questions about love and commitment relative to K1 process

[visaveteran 1]

[Curious as to where the 40% figure comes from.

It was the inverse of the 60% number I mentioned at the start of my post. Again it has been a long time since I read whatever I read and that number could be off a bit. What I was suggesting is that if 60 % of the K-1's get married then 40 % must either go back or get lost illigally. If people took more time to be sure of what they wanted that number could be reduced which would help to speed the system for everyone else.

Guns, we have already talked about that so much. Anyone have a good recepie for Russian Black Bread? How about WW2. Anyone notice Russians don't even know we were involved?

It's understandable to me why Russians don't really care about America's World War II participation, considering the immense casualties and suffering the Soviets endured during the Great Patriotic War.

Total of American deaths: 418,500. Total of Soviet Union deaths: 23,100,000

Ironically, it is because of WWII and perhaps the long Afghanistan war, that so reduced the number of Russian men available for marriage, that created the huge number of Russian women in need of men. We USA men are the lucky recipients of this sad situation.

The Soviet Union had a pact with Hitler before fighting them...so let's remember that. And they did not come in the war willingly...they were attacked and forced to fight. I think they remember us...we saved their #### by the "lend lease" program that gave them many trucks and weapons to fight back. We (the USA) never got a penny for all the material we gave them.

I don't know, but I never saw myself as competing with Afghan and WWII war vets for their women.

No, you're competing with the severely depleted Russian male population.

But I figure most of those "depleted" males from WWII would have been dead now anyway if they hadn't died in the war.

It's pretty simple math. No grandfathers...no fathers. No fathers...no sons. No sons...no husbands.

Russia has been killing off its finest men since the revolution, when the poor, illiterate Bolshevik peasants killed off most of the intelligentsia and artists. Then Lenin had his turn killing people. Then Stalin really took killing to new heights. Then Hitler took his shot at eliminating more Russians...mostly men. In recent history, the Mujahideen had their turn and killed many Russian men in the 1980s.

So, there are now around 10 women to every man in Russia. It's about math.

More data re men to women ratios and the marriage milieu in Russia:

"Why do Russian women marry outside Russia? First and most important - lack of men in Russia (according to the last census data, the number of women exceeds that of men by 10 million, and for the age of 40 and over the ratio goes up to terrifying 1:10!). Secondly, those few who are still available are simply not competitive, suffering from alcoholism, unable to provide for the family, etc. And the last basic reason is unstable economic situation in Russia, while it is only natural that people always look for better place to live."

[Neonred 3,461]

There are 5 million more women than men in the US. Look at the statistics for the 15-64 age group as those over 65 don't hold much significance in this argument. And that statement of yours "So, there are now around 10 women to every man in Russia. It's about math" is just crazy.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Neonred

[mox 298]

"Russia has one of the lowest men to women ratio in the world: according to the latest Russian census, there are 10 million more women than men. At the same time Russian culture requires from a woman to be married, in order to acquire a respectable social status. Because of the demographics and the cultural notion, Russian women are driven to seek partners elsewhere, if they have failed to find them in a 'normal' way."

Russia is suffering from a lower birth rate, but 10 million more women than men does not necessarily translate to 10:1.

According to this article (Wikipedia), the ratio of men to women is 0.86 men to every woman. That works out to about 1.1 women for every man. The article is a pretty good read if you're really interested in Russian population demographics.

[Neonred 3,461]

"Russia has one of the lowest men to women ratio in the world: according to the latest Russian census, there are 10 million more women than men. At the same time Russian culture requires from a woman to be married, in order to acquire a respectable social status. Because of the demographics and the cultural notion, Russian women are driven to seek partners elsewhere, if they have failed to find them in a 'normal' way."

Russia is suffering from a lower birth rate, but 10 million more women than men does not necessarily translate to 10:1.

According to this article (Wikipedia), the ratio of men to women is 0.86 men to every woman. That works out to about 1.1 women for every man. The article is a pretty good read if you're really interested in Russian population demographics.

And in the 15-64 year range it's .93. Of course with a male life expectancy of 61.5 that ratio changes drastically in the 65 and over group.

