am not saying that. I am against brokered marriages that play on women’s economic desperation, not marriages between two people from different countries who happen to fall in love.
What is despicable is Western men, too insecure to approach Western women as their equals, traveling to Third World (or second world) countries for the express purpose of using the lure of citizenship or their great wealth to attract the vulnerable and the desperate.
I’ve seen too many instances to the contrary of this that I now think you’re only talking about a small minority of international marriages. For a start, there are large ex-pat communities in Thailand - yes, western men who’ve got THEMSELVES Thai residency and started up their own businesses in Thailand. If Thai women are so mercenary (the implication you’re making Hugo, sorry to say*), they hardly got themselves a good catch, did they? They should more likely want a guy who will take her back to the west where both she and her husband can make a lot more money.
*And again Hugo, you are condascending to women from second world countries to think they cannot be responsible for their own decisions.
You say western men are too insecure to marry western women. You should re-read the article: many of them are actively AVOIDING western women (quote from the article):-
I’ve lived in St. Petersburg for two years, and I wouldn’t date an American woman right now if you paid me!
This doesn’t sound like insecurity to me. It sounds like they’ve found women they want to be with, for whatever reasons. I know a lot of guys who simply consider Thai women to be more attractive than caucasian women. You can’t deny that physical attraction is a large component of many relationships (certainly younger people). These guys are just discerning in the ways all of us do: you have your preferences, and you search for a man or woman who matches those preferences.
A western man is not FORCED to marry a western women. You’re not forced to marry somebody from your street are you? And if you wander further to new neighbourhoods, is it because you feel rejected from the women in your street, or is it because you have more discerning preferences and you want to see a larger pool of ‘eligables’ before deciding? The women in your street may say “ahh, you couldn’t handle us, could you?” - you can only think “hmmm, this sounds like THEY feel rejected by ME”. I think a lot of the complaints made by feminists is that they see two adults make their own choices which APPEARS to be a slur against western women (when it’s not, it’s just two adults deciding they like the other enough to marry them).
Hugo has a PhD; if he thought all marriages between First Worlders and Third Worlders were shams, I think he’d say so, as would I.
The implication is there. I think he should be much more explicit in which types of marriages he’s talking about. Sham marriages occur in the west too - many rich divorced western guys can testify. I think Hugo is being disengenuous with his equivocal descriptions here as a general swipe at western men who choose to marry foreign women - like they’re deficient or less than the men who marry western women. It’s an old feminist shaming technique. The only differences is here is Hugo is parroting this technique whereas feminists use it to disguise their own sense of rejection.
You yourself admit the men are often hedging their bets by marrying Thai women. Hedging against what contingency? I can’t help but think the contingencies are what impinge on the wonderful life these guys lead in Thailand or the Phillipines: an attitude on the part of women that there might be more to life than hearth, home and obedience to their husbands.
I stated the contingency already: divorce. It’s common enough in the west to consider it a real gamble to marry in the first place. Hugo’s on his 4th marriage. He says it will last. He must have said the same at one point or another in his previous 3. This is one of the reasons why I think a lot of guys are choosing to move to Thailand after they marry (sorry to go on about this particular country, just I have firsthand experience) rather than have an obviously more lucrative life in their home country with their wives.
You’re talking about divorce being the ultimate bad. Many people see miserable marriages as the ultimate bad.
I see the high divorce rate in the US and go “Wow, too many people are getting married” you see it and go “not enough people are staying together”.
Antigone, it IS true that not enough people are staying together and overcoming problems along the way. I’ll agree with you though - too many people ARE marrying in the first place. But I want to add to that: for the wrong reasons.
The first sign of trouble and divorce is contemplated. Instead of seeing out problems, people are divorcing. This is why it’s dangerous to marry because you ‘fell in love’ AND mix that reason with no-fault divorce. Boredom is a ‘reason’ often cited for divorce. For me this borders on an immaturity that only infatuated teenagers can rival.
Hugo said:
Mermade, I’m sorry you were dragged into this. If I lost my cool at every MRA who came my way, I’d have blown a gasket long ago…!
