bigWOWO’s Rating System

you’re obviously entitled to your opinion but i strongly disagree with your “do not recommend” list. m. butterfly has a whole lot more depth than you’re giving it, and it’s unfortunate that the only message you seem to have gotten was that the asian guy lied about his gender. m. butterfly says so much about the ways that asian male bodies are politicized along racial but also gender lines. and it challenges us to refrain from assimilating into a hypermasculinist - and patriarchal - concept of the masculine gender. if more asian american male bloggers really took the time to engage with the text, maybe we’d see a lot less whining in the community.

Empowerment don’t come by lying about your gender and being a man ‘ho.

This is a classic quote. It would make a good bumper sticker.

jaehwan — your original comment suggests that there isn’t empowerment from lying about your gender or being a man ‘ho. i’m less interested in defending m. butterfly from the man ‘ho label because i’m hoping that you said it as a rhetoric exaggeration. however, i take issue with the way that you reduce m. butterfly’s performance/performativity (?) to just “lying about his gender” and i am probably operating with a different concept of empowerment. i do think that there’s worth in thinking about doing away with masculinity, and that’s what i think m. butterfly is so illustrative about. do we really know that m. butterfly identifies with the masculine gender (if we are only considering masc vs fem)? and even in this exchange so far, we are assuming that male bodies probably match or should be matched with a masculine gender.

i understand this desire to see asian male characters who aren’t exclusively or always feminized but even with that, i think the answer is less about seeing buffed up asian male characters than seeing a multiplicity of representations — which is obviously an issue of systemic oppression (how we do not have access or resources to offer diverse representations). in that sense, m. butterfly differs from many other representations of asian males because it isn’t just feminine. gender bending here is sorta new. and offer new possibilities for gender performance.

i do think that the ways in which many asian men gravitate toward what they consider to be “masculine” representations of asian males is often hypermasculinist/patriarchal because they inherently seek to assimilate into a particular image of masculine ideology and behavior that become oppressive in nature (see mt’s comment below). basically, there shouldn’t be anything inherently wrong about gender bending or even being a men ‘ho if the issue is about seeing more diverse representations of asian men. but this policing of what is acceptable as men can get pretty oppressive (certainly on a community-wide level).

(so maybe this is where we should divest from this aspirations to a particular image or set of images of “manhood” altogether? i do think that manhood can be anti-oppressive, but that’s not what i’m seeing from a lot of outspoken asian am. male bloggers/community figures.)

i think there’s a parallel here to the model minority conversation. we need to make room for those who ARE into math, who ARE fobs. shit, that is a real part of our community. we can’t just aspire to assimilated middle class bodies and seek out only those representations. to really dismantle oppression, we need to keep the bull’s eye in mind. and in this case, it’s not m. butterfly gender bending.

returning to the merits of m. butterfly and definitions of empowerment — i think part of why it is so widely taught is because m. butterfly isn’t entirely pigeonholed into a feminine role or gender performance. yes, m. butterfly performs as a woman but there’s a level of exercise in agency there that isn’t there for the way that many asian men in real life are racially and gender-wise politicized (which, hwang seems to suggest is inextricably tied). instead, m. butterfly exploits the way that race/gender are imposed onto the asian male body to further the east, which is actually not as powerless as gallimard takes the east for. i don’t know about you but beating someone at their own game sounds pretty empowering to me. it’s one definition. (but i also agree that m. butterfly comes to a difficult and uncertain place in negotiating gender in the end too, which may or may not be a good thing, so it gets pretty complicated)

mt — my sexual identity really doesn’t matter, but your readiness to assume i’m homo or gay (in whatever connotation) is straight up immature. you’re basically choosing not to engage with the actual content of my comment and instead, choosing to dismiss me along whatever identity you assume i am. way to rep yourself. i hope you’re not asian american, because you’d be a disappointment to the legacy.

toby,

Chill out! You don’t know me. I guess you haven’t been following long enough to recognize when my comments are meant to be sarcastic, or instigative, or just plain irreverent.

Like you said, “there shouldn’t be anything inherently wrong” with being a homosexual or uber gay in whatever connotation anyone means it to be. So why do you get all bent out of shape about it? So what is so bad if I think you to be homosexual or gay? Did I say anything bad about homosexuals themselves? Follow your own logic/ dont be so presumptuous or fuck off. Have a good day now.

Mona and toby:

There some parts where we agree, others where we disagree.