[visaveteran 1]

"Russia has one of the lowest men to women ratio in the world: according to the latest Russian census, there are 10 million more women than men. At the same time Russian culture requires from a woman to be married, in order to acquire a respectable social status. Because of the demographics and the cultural notion, Russian women are driven to seek partners elsewhere, if they have failed to find them in a 'normal' way."

Russia is suffering from a lower birth rate, but 10 million more women than men does not necessarily translate to 10:1.

According to this article (Wikipedia), the ratio of men to women is 0.86 men to every woman. That works out to about 1.1 women for every man. The article is a pretty good read if you're really interested in Russian population demographics.

And in the 15-64 year range it's .93. Of course with a male life expectancy of 61.5 that ratio changes drastically in the 65 and over group.

I am remebering the classic line..."lies, damn lies and statistics."

I think the key here is two things. The women to man ratio in the actively seeking marriage group is bleaker than your numbers indicate for older women. My understanding of the census is that the w-m ration for the 39 years and older group is, indeed, 10:1.

I don't know the data on what is generically called "mail order" marriages in Russia (and we should probably include data for the Ukraine as well) but my guess is that largest group would be 35 and older...especially if we look at data from 1990 to the present. So, the younger Russian women probably have a better situation than the older women in finding men.

The second issue is we need to look at more than "warm male bodies" in Russia...but healthy, fully functioning, able bodied men who are really available within the marriage pool. Factoring in the Russian men who prefer only "common law" marriages; the high number of non functioning, non productive, alcoholic and drug abuse men; the disabled men and so forth, I think the picture gets a lot worse.

I know that the match-makers always push numbers that show a large gap in women wanting marriage and available Russian men.

Here is some stuff i pulled off the internet:

From the BBC: There are growing fears that Russia is facing a population crisis that could see the country lose up to 50 million people in the next 50 years. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, birthrates and male life expectancy have suffered sharp declines. The effects are particularly visible in rural areas, where populations have been dying off or moving to towns and cities.

From "World Affairs web site: "Drunken Nation: Russia’s Depopulation Bomb" by Nicholas Eberstadt

Drink of choice

A specter is haunting Russia today. It is not the specter of Communism—that ghost has been chained in the attic of the past—but rather of depopulation—a relentless, unremitting, and perhaps unstoppable depopulation. The mass deaths associated with the Communist era may be history, but another sort of mass death may have only just begun, as Russians practice what amounts to an ethnic self-cleansing.

Since 1992, Russia’s human numbers have been progressively dwindling. This slow motion process now taking place in the country carries with it grim and potentially disastrous implications that threaten to recast the contours of life and society in Russia, to diminish the prospects for Russian economic development, and to affect Russia’s potential influence on the world stage in the years ahead.

Russia has faced this problem at other times during the last century. The first bout of depopulation lasted from 1917 to 1923, and was caused by the upheavals that transformed the Russian Empire into the Soviet Union. The next drop took place between 1933 and 1934, when the country’s population fell by nearly 2 million—or almost 2 percent—as a result of Stalin’s war against the “kulaks” in his forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture. And then, between 1941 and 1946, Russia’s population plummeted by more than 13 million through the cataclysms and catastrophes of World War II.

The current Russian depopulation—which began in 1992 and shows no signs of abating—was, like the previous episodes, also precipitated by events of momentous political significance: the final dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of Communist Party rule. But it differs in three important respects. First, it is by far the longest period of population decline in modern Russian history, having persisted for over twice as long as the decline that followed the Bolshevik Revolution, and well over three times as long as the terrifying depopulation Russia experienced during and immediately after World War II.

Second, unlike all the previous depopulations in Russia, this one has been taking place under what are, within the Russian context, basically orderly social and political circumstances. Terror and war are not the engines for the depopulation Russia is experiencing today, as they have been in the past.

And finally, whereas Russia’s previous depopulations resulted from wild and terrible social paroxysms, they were also clearly temporary in nature. The current crisis, on the other hand, is proceeding gradually and routinely, and thus it is impossible to predict when, or whether, it will finally come to an end.