The problem with Quentin was not that he was an MRA, but that he was being a jerk. Please don’t take him as representative of MRAs.
Just for a moment, reading the Harper’s piece, my heart ached for these sad and lonely men. Beneath their misogyny, their rigid traditionalism, their anger, their misplaced sense of entitlement, beneath all of their crap lie vulnerable and hurting hearts of boys who never got to feel like the handsome prince. Without excusing their actions, I can genuinely empathize with that sadness, that woundedness, and that desperation.
Good for you; I like your perspective. Also, I think that entitlement isn’t the only thing going on here. US dating dynamics are skewed in the favor of women in some ways, because on average, women are more selective than men about sexual and romantic partners. Consequently, there is more intra-male competition than intra-female competition. It’s not entitlement to feel sick of this situation and want an even playing field. Yet these men aren’t looking for an even playing field; they are simply going from a playing a game that is stacked against them to playing a game that is stacked in their favor.
perplexed said:
I think a lot of the complaints made by feminists is that they see two adults make their own choices which APPEARS to be a slur against western women (when it’s not, it’s just two adults deciding they like the other enough to marry them).
I agree totally with this. Still, although going outside of America looking for a bride is not in-and-of itself a slur against American women, many of these men do insist on slurring American women. If a guy is saying that he won’t date any American women, then he is saying that no American women could possibly have the characteristics he is looking for, which I doubt is true. Yes, there are many problematic attitudes in many American women, such as entitlement (e.g. the ridiculous amount of women who profess equality to men but expect men to pay the whole tab on dates), narcissism, and negative attitudes towards men and male sexuality (there are also many American men who have analogous attitudes towards women). Yet I don’t think the situation is as bad as some of these men make out; not all American women hold those attitudes. If a guy is saying that no American women have the characteristics he looks for, then I would wonder: (a) is his perception of American women is correct, or a generalization based on bad experiences with a small sample of women? (b) do no American women meet his standards because those standards are unreasonable (e.g. expecting the woman to be totally submissive to him?)? or (c) does he simply live in an area with a poor selection of women?
Actually, I think my views on men who go for mail-order brides is a sense of failure. I find them pathetic, who have lost in love, and then taking the easy way out. It’s hard to respect such a union. The girls don’t marry because they are in love. They marry for financial security. It’s a business deal. More than that, it’s objectifiction of women. It’s like they are on sale on Amazon.com or something. They are not commodities. They are people.
Perplexed says:
I’ve seen too many instances to the contrary of [what Hugo is describing] that I now think you’re only talking about a small minority of international marriages.
I think he should be much more explicit in which types of marriages he’s talking about.
As the post makes clear and as Hugo and others have REPEATEDLY explained on this, Hugo’s post only addresses a certain subcategory of international marriages. Helena may have put it best:
Who is equating international marriages with sham marriages? The post wasn’t about international marriages generally, it was about relationships “brokered” by internet companies capitalizing on the socioeconomic desperation of Eastern European women. IMHO, you’re completely missing the point.
Sometimes you seem to remain “perplexed” even when people explain things to you over and over.
Oops that last sentence shouldn’t be in italics, as it is my statement not Helena’s.
Gaah still trying to close italics
Perplexed: Believe me, lots of Western women don’t feel rejected by Promise Keeper types; they’re elated they’d never make the list, as I would be if I were a woman. And again, none of us maintain all these sorts of unions are shams or even made for ‘practical’ rather than ‘romantic’ reasons. If you’ve checked out what I said to SamChevre, you’d see I find pratical marriage to be quite honorable. The world still contains huge swaths of areas where prosepctive marriage partners care first that a mate be good at holding up part of the boat that is family life. I have no criticism of that, where such is the norm. But it isn’t in the Western World and I’m glad for that. For all it’s pitfalls, the romantic ideal could only have come about through a steadying increase in women’s financial independence. I applaud that.
