THIS One is a Real Jewel - Transcript of Congressional Testimony

[Admin]

Something is funky about Page 1 of the PDF file - so scroll to the article beginning on page 2.

Circa 2004 - Witness was Michele A. Clark
Co-director, The Protection Project
The Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies

So it is not surprising that the industry of marriage should become a vehicle for exploitation. Nor is it surprising that the Internet, because of its immediacy, promises of anonymity and lack of accountability, should become the vehicle of choice for this exploitation to take place.

While the mail-order bride industry is not in itself an illegitimate business, it is characterized by several important features which render it susceptible to exploitative practices. Without appropriate safeguard regulations, the industry will continue to be ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous business owners. Because it is a commercial enterprise, it favors the interests of the paying clients, usually men, over the interests of the brides.

This is a particularly creative testimony - leveraging AFA's search engine to segue to the King killing. BTW - is AFA's search capability any different/better than FriendFinder? Maxim apparently liked it - and true to form, they made an flippant comment which later becomes "ordering a pizza" equated to searching for a suitable wife. Weird!

A Foreign Affair, at the www.loveme.com website, reprints an informational piece with permission of Maxim Magazine, which provides another type of illustrative description of the contemporary mail-order bride industry: “It’s a snap to narrow the field. Though your typical guy won’t admit it, 20,000 women are more than he can handle. Luckily, AFA [A Foreign Affair] has made searching its voluminous database as easy as ordering a pizza”.iii As the mail-order bride industry becomes an increasingly commercial affair, this leads the clients to view marriage with a foreign woman as a commercial transaction, one characterized by a “satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back approach.” Further, if the client is not satisfied with the provided product, he can always “return and exchange” his bride, which some men have done with disastrous consequences. In the famous Anastasia King case, Indle G. King Jr. was convicted in September 2002 for the first-degree murder of his second mail-order bride. According to King’s testimony, he had not been satisfied with his first “product”.iv He then righted that wrong by taking revenge on his second try.

Many matchmaking websites advertise their mail-order brides (implicitly, or in some cases, explicitly) as submissive, docile, faithful and loving domesticated wives who are looking to build a traditional, old fashioned home in which they will cater to their man. It is not unlikely that the men who choose to pursue the search for a wife through the mail-order bride path might be looking for just such a woman. It is also likely that a man who is seeking out a submissive woman is not seeking an equal partnership, but rather a relationship of dominance and control.v It is further likely that a man who marries a bride from a mail-order match will expect her to fit this stereotype. However, stereotypes are unlikely to reflect the reality of the personalities of even a minority of the women which they advertise. It then becomes likely that if a wife turns out not to “live up” to the advertised standard, the husband, who was seeking control in a relationship, might turn to abuse in order force the wife to live up to that standard. While little research has been done to investigate this issue, the little information available does point to the fact that men seeking mail-order brides might indeed be searching for the stereotyped women.

Mr. Chairman [Sam Brownback], members of the committee, on behalf of these women, and the thousands more whose stories we never hear about but who endure lives of horrible abuse, we urge you to take aggressive action to protect these women who, in many cases, have done nothing more than tried to follow their dreams.

[catzenmouse]

Here is one from a few days before that one.

http://www.protectionproject.org/eo2.htm

Statement of Michele A. Clark
Co Director
The Protection Project of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies

House Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness

"Trafficking in Persons in the United States: Unfinished Business"

July 8, 2004

[Admin]

Here is one from a few days before that one.

http://www.protectionproject.org/eo2.htm

Statement of Michele A. Clark
Co Director
The Protection Project of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies

House Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness

"Trafficking in Persons in the United States: Unfinished Business"

July 8, 2004

Attaching the PDF for posterity sake (perhaps).

- Dan

[Vaughn]

Guys,

  I'm just thrilled that Indle King is the benchmark by
which we are measured. The "return and exchange"
concept is hilarious, although if anyone were to be
"thrown back" in this house, it's the guy in the mirror....

Dan, maybe in the future the liter-azzi will consult RWD
instead of glossy Maxim magazine. Then again, success
stories don't sell newspapers.

[Admin]

Guys,

  I'm just thrilled that Indle King is the benchmark by
which we are measured. The "return and exchange"
concept is hilarious, although if anyone were to be
"thrown back" in this house, it's the guy in the mirror....

Dan, maybe in the future the liter-azzi will consult RWD
instead of glossy Maxim magazine. Then again, success
stories don't sell newspapers.

A good friend of mine is a politician at the state level. I was discussing some of this crap with him the other day - and even though this guy has no affiliation with any of the foreign bride activities - he quickly saw through some of the political tactics.