There's lot more data out there but I'll just sum it up and say, I think your rosy picture of the woman to man ratio has a few holes in it.

[mox 298]

There's lot more data out there but I'll just sum it up and say, I think your rosy picture of the woman to man ratio has a few holes in it.

Heh. A "rosy picture" is a 10:1 female to male ratio in Russia.

Again, according to the Wikipedia article, in the age 65-over category, there are .45 males to every female, which works out to a ratio of 2.2:1 females to males. So I think it's safe to say that if there are only 2 women to every man in the over-65 crowd, there's just no possible way you could ever hit a 10:1 ratio at any demographic under that, including the 39 year-old demographic.

I am remebering the classic line..."lies, damn lies and statistics."

It's a good line. Important when numbers are pulled out of thin air. The Wikipedia article seems to be extremely well cited, although I haven't gone back through the citations myself. So it's possible that these numbers have somehow been manipulated, but usually when this happens someone comes along and either corrects Wikipedia or at least notes it.

[SMR 368]

I lived in Russia for a couple of years from 2006-2008 and as has been pointed out, the statistics show that the male to female ratio is not all that skewed (it's nowhere near 10:1). But, as someone else pointed out, no grandfathers means no fathers, no fathers--no sons. The point isn't that there aren't sons in a purely biological sense, they just don't have anyone to show them how to grow up and be the kind of husbands that Russian women want. When you start counting men that have jobs, are usually sober, have a normal view on family life and want to get married, the ratio starts to look more like 3 and 4 to 1. For whatever reason, single mothers are better at raising daughters than sons. Here, I am talking about young people, 18-35 or so. I don't have hard statistics, this is just what I saw. And note that I didn't say there aren't great young men. They just each have their choice of several great young women.

When you talk about people ages 35-64 or so, there are just fewer single men. There are some, but they are usually pretty weird.

So, on the subject of marriage visas, it isn't that Russian women prefer foreign men. Most of them would be very happy with a sober, stable Russian man. There just aren't enough to go around.

As we talk about trends, it's all connected. The decline in Russian population and economic productivity and success is directly related to the shortage of stable two-parent families, which can be explained by the shortage of marriage-material men.

[BluesTraveler 0]

I don't normally post on here however the statement below is SO wrong it should be criminal.

the USA has never had a crazed killer leader like Stalin who killed millions of his own people.

The United States did in fact kill MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of their own people. The United States waged a prolonged war against Native American tribes though out the United States. The United States didn't have 1 crazed leader we had several Presidents that continued the war against the Native Americans.

[slim 1,514]

I am sure there are some cases where the guy says he has a nice house and a good job and when she arrives finds the nice house is a run down double wide and his nice job is as a garbage man

You must've been reading my wife's blog over at mail.ru

But if this is about about comparing countries...the USA has never had a crazed killer leader like Stalin who killed millions of his own people. As to WWII...the Russians murdered 22,000 Polish prisoners of war and now ban any discussion of that fact today. I don't think the USA killed prisoners of war...certainly not 22,000!

The United States govt. has never been capable of killing 22,000 of it's own citizens and still holding onto power. Most countries where you see wholesale genocide or extermination of one sort or another all have one thing in common - effective gun control. Our founding fathers had the foresight to enable us to protect ourselves against oppression and dictatorial will being impressed upon us.

Yes, America allows open dissent so we have democracy. We have a free press and people are allowed to march and show public criticism. Russia and Iran and China do not. They kill dissenters. The suppress dissent harshly.

Sure, we have free press and "allow" individuals to to show public criticism, but the major difference between our society and theirs (using Russia, Iran and China since you provided them as examples) is we won't show folks being beaten in the street to suppress them. We'll "spin" the story into something else until it goes away. The mob is fickle. We can feel very passionately about something... until American Idol comes on!

And not to keep beating the dead horse that crops up now and again, but as long as the PATRIOT Act is in effect, our democracy is more of a sham that Iran's. When the President of a country can disappear you indefinitely, without charge or access to an attorney, it's not a Democracy, it's the world's most well-armed banana repulic.