Don’t kid yourself Perplexed: these ex-pat communities are no doubt chock full of guys who’d rather take their chances to live where there are no feminists. If the women on Maple Lane were willing to bring home some bacon, fry it, clean up afterward, see to Junior’s needs and do the occasional threesome, all without comment, a lot of these fellows would go back to Smallvile in a New York minute. If you’re still perplexed after all these attempts to break it down for you, I have to wonder whether any explanation will mollify you.
From what I’ve read on alt.romance and other forums, and a little bit of real-life anecdotal evidence, I’d put the men who advocate and/or utilize the services of these international marriage brokers into the following categories:
1. Men who think they have no chance at finding a partner through other methods. They usually want a fairly standard relationship, but think that other methods of meeting someone won’t work for them (and they’ve usually tried personal ads, speed dating, matchmaker services, etc.), due to unattractiveness, shyness, or lack of self-esteem. They usually describe mail-order brides as a last resort for the lonely, and while they’re not outspoken misogynists, they have a tendency to put women on pedestals.
2. Men who want a standard relationship, and think that the marriage brokers are a more efficient way of getting what they want. They tend to talk about how they’re sick of “the dating game” and describe mail-order brides as a way of opting out of that. They also seem to be the most likely to worry about being used for immigration status.
3. Men who primarily want cooking, cleaning, caretaking and sex, and seem to see marriage as a “bulk rate discount.” These folk seem to have a lot of crossover with the “speed seduction” and strip-club crowds, and while they too talk about “the dating game” they tend to criticize the women who participate in it rather than the social conventions themselves. Their language also tends to be more entitlement-minded.
4. Men who actively seek out a lopsided power dynamic with the potential for abuse. I haven’t seen too many people who directly advocate this one, for obvious reasons.
I think it’s a mistake to assume that everyone who uses these services is in the same group - that it’s all abusers, or it’s all desperate lonely men, or all cynical pragmatists.
US dating dynamics are skewed in the favor of women in some ways, because on average, women are more selective than men about sexual and romantic partners. Consequently, there is more intra-male competition than intra-female competition.
I realize this is off-topic, but I’ve heard this claim a lot and can’t ever seem to reconcile it with the math. Assuming women seeking men and men seeking women are approximately equal in number, there’s no way it can be easier for women as a group to find men as partners than for men as a group to find women as partners.
JFP, fair enough. I’m responding to the characterizations in the Harper’s article, and it may well be that Garin didn’t fully capture all of various categories of men who seek out foreign brides.
“I think it’s a mistake to assume that everyone who uses these services is in the same group - that it’s all abusers, or it’s all desperate lonely men, or all cynical pragmatists.”
Obviously, not all customers of these services are alike. For me, I am commenting on the men profiled in the Harper’s piece, which I would say definitely fall into your categories 3 and 4.
I do think the majority fall into your last two categories, however. Why? Well, have you taken a look at how these women are marketed? They don’t market to the lonely geek who respects women but can’t find lasting love. Here’s one description of the “merchandise” I found in about 30 seconds:
“The Russian woman’s attitude about herself is feminine. She expects to be treated as a lady, she is the weaker gender and knows it. The Russian woman has not been exposed to the world of rampant feminism that asserts its rights in America.”
This type of language is all over the place. Google “Russian wife” or “mail order bride” and stand back; there are hundreds of sites, and new ones appear (and disappear) every day. Google “Thai girls” and it’s worse. See for yourself how these women are described by the sleazy outfits that troll impoverished countries for inventory. While I truly respect your fairmindedness, jpfbookworm, it’s hard to conclude that the average MOB “customer” fits in your first two categories. The MOB marketing strategy strongly suggests otherwise.
Perplexed: Believe me, lots of Western women don’t feel rejected by Promise Keeper types; they’re elated they’d never make the list, as I would be if I were a woman.
Then it makes me wonder why feminists are SO interested in this phenomena of men marrying foreign women (be they actual-fact mailorder, or just met through the internet, or met while abroad).
