24 Million Bride Shortage

Meh, not really a big deal.

Imbalance is good. This is why the gap between rich and poor should never be a concern. Poor people should never feel any type of bitterness or animosity. It builds character. They should pull themselves up by their boot straps!

Personally, I see no reason why our bonus pool should be generating any type of animosity from Main Street even with rising unemployment.

I say we increase our bonus pool to 75% of our total profits!

“There is an easy solution to this bride shortage in China: White Mail Order Brides!”

HAhahaha! Now THAT’s funny!

130 men to 100 women, it’s not as bad as the western medias portray it.

There’s a dramatic increase in marriage between CN men and RU women in Northeast China cause Russia got excess in females.

In Russia for every 110 women there are only 80 men

Right now Chinese are limiting the size of each family (heard it is changing though), whereas Russia is paying women to have more children, so there could be a natural match-up.

There’s also central Asia (Buryats, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Tatars, etc. ), S.E. Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Philippine etc)… who knows where else, with the Chinese economy booming and along with the power shift to Asia.

“One feature of the Russian-Chinese relationship seemed especially telling: Cross-border marriages are overwhelmingly between Chinese men and Russian women. Much of this has to do with demographics—Russia has a surplus of women, while China has too many men. But as one Russian woman told me, “Chinese men are kinder and more attentive to their wives. And they usually have more money.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2239793/entry/2239797/

“In addition, as researches held by Olga Makhovskaya reveal, marriages between Chinese men and Russian women are also very successful. There are tens of thousands of such marriages in Russia’s Primorye region in the Far East. Chinese men are hard-working, they don’t abuse in alcohol drinking and bring their wages home. In a word, they have lots of advantages by contrast with Russian men.” It is sad, but the researches don’t mention for whom Russian men suit wonderfully.”
http://english.pravda.ru/society/family/29-04-2003/2688-family-0

“Recently Russian women are looking to marry Chinese men because of their trustworthiness and romanticism”

“Chinese migrant to Russia Ge Youjin and his Russian wife Tatiana had their third child recently. Tatiana said her husband is responsible. “He cherishes our love and doesn’t drink or spend a lot,” she said.

Ge too admires his wife. “She is hardworking and considerate like other Russian women, and she takes care of the family well.”

“Can you introduce some nice Chinese guys to me?” 25-year-old Russian Nadya asked her Chinese boss Zhao Hong, chairwoman of the local Chinese Association in Russia’s fifth largest city Krasnoyarsk, who often receives such requests.”
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-08/07/content_659034.htm

http://greenlea.ru/Articles_Directory/Village_Of_Russian_Brides_In_China.htm

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200502/04/eng20050204_173006.html

http://theasianplayboy.blogspot.com/2006/09/interracial-dating-disparity-russian.html

Well, since the Asian-American population’s growth relies more on immigration than procreation, it matters if the places were immigrants come from start immigrating a lower percentage of Asian women.

This is outside the control of Asian-Americans. For the people actually residing in China, yes, but not for someone like me. Is this a fact that Asian-American population growth relies more on immigration? I haven’t seen this anywhere stated as fact but if you have the data please share it with us.

The AA population growth will only be in jeopardy if all the white guys start taking AA women which is impossible. There may be a lot of AA female sellouts who bash their male counterparts and loathe their ethnicity, but I don’t think its going to adversely affect the growth of our entire population here in the US unless AA guys start marrying outside of their race in larger numbers than the women. I know I sure won’t.

“Prosperity, not government mandate, is the best way to reduce population size.”

Yes! But how do we bring about prosperity? Government mandate!

In all seriousness, this is basically a further left-wing version of our welfare system, and since they have no reason not to breed more feeders for their starving families, the population explodes out of control. In this case, why would we expect a heavy-handed government not to adopt a one-child program?

There was an article a few years ago that talked about the sexual frustrations of Chinese men due to this huge imbalance. Since there’s going to be fewer women to “go around”, many men end up never having had sex. This forced repression caused intense sexual frustration that may promote violent tendencies. Therefore, becoming a public health/safety issue.