This is how we deal with dissent. And if you're lucky, your case could end up on the nightly news. But, it's only going to attract attention until American Idol comes on.

The United States did in fact kill MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of their own people. The United States waged a prolonged war against Native American tribes though out the United States. The United States didn't have 1 crazed leader we had several Presidents that continued the war against the Native Americans.

Native Americans were never (and continue not to be) Americans unless they chose to be. The U.S. did, indeed, kill millions and millions of natives, but they weren't Americans, they were members of enemy nations. Going back to the above point about a dictator or whoever killing millions of their own citizens, it all comes down to who has the guns. When you have an armed government and a disarmed populace (be that one's own population or another country's) it's typically easier for the group with the guns to kill the group without the guns. Taking that back to the Native Americans, by the time they were armed, they were disorganized to the point of being ineffective against the U.S. There are many examples of what happened when they were organized and armed (just ask Custer) but far more of them being unorganized and unarmed.

It was said that Adm. Yamamoto was asked after Pearl Harbor why he didn't invade the West Coast. The U.S. was basically defenseless with the majority of the army serving in the European theater and the Pacific navy all but destroyed. With the military might the Emperial navy possessed, they could've landed on our beaches and strode ashore uncontested. His answer reinforces why it's important to have private ownership (and proficiency) of firearms. "Because behind every blade of grass there would've been a rifle." He thought (after being educated in the U.S. for several years, living here and learning a respect and appreciation for our culture) it would be easy to capture the coast but holding the ground would be extremely difficult because the average American not only owned a rifle, but they knew how to use it!

[Kailey 3]

MOX wrote:“Criticizing my (our) country is not anti-USA. If anything, it's pro-USA. It's wanting our country to be better than it is. We don't become better by telling the rest of the world how great we are and how many times we've saved their collective аsses, or by acting unilaterally or only in our own best interests. We become better by constantly challenging ourselves and our government to be better. We also become better by acknowledging that our way isn't always the best way, and that we can learn from other countries and other cultures.”

– there is a very thin line between acknowledging mistakes and weakening your country prestige and image in the eyes of the rest of the world, you know… Shout about your achievements, acknowledge mistakes quietly and learn from them if you are wise. If you are even wiser - learn from mistakes of others..

Learn from USSR mistakes after all!

Everyone can criticize, fewer are able to create something and bring projects and words into life. It's much more worth while making the Now and the Future better instead of powdering your head with ashes over events that have already turned into the Past. And don’t forget - those critically oriented masses are easily maneuvered and manipulated. They think they know something (because they criticize they think they possess brighter minds that allow them to see what others can’t), in reality most of them can’t see farther than their nose ends.

A bit more about chest-beating.. I really think it’s healthy when people raise country flags in the yards just because their hearts desire it, it is healthy and right (for the US) when sb hangs out a plaque sayin “I support US Army” or “I support our President”. You don’t value it yet but if it is gone (which i hope never happens), you will really regret it.

Visaveteran, who were those ‘Mujahideen’ who killed as you said ‘many Russian men’ in the recent history? You mean that war conflict in Afganistan? I might be mistaken but as far as i remember the number of casualties is 13 000+ . And yes, it’s a tragedy for each of these 13 000 families. But you can’t say this was a big impact on the amount of male population.

I agree in general with what you say, though.

[mox 298]

– there is a very thin line between acknowledging mistakes and weakening your country prestige and image in the eyes of the rest of the world, you know… Shout about your achievements, acknowledge mistakes quietly and learn from them if you are wise. If you are even wiser - learn from mistakes of others..

Learn from USSR mistakes after all!

"Weakening your country's prestige" is a myth, used by politicians to ensure dissent is treated as an aberration rather than our right as a free people. IMHO, you've got it completely backwards. As a country we should acknowledge our achievements quietly, and shout about our mistakes. That's how we grow as a people. The other way is how you stagnate and fall backwards while the rest of the world passes you by.

A bit more about chest-beating.. I really think it’s healthy when people raise country flags in the yards just because their hearts desire it, it is healthy and right (for the US) when sb hangs out a plaque sayin “I support US Army” or “I support our President”. You don’t value it yet but if it is gone (which i hope never happens), you will really regret it.