According to him - they guys (like Brownback) who are vets of Congress already have their minds made up when they commission these hearings. They already know what the 'witnesses' are going to say - and they either fully expect there to be no balance in the testimony (notice they did not seek a counter-view to Clark's), or they simply do not care.

Brownback is a sychophant. He courts the female vote and is all-too-willing to 'overlook' facts and testimony which would countermand his political agenda. Sadly, he is not alone - and it happens at all levels of government (just look at the Duke case for a different, but salient example).

The simple facts are - we will NEVER receive a balanced hearing, until the numbers of us make enough noise to get the attention of the media and the politicos. Till then, we will be shat upon repeatedly.

Guess I am beginning to take it a bit personally. I don't usually respond that way - but the overwhelming weight of these ridiculous and intentionally misleading accounts which sully me, and Olya, and every one of us involved with a foreign wife - is just flat out insulting.

- Dan

[BC]

The "return and exchange"
concept is hilarious, although if anyone were to be
"thrown back" in this house, it's the guy in the mirror....

Yes, same here..  but I would not doubt for one minute.. wait.. one second that there are plenty of men who would (and do) buy right in to such a deal.  Isn't misuse of K1 exactly that? 

Dan, maybe in the future the liter-azzi will consult RWD
instead of glossy Maxim magazine. Then again, success
stories don't sell newspapers.

Yep.. as probably noted by our last 'drop out' researcher..  In a way, maybe we did make a small difference.

[BC]

Guess I am beginning to take it a bit personally. I don't usually respond that way - but the overwhelming weight of these ridiculous and intentionally misleading accounts which sully me, and Olya, and every one of us involved with a foreign wife - is just flat out insulting.

- Dan

The mere recognition of anomaly would indeed be a great reward.  When one really looks, they can find a rapidly growing bunch of guys and gals that are happily married, raising fine families regardless what goes on around us.  In many ways that's what keeps me here at RWD.

[jb]

Guess I am beginning to take it a bit personally. I don't usually respond that way - but the overwhelming weight of these ridiculous and intentionally misleading accounts which sully me, and Olya, and every one of us involved with a foreign wife - is just flat out insulting.

Why do you think I was all for banning the researchers as soon as they show us their true colors?  In Old Salem they burned the witches,,, while that option isn't available to us, banning the sob's is a possibility.

[Admin]

Why do you think I was all for banning the researchers as soon as they show us their true colors?  In Old Salem they burned the witches,,, while that option isn't available to us, banning the sob's is a possibility.

Burned at the stake - drawn and quartered - tarred and feathered - EVERYTHING is possible ... once we see "their true colors". 


- Dan

[BC]

Why do you think I was all for banning the researchers as soon as they show us their true colors?  In Old Salem they burned the witches,,, while that option isn't available to us, banning the sob's is a possibility.

jb,,, over a good many years I have learned that the only way to go forward is to present a 'best faith' effort.  It is more powerful than any ban that can ever be proclaimed.  I agree, incredibly slow, most unrewarding, but in the end it has never failed me.

[jb]

jb,,, over a good many years I have learned that the only way to go forward is to present a 'best faith' effort.

As I recall, also over the years, our "best faith efforts" have resulted in nothing but twisted half truths and outright lies.  These so-called "social researchers" are not here to learn.  I believe 2tallbill called it right.  There is a feminist agenda behind these research projects.  If we do not fit the criteria they want in order to display us in the Indle King mold, they move on.  Ada was a perfect example.  She was hot and heavy there for awhile.  We proved not titillating enough for her theme, she moved on to greener pastures.

I predict Jen will do the same.

[Admin]

As I recall, also over the years, our "best faith efforts" have resulted in nothing but twisted half truths and outright lies.  These so-called "social researchers" are not here to learn.  I believe 2tallbill called it right.  There is a feminist agenda behind these research projects.  If we do not fit the criteria they want in order to display us in the Indle King mold, they move on.  Ada was a perfect example.  She was hot and heavy there for awhile.  We proved not titillating enough for her theme, she moved on to greener pastures.

I predict Jen will do the same.

jb,

BC pointed it out earlier - and while not a resounding victory worthy of celebration - each and every time some researcher or journalist comes to RWD with preconceptions - and they leave quietly and without furthering the stereotype - we win a victory, albeit a quiet one.

I know of two recent instances in which journalists were seeking to develop a story (program) about the MOB scene. Both had the common sense to contact people 'in the know' - and after conducting interviews, they recognized that reality was vastly different from their initial preconceptions. Ultimately it resulted in no story/program being produced. The journalists could - to their credit - not overcome the intellectual dishonesty which would have been required to produce the programs according to their mistaken preconceptions.

Unfortunately, politicians seem to not suffer from a similar concern over intellectual dishonesty - and they forge ahead in spite of the obvious lies and distortions. That, now, is where the REAL danger lies.

The horse is out of the barn (or the genie is out of the bottle - pick your metaphor) - and I fear we have already begun down the slippery slope. It is not so much a concern for those of us whose wives have their green cards or citizenship - but because it is fundamentally WRONG, I cannot help but feel offended and incensed.

FWIW

- Dan

BTW - I am counting on Jen to stick around and deliver something worthy of her study and the fine people she is getting to know. It is not realistic to expect that she will be able to shatter the myths perpetuated by those with agendas over the past dozen or more years - but if it is (as I expect it will be) balanced and honest and a fair portrayal - then we have a 'stake in the ground' we can point to and use to defend against these outrageous attacks.

You and I and anyone interested in this topic needs to RUSH to buy a copy of the Nicole Constable book. Jen has asked ANY of us for our thoughts - and none have been offered. If we are not sufficiently interested (note to self) to read the book and comment - maybe we are not all that interested after all.

[jb]

It's true, politicians are a bad lot.  We can only dream of a government being run as efficiently as most major corporations are today.  Wouldn't you love to see the USCIS being run with the same caliber of service as FedEx or UPS?  Where you get your package processed and delivered on time or you get your money back...  I know,,, I know, I'm dreaming, but the technology is out there to do that.  Why can't some major changes be implemented?

Edit: Regards Nicole Constable's book, I'm in a little tiny Texas town, (Hillsboro), and I doubt there is a copy on a bookshelf anywhere in town.  Maybe I can get down to Austin one of these days and find one.

[Admin]

It's true, politicians are a bad lot.  We can only dream of a government being run as efficiently as most major corporations are today.  Wouldn't you love to see the USCIS being run with the same caliber of service as FedEx or UPS?  Where you get your package processed and delivered on time or you get your money back...  I know,,, I know, I'm dreaming, but the technology is out there to do that.  Why can't some major changes be implemented?

Edit: Regards Nicole Constable's book, I'm in a little tiny Texas town, (Hillsboro), and I doubt there is a copy on a bookshelf anywhere in town.  Maybe I can get down to Austin one of these days and find one.

The internet is a wonderful thing. There is even this little tiny company called Amazon.com which ships direct to your doorstep (or hotel room) almost anywhere in the world.

Just a thought.   

- Dan

[jb]

Funnily enough, I have an account with that tiny little company.   

[catzenmouse]

Here ya go...

Nicole Constable Search Results

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-4465191-8251368?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Nicole+Constable&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

[jb]

Thanks, Ken,

As if I didn't have enough on my plate right now...  I'm currently on a 60 square mile seismic shoot in the middle of nowhere, Texas, with over 700 landowners to appease, one of whom is a very greedy County Judge, some surveyors that I doubt can tell me where true north is, and a recording crew that doesn't habla English.  Now you guys tell me that because I'm married to one for 5 years, I now need to read a book written by someone who has no earthly idea what it's like to be married to a Russian woman, to explain to me my motivations for having married her.  OMG~!!

What's wrong with this picture?

[jen]

Hi guys,

Well here is something to tide you over in the meantime. This is a review that was published a few years ago in American Ethnologist, a prestigious journal for the anthropological profession in the U.S. This review nicely illustrates a few key thoughts that I had mentioned on another thread in response to some questions...namely, that Constable's book is written from a feminist perspective, and it critiques the usual, negative stereotypes of men who look for wives abroad. And it was well received in the academic world.  Obviously this doesn't substitute for reading the book oneself, and admittedly it is about Asian rather than FSU women. But I would argue that when it comes to public perceptions the issues are closely related. Anyway, this gives you an idea of what is in the book and whether you would like to read it.

j.


American Ethnologist Volume 31 Number 3 August 2004
posted August 2004

Book Reviews On-line

Romance on a Global Stage: Pen Pals, Virtual Ethnography, and "Mail Order" Marriages. Nicole Constable. University of California Press, 2003. x + 283pp. , notes, references, index

Gudrun Willett
University of Iowa

"In scholarly and popular images of “mail-order” marriages, abusive (white) U.S. men seek exploitable (often Asian) women abroad through the Internet. Nicole Constable not only disputes the veracity of this representation but she also critiques the underlying racial stereotypes and the political–economic context in which this image is found. Through ethnographic research (in person and online) of both men’s and women’s lives in China, the Philippines, and the United States, Constable shows that power and agency are not solely concentrated in either the U.S. men’s hands or the Asian women’s hands. She argues that this assumption reifies the long-standing stereotypes of Asian women as submissive and lacking agency or as hyperagentive dragon ladies conning their way into the United States. Ultimately, Constable draws out the mundane aspects of these relationships to show that they are no different than other marriages except in the emphasis put on them by immigration policies and stereotypes.

