Since I’m starting to review Asian American works, I created a system to simplify it. See it here. My policy is to evaluate works based on their merit AND how they push our culture’s dialogue.
So examples of Asian American Gold would be:
Nami Mun’s Miles from Nowhere
Lac Su’s I Love Yous are for White People
Jamie Ford’s Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet
All three of these meet guidelines for enjoyability, artistic quality, and the ability to create positive, progressive dialogue. What I love most about Gold works is that they will enable future writers/artists to build on what these authors have created.
An example of a Silver rating would be:
Min Jin Lee’s (Min Jin, you broke my heart!) Free Food For Millionaires
Min Jin broke my heart by assigning all the masculine roles to White guys in her novel, and all the dorky, cardboard roles to Asian men (except for the Asian rapist–cuz every Asian American book needs one of those), yet there’s no denying that her book was interesting, hard to put down, and gave us something to talk about.
An example of a Bronze Rating would be:
Tze Chun’s Children of Invention (review forthcoming)
I spent money to see this movie, and I’m glad I did. Did it change my view of the world, and did it meet criteria for intellectual or artistic merit? Maybe, maybe not, but it was good enough to see Asian Americans in roles that I encourage people to support it.
An example of “Do Not Recommend” would be:
David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly
Empowerment don’t come by lying about your gender and being a man ‘ho.
If you have any questions or recommendations on this system, please share them here.
Related posts:
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.
Toby,
Thanks for your comment.
I think we’d be whining a lot less if we did away with the concept of masculinity, but I wonder if it would solve our problems. Wanting to see Asian male characters who don’t debase themselves by gender bending or becoming men ‘hos–is this hypermasculinist or patriarchical? Or is it simply the call of men who want to be treated and recognized as men?
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.
toby must be homosexual or just uber gay.
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.
jaehwan, i’d like to know–
what is “debasing” about gender bending? what does it mean to you to be “treated and recognized as men”?
wanting to see more representations of asian men as powerful and empowered (which i think is what you are saying) is perhaps not hypermasculinist or patriarchal… but what i’m getting from your response is that this desire has been strongly influenced by 1) an aversion to gender non-conformity and 2) an established notion of what ‘manhood’ and ‘masculinity’ should mean and represent. and what do both 1 and 2 have in common? they both stem from patriarchy.
i agree with toby. i’d love it if we, as a community, would stop trying to counteract stereotypes with so-called positive or oppositional representations of ourselves. let’s let go of that conversation (which seriously, isn’t even that subversive) and shift towards something more complete and real. because let’s face it–”positive” isn’t always real (and vice versa)… and it is definitely sometimes oppressive.
i mean, it’s usually the “men who want to be treated and recognized as men” who end up stepping all over my shit.
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.
mt, i’m just gonna be blunt: you’re not reading my comment carefully.
the thing is, i know your first comment like i know how to add. i know from seeing it used so many times before to discredit a person’s politics or argument by their identity. oh, you’re talking sexism b/c you’re a woman. oh, you’re talking about yellowface b/c you’re asian. oh you’re talking about disavowing masculinity b/c you’re gay. and because of that, the legitimacy in what i say is diminished. that’s like me projecting an asian male persona onto you. that act is so tired.
but let’s say you don’t even mean it. even if you used it just to spark some shock value (which i will refrain from expressing judgment about), even if you tapped into the meat or punchline of your first comment for the comical reference to gender and sexual norms, the comment was not communicated in a smart way. it wasn’t satirical. it wasn’t smart. it was as you say — instigative and irreverent. there’s a difference. and in that way, it was disrespectful. and continues this pattern (and i’d argue, culture) of obstructing productive discussions of sensitive and serious shit.
i can definitely appreciate satire and creative uses of language, but that original comment wasn’t any of that. instead, it was starting a script that would have seem ok to weigh what i had to less with less weight or legitimacy. marginalizing me on the spot. and yeah, i’m saying that was a script that comes from a patriarchal/hypermasculinist (perhaps i should tease the two out more) ideology that oppresses gender and sexual minorities/disempowered folks. so that’s why i refused to answer.
and just so we’re clear, you don’t have to talk to me like i’m red hot fuming. because i’m not. i’m just trying to start some real conversation and you proved to be a good example.