Here’s where we agree:

“i think there’s a parallel here to the model minority conversation. we need to make room for those who ARE into math, who ARE fobs. shit, that is a real part of our community.”

Agree, totally, which is why you see so many mentions of scientists like Shi Yigong and Steven Chu on this blog.

What we disagree on (or what I’m not communicating) is that I have no problem with “gender bending” as a topic of discussion. The problem is when that form of existence becomes a form of “empowerment,” which is something that the mainstream is trying to sell us right now. It’s what David Henry Hwang (who also produced such gems as “Golden Gate” and “The Lost Empire”…c’mon, you can’t tell me those were empowering!) tried to sell us–he’s certainly made lots of money from the mainstream by doing this. You don’t see this kind of faux “empowerment” for men of other races. You don’t see this kind of faux “empowerment” among our ancestors. And most men, regardless of race, wouldn’t see dressing as a woman and tricking a heterosexual man into having sex with them as a form of empowerment. Most men don’t want to be man ‘ho’s.

This has nothing to do with patriarchy. It has to do with dignity.

Let me use an analogy, and feel free to tell me if you disagree that this analogy is suitable. My unemployed friends Jack and Paul see an advertisement for a job. Jack wants to try to land the job, and so he starts working on his resume. Paul decides not to try, and he sits on the couch eating bon bons and watching TV, waiting for his girlfriend who pays the bills. Jack says that if he gets the job, he’d like to stay in it for life. Paul says he wants to watch TV for life. By taking a stance against expectations, toby and Mona, you’re saying that there’s no difference between Jack and Paul, that one lifestyle is no different from another, and both should be equally acceptable. In fact, the pressure I’m putting on Paul to apply for work might be construed as oppressive. We should promote Paul’s lifestyle because it’s more complete and real to see that people like Paul exist. I, on the other hand, acknowledge these Pauls exist, but I’m just saying that it shouldn’t be something we need to promote.

Is this correct?

jaehwan, i haven’t read golden gate and the lost empire, so i’m not totally sure i understand what you mean by how the mainstream has tried to sell us certain “forms of existence” as empowering. i see and agree that certain representations of asian males unfairly get more attention than others (such as one in which the asian male gender bends vs. another in which the asian male is more “dignified” as you suggest… or representations of asians as deeply tied to certain dynasty-era traditions vs. to contemporary ideas about modernity — am i making sense? am i going too far on a tangent?). but even so, i see the problem as the inability for the bigger structure to accept diverse ideas and representation rather than the problem being the specific ideas that do get attention or are more marketable. i don’t agree that we should discredit those ideas.

i don’t think empowerment is possible only when we genderbend, but i do think genderbending offers a new way of thinking about gender that may be empowering too. in a way, gender bending goes above this game of trying to derive dignity from a specific gender performance or identification. i don’t think this makes anyone less “dignified.”

also, on a more hilarious note, i just understood why you kept saying man ‘ho (and why i kept saying MEN ‘ho). initially i thought you meant a men’s ‘ho instead of a ‘ho who’s a man… mainly because i didn’t associate ‘ho with a specific gender.

anyway, i’m not sure if i understand your analogy. i think what you described as expectations is different from what i’m saying is an exclusionary commitment to a narrow idea of manhood. expecting oneself to get a job to become a dignified person is not analogous to expecting to see representations of male body matched to a specific masculine gender performance. i actually don’t think pressuring paul to apply for work is “oppressive,” which is a much stronger work. it may be intrusive on one level, maybe even imposing, but not oppressive. i mean part of being a “dignified” person is commonly understood to be contributing to your own well being and maybe those around you, right?

i agree with you — many str8 (i am insistent on that distinction) men don’t wanna dress as a woman or trick a str8 guy into having sex with them. but that’s also because many str8 (and even gay) men are committed to a specific ideology about being a man. including being maintaining a certain distance from and dis/non-identification with queerness (yes, including queer desires, like “dressing as a woman.” (i say queer because it isn’t just gay. gay is a simplified, close-but-not-perfect reference word for this broader concept of queer-ness.) like i was saying, m. butterfly is different because it challenges us to rethink that ready commitment to invest in masculinity, which can often get oppressive because it often entails dismissing genderbending and other ways that people do get empowered. m. butterfly challenges us to think about naturalized (though not necessarily natural) idea that male bodies need to be masculine. and to me, m. butterfly does not blindly or directly advocate for asian men to genderbend and to sleep with str8 white guys.

this question of what we should or should not be promoting gets messy. and frankly, unnecessary. i think it’s a false choice between genderbending and masculine. it’s both. all of the above.

monna, I think that in this case, jaehwan was simply reacting to the prevalence of a social stereotype that categorizes ALL Asian men as effeminate, as a racial/social class. What you are talking about is choices. jaehwan’s initial response was to toby’s idea of doing away with masculinity as a way to stop the “whining” within the AA male community.