I don't have a problem with people raising the flag in their yards, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody outside the fringe who has a problem with this. Just don't drape yourself in the flag and shout out to the world how great you are and how f*cked up they are. Don't plaster your pickup in yellow magnet stickers and act like you've cornered the market on suffering and martyrdom, ignoring the fact that many in the rest of the world deals with the kind of suffering we had to endure for 1 day, every day of their lives. That's the kind of so-called "patriotism" that foments nationalism and intolerance.

Edited June 30, 2009 by mox

[Kailey 3]

– there is a very thin line between acknowledging mistakes and weakening your country prestige and image in the eyes of the rest of the world, you know… Shout about your achievements, acknowledge mistakes quietly and learn from them if you are wise. If you are even wiser - learn from mistakes of others..

Learn from USSR mistakes after all!

"Weakening your country's prestige" is a myth, used by politicians to ensure dissent is treated as an aberration rather than our right as a free people. IMHO, you've got it completely backwards. As a country we should acknowledge our achievements quietly, and shout about our mistakes. That's how we grow as a people. The other way is how you stagnate and fall backwards while the rest of the world passes you by.

MOX, Russia has shouted about its mistakes after USSR collapsed. A lot of ashes was powdered on the heads and what happened? there were times when we were steps away from total collapse... as soon as a country starts to bow too much it is considered to be weak. That doesn't mean one can spit on the rest of the world, not at all. That said - even accepting mistakes should be done very wisely and carefully.. just try it - go out and say 'We are guilty of this..." smart people will be right there yelling 'and that and that and that.. and my uncle X broke his ankle - that's also your fault"..

by the way was the topic of this thread sth about love... and commitment?

[mox 298]

The USSR didn't collapse because its citizens criticized the government so much. The USSR collapsed because the single party Communist state collapsed under its own weight. So I'm not sure why you keep comparing the collapse of the Soviet Union to criticism of the government. If anything, an argument can be made that the USSR collapsed *because* criticism of the government wasn't allowed.

Any legitimate government should be able to tolerate healthy, robust debate and criticism. If a government is suffering internationally because of criticism at home, then obviously the government is doing something wrong and needs to change. With regards to the US, the image of the United States was hurt with the rest of the world, not because of the citizens criticizing the government, but because of the actions of the government, namely the Bush administration. That's why the Democrats had such a landslide victory in the 2004 elections. We poured a whooooole lotta ash on the heads of the dumbasses who ran this country into the ground, and not only did change happen, but we're much stronger in the eyes of the world because of it. (how effective this change has been is an exercise for another discussion.)

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

(how effective this change has been is an exercise for another discussion.)

Get ready I think its time for another subject change, Mox its your turn to pic, oops looks like you already did.

[BluesTraveler 0]

Native Americans were never (and continue not to be) Americans unless they chose to be.

I am guessing you meant to say Native Americans were never USA citizens.

The U.S. did, indeed, kill millions and millions of natives, but they weren't Americans, they were members of enemy nations.

Strongly disagree with the logic here. The Louisiana Purchase was completed in 1803. The purchase was made ignoring the Native Americans that lived in the Midwest. The French and USA did not have treaties or diplomatic relations with the Native Americans in the Midwest. All we had was a flag.

And as you know, if you have a flag...you can claim something as your own.

The American-Indian wars were perpetrated from the early 1700's to 1918. The majority of the conflict in the Midwest occurring from 1820's to 1890's. Now if we go back to the Louisiana Purchase date of 1803 -- we can see the problem. You "buy" land that doesn't belong to the seller, receiving of stolen property, and then you find you a problem. The USA government then commits widespread genocide. And really we need to call it genocide since it was deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial group.

Having more guns, i.e. cannons doesn't mean you are allowed to kill an entire racial group.

You can not call the Louisiana Purchase legal and NOT make the Native Americans US citizens. Granted, I realize that is what happened historically. However I vehemently disagree that the USA didn't kill their own people. If you purchase, acquire, take over the land, then the people on the land are part of your country now, and you are not supposed to kill your own people!