I know that my grandmother (paternal) urged my mom to give me up for adoption so that she could try for a son. My mother had always said she’d only have 2 children (back in the 70’s, Korean government was promoting “Just have two children and live happy” agenda for economic reasons) and I was the second daughter.

Sociologically speaking, this was a predictable outcome when you enforce “ONE child only” policy on a culture that does not value their girls. Same thing has been happening in Korea and Korean men have married non-Koreans… which has forced Koreans to address their prejudices toward mixed-marriages and multi-racial people.

“Yeah? It is about as far fetched as you traveling aboard the Enterprise in 2431. So the war is on! White guys vs Asian guys over Asian women. I hate that this about to go down, but that’s just the way things are sometimes.”

Sieg, the issue was over Asian guys marrying White mail order brides because there is a shortage of Chinese women. You don’t seem to find White women attractive anyway, so what could possibly be the problem?

@Jaehwan,

Looks like we will disagree on this point forever. LoL. I highly doubt women consider a guy who is good with socializing and womanizing a “slimy, conniving, sketch artist”. If I approach a girl with confidence, flirt with a her and show her a good time because I apply some PUA tactics, she isn’t going to think of me as a slimy dude. In fact, I’ve never had any woman call either of my friends or me such things. Quite the opposite.

I’ll tell you what’s worse.

A guy who is GEEKY AND LACKS THE BALLS to open up a conversation with a woman he finds attractive, because he is too self-conscious of looking stupid or worried that he might fail in front of people. This is the Asian guy who stares at a woman he is interested in but takes no initiative. This does not help us break the stereotype we’ve all become too familiar with.

I’m not advocating every Asian male go out and PUA-pimp the hell out of every hot girl. I’m just saying you can incorporate some of these concepts into your personality to improve your social skills with both women and men.

Based upon their summary on Amazon at least, Den Boer and Hudson’s “research” sound like reductionist–and to be frank–thinly disguised propaganda to pathologize China and India based upon male-female sex ratios.

Everything from domestic political systems to foreign policy and war are traced to this male-female ratio, it appears.

If war and violence are traceable to this gender ratio, I’d like to ask these “scientists” how they explain America–with its massive gun violence and its serial wars of aggression around the world.

In the past decade, the USA has thus attacked Yugoslavia, attacked Afghanistan, attacked Iraq, and is bombing Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc–ultimately resulting in the US murder of millions of people.
(But of course, Americans don’t think of these US wars as aggression. They are right and justified).

Domestically, “going postal” and workplace/school shootings are almost an American way of life with the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres being only the most famous examples.

Is this becuase of America’s skewed gender ratios?

I suspect that this “research” most likely reflects the insecurities of the American Empire and its imperial intellectual class over the rise of China and India more than anything else.

In fact, the fact this book is praised by assclowns like Francis “End of History” Fukuyama and elitist US “think tanks” suggests a lot about the warped ideological basis of their scholarship.

No wonder CNN and the American media have picked up on this work and are promoting it.

I think anyone who wants to know more about race relations absolutely needs to read Orientalism by Edward Said. It’s very high brow, incredibly academic, but revelationary if you give yourself time to digest it. To offer my interpretation in a paraphrased nutshell — 1) power disparities are safekept through bodies of knowledge 2) the western world produces the entire world’s body of knowledge according to its own representations 3) even when non-western people want to know about themselves, they tend to do so through the western world’s body of knowledge 4) this process both internalizes and perpetuates the western world’s representation of the rest of the world.

Basically, from my interpretation of Orientalism, the crux of the issue is that the limits of any conversation we have about “the orient” or “the other” have already been established, whether we are aware of it or not. Any new discourse or ideas proferred by any party are inherently defined by the extant body of knowledge. In other words, the more we talk, the deeper we sink into this orientalist construction. The key isn’t to keep it up — the key is to deconstruct it completely. How we do that, I have no idea.

But case in point, since people have already mentioned this in this thread, is the conversation about PUAs. From day one, my criticism of PUA is this — the very fact that it exists and caters specifically to an Asian American male audience implies that we have already internalized and are perpetuating external representations of us. In other words, we are nerdy, weak, and socially awkward, and we prove it to everybody else by admitting it to ourselves. I can understand why, upon first glance, it looks like the PUA movement is intended to improve the situation of Asian American males. However, I firmly believe that the existence of the movement and the conversation it inspires is dictated by the orientalist representations of Asian American males. Western society doesn’t even have to orientalize us any more, because we’re doing it on our own.

Like jujubean mentioned, this isn’t going to be a big deal. Mainland Chinese men will simply find women in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia.

The Western media is really making this into a bigger issue than it really is.

“Was there investor confidence back then for FDR to crush? If my history lessons are correct, there wasn’t much investment going on back in the early 30’s. The unemployment during the 30’s was already there.”

Yes there was confidence. It was called the Roaring 20s. During the Depression of 1920 (didn’t know there was one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321), the first year of which was worse than the first year of the Great Depression, Harding took office, and essentially did the opposite of what FDR would do later on. There were some social programs, but Harding cut government spending rather than boosting it. The depression ended quickly because investors knew pretty quickly where to put their money to foster economic growth in the market. The Federal Reserve was also relatively new and somewhat powerless at the time, so investor confidence throughout the 20s was pretty high. Then the Fed started tinkering again, and then in 1929 we had a stock bubble, followed by 10 years of policy tinkering by FDR.

Eric,

I said, “Was there investor confidence back then for FDR to crush? If my history lessons are correct, there wasn’t much investment going on back in the early 30’s. The unemployment during the 30’s was already there.” And you responded: “Yes there was confidence. It was called the Roaring 20s.”

Sure, there was the roaring twenties, but FDR wasn’t the President during the Roaring 20’s. Much the same way Obama wasn’t President during our housing boom. Think about this–was the economy better or worse when comparing the economy before and after FDR? Okay, so he was there for a long time–better or worse between the time he started and eight years later?

I’ve always been against the one-child policy. Just because I’m against one form of regulation doesn’t mean I’m against ALL regulation.

I would definitely be opposed to state mandated diet and exercise. Especially if they made me give up my Chinese style fish.

Hey Larry,

So I’m looking at this:

http://www.amazon.com/Bare-Branches-Implications-Population-International/dp/0262582643

Product Description
Winner in the category of Government & Political Science in the 2004 Professional/Scholarly Publishing Annual Awards Competition presented by the Association of American Publishers, Inc. and Winner of the 2004 Otis Dudley Duncan Award presented by the Sociology of Population section of the American Sociological Association (ASA)

What happens to a society that has too many men? In this provocative book, Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer argue that, historically, high male-to-female ratios often trigger domestic and international violence. Most violent crime is committed by young unmarried males who lack stable social bonds. Although there is not always a direct cause-and-effect relationship, these surplus men often play a crucial role in making violence prevalent within society…

I don’t think the description is saying that the book says it’s the only factor. It’s just saying that it’s a big factor, and that it affects everything. According to the book, it’s not even a lack of sex–it’s a lack of social bonds, as the description says.

The USA doesn’t have an imbalanced ratio as a country, but if you look at these mass killers, they didn’t have much going on in the way of female companionship. Cho was single and lonely, as was that dude who shot up the women’s gym, as was the guy who killed his extended family in Virginia just a couple days ago. As a country there’s no gender imbalance, but in Cho’s world, there certainly was.

Sure, access to guns probably affected them, as did alienation and probably America’s aggressive culture. But wouldn’t it be safe to say that their lack of social bonds probably also played a very large role?

Look at the PUAs. Maybe the part of the reason so many of them act like complete sexist jerks is that they have no grounding in society. Another example is the military. Could it be possible that part of the reason soldiers commit so much crime during their off hours is that there is either a lack of women? (I think Den Boer and Hudson actually talked about this latter example.)

I don’t think the description is saying that the book says it’s the only factor. It’s just saying that it’s a big factor, and that it affects everything. According to the book, it’s not even a lack of sex–it’s a lack of social bonds, as the description says.

Look at the PUAs. Maybe the part of the reason so many of them act like complete sexist jerks is that they have no grounding in society. Another example is the military. Could it be possible that part of the reason soldiers commit so much crime during their off hours is that there is either a lack of women? (I think Den Boer and Hudson actually talked about this latter example.)”

If it’s not about sex or gender ratios (and primarily about social bonds), then America’s media spin of their “research” is completely disingenous, as it has emphasized the gender ratio issue.

Concerning America’s rampage killings, here is a link to one of the most extensive research studies done on this issue, a profile of 102 killer dating back 50 years or so. Not surprisingly, mental illness is a major factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/09/us/they-threaten-seethe-and-unhinge-then-kill-in-quantity.html?pagewanted=print

“Think about this–was the economy better or worse when comparing the economy before and after FDR? Okay, so he was there for a long time–better or worse between the time he started and eight years later?”

The economy for all of FDR’s terms was awful. High unemployment, low GDP, and zero investor confidence. If you can point to something we could blame for 16 years of a garbage economy that doesn’t eventually boil down to FDR, Hoover, or the Federal Reserve, then I’m all ears.

“I would definitely be opposed to state mandated diet and exercise. Especially if they made me give up my Chinese style fish.”

If the state raises tariffs on sugar imports and subsidizes national corn production, isn’t that also state mandated diet? You and I agree on this right?

afd,

Good points. I think one reason why the sex selection process is so popular in rural areas is that they need men to work with the heavy machinery. Hopefully the wealth will even this out. I think America, in general, prefers girls to boys. Maybe the cities of China will someday balance this out? I just wonder if they can do it with a one child policy. Raising kids is expensive, and I wonder if the preference for boys is great enough to selectively give birth if you can only have one.

Eric,

You didn’t answer the question–was it better or worse when he ended either his presidency or his second term? From what I understand, the Depression was pretty, darn bad. It would be hard to expect things to look like the Clinton years right after such a big free fall.

I’m against subsidizing corn production. It’s what’s contributing to our health problems–high fructose corn syrup is way out of control.

Now would I call this a state mandated diet? Hmm. I think that might be going a bit far. “Mandated” implies that it’s mandatory, and in this case, people can “opt out” by simply buying healthier foods. Of course, richer people will have an easier time with this.

Trans fat ban? I’m okay with it. Hey, that could cut down our healthcare costs, right? I guess that would be mandated since it would make trans fats unavailable. I’d agree with you there.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-china-adopt24-2010jan24,0,5783351.story

To be fair, not all these people were having children in order to take advantage of the subsidies. Many couples have children for perfectly good reasons. And some people enjoy growing corn. However, the subsidy is still there, and if too many people are paid, what should the state do?

EJ: the Depression started during Hoover’s term. Hoover was president from 1929-1933. Clearly not FDR. When FDR became President he brough record change and helped recover the economy which probably contributed to his landslide reelection and his four terms (almost) as President. When you think about it, he turned a depression around and started rebuilding the country. We were in pretty good shape by the time we were dragged into WWII. When he died in office, we were still at war. I think he did a pretty fine job as president.

Even thought Hoover is considered among the worst presidents in US History, he was instrumental in bringing forth and is the namesake for the Hoover Dam.

Why you got to hate on people who need welfare? Some people really need it and most people who need it do not stay on it. Think of ways to prevent abuse if you see it, not generalize a whole sector of people simply because they need help. Most of the people who use welfare use it temporarily. Haven’t we all at some point been the benefit of someone elses charity or good will? If we don’t help each other when we need it, what makes us any different from other primates?

“Sieg, the issue was over Asian guys marrying White mail order brides because there is a shortage of Chinese women. You don’t seem to find White women attractive anyway, so what could possibly be the problem?”

@King, I object using mail order white women as a problem solver because you can’t get along with women of your race. This is dead wrong! I’m sure other white men will find this disgusting too. It’s just plain not right!

Dude you’re right, what the hell am I doing on here…

Heh. Siegfried is a classic White hypocrite. Whenever some White people get a taste of their own medicine (or even the mere thought of this possibility), it is enough to send them into a whining hissy fit.

Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

This principle is one that White people fear–as do most people with guilty consciences.