Should feminism also be done away with? How about androgynism, do we really need that?

jaehwan, i agree that it’s not strictly a str8 vs. gay thing. it doesn’t neatly break down into “gay men are into gender subversion” and “str8 men are hypermasculinist.” but sexual identity has a place here, if considered along with gender. that’s why i said this:

“many str8 (i am insistent on that distinction) men don’t wanna dress as a woman or trick a str8 guy into having sex with them. but that’s also because many str8 (and even gay) men are committed to a specific ideology about being a man.”

being gay does not automatically mean that he will disavow masculinity but i think in many cases, being marginalized for being gay (or more appropriately, not str8) can mean choosing to divest from masculinity (especially when you can’t pass or want to pass for masculine). i brought up queerness (not a synonym for gayness) because queer desires (like gender bending) can be empowering for male bodies.

correct me if i’m wrong — it sounds clear to me now that you expect male bodies to be this socially constructed idea of a “man,” in all of its masculine connotation. and to feel dignified, you want to see more representations that demonstrate that. you think that male bodies inherently cannot “pretend to be a woman” — presumably because bodies (which many folks distinguish as sex) signify gender. am i right?

my opinion diverges in that actually, i don’t expect men (or male bodies) to “act like a man.” instead, i want male bodies to be more fluid with acting a certain gender. to burst gender norms. but unfortunately — and this is where we can agree — showing asian males exclusively as feminine isn’t really bursting gender norms as it is pigeonholing bodies into a specific norm.

in any case, i can respect that you want to see more “dignified” representations that counter the stereotype that king had described, that “ALL Asian men as effeminate, as a racial/social class.” but it’s worthwhile to unpack that some more. the reactions need to be clearer in responding to the ALL part, or the EFFEMINATE part — because that’s where the difference is between just trying to claim “dignity” via relevant representations (if you’re look for something else or different) and being hypermasculinist/oppressive about it (if “effeminate” is the problem). feminine representations of asian men aren’t wrong in themselves, right? (do u have a problem with so-called sissy boys? what about feminine gay men?) but the wrong lies with the systemic overload of them and only them.

what i’m most annoyed at is when asian male bloggers get so hung up on what they deem to be unpleasant representations (which are largely — and perhaps not-so-coincidentally — feminine representations) instead of trying to come up with more productive ideas of manhood within the community. if william hung is not manly, then what does this idea of “manly” look like? does it include enforcing all asian male bodies to be “masculine”? if so, then that’s wack. by now, we know enough to say that gender constructions are not inherent in nature, but are made to be more naturalized. like blue for boys, etc.

I agree with Leon, Toby. I think you’re seeing a negative where there isn’t one. Nobody here was saying that an individual guy can’t or shouldn’t choose to be feminine. But to say that all the guys of a certain ethnic group are ALL feminine, by nature of their ethnicity, is racist.

That is the point that everyone is making and that you and mona seem to be missing. In your effort to confront gender discrimination, you seem willing to dismiss ethnic discrimination.

Very well, toby, if you simply wanted more extrapolation of the point, then perhaps I was misunderstanding your intent. But I think that you can understand that most men gravitate toward masculine representations, just as most women gravitate toward feminine representations. That is the very definition of a heterosexual majority / homosexual minority dynamic. But add to that a social and media bias toward the feminization, or at least the androgynization of Asian men, (as an ethnic/gender grouping) and you can see that it tends to push even further into the valuation of that which is denied.

Whereas, I can respect your desire for precise language, I’m not sure that Jaehwans omission of forensic detail harms his basic arguments. After all, if we were absolutely precise in our language, this blog would read more like a legal brief and less like a conversation. The basic truth remains that feminizing ALL Asian guys (regardless of their individual and personal preferences) is not to dignify them. But I’m sure that agree.

Toby,

Thanks for adding this site to your blog reader. It takes some pressure off of me with regards to updates, and I try to encourage people to do it, but my blog reader numbers are still low. Ai! So thanks.

“if so, then that’s wack. by now, we know enough to say that gender constructions are not inherent in nature, but are made to be more naturalized.”

This second part of your statement is not true, at least not completely. In school, I was taught that that there is no difference between genders, but when you actually listen to the childrearing and medical experts speak from experience and science, you find out that it’s not true. Among these experts, it’s just about universally understood that boys and girls are different. This is why I always bring experts like Michael Gurian and Louann Brizendine into the conversation. The REASON a lot of our activists fail in their attempts to reorganize society is that they don’t account for these differences. They say “it’s all constructed,” and then they try to force people to fit into boxes that are unnatural.

(Yes, people who undergo sex changes because they’re naturally the wrong sex exist, but they are rare, and there are always exceptions. Not all men have penises either, but the statement that “men have penises” is generally accepted as true.)

So on to the other points you bring up…

Am I being imprecise or unspecific? I’m usually quite precise. I’m not always specific. So I’ll try to be more specific.

1. Frameworks 1 and 2

“All” is a strong word, and of course there are exceptions, but if we rounded up the numbers, it would be pretty close to “all.” So with framework 1 (”being annoyed at how ALL asian men are generalized”), I do agree with it, that is, I don’t like the way the media feminizes Asian men. See #2 Diversity below.

I don’t think I made any argument about framework (2) (”being annoyed at a SPECIFIC WAY that asian men are generalized”). All of my words had to do with how this specific way of generalization was framed. See #3 Morality below.

If I’m not being specific, it’s probably because I don’t agree with the viewpoint that you think I’m representing. It’s always been mostly moral, and some diversity. I’ll be more specific.

2. Diversity

I agree with King and Leon, Toby. You’re arguing for diversity, but it seems you’re going in the opposite direction. If I want to see effeminate, weak, sneaky Asian men, I don’t need M. Butterfly. I can always turn to the Joy Luck Club, to the Chinatown episodes on shows like CSI, and basically anywhere else in the media. What David Henry Hwang does differently is that he tries to sell effeminate behavior for men as empowerment. He tries to sell lying as empowerment. But the emasculation is still there.

We may actually agree on this. However, I’m not arguing against these representations per se, but my view is that it’s bad to have just one kind of representation. We’ve already got enough effeminate Asian men. After a while, as King points out, it becomes racism.

3. Morality

Most of my arguments on this thread have concerned morality. I brought up the example of a guy who sees sponging off his girlfriend. In hard work vs. laziness, we as a society tend to prefer one over another. You, Toby, seem to have the same value system as I do with regard to work. So why shouldn’t we promote good behavior for Asian men? Lying about your sex in order to trick a heterosexual man into sleeping with you? In the case of M. Butterly, Hwang promotes this as empowering. I consider that kind of behavior degrading, disgusting, and sick. It’s like slipping a roofie into a girl’s drink to get her to sleep with you.

It wasn’t even clear that the main character in M. Butterfly was naturally gay. In fact the opposite seemed true. This is the genderbending that bothers me, and this is where I was perhaps being unspecific. Most of the book was Song Liling jumping around saying “hahaha, look what I tricked you into doing.” He did this by bending his gender. This is why he debased himself. He bent his gender. It’s like saying, “men should not be men.” Perhaps it doesn’t necessarily have to be “male spirits in male bodies” unless we’re talking about diversity (above), but in the case of M. Butterfly, I don’t necessarily know if there’s a difference between bodies and spirits. So again, it’s not about gayness or queerness.

Keep in mind that it’s hard to be specific about issues about morality sometimes. Even in the case of talent (I can e-mail you the pw to my talent post if you like), issues sometimes become thorny over what is right and wrong. Jacob lied to Isaac by tricking him into believing Jacob was Esau, and that’s usually considered a good thing, even by people who study the Bible. But lying about your gender in order to trick another guy into bed? That’s sick, in my opinion, first of all, but to a greater point, it’s not moral, nor should it be promoted as such.

4. Art

I thought M. Butterfly sucked. It was absolutely artistically unsatisfying, unless the reader is:
a) Someone who considers Song’s act to be a form of empowerment
b) Someone who likes seeing effeminized Asian men.
c) Someone who sees puke on a canvas and likes it because it pushes boundaries

It was popular among some activists, some Asian women who take offense to Asian manhood, and lots of gay white male liberals who I’m sure would love to be tricked like that. I think it’s the influence of the latter that got Hwang a Tony award.

So hopefully this is a little more specific and addresses the points you brought up.

B,

I love your new rating system. This is great and I’m sure it will lead to bigger things.

“i mean, do you really think being more on point would turn the blog into a legal brief? really? seriously?

No, being on point wouldn’t, but overly precise language would. Of course, what is and isn’t “overly precise” may mean different things to different people. My basic point is that precision in communication comes at a cost, and at some point there are diminishing returns, based on what is to be communicated and to whom. Legal language is quite necessary in some arenas, but in others, that kind of precision and detail would do more to obscure the message than to clarify it.

All I’m saying is that any call for more detail, at some point, has to be weighed against the benefits of simplicity. We’re all walking a tightrope in that regard.

“did the examples i used to demonstrate frameworks (1) and (2) sound like legalese? i’m not asking for folks to become overly concerned with word choice, but i do think it’s important for folks to tease out exactly what they’re saying, to be aware of the connotations and weight of their words. this isn’t about being politically correct or censoring folks for the words they have on their mind. instead, i’m challenging us to do the opposite — to get those thoughts out and to really sit with them. it’s ultimately about really saying what you really mean and having a meaningful conversation with that.”

Fair enough. I guess I’m just saying that you can agree with a statement, and then add your own layer of insight to it (unless you disagree). It’s not necessary to think that the original assertion was incomplete or imprecise. You’re just taking the question to the next level, which is a choice.

Wow, just read all the insightful comments here…….

At first I was agreeing with Toby and Mona’s argument, but then when Jaehwan and Leon responded, I found myself agreeing with them more!

Ultimately, i agree with Jaehwan and Leon, Azn/AA society in white society is not at the stage where a diversity of “masculine” representations in white aka “mainstream ” media can be empowering, especially when that diversity consists of only white hetero male (racist) stereotypes of Asian men.

Toby and Mona have pretty good points, in a real post gender , post racial society i would agree with them. But for Azns living in white dominant societies, where we ARE oppressed, then Azns SHOULD develope oppositional cultures to what the white mainstream is trying to sell us. Sure, its addressing white peoples racism, and in a way , making us care bout what white people think (while also using a white frame work to place our value system) but we are AAs in white dominated societies, Azns who are oppressed anyway, our whole friggin identity is based on white peoples social construction. The word ASIAN itself didnt even exist until whites came along, and most people in “Asia” dont attach the same socio-cultural meaning to the word, only us Yellows in white dominated lands do so……..thats says alot about our identity right there.

Toby and Mona are like kind of like Asian Quakers in a room full of armed Stormfront militia men. While they have the “higher” moral ground and are righteous non violent, they are going to be culled, because they wont survive in a world thats not moral, not righteous or non violent……..

As an aside, Jaehwan is definitely not against gays or homosexuality(coz he told me so and i believe him), but mT i’m not so sure, lol…….(jokes, jokes haha)

Another film that will most likely deserve a “Do Not Recommend” rating:

“Hugh Jackman is set to star in Hollywood’s next White Knight-genre film. According to one movie site, “Set in 19th century remote China, Snow Flower and the Secret Fan revolves around the lifelong friendship of Lily and Snow Flower and their imprisonment by rigid cultural codes of conduct for women.” The film will be directed by Wayne Wang, a veteran of the White Knight genre after his pandering work The Joy Luck Club. The film is co-produced by Wendi Murdoch, who also acts in the film.

Based on the author’s own description of the book, it depicts illiterate women, whose feet were bound, isolated in single-window rooms. It also features physically abusive husbands. I’m not surprised to see on the author’s page list what the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote about her book: “With Snow Flower, See has written a novel that ranks with the best fiction of Amy Tan and Maxine Hong Kingston, the modern luminaries of Chinese storytelling.” Entertainment Weekly wrote, “You can relish See’s extraordinary fourth novel as a meticulously researched account of women’s lives in 19th-century China, where it is ‘better to have a dog than a daughter.’ (And where the girls’ feet are bound in a stomach-turning ritual that See describes with admirable precision and coolness).” Amy Tan and Maxine Hong Kingston rave about the book as well on the author’s page — no surprise there.”

http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/2010/02/some-aarelated-movie-news.html

Amy Tan, Maxine Hong Kingston, Lisa See, Wayne Wang and even Wendi Murdoch as an (snicker) actor in the film.

That’s a who’s who list of White Orientalism right there.

This flick sounds like predictable Hollywood trash to make White people and America feel oh-so superior as “saviors” of the benighted native.

It’s the White Boy’s Burden in all its pathetic “post-racial” delusion.