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.

“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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.