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?
toby, I am just going to be blunt. You’re an over-sensitive, self-absorbed dip shit that writes long multiple paragraphs in response to one line of 8 words someone said in jest on the interwebs to justify the imaginery battle with an imaginery enemy in your own little head.
You really need to appreciate simplicity and get over your own lofty sense of self and self imagind appreciation for satire and creative uses of language that somehow only you can be able to judge. Nothing you have said is original or new. I am aware as much as many here of what your points are. I actually agree with many of those points. It’s just that you suck at expressing it and suck even more at understanding the big picture. Case in point – you wasting your time with my one comment and not letting it go because you’re being an oversensitive, self contradicting snob who’s just done more to alienate than to compel any real conversation. So hats off to you for being so original and a great addition to the legacy of your own little world.
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.
jaehwan,
it seems to me that you want representations of asians that you can be proud of. what i want are enough diverse representations of experiences, so that every single asian figure does not need to somehow represent or promote anything about asianness. i mean, that’s the difficulty with being the Other, right? every little thing counts. white people don’t have to sit around talking about how they have to ‘promote’ positive images of themselves in literature and the media, because there is such a wide array of representation that those conversations don’t need to happen.
this doesn’t necessarily mean that i am satisfied with the realities of our lives and our community; if paul were my friend, i’d probably take issue with his lifestyle–of course i have big hopes and expectations for my communities–but if he were a character in a book or on a tv show, then i’m glad he’s playing a role that didn’t happen as a result of pigeonholing.
as for your note on dignity, i do still believe that your discomfort with the idea that gender bending can be empowering comes from patriarchal concepts of masculinity. (i’d like to note that i’m responding more to your comments than about m. butterfly itself). this notion that gender bending (for men) is in some way degrading or debasing makes me uncomfortable, because many men DO gender bend and find it empowering, and your statement that “most men” would not reveals a lot of assumptions you’ve already made about gender and sexuality, and that is what i wanted to call into question.
i mean, let’s be real–did you react as strongly to mulan passing as a man? or is that just a classic tale of heroism/survival? without getting into the nitty gritty details, how is the basic storyline much more different from m. butterfly? why is a man passing as a woman so much harder to swallow than the other way around? what does that say about our anxieties about masculinity?
again, this really, really, is not about your opinion on the play or the character. i just want to problematize some assumptions.
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?
King,
Exactly. And to be clear, it’s not a gay vs. straight thing either. It’s about dignity. It’s about standards. It’s about being able to protect and to aspire to masculine ideals. To be able to urge others to aspire to those ideals.
toby,
Golden Gate and Lost Empire are movies. Are you straight or gay? If you’re straight, maybe you’ll like both of those, since they feature half naked Asian women prancing around. (Yeah, even though it was racially insulting, I must admit that it was hard for me to take my eyes off Joan Chen.) I would’ve given Golden Gate a Bronze rating because of the attractiveness of the actress–it’s hard for anything with Joan Chen to score anything less. See the poster at the bottom of the page here:
http://posterbobs.com/services47.html
Lost Empire had Bai Ling playing the Buddhist deity Kwan Yin and falling in love with a White mortal. That David Henry Hwang! Even now I’m amazed by how low he stooped for a paycheck. You might call him a Stoop and Fetchit. Lost Empire would be a Don’t Recommend.
“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.”
It’s the same thing though with expectations. You expect a man to “act like a man.” Tell it like it is. Say it to me. Give me the whole story. Don’t pretend to be a woman if you’re not. Step up to the plate.
Hey, I’m cool with guys being gay. But most gay guys I know don’t see this as empowerment either. As one gay friend of mine said, “I’m a man. I just happen to be attracted to other men.” My friend is gay, but he steps up just as much as I do. He’s open.
So let’s not turn this into a hetero vs. gay thing. It’s not. It’s a dignity vs. lack of standards thing.
Mona,
You can diversify while placing values in ideas. What do you think about my Jack and Paul example? Would you say that the guy who chooses not to work is equal to the one who tries hard to fulfill his responsibilities? I’m fine with gender bending representations, the same way I’m fine with representations of people who lie (like M. Butterfly). But let’s not call that empowerment.
This paragraph explains our currently different viewpoints well:
“i mean, let’s be real–did you react as strongly to mulan passing as a man? or is that just a classic tale of heroism/survival? without getting into the nitty gritty details, how is the basic storyline much more different from m. butterfly? why is a man passing as a woman so much harder to swallow than the other way around? what does that say about our anxieties about masculinity?”
I didn’t react as strongly, and that’s because men and women are different. You could dress your little girl in slacks, but you will seriously mess up your son if you put him in a dress. A woman can wear a suit to a formal event; a guy can’t wear a dress. Girls go to the bathroom together, guys don’t. Women enter beauty pageants; guys don’t. (Well, not usually anyway.)
You see, while I understand the argument that we should eliminate gender differences, it doesn’t work in real life. Men and women are different. There’s a great book by Michael Gurian called “The Wonder of Boys.” I highly recommend it. It talks about the psychological damage that boys have gone through because so many people have tried to strip manhood of its meaning.
Your words seem to indicate that the world of gender differences is a place of oppression. I see it as a place of opportunity, a place where we can better understand who we are as people.
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.
Toby, you just don’t get it. Many of us Asian men get ‘hung up’ on feminine representations not because we think they’re wrong, it’s because they’re the only representations that we’re allowed to have. It’s not about straight or gay. It’s about balance and it’s about choices.
If a man wants to be more feminine, then more power to him. But Asians who wish to be more masculine should also have a choice to do so. But this is a luxury that is denied to us by the media and by the dominant white culture. By removing our masculine identity, we’re denied a piece of our humanity. And by using feminine stereotypes to reinforce this identity erasure, then these feminine representations are a form of oppression, not liberation from what you consider ‘traditional’ forms of masculinity.
As long as this imbalance is in place, then Asian men will continue to be treated as second class citizens, as less than men from other cultures. In this case, even if you identify as feminine, your dignity is taken from you because that ‘choice’ is the only one you have and not much of a choice at all. If you don’t let boys be boys, then how can you expect them to have respect and self-esteem if some of them chose to be girls?
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.
actually, i’m not missing anything, and neither is monna. from my perspective, monna was trying to problematize or deconstruct this willingness to gravitate toward masculine representations, not necessarily dismiss it. and i was trying to tease out the complex layers and connotations of the response from asian guys who respond to the systemic feminization of asian men. neither of us deny ethnic discrimination, as you call it. and it’s never a choice of one or the other. we’re just trying to challenge the response to be more specific and pointed, because it can get pretty messy (and that’s my softer term for oppressive along other axes of identity).
i thought i broke this down pretty clearly in my last comment:
“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).”
there’s difference between (1) being annoyed at how ALL asian men are generalized and (2) being annoyed at a SPECIFIC WAY that asian men are generalized (see, not necessarily the same thing for everyone). i was trying, in comment after comment, to move the conversation toward that, but it didn’t seem to be very successful because it seems like throwing gender analysis in there became hard to process and distracting for some. i really do think that (1) would call for a different response to things like m. butterfly from (2). with framework (1), the response might have been “i guess genderbending works for some, but i’m looking for more” (suggests a difference in multiplicity) as opposed to framework (2), which might be more like “excuse me but asian men are not sissies. we are bold macho men too” (suggests a difference in gender identification). i don’t think we necessarily disagree all that much, especially because we all seem to value self-determination. if that’s the case, then let’s not attack the specific ways that asian males determine themselves (even if it means gender bending and being a ‘ho) and rather, let’s attack the lack of space for asian males to determine themselves in non-feminine ways.
i don’t think what jaehwan had to say about m. butterfly is necessarily or entirely negative, but i think as we peel through the layers of the comment, it can get pretty negative (king, as you say, not along ethnic lines, but along gender lines).
again, and for the last time, i’m basically saying that instead of rallying against feminine representations and advocating for masculine ones, maybe we should unite in advocating for diverse representations so we don’t just blindly substitute one narrow or extreme representation (feminine asian men) for another (macho asian men). instead, let’s make room for both and all that’s in between.
