Hai Nguyen with her husband John after divorcing her supposedly sexist Vietnamese American ex-husband Greg
King posted this article in the FlashForward thread. He was posting it to say something about interracial relationships among African Americans, but the story I caught from the article was this one:
Hai Nguyen, 37, of Houston recalls the instant connection she felt after meeting her first Vietnamese boyfriend, Greg, in college. Nguyen says while she had to explain herself to white boyfriends, with Greg it was a feeling that “he so gets me, because we eat the same food, we like the same things, our families know each other and there is so little that needs to be said.”
With the enthusiastic support of her parents, she and Greg married. But their connection soon began to fade, due partly to Nguyen’s budding career as a business analyst, which clashed with more traditional expectations for her to “always have fresh food on the table.” The two divorced and Nguyen is now remarried to Jon, who is white.
“My parents have prejudices, but they’ve accepted it,” said Nguyen. She described occasionally feeling different with her parents and other single-race couples. “They know it’s inevitable. My native tongue will eventually fade, and history will take its course.”
I’m sorry, sister, but that’s totally uncool. Totally uncool. You have a bad divorce, and you use it not just to talk smack about your ex-husband, but you use it to talk smack about his “traditional” culture? I’ve met many White guys who marry Asian women and expect them to cook. I’ve met many White guys who marry White women and expect them to cook. But somehow, a White guy is free to screw up and be treated as an individual, while an Asian guy who does the exact same thing sees his entire ethnicity tarred and feathered. Even within his own culture, people refuse to see an Asian man as an individual. Talk about throwin’ a brother under the bus.
And to the author Hope Yen: Why not give equality a “yen” of “hope” by letting “Greg” address these horrible accusations? If a black man had slammed black women a la Wesley Snipes, there’d be hell to pay. But when an Asian woman does the same thing a la Amy Tan or Maxine Hong Kingston, the media treats it as something perfectly normal. Talk about using the media to kick a brother…nay, all brothers…while we’re down!
I can’t believe this nonsense is still going on in the 21st century. We need to be building bridges, not attacking the powerless among us.
Rescued by a White knight from traditional Asian sexism
Edit: pics from here.
Related posts:
There is so much hyperbole in this rant that I have trouble knowing even where to begin.
A reporter interviewed Nguyen and took sound bites for an article about interracial relationships in the US. Thus, much of the context of Nguyen’s situation was lost and snippets were told in second person through paraphrase. The reporter was trying to show how one person had difficulty navigating between two cultures.
The reporter used the word “traditional,” which applies to all races, so it suggests Nguyen found a white dude who wasn’t “traditional” and doesn’t get a free pass. Further, us Vietnamese folks are generally insular and don’t marry outside of our race as much as other Asians. So it’s like a whole bunch of “traditional” conservative white folks that belong to the same congregation, do their own thing, and enforce a bunch of customs that don’t mesh with American customs at large. White Mormons don’t get a free pass for being traditional, and so shouldn’t Viet dudes who don’t treat their women in a way that jives with the general values and messages that we live by in the US.
I hear complaints from Asian women all the time about how other “traditional” Asian dudes expect all this pampering but white dudes just don’t get why one should bend over backwards for their families. And this refrain comes from chicks who think feminists are annoying. It simply shows the difficulty in bridging two different worlds. Look at how female African American professionals are marrying outside of their race.
I don’t care what race you are. Yellow, brown, black, white or red. Many traditions from all cultures carry patriarchal messages. If you’re living in a non-traditional world and expect everyone else to think like you, you gotta convert others instead of preaching to the choir.
I believe that the woman in this article did not say that out of maliciousness but the notion of her use of “traditional” applied to men in general, not specifically AM, is incorrect.
The reason why is because even though you and I acknowledge that men of all races harbor that “traditional” attitude, others don’t see it that way. Western society sees themselves as individuals, not stereotypes, which they have applied to AMs. We already have that stigma attached to us. Now, it matters not because most of the time, perception becomes reality.
This is yet another tiresome “Let’s throw Asian men under the bus for their traditional values, lack of understanding of women and place white men on a pedestal” article.
Yo Jaehwan,
I say you write this slandering bitch of reporter an email asking why she (yes I’m assuming Hope is a female) produced an article that is so one-sided and biased. In fact, I want to hear her response as to why she didn’t even try to get Greg’s half of the story and post that shit on here.