You assume all guys who marry foreign women aren’t eligable to western women, but this is not the case. In fact, I’d say they are more upwardly mobile in terms of wealth and education than your average Joe - they are seeking something MORE, not seeking what they ‘can get’. It takes a substantial amount of money to move abroad and set up a new life. Read the article again : they are saying they are ACTIVELY AVOIDING western women. Their reasoning may be wrong and they are certainly giving out a falsely negative stereotype, but that is how they feel. It might sting and offend people that they have this opinion, but that is their opinion.
The bottom line is this: let grown adults make their decisions and live their lives as they see fit. If they are breaking the law, they deserve punishment. If they are not breaking the law, you are still free to judge and mock them with all your spite. At the end of the day, if they improve their own lives, and their spouses improve their lives too, more power to them. If they fuck up, well that’s called being an adult and being responsible for the bad decisions you make. Feel free to carry on criticising them, but it seriously does sound like sour grapes from feminists and condascension from pro-feminists. What’s telling is that most people with a healthy view of themselves simply say “live and let live” to others’ choices of partner. If it really doesn’t bother you, let it be!
In fact, many interchange the term ‘mail-order bride’ to mean ANY woman who is foreign. Remember, a marriage is between two consenting, fully responsible adults. If she ends up being an out-and-out gold-digger, his bad luck (in fact, in these types of marriages, it’s normally the guy taking the risks).
(Ignore the last paragraph - redundant - forget to edit out before posting)
Helena: I’m not so sure about this. Now it may be that the latter two groups are more likely to actually pony up the money to go on one of these tours, while the former consider the idea but don’t follow up on it, but I think there’s a strong element of homosociality going on, led by the “Dan the Man” types, which pressures men to at least pretend to be the confident, cynical type (see, for example, the attitude toward the farmer who was meeting his penpal). The attitude of the marketers and the attitude of the customers aren’t necessarily the same.
Indeed (and I’ll probably make a longer blog post about this at some point), there’s a very predatory relationship between men who actively sell a misogynist outlook (and often, but not always, hawk related products like sex/marriage tours or seduction guides) and lonely, bewildered men who are looking for easy solutions to their problems.
Then it makes me wonder why feminists are SO interested in this phenomena of men marrying foreign women (be they actual-fact mailorder, or just met through the internet, or met while abroad).
Feminists are interested in this phenomenon because the women who marry these men are vulnerable to abuse. According to the Harper’s article, admitting to prior abuse of women doesn’t disqualify a man from using MOB services, and some of those guys talked about actively withholding money from their prospective spouses.
You assume all guys who marry foreign women aren’t eligable to western women, but this is not the case. In fact, I’d say they are more upwardly mobile in terms of wealth and education than your average Joe - they are seeking something MORE, not seeking what they ‘can get’. It takes a substantial amount of money to move abroad and set up a new life. Read the article again: they are saying they are ACTIVELY AVOIDING western women.
Erm, how about YOU read the article again, perplexed? None of your posts suggest that you’ve read the article or other people’s posts carefully. People have explained to you, five or six times now, that the article doesn’t deal with men who move to another country and happen to fall in love with a local woman. The men chronicled in the article aren’t interested in ‘moving abroad and setting up a new life’ - considering the amount of casual racism on display, they’re not interested in different cultures at all - they’re interested in purchasing women like commodities.
“Feel free to carry on criticising them, but it seriously does sound like sour grapes from feminists and condascension from pro-feminists.”
Perplexed, since you like to point out what you feel are feminist “shaming” tactics, I thought I’d return the favor. According to you, if a Western woman condemns these “agencies”, she’s just jealous that no Western man wants her. It’s a demeaning argument that should be beneath you.
Exploitation bothers me. I don’t have to be personally threatened to be concerned about something. Do you? It seems a little selfish to think this way.
I am bothered by forced labor trafficking as well, even though I don’t work in a profession any way affected by it.