In her introduction, Constable defends her research of men’s experiences as well as women’s through appeals to recent feminist theory, which appreciates the ways power is mediated by class, race, and nationality rather than simply assuming “universal female subordination” (p. 5). Constable puts this approach into practice in her first chapter by dispelling stereotypes of controlling men and conniving or victim women through ethnographic vignettes, of two very different Chinese women seeking U.S. husbands and of a Filipina woman married to a U.S. man. Constable shows that none of the three women were desperate; they were not forced to correspond with or marry any particular man and were very particular in their choice of men. In her second chapter, Constable returns to discuss her online material of Asian American correspondence marriages (listservs, chat groups, websites, and cybercafes). She argues that connections made on the Internet “constitute new global communities, virtual communities that overlap and intertwine with those that are more face-to-face, supposedly more ‘real’ or more territorialized” (p. 33). Chapter 3 continues her critique of mail-order marriage stereotypes by connecting them to 1970s feminist views of marriage as a form of trafficking in women. She argues that this assumption is often applied to Third World women who may not conform to Western feminists’ notions of liberated lifestyles (i.e., they work in the home). Constable believes that even if U.S. men seek “traditional” marriages, they will not necessarily have all of the power in the family. In fact “both men and women … are subjected to other forms of power that at once restrict their options and offer new possibilities” (p. 67). In chapter 4, Constable contrasts scholarly analyses of marriage catalogs with the much less sexualized and more complex stories of two couples. Chapter 5 explores in greater detail the ways that both men and women are seeking romantic love within this “cultural logics of desire” (p. 119). Constable outlines the political–economic relationships between the United States and the Philippines and China to show how these contexts affect women’s and men’s attraction to each other. For instance, aid from a “nurturing Filipino doctor or nurse” while in the military might affect some U.S. men’s interest in Filipina brides (pp. 122, 127). In chapter 6, Constable again disputes the idea that women have no agency in the relationships by showing how many women are in fact marrying down or to their equal in class, education, or other attributes. Chapter 7 attacks the assumed superficiality of correspondence marriages in illustrating the many trials women and men must go through to live in the United States. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service positions itself to protect (white) U.S. men from dishonest Asian mail-order brides through interminable and demeaning bureaucracy. Constable situates this current policy in past, often racist, U.S. policies toward Asian immigrants. She concludes by arguing for a more positive view of these interethnic marriages as creating transnational connections between the United States and parts of Asia, as men and women, gifts and money travel back and forth (p. 216).

Although I wish that Constable had elaborated more on U.S. gender relations that could be influencing particular U.S. men to seek brides in the Philippines or China, I highly recommend this book as an engrossing and thought-provoking read. Altogether, it provides much needed ethnographic and analytic complexity to the subjects of trafficking in women, transnational marriages, migration, gender studies, and virtual ethnography."

[Khankrumthebulgar]

Here is the reality Ladies and Gents. Feminism is dead in the US if US Men continue to Marry Foreign Women at the rate they are now. Take the 12% last year, add to that the numbers of Men on the Marriage Strike which is about 24% according to Rutgers University. What is that about one third of the Men. Subtract those who are unemployed, disabled, in Jail, in Prison, on Drugs and what you have left is nil. This is the reason IMBRA exists. The Marriage Strike has seriously taken hold.

US Men are rejecting US Women except for Sport Sex or Friends with Benefits. Ten years ago Tom Leykis was a blip on the Radar. Now he is the #1 in the 18-34 demographic in Los Angeles. Glenn Sacks is syndicated, Marc Rudov is on Fox News and all over the country. Men are waking up to their viable options.

I have lived outside the US. My advice to young Men is live two years outside the US. Somewhere English is not spoken and Feminism is not ingrained in the Women. And judge for yourself. I know several US Business Men married to Eastern European Women. All are happy and have families.

[Misha]

Feminism is dead in the US if US Men continue to Marry Foreign Women at the rate they are now. Take the 12% last year, add to that the numbers of Men on the Marriage Strike which is about 24% according to Rutgers University.

Where does the 12% stat come from?