You have a solid readership so perhaps she’ll entertain your request.
Ah…the ol’ White Knight Syndrome. Because, we all know, white men can do no wrong. I wonder when these AF being up the subject of sexism, they realize what kind of patriarchy they suffer under in this country. There must be a lot of Asian male senators, CEOs, presidents, police chiefs, media anchors, writers and lawyers keeping them down. Damn, Asian guys, give your sisters a break! Quit having such a stranglehold on western society!
To add more fuel to the fire: check out Apple Computer homepage right now if you know what I mean.
Here’s website that talks about Apple Computer’s reputation with WM/AF advertisements.
http://www.bprlive.org/2009/11/29/apple-ads-with-asian-american-women/
You might have to reload Apple.com homepage to get the picture.
It does seem weird.
Is that two Asian chicks both with White guys, back to back?
http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/facetime.html#facetime-video
Robert and King,
That’s definitely a two-fer. Wow. Two in one video no less, and back to back. Believe it or not, I actually do know an Asian guy or two who owns an I-Phone.
Thomas,
Thanks for your comment! I see your point, but I agree with urb4n. I don’t think she was trying to be malicious, but with the power of the media combined with Orientalism, it once again stigmatizes us. Here’s why:
Virtually all traditional cultures are sexist, but that wasn’t how this journalist presented it. Hope Yen (man, that name is ironic!) wrote it as a comparison. First there was Hai dating White guys, but then she meets a Vietnamese guy who eats the same food as she does (you gotta love the silly straw men that some writers propose for dating Asian), and then she finds out that he’s too “traditional,” and then once again her parents have their “prejudices.” That “traditional” tag always gets put on Asian guys and Asian culture. I don’t think you can look at it outside of its racial context, and quite honestly, the story seems to focus in on it as a selling point, the same old Orientalist dichotomy between the backward East and progressive West.
Did you see the White version of the “fresh food on the table” story?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/business/worldbusiness/13iht-workcol14.4.7104116.html?_r=1
Notice that not once do they use the term “traditional.” Why? Because White men get individualistic portrayals. They’re already seen as beyond living within a traditional, stifling culture. The media treats them as strong men rather than traditional sexist automatons.
We saw something similar in the days after Katrina. Black men, according to the media, were “looting,” while White people were “finding.”
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teachable_moments/katrina_2_photo.cfm
On a side note, I was thinking last night about how or what a reporter might ask me that would cause me to publicly point the finger at my spouse after a divorce. For example, no one knows why Tipper and Al are splitting; they’re pretty mum about it. That’s usually the way it is. So what got Hai to speak? I understand that reporters sometimes don’t tell the full story, but I find it strange that Hai or any divorce person would publicly tell the media any reason why she and her husband divorced, let alone pin it on “traditional” culture.
See, that’s one of the things I really hate about Asian Americans.
They sit there and try to believe that people are naturally good and all the bad things that white society places on them is mere coincidence and that there is no ulterior motive and agenda.
Suffice to say, they’re either stupid, willfully ignorant, or have no social spider senses.
Thomas’ post up top is proof of that.
“Oh, the reporter meant to say this but it came out wrong. We know all Asian men are unique people. White people know that too and I am sure that if the reporter was told, she would amend the story and get it re-posted the next day to reflect that.”
I mean, seriously? That’s my next focus. Is there a reason why Asian people think this way?
Urb4n: I was not trying to defend the reporter. Just merely stating how most reporters operate. (BTW, slander and libel are two different things). Chances are that she wasn’t trying to be malevolent and is probably ignorant of how her portrayal stereotypes Asian American males. I wasn’t clear in my first comment, but my general observation is that most of the views here just sound like whining and that you’d be lucky to even get the reporter to understand your perspective, let alone elicit a thoughtful response.
You can’t dismiss the media’s portrayal as simply a white conspiracy to emasculate Asian guys. It’s based on reality. We need to address the issues with a clear head. What is it that’s driving these stories? Look at this study about South Asian women in Manchester, UK: http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=112606053224
Similar pressures exist in other Asian cultures. A better way to frame our story is that Asians are very family oriented and many of us listen to our parents, often to a fault when coming from the individualistic Western perspective. There’s a lot of drama that happens. For example, a wife that wants to continue working after having babies may have to deal with grief from her mother in law. We all know what happens when two women get into it. They’ll employ every damn tactic and try to guilt the guy by calling him a bad husband or a bad son.