“Helena: I’m not so sure about this. Now it may be that the latter two groups are more likely to actually pony up the money to go on one of these tours, while the former consider the idea but don’t follow up on it, but I think there’s a strong element of homosociality going on, led by the “Dan the Man” types, which pressures men to at least pretend to be the confident, cynical type (see, for example, the attitude toward the farmer who was meeting his penpal). The attitude of the marketers and the attitude of the customers aren’t necessarily the same.”
Well, you may very well be right about the men who actually follow through vs. the men that just look. I will say that I reserve my most vituperative feelings for the “agencies” themselves, rather than the “customer group” as a whole, because I can’t believe all these men (and there must be a lot– look at all the sites!) are misogynists looking for a female slave to abuse.
But the system has all the dynamics of exploitation, and that’s why I’m repulsed by it. These agencies wouldn’t exist if there weren’t such dire, unrelenting poverty in the supplier countries. They’d have no desperate women to sign up.
Can honorable people exist in such a system? Of course. But corruption and human degradation flourishes.
You mentioned a longer blog post about this… if I may ask, where is your blog? Or did you mean here? Sorry, I’m new here…
Helena: I occasionally (very occasionally, I need to write more) guest post over at Official Shrub.com Blog, and on the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too LiveJournal community.
Agreed that it’s an exploitative situation that the “brokers” and the “prospective husbands” are taking advantage of.
My point was as much that the abusive types shouldn’t be excused as “looking for love” as vice versa. Certainly the profiteers involved shouldn’t duck criticism by saying they’re simply matchmakers bringing happiness to lonely people, then turn around and sell their service as a sex tour where the customer gets to bring a woman home with him.
Feminists are interested in this phenomenon because the women who marry these men are vulnerable to abuse. According to the Harper’s article, admitting to prior abuse of women doesn’t disqualify a man from using MOB services, and some of those guys talked about actively withholding money from their prospective spouses.
Amba, the feminist reaction I’ve experienced has grouped all foreign women as “vulnerable” - this conflating of “mail order brides” with the entire group of international marriages - this makes me suspicious as to their motivations as to why they are interested in why western men choose foreign women as their brides. The typical debate quickly loses the specifics and wanders into generalisations (just like this one). Suddenly the implication is that all western women who marry foreign women are predatory abusers. Hugo has stated as much in his subsequent posts in this thread - he thinks a large disparity in wealth means the richer person is commiting ‘rank colonialim’, not his wedding vows :-
I think that exploiting another person’s need for security or a passport is beneath contempt. It’s rank colonialism at its shabbiest
I find that attitude to be rather defensive; why comment about two consenting individuals if they are not breaking the law? Guess what : international marriages take place. It’s not going to go away (in fact, it’s generally on the rise). I am opposed to abuse of course. Where this happens, I hope the abusers are caught and punished. But please stop conflating (by generalisation) that international marriages are a form of abuse.
Interestingly, the feminist distaste towards western men marrying foreign women reminds me of many conservatives who oppose gay marriage. Even though gay marriage doesn’t affect their life, they feel they must stop it. Why? Why not let two consenting adults decide their own choices if they are not breaking the law or obviously hurting anyone?
If people want to be cynical and marry for money ONLY or looks ONLY then they’ll reap the consequences of their shallow reasons to marry. Of course personality and general compatibility is a key component of a successful marriage (again, down to everyday pragmatics, not love). I think there’s a problem when two people marry for other arbitrary reasons too which are common in the west - e.g. peer pressure - their friends are marrying, or age, or parental pressure.
You all knew I’d have to weigh in on this one, so here goes:
I think that both the men and women in this scenario are desperate and looking for something that they’re unable to get in their respective cultures: Partners who will respect and treat them the way they wish. For the men this means more ‘traditional’ women, who will help them with the home duties, treat them as more than just a doormat and/or wage-slave, appreciate the hard work that they do outside the home, etc., like the families that they probably grew up in and are used to. For the women this means having a male partner who is not an alcoholic and therefore has a steady job and can provide for them in a way that they would like, and who isn’t drunk and abusive 23 hours out of every day.
My understanding is that alcoholism, domestic abuse, etc., are rampant in Eastern European society, especially the men. So the Ukranian women don’t want intolerable Ukranian drunks and the American men don’t want intolerable American feminists - what’s so wrong with people choosing who they associate with, date, marry, etc? Further, I believe that, generally speaking, outside of the U.S., American men are admired and sought-after, so it seems logical that most people don’t consider us a bunch of exploitative, neo-colonial oppressors as Hugo suggests the men in the article are. Therefore, I see neither party in this transaction as either better or worse than the other vis-a-vis exploitation, etc., and in fact see no problem with it. Both are more likely to get what they want and need from the other, something they can’t seem to get at home. Sounds cool to me.
As for any power imbalance, hoo boy, wait ’til the couple moves to the U.S., they file for divorce and go in front of a judge in the so-called “family” court. Any semblance of male privilege and power will quickly evaporate.
And finally, I think that the issue of financial exploitation is a red herring. I know a bunch of Russians and other Eastern Europeans and they confirm that women are well-represented in the workplace; in fact, like in the U.S., more women than men get college degrees, and in Russia in particular, more women have better jobs than men do. Much of this is due to the epidemic alcoholism that affects men much more than women and makes them all but unemployable. If any gender is in dire straights in Eastern Europe, IMO it’s men, not women.
So, to summarize: IMO that’s why women over there are looking for men here, and men here are looking for them as well. Both have no desire for members of the opposite sex in their own countries, who are seen as ‘damaged goods’ by prospective partners.
Mr. Bad says:
For the men this means more ‘traditional’ women, who will help them with the home duties, treat them as more than just a doormat and/or wage-slave, appreciate the hard work that they do outside the home, etc., like the families that they probably grew up in and are used to.
Funny, this description of more “traditional” women describes my relationship with my husband and I am your average raving western feminist. Methinks something more is at play than Mr. Bad’s rather benign description here.
(Also, strikes me as odd to equate “being appreciated” — what the men ostensibly get out of these relationships — with “not being abused by a drunkard” — what the woemn ostensibly get.)
Hugo:
If you have been married and divorced more than once, then you were in the pit more than once, probably without even knowing it. Some of these men very well could be in the same place, and their marriages are doomed to failure unless He pulls them out of the pit.
So, I think sadness and pity is the correct response. I don’t know who Quentin is, but he does not appear to have a Christian understanding of grace or, for that matter, an understanding of male headship and mutual submission as described in Ephesians 5.
But: the men you describe in the article don’t seem to, either, and their marriages (and mine, and yours) are doomed to failure in the absence of the Holy Spirit working within them.
Mr. Bad: The Harper’s article concerned a package tour and as any travel agent will tell you, it’s the buyer’s perception of his desires that initiates interest. If you want palm trees on your vacation, it’s useless to try selling you a cruise to the Alaskan fjord country. And if you want matchmaking that doesn’t involve women who value equality and autonomy, you don’t go to the Upper West Side or London or Brussels. That’s where outfits like A Foreign Affair come in; their selling point is of Eastern Europe (among other locales) as a place crawling with women who know their place (in 2nd class) and will toot your root for breakfast to boot. You basically admit this; the ‘damage’ to the homegrown ‘goods’ for the male client is that pesky feminism. It’s telling you’d counter the power-imbalance premise with the “wait-till-it’s-over-and-they-go-to-divorce-court” scenario.
Perplexed: How many times do people have to tell you that nobody here equates transnational marriage with MOBism? Do you really think anyone, even the most unthinking, reflexive feminist on this thread is going to think a woman from Dublin is a MOB. A woman from Amsterdam? Seville? You know damn good and well that isn’ the case, just as you know there’s a reason people do think “mail-order bride” or “This guy wants a woman he can boss around” when they hear “My wife is from Thailand” or “My wife grew up in Ukraine”. Especially when it’s followed by “We were engaged two weeks after we met.” None of this is to say that there aren’t men who go to Bangkok simply because they think Thai women are cute. And it pays to remember that those who’d ban brokered marriages are far and few between. But you know that, of course. Your beef is that few people in the West respect “traditional marriage” anymore and for good reason; that someone would go to far-flung corners to engage in one strikes many as ridiculous and telling about the men who go. You’d do better to look at your peers who go to Thailand hoping to live out Houellebecq’s “Platform” than to NOW or Hugo.
My understanding is that alcoholism, domestic abuse, etc., are rampant in Eastern European society, especially the men. So the Ukranian women don’t want intolerable Ukranian drunks and the American men don’t want intolerable American feminists - what’s so wrong with people choosing who they associate with, date, marry, etc?
My experience of Thailand is that women are also tired of the affairs their local men have - it’s standard in Thailand for married men to have a ‘mia noi’ (or mistress). I think what we’re seeing in many cases is men from the west and women from 2nd world countries largely unhappy with marriage as a system in their respective countries. In the west, divorce rates are high, and men have a hard time in the family & divorce courts. In many 2nd world countries, women are disadvantaged culturally (e.g. their society gives men much more of a ‘pass’ when it comes to having affairs and drinking heavily).
Douglas, if the men want hookers and the hookers want the men’s money, then what’s the problem? From your description that’s what those women are, the men are simply John’s on a guided tour of Eastern Europe. I say fine. I think the real problem here is that feminists are pissed that American men prefer Ukranian hookers to them, probably because the hookers have a better product and more professional and up-front about the terms of the relationship they seek with these men.
Again, what’s the problem here?
How many times do people have to tell you that nobody here equates transnational marriage with MOBism? Do you really think anyone, even the most unthinking, reflexive feminist on this thread is going to think a woman from Dublin is a MOB. A woman from Amsterdam? Seville? You know damn good and well that isn’ the case, just as you know there’s a reason people do think “mail-order bride” or “This guy wants a woman he can boss around” when they hear “My wife is from Thailand” or “My wife grew up in Ukraine”.
Douglas, so if you marry a woman from Thailand, she is de facto a mail-order bride? You seem to have such a low opinion of women from poorer countries - you think they cannot make their own decisions, just like children. In the very paragraph I quote, you are explicitly and unequivocally stating that international marriages are only international marriages (as opposed to mail-order arranged marriages) if both spouses are from first world countries.
My last time in Bangkok, I mixed with all kinds of locals - from my apartment block, the nearby hospital - neighbours. There are a number of opportunities to get to know the local women (who work in all kinds of industries, only a very small minority work in the sex trade) - but I can see a reason why guys might decide to use an agency since they are working in their home countries and haven’t got a spare 6 months to get to know a local woman in Ukraine/wherever. It’s a bit like speed-dating for a marriage partner. Not something I’d do personally, but I can understand the need for it to be rather an arbitrary meeting arrangement.
Douglas, just interested: what do you say to a western man and a Thai women who are having a successful marriage together over a number of years? Would you tell them they’re ‘wrong’? Would you want to shame the western man? Mock him?
Especially when it’s followed by “We were engaged two weeks after we met.
That’s true of ANY marriage. I think it’s wise to know your spouse very well before committing to marriage.
Overall, I’m not sure what you’re saying here Douglas - you want to ban marriages between anyone from the first world and anyone from the second?
Or just ban the MEANS to which SOME western men are arranging to meet, and then marry foreign women?
Is it OK for you if a guy flies out to a foreign country for work, bumps into a local girl in the local store, they exchange small talk, then exchange phone numbers, and 3 years later they marry?
Mr. Bad, I like hookers myself. For the record, I think bans on sex tourism are silly, doomed to failure. But the problem isn’t Western feminist reactions. Believe me, they don’t want to be in these guys’ black books. The problem is these guys want everything that comes with marriage, including the imprimatur of society’s respect. It isn’t forthcoming and I think you know why. If the kinds of tours offered by companies like A Foreign Affair were only about indulging in prostitution, you might hear from some feminists, but certainly not all and certainly not from me.
Perplexed: You make a solid point that divorce rates in the West are high. Don’t you think a substantial amount of it is because women don’t put up with men philandering like they used to? I certainly hope these Thai women think American men aren’t going to cheat on them, just as I hope Eastern European women aren’t under the delusion that American men don’t drink to excess or get violent or cheat or hide money or throw college admission notices into the garbage or……
I think the real problem here is that feminists are pissed that American men prefer Ukranian hookers to them.
Wow. The old canard that feminists are just bitter because they can’t get a date. I would have thought that kind of appeal to an unsupported prejudice would have been beneath you, Mr. Bad.
I am unaware of any evidence that any significant proportion of “American men prefer Ukranian hookers to [feminists].” We are talking about a small, and rather pathetic, subgroup of American men, here. I don’t imagine any feminist woman is crying into her pillow because these crowning glories of American manhood won’t date her.
I said: “I think the real problem here is that feminists are pissed that American men prefer Ukranian hookers to them.”
To which THF replied: “Wow. The old canard that feminists are just bitter because they can’t get a date. I would have thought that kind of appeal to an unsupported prejudice would have been beneath you, Mr. Bad.”
Fair point Happy. I should have said “I think the real problem here is that some feminists are pissed that thoseAmerican men prefer Ukranian hookers to American women. Sorry about that.
However, the regular reference to these men as “losers” is telling - you harsh on me for characterizing feminists as “bitter,” etc., and yet in the same post you play the same stereotyping game, calling the men “losers.” Hmm, not very becoming of you Happy.
THF continued: “I don’t imagine any feminist woman is crying into her pillow because these crowning glories of American manhood won’t date her.”
Exactly. I don’t blame the women who don’t want to date those guys, just like I don’t blame those guys for not wanting to date feminist women. This is exactly what I’m talking about, the right for people to choose who they associate with without some holier-than-thou ninny calling them “losers,” “exploiters,” etc.
Mr. Bad: The main problem is, of course, the poverty of these countries, which calls into question how free these women’s choices are.
The attitude of many of the defenders appear to take is that since they’re not immediately responsible for the general poverty in these countries, anything goes as long as the money flows.
The other problems I have with what was described in the article, as I mentioned in my earlier comment (hey Hugo, what happened to yesterday’s comments in this thread?):
* The lopsided power dynamic in these relationships, the consequent potential for abuse;
* The subset of men who use these services to actively seek out someone to abuse, and the services’ failure to screen for this;
* The “Dan the Man” types who prey on the subset of men who use these services out of loneliness and desperation, and exploit their insecurities to pressure them to adopt a cynical, misogynist outlook.
I don’t have that much of a problem with the idea of mail-order brides (or husbands) in theory, just as I don’t have much of a problem with the idea of adoption from impoverished countries or with consensual arranged marriages. But what was described in the article seemed more like a sex tour with a “take home” option.
But really, I’m just pissed as a feminist that American men prefer Ukrainian “hookers” to me.
Mr. Bad, if rankling comments are the worst one goes through in these sorts of things, one should consider oneself lucky. You’re always free to tell the commenters to mind their own business. I never complained when my ex-Green Beret father had some choice comments on my Trotskyist associations. Why not? Because if the shoe fits, wear it. We Trots did want the capitalist insect to die and guys who make more of these tours than simply seeing prostitutes are losers and exploiters. No way around it.
My conclusion that these guys are “losers” is based on the statements of the guys’ themselves and that of the tour promoters. As one example, from the article, the guy who runs the tour characterizes these guys:
. . . men whose confidence had been so trampled upon by American women that they could no longer comprehend that they were worthy of stunning, intelligent, and much younger women.
It’s hard not to see here a description of a loser: a man who has allowed his confidence to be trampled while simultaneously buying into the belief promoted by the tour company that he is somehow entitled to the companionship of “stunning, intelligent, and much younger women.” Non-losers don’t become crushed because hot, young members of the opposite sex won’t date them.
It’s hard not to see here a description of a loser: a man who has allowed his confidence to be trampled while simultaneously buying into the belief promoted by the tour company that he is somehow en