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.
king –
frankly, at this point, the conversation has evolved a lot from the original intent. initially, i wanted to defend m. butterfly from jaehwan’s dismissal because i didn’t find the gender politics of m. butterfly to be problematic (again, as a singular representation). i was trying to say that m. butterfly tries to burst gender norms by dissociating gender (masculinity) from sex (male body). in my reading (as well as the reading from many academics, it seems), it does not reinforce feminine norms imposed onto asian males at all. instead, m. butterfly queers the whole concept of gender altogether.
i was getting a push-back from jaehwan that wanting to see representations of asian men as this socially constructed idea of a man is not hypermasculinist, but rather, is just about claiming dignity. that’s when i asserted this distinction between frameworks (1) and (2). jaehwan claims he’s cool with gender bending and gay folks (i’m assuming this includes gay folks who derive empowerment from gender bending) but his reaction to m. butterfly sounds like a mix of (1) and (2), with a little more emphasis on (2). and i was saying that (1) is okay, but (2) can get pretty oppressive. so maybe we can do without (2)
i still think this is an extremely important distinction to make, for the reasons i outlined above. this is not an issue of minor omission. and i think you’re underestimating the power of imprecise language and the loaded meanings they give to oppressive ideologies.
i mean, do you really think being more on point would turn the blog into a legal brief? really? seriously? 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.
if you’re really mad about the number of ways that asian men are represented, then say that. if you’re mad about a specific way that asian men are represented, then say that. but let’s not say one thing and then claim to say another. they’re similar, but they’re not synonymous. clarity is necessary here.
on top of all this, let’s not forget what this blog claims to embody. the subtitle of the blog is: “asian american activism and intellectualism.” it’s the reason why i added this blog to my google reader, and it’s the reason why i want to challenge the content — to live up to its name. asian american activism to me is more than a superficial critique of media representation. it should get to the core of challenging ideologies. i think everything that i’ve raised falls in line with that.
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.
it’s still pretty clear to me that you’re not understanding everything that i’m saying, because you repeat points without incorporating the points i raise (why you don’t like m. butterfly is still jumbled). you seem to have trouble trying to destabilize/de-essentialize identities as a way to critique ideologies. i fundamentally disagree with you that song was lying about “his” gender, let alone tricking a str8 guy into bed (talk about judgments based on wack assumptions). and you bring in all these humorous things about gay folks (like how they might want to sleep with a str8 guy or engage in powered sexual relations) in this really serious way that just pathologizes (not in a scientific way) them. nothing you described even closely fits my points/views. i mean, i think you need to be less uptight about the ways that people read these texts. not everyone reads the text in the 3 or 4 ways that you can name. in fact, it may not even be this question of if it was satisfying or unsatisfying. i say this because i have espoused your views in the past but going to college and getting those analytical thinking skills gave me the tools to read the text in ways that we’re not acknowledging here.
i’ve been sorta holding myself back but seriously everything you’re saying about morality, dignity, and “this isn’t a gay vs. str8 thing” is pretty asian american studies 101. it’s a rehashing of initial reactions without going deeper into the assumptions. you are just so sure that guys need to be guys (in whatever ways that can mean) and you don’t seem to want to at least entertain what else things can mean or be. i just don’t think the analytical frame here is broad enough.
frankly, the stuff you’re advocating sounds a lot more like right-wing calls to ban gay marriage and abortion (this byproduct freak-labeling). the cultural politics question here is not necessarily or only about what you think or what you think other people think or what you want for yourself and therefore others, but the room we make for ideas and differences, for different ways of being. i think you’re underestimating the ways that you privilege certain ideas and marginalizing others. and i don’t mean privilege as in value or espouse. it’s deeper. it’s connected to a broader structure of ideologies that break down normal and otherwise.
and let’s drop this employment parallel because i don’t think it works. i get that at the core there’s this shared thought about having aspirations or whatever but the “analogy” is not analogous.
sex does not equate gender & that’s really a consequential thought. i would like you to really sit with that, especially because you’re a daddy. this isn’t meant to be insulting at all, but i do want to say that i hope for the sake of empowering (really empowering, not just assimilating them into blindly accepted norms) your own children, that you really make room for the different ways that people experience things and grow. it’s fine that you have (in my mind, limited) ideas about gender and sexuality, but i hope you’ll keep an open mind for your children. as someone with a father who probably agrees with what you have said, i’m often disappointed by his limitations in thought.
ok this is seriously my last comment. thanks for the exercise. i hope it’s been meaningful.
B,
I love your new rating system. This is great and I’m sure it will lead to bigger things.
TMM,
Thanks! I look forward to reviewing more stuff in the future. Glad that I now have a system.
Toby,
“i say this because i have espoused your views in the past but going to college and getting those analytical thinking skills gave me the tools to read the text in ways that we’re not acknowledging here.”
If you’re locked in a psycho ward, how do you prove you’re sane? If you’re less educated than someone else, how do you prove your opinions are not based on a lack of education? Assuming I’m less educated, I guess this is my challenge.
In this case, I’d just look at how the rest of the world reacted. Immediately following the publication of M. Butterfly, did White people jump at the idea of sneaky genderbending for revenge? Did black people? For that matter, did Asian people? No, no, and no.
So I guess I’ll just have to join the populists and say that I personally do not like the stereotypes that the Asian American elite with their White liberal friends place on Asian men. Maybe these Amy Tans, Maxine Hong Kingstons, and David Henry Hwangs in their ivory towers think that Asian men should be comfortable playing the sneaky, inscrutable, genderbending pseudo-men. I’m not buying it though. Song Liling would not be a hero in my book. His character also isn’t appealing to me.
“frankly, the stuff you’re advocating sounds a lot more like right-wing calls to ban gay marriage and abortion (this byproduct freak-labeling). the cultural politics question here is not necessarily or only about what you think or what you think other people think or what you want for yourself and therefore others, but the room we make for ideas and differences, for different ways of being.”
Wow. Advocating for men to conduct themselves with dignity sounds like a right-wing call to ban gay marriage and abortion? It’s hard for me to see how this ties in with homophobia. It’s even harder for me to see how this is anti-abortion. I think liberals and conservatives alike put labels and categorize ideas. I don’t think there is anything wrong with doing so, unless the labels are incorrect.
By the way, speaking of daddyhood and gender, my son had to pee today at the store, so I took him to the men’s room, not the women’s room, and not the “it” room.
Anyway, I do appreciate your comments, toby. I respect your viewpoints, even if I don’t agree with them. Thank you for sharing.
“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.
Actually, I’d like to thank two books “Free Food for Millionaires” and “China Dolls” for finally making a decision to not support any type of “art” where the creator is an Asian or Asian American women.
These two novels also proved to me that as long as Asian women aren’t oppressed, they’re fine with suppressing and stereotyping Asian men.
It’s about as self serving as one can possibly be. This is why I donate to any type of charity program where I know Asian women will not benefit in *any* way.
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)
You know something. I am not being given any credit for being the first to call bullshit. And I didn’t have to write a thesis to cut through the meat. I called it like it is with a lot less verbal jousting, a lot less know it all-ism, and a little more honest vulgarity. There is beauty in brevity. God, I am awesome. Fuck you all for your imprecise perfection! Good night.
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.
Okay, I just read a synopsis of Snow Flower:
http://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm?book_number=1615
How is it possible to put a Hugh Jackman character into this synopsis? Oi. I guess when there’s a will, there’s a way. It is amazing how bold these Orientalists are.