Russian girls take it to an other level...

[Silent Hunter]

3. The portrayal of Russian women as prostitutes and/or femme fatales, particularly in Western media (cf. The Baroness from GI Joe, Xenia Onatopp from GoldenEye), is certainly worthy of further discussion. No, it doesn't need pictures.

It's interesting that there was an opposite portrayal in US media during the Cold war, with Russian women depicted as masculine and ugly. At least according to TV tropes.

I created that article.

The point of change seems to have been 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me.

[Silent Hunter]

For the record, I am against totalitarian states and the end of communism was a good thing for freedom and liberty.  In any case it was probably inevitable. It's the way that the transition has been carried out in many of those countries that I'm arguing brought misery to so many people.

I can certainly agree with that.

[GMantis]

3. The portrayal of Russian women as prostitutes and/or femme fatales, particularly in Western media (cf. The Baroness from GI Joe, Xenia Onatopp from GoldenEye), is certainly worthy of further discussion. No, it doesn't need pictures.

It's interesting that there was an opposite portrayal in US media during the Cold war, with Russian women depicted as masculine and ugly. At least according to TV tropes.

I created that article.

The point of change seems to have been 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me.

Though the old stereotype didn't go entirely away until the 90's, with the arrival of mail-order brides, as this ad suggests.

[Gustaf]

The way you phrased it conveyed an impression of very few states getting better. It seems to me that most of the European ones are a lot better off.

I guess Belarus might be the least reformed one. How good are they doing?

I'm sorry if I was too harsh. I certainly didn't mean to strawman. I agree that the transition has been poorly executed in many states, including Russia. I'm always wary of people who claim that certain societies are better, while avoiding those societies themselves.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This discussion reminds me of something else; slums and tower blocks.

[GMantis]

The way you phrased it conveyed an impression of very few states getting better. It seems to me that most of the European ones are a lot better off.

Most central European ones are, though many of them have very high immigration rates, which is not usually the sign of very healthy societies.

I guess Belarus might be the least reformed one. How good are they doing?

Belarus was rather poor to begin with and with the country not very open, it's difficult to measure changes. It certainly seems to be a bit drab, like the Soviet Union in former times. On the other hand, I have an acquittance (yes, I know that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much) of mixed Bulgarian and Belorussian ancestry who has lived in both countries and according to her, in Belarus living standards are notably higher than here. Particularly notable was the lower unemployment.

I'm always wary of people who claim that certain societies are better, while avoiding those societies themselves.

Well, it would be rather hard not to avoid them, considering that they stopped existing nearly 20 years ago

[GMantis]

This discussion reminds me of something else; slums and tower blocks.

Interestingly, slums are not associated nearly as strongly with tower blocks in Eastern Europe, as they are in Western Europe and the United States. The main reason is that not only the working class, but most of the middle class lived (and still lives) there. Also, most people tend to own their apartments (less so in the Soviet Union, but the trend is going in this direction as well) and so had an incentive to keep up their blocks. From what I understand, most inhabitants of tower blocks in Western Europe and the United States don't own their apartments and therefore are not very careful with the buildings.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interestingly, slums are not associated nearly as strongly with tower blocks in Eastern Europe, as they are in Western Europe and the United States. The main reason is that not only the working class, but most of the middle class lived (and still lives) there. Also, most people tend to own their apartments (less so in the Soviet Union, but the trend is going in this direction as well) and so had an incentive to keep up their blocks. From what I understand, most inhabitants of tower blocks in Western Europe and the United States don't own their apartments and therefore are not very careful with the buildings.

Ah, no; that's not what I was getting at

It reminds me of the discussions that sometimes come up when post-war slum clearance and re-housing programmes are mentioned; people insisting that however bad the old slums were, at least they had a sense of community, etc, etc, and people insisting that, however bad system-built tower blocks and the like are, they're infinitely better than the old slums as at least they actually have adequate sanitation, etc, etc. The point being that second group in any discussion is usually made up of people who either knew/lived in the slums or who know what they were actually like from other sources (photographs, descriptions, statistics).

[GMantis]

Interestingly, slums are not associated nearly as strongly with tower blocks in Eastern Europe, as they are in Western Europe and the United States. The main reason is that not only the working class, but most of the middle class lived (and still lives) there. Also, most people tend to own their apartments (less so in the Soviet Union, but the trend is going in this direction as well) and so had an incentive to keep up their blocks. From what I understand, most inhabitants of tower blocks in Western Europe and the United States don't own their apartments and therefore are not very careful with the buildings.

Ah, no; that's not what I was getting at

It reminds me of the discussions that sometimes come up when post-war slum clearance and re-housing programmes are mentioned; people insisting that however bad the old slums were, at least they had a sense of community, etc, etc, and people insisting that, however bad system-built tower blocks and the like are, they're infinitely better than the old slums as at least they actually have adequate sanitation, etc, etc. The point being that second group in any discussion is usually made up of people who either knew/lived in the slums or who know what they were actually like from other sources (photographs, descriptions, statistics).

In discussion about life during communist times and after that, it's usually the other way around. For example, older people predominate in the first group and younger people (who often didn't live through those times) predominate in the second group.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In discussion about life during communist times and after that, it's usually the other way around. For example, older people predominate in the first group and younger people (who often didn't live through those times) predominate in the second group.

But in this case it's the other way round; otherwise the comparison would never have occurred to me

[GMantis]

In discussion about life during communist times and after that, it's usually the other way around. For example, older people predominate in the first group and younger people (who often didn't live through those times) predominate in the second group.

But in this case it's the other way round; otherwise the comparison would never have occurred to me

I see what you mean, but while I don't have memories from that time, I certainly have information from photographs, descriptions and statistics, so I think I can at least be included in group 1.5

[k-onmmunist]

Free markets: Delivering corruption, prostitution and inefficiency to the consumer since the 18th century!