We need a more thoughtful an nuanced response than “OMG KINGSTON HATES ASIANS AND THINKS WHITES ARE BETTER.” These views come from a multicultural struggle and we can only enlist supporters if we learn to tell our own stories without ripping each others’ heads off.
Wait, I thought one of the main reasons why white men have all this yellow fever is they prefer the more “traditional” Asian women. You know, the docile house wives who take care of the kids and the house and give their husband a foot massage when he returns from a hard day at work.
Since white women have become too individualistic and ambitious and now dares to compete against the men in the business world, those men look to the timeless exotic east where the women remember their place and serve their husbands with respect. Seriously, just look up those white rice chasers on the internet and you’ll find their commentary along these lines. Ah….more irony.
Hi B! Sorry I haven’t been around much and it looks like I’ve missed out on much of this IR debate.
As for the story, this woman bottomline (regardless of malevolent intent or not) should NOT have dissed her own culture like that. She can spite her husband as an individual, but not culturally. She has no right to attack the entire culture (especially that of her own!)
And what I hate most is that last quote: “My native tongue will eventually fade, and history will take its course.” Is she willingly and intentionally going to allow her native tongue/entire culture to disappear like that? For shame I say.
Well what are you a/m going to do if Asian women desire white men? You can either date out or keep quite. Shhhhhhhhhhh BTW, most of us ww prefer you guys to have a good education and money to back it up.
Hey Winnie,
Long time no hear! Awesome to see you back! Hope things are going well. I definitely agree with you.
I wonder if they just picked the first woman willing to shame her culture. It can’t be coincidence that the media does this again and again and again.
Thomas,
You wrote:
So do we agree that the reporter stereotyped us? And do you agree with urb4n that it makes no sense to look at this in a cultural vacuum because perceptions are interlinked with preconceptions that society has regarding people of certain races? Your use of the word “ignorant,” I’m guessing, acknowledges that there is some kind of absence of knowledge on the reporter’s part, and that it wasn’t just a coincidence that once again when discussing Asian culture, someone pinned the tail on the Asian male.
Next step: do you agree that if someone is racist or perpetuates racial stereotypes, even if based on ignorance, is in the wrong? If I approach a black person or a Jew and call them by a racial slur, aren’t I still in the wrong?
If so, then I think it’s fair to say that Ms. Hope Yen and Ms. Hai Nguyen are in the wrong.
(For the record, I understand how reporters sometimes look for a story. But I think it’s likely that Hai gave Hope ammunition. Reporters rarely just make things up. For me personally, if someone asked me that question, I would repeat “no comment” three times just to make sure I was heard.)
Frank Chin was the first person to raise the question of the Asian American media and how it emasculates Asian men. He did this forty years ago. When he spoke, people wanted to look for a more “nuanced” approach. It was clear that Kingston including blatant historical and linguistic untruths in her work, but in the early 70′s people wanted to believe that truth was relative. So they searched for more nuance. They looked for little insignificant reasons not to take action or to offend people. They turned away from the main issues. And in the end, they got nowhere. The Asian American female suicide rate is through the roof, and Asian men still face emasculation and hidden anger. It makes sense, given that we didn’t act.
Contrast that to Martin Luther King who said that Jim Crowe had to end now. His book was called “Why We Can’t Wait.” Note the urgency in his tone. Malcolm X talked about taking one’s freedom. These social movers decided on action. Both men were extremely well read, but each had a point where he knew he had enough information to act, to speak. And then they did.
So you see, while I take an intellectual approach before acting–I read lots, debate lots, etc.–I think there’s a point where you have to just say that enough is enough. Call it as you see it. Raise the bar. Enough hand holding. I believe that if you speak the truth, good people will follow. The ignorant will remain ignorant, but that’s always the way it’s been.
Yes, we know slander is spoken while libel is written defamation. I’m not even sure why you needed to point that out.
Asian America is fundamentally broken in a very specific way and we’re simply debating one specific point. No one is whining; a term I dislike greatly because it’s used to trivialize the concerns of others and make them fearful of speaking out. It implies that we’re complaining without looking for a solution.
I am all for self improvement but the problem lies in the fact that your example is a distraction of the topic we’re talking about. We’re talking about the emasculation of AM in North American society and the hand AFs play in it, not the suicide rates of AFs.
Changing yourself is a priority. However, constantly pushing the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” argument all the time gets old fast.
I presume that Ngo pointed it out in response to MaSir’s comment, “I say you write this slandering b*tch of reporter an email.” Ngo writes like he writes for a living, which may explain why he is interested in precision of language. That’s all.
Smacks a little of:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm
So you see, while I take an intellectual approach before acting–I read lots, debate lots, etc.–I think there’s a point where you have to just say that enough is enough. Call it as you see it. Raise the bar. Enough hand holding. I believe that if you speak the truth, good people will follow. The ignorant will remain ignorant, but that’s always the way it’s been.
NOW, you’re talking my language.
From the crucible of existential angst, we shall emerge forth with a new synthesis.
With the enthusiastic support of her parents, she and Greg married. But their connection soon began to fade, due partly to Nguyen’s budding career as a business analyst, which clashed with more traditional expectations for her to “always have fresh food on the table.” The two divorced and Nguyen is now remarried to Jon, who is white.
Joy Luck Club feminism. We’ve all seen it. Nothing new here.
Sexism is directly proportional to reverse-sexism. You hear a lot about sexism. But you don’t much hear about reverse-sexism. I have come across many Asian girls who said that they only want a man who is super rich, and he is supposed to “take care of everything”, including providing material comfort and shelter for her aging parents.
Furthermore, Asian traditionalism is reinforced mostly by other Asian women. In Korean dramas, the mother-in-law is an oppressive tyrant who makes the life of the daughter-in-law miserable.
If you’re an Asian guy dating a non-Asian woman, Asian girls will say to you “wouldn’t you rather prefer a more traditional girl who’d make a better wife?” By “traditional girl” they mean “Asian”. Your own mother will also say things like that.
My husband’s reaction to the article made me chuckle. I have to share. He said, “She [Nguyen] might’ve been expected to have fresh food on the table, but if an armed robber broke into the house, who’s the one expected to stand up and take the bullet for the family? Just asking. Heck, let’s not even go overboard with the hypotheticals. ::Hubby smirks and gives me the eyes:: Who’s the one expected to kill the spider when one such critter finds its way into the bathtub? If a stranger bangs on the front door at a very late evening hour, who’s the one expected to get it?”
The heart of the matter is traditional versus modern, not Eastern versus Western. Traditional western families hold similarly conservative values and gender-specific expectations of what role a husband and a wife should fulfill. Modern and progressive urban families in mainland China would shock all of you, and all of the so-called modern women here. I’ve seen Chinese women give new meaning to “wearing the pants in the relationship.” (And I’ve also seen Chinese women obsessed with designer labels and finding a rich, white husband. You just can’t absolutize these things. Yes I made up a word.)
This article rubs me the wrong way because of the latent racism. It assumes that traditional values, portrayed here as negative, is Asian, and modern and progressive values, portrayed here as positive, is American. That’s where it begins to go wrong.
Jae and Urban: The sense I got from the article was that Nguyen didn’t get along with her ex-husband, the Asian one, because he displayed too much machismo, and she fell in love with her current husband, the white one, because he probably helped fold the laundry and do dishes. I don’t know. Point is, how did this lead to the dialogue on the emasculation of Asian men in the media? She’s slamming her ex-Asian-husband in the news, yes, but I didn’t interpret it as emasculating him.
As for Asian America– I believe both Kobu and Urban, and a few others declare that “Asian America is dead.” How do you say that in the face of strong evidence to the contrary? Asian Americans have formed tight-knit, supportive, and wave-making groups in the literary arts, performing arts, visual arts, the legal community, social justice, and even politics, not just in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City, but throughout the beltway and midwest regions too. I’ve met them. I’ve seen their work.
Yes, our activists came along because of the Black Civil Rights movement. Yes, we needed Malcolm X and the Black Panthers to have Yuri Kochiyama and Richard Aoki. That shouldn’t belittle the efforts and differences made by APA activists. Yes, a lot of our youth are so privileged and self-absorbed nowadays that they can’t see the value of critical race theory or understand the subtext of identity politics. That means we’ve got a lot of work cut out for us, but it does *not* mean that “Asian America is dead.” What the heck do you think this blog is, Fighting 44s, 8Asians, etc. etc. etc.? We’re in a bit of a stalemate, but we’re far from dead.
Thanks, TZ. I agree with everything you say. And Hubby is brave to confront an armed robber.
I thought of something interesting when I read your comment. Usually emotion is something that one associates with women, but men also emote. If you take away a man’s voice–to express his feelings and opinions, and to reduce him to a traditional patriarchal tyrant who simply barks at women to get food on the table–one might construe that as emasculating. For me, I think that was the main issue. They could’ve given Greg a voice. Even if he said, “This is how I’ve always done it, and I’m sorry,” I think that would have been less emasculating. At least he’d show what lies in his heart and mind.
But they totally silenced the brothuh! Cut out his tongue the same way the Kingstonians cut off our…
Okay, I’m saying too much.
As for Asian America– I believe both Kobu and Urban, and a few others declare that “Asian America is dead.
Well, I think you would agree that Asian America needs reform and transformation. If we understand “community” or “identity” as a living, organic thing, that thing must first die and be reborn in order to realize transformation.
The heart of the matter is traditional versus modern, not Eastern versus Western. Traditional western families hold similarly conservative values and gender-specific expectations of what role a husband and a wife should fulfill.
True that. However, I think that traditionalism gets conflated with Asianness because Asian families and societies are indeed more traditional or conservative. This is a consequence of the fact that most Asian people today are only one or two generations removed from peasants. Or, at least, this is true of Koreans.
However, I don’t think whether its “traditional vs modern” or “eastern vs western” is the important thing here. I detect an underlying assumption that imposes a flawed value judgment, that “modernism” is better than “traditionalism”. This is not strictly true. One of the failures of modern life is that there is a lack of a sense of a real community. One of the most well-known polemics that touches upon this matter is Robert Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone”. Urban planners and architects are trying to figure out ways to design buildings and public space that fosters community instead of alienating. The American suburbia is a perfect example of a way of living that is alienating, destroys a real sense of community, not to mention it makes us a society that depends too much on cars and oil.
The thing that is key is maintaining balance between “traditional” and “modern”. Or “eastern” and “western”. I believe, at its most fundamental level, it’s really an issue of how to integrate Individualism and Collectivism in a wholistic manner that doesn’t render each other mutually exclusive but rather co-exist in a state of dynamic synergy rather than tension. No one has really figured out how to do this yet.
Asian America tends to fail consistently at synthesizing dual dichotomies (east/west, trad/mod, whatever). Instead of picking and combining the best of both worlds, Asian Americans tend to combine the worst of both worlds and call it “progress”. This lady’s (Hai Nguyen) story is a perfect example. She may think that she’s a business analyst professional modern woman but writing off wholesale men of her own race, because she has issues with Asian men’s chauvinism, and upholds the white man as the answer, is a Third World mentality. This reeks more of “mail-order bride” than “professional business analyst”.
And this is why I like kobukson,so much on the days when I don’t think he’s gone mad. You have to admit that he has a gift for putting things into balanced perspective. I find myself agreeing with almost everything he said, and he’s got me thinking about the rest. But whether you agree or disagree, you must admit that his words are well thought out.
Now, one point I don’t understand, and that is not an issue only with Kobu but also with most of the poster except for Thomas. I don’t see that Hai Nguyen is necessarily slamming, emasculating, or vilifying, her Asian ex-husband. She seems to me to be simply relating her personal story.
She speaks of the positives reason’s that she was drawn to her Asian ex-husband:
Hai Nguyen, 37, of Houston recalls the instant connection she felt after meeting her first Vietnamese boyfriend, Greg, in college. Nguyen says while she had to explain herself to white boyfriends, with Greg it was a feeling that “he so gets me, because we eat the same food, we like the same things, our families know each other and there is so little that needs to be said.”
As well as her assessment of what they struggled with in their relationship, and eventually broke them up:
“But their connection soon began to fade, due partly to Nguyen’s budding career as a business analyst, which clashed with more traditional expectations for her to “always have fresh food on the table.”
Now, she NEVER says, that the reason that she married her current husband is because he is White, nor does she say that all White guys are modern, and that all Asian guys are too traditional. She simply states, both the benefits, and the problems, that she faced in her particular relationships and experiences.
A careful reading shows that she’s giving you the positives and negatives of both experiences. For example, why would she have to say that with her first husband, she didn’t need to “explain herself?” Clearly she does have to explain herself when she’s dating a White guy. Why does she say that with her first husband “he so gets me, because we eat the same food, we like the same things?” Clearly it means that when she’s with a White guy, he doesn’t “get her” at the same level, and that they don’t eat the same foods, or like the same things. And in the end, she seems to bemoan what she sees as her inevitable loss of culture, identity, and family approval.
—”My parents have prejudices, but they’ve accepted it,” So this choice estranges her somewhat from her parents approval.
—”She described occasionally feeling different with her parents and other single-race couples.” So this choice estranges her also from other couples in her community of origin, perhaps even her friends.
—”My native tongue will eventually fade, and history will take its course.” So this choice will lead to a loss of her connection through common language and culture.
This is NOT some thoughtless, one-sided, White guys are GREAT article (IMHO). It’s simply an accounting of two relationships that she has experienced and how each was different. The first one ended in divorce, and the jury is out on the second one—who knows, that one might not work out either.
But my point is, EXACTLY where has Hai Nguyen generalized about all Asian guys in her statements? Where has she employed the deranged idiocy of collective responsibility and collective blame? And please don’t point to her statements about a single relationship, unless she’s clearly tried to make that relationship indicative or representative of a large class of relationships with certain guys.
Hi,
I miss everyone (everyone)! That is all I have to really say…that and why so overanalytical? Because we only have one life and life is too short…live it the way you must to achieve your own happiness in your own life. Your own sense of true happiness is the only measurement of right or wrong…bad or good…constructive or destructive. Follow your own self interests, and you will not be left astray. Wait a minute…that’s sounds so Ayn Randian. Fuck, better I stay and not post for good. Life’s too short.
The issue is not just Hai Nguyen. The problem is ultimately that the American media will instinctively and repeatedly promote this propaganda meme that “Asian guys are too traditional and sexist”–compared to “liberated” White boys.
The fact that you see this meme promoted ad nauseum from literature (like Joy Luck Club) to “news” (like this AP article) does suggest the American media has a tacit political agenda, which is to implicitly assert the supremacy of Whites males.
Moreover, the West in general and the USA in particular just love to glorify themselves as the embodiment of “progressive” Enlightenment values like liberty, individual freedom, blah, blah, blah–even as they ignores minor little issues that contradict these lies like America’s Gitmo Gulag, Abu Ghraib torture, and thinly disguised wars of aggression from Iraq to Afghanistan.
mT,
We miss you too. Don’t be a stranger.
King,
I think Larry hit it on the head with his words about propaganda memes. There’s the superficial meme: “Duh, we eat the same foods.” Then there’s the sexist meme: “Duh, he wants me to cook!” Then there’s the “traditional” meme: “Duh, he’s so traditional.” She’s reduced him to a stereotype which is EXACTLY the same as other stereotypes.
Here’s an example of racialized memes. There’s a great book about Joe Louis called “Joe Louis: The Great Black Hope.” In the book, Richard Bak talks about how Louis’s handlers were trying to get out of the shadow of Jack Johnson (the boxer, not the singer). They told him that there were two things he could never ever do:
a. Never get photographed eating fried chicken.
b. Never get photographed with a White woman.
It was hard for him because Louis LOVED both. But he had to abstain for the very reason that Larry mentions: he wanted to get away from the caricatures and wanted to be seen as something that went beyond the stereotype. His handlers wanted to market Louis as something greater than what everyone thought they knew about men of his race, they wanted a representative for black men in general after Jack Johnson’s dismal showing (although ironically Johnson seems to be making a historical comeback). Bak talks at length about how Louis was idolized because of this. One death row inmate even called out something like, “Joe Louis, save me!”
So that’s really what it is. They say that if you repeat something over and over, people will begin to believe it. Hai repeated the meme. I don’t know if it’s close to the truth, but I’m sure it’s not the complete truth. And I do think she draws the comparison when she talks about her “white boyfriends” vs. good ol’ Greg. She places men into racial categories.
Also–just to reiterate–I’m still not understanding why anyone would bad mouth their former spouses in front of the media. Period. I just don’t get it. I’m taking what Hai says with a grain of salt because I don’t get that behavior. I think it says something about her.
I agree with Larry and Jaehwan in some regards, but I think that there are two issues here that must be parsed separately.
1) Was Hai Nguyen “trashing” her Asian husband, and by implication and association, Asian men at large? Because I have not seen any evidence of this.
2) Does what Hai Nguyen relates in the article play into existing anti Asian man memes, caricatures, and stereotypes? To this I would probably agree.
But the point is that these are two discrete arguments that must be judged, each according to the evidence presented. The answer to the second point does not necessitate the voracity of the inferences of the first.
It may be uncomfortable for Blacks to see stories of unwed mothers, and unemployed, drop-out, deadbeat, fathers, in print or on T.V. These stories play into the stereotypical perception of the Black family. However, the fact that this portrays a negative image about Black families in general, does not disprove the accuracy or fairness of an individual story. Even if the story fits neatly into a negative stereotype, the story should be reported honestly and read truthfully. If it’s true, in a particular case, then it is.
Now, the larger question may certainly be asked, “Where are the stories that illustrate other aspects of the truth, where is the balance? But that is a question of systemic failure rather than character failure. If a person tells their story truthfully, then they have done what they should do. The onus must then be placed upon the system of story selection, editing, and producing, to determine what kind of stories are told from what perspective more than others. This is the real problem.
Hai is not repeating a meme, she is repeating excerpts from HER own life, and from her own perspective. That truth should not be judged or silenced based on the fact that her personal story is inconvenient and plays into the meme. Nobody’s story is a complete, we simply ask for an honest accounting from one’s own perspective.
As for bad mouthing, have a look at her quote again:
“Their connection soon began to fade, due partly to Nguyen’s budding career as a business analyst, which clashed with more traditional expectations for her to “always have fresh food on the table.”
Is that really such clear bad mouthing? Reporting how traditional expectations and her changing values clashed to contribute to the demise of their marriage? She doesn’t go into any great detail here, she doesn’t even say that all the pressure was coming from her husband. She doesn’t say that he’s a monster or a bad person, or that he’s unreasonable, or chauvinistic. She just identifies this as a key area of contention between them.
I can’t find anywhere in the article where she dumps on Asian men as a category or individually. This is not some girl who was stuck on White. She married her Asian boyfriend, after all. I didn’t happen to work out, she’s married to someone else. She never said that she’s sworn off Asian guys or blames them (as a group) for her bad mariage.
King,
Thank you for your compliment. You, Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. The thing I most admire (and also find irksome at the same time, I’ll admit) is that you are forever the Devil’s Advocate, always offering an alternative interpretation based on the glass being half full, giving the benefit-of-the-doubt to those whom we AMs consider an enemy, and believing in the basic goodwill of all. It hints at a certain magnanimity of character on your part, a kind of a noblesse oblige, if you will. You are what we Koreans call yangban.
You have the luxury of being able to be more objective about these issues because you are not emotionally invested in it in the way that we AM’s are. Emotion clouds objectivity. But since I am interested in truth, I need to be objective, like you. But at the same time I am an Asian man who has been affected by the IR disparity in more ways than I care to detail. What is the solution to this dilemma? But it’s only a dilemma if one continues to hold on to the things that make him weak. The solution is for AMs to forsake Asian women in the way that a recovering alcoholic should forsake alcohol.
Like Urban, I about to fulfill Godwin’s Law and allude to the Nazi’s. One of the last things that Anne Frank wrote in her famous diary was the following statement: “I believe that everyone is fundamentally good at heart.” A couple of months later, she perished in the Nazi death camps.
Are people fundamentally good at heart? It is a deep philosophical question.
Some philosophical traditions or belief systems say “yes”. Others say “no”. Confucianism, which East Asian societies are based upon, believes that Man is fundamentally good. Christianity, which is the foundational base for Western societies, says Man is fundamentally evil. But even within Western intellectual traditions, there are some philosophical systems which holds that Man is fundamentally good. The Romantic Movement comes to mind, the earliest proponent of this being Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau re-interpreted Locke’s Social Contract in terms of the “infallibility of the general will” (Russell, History of Western Philosophy). Romanticism, believe it or not, gave birth to the bloody French Revolution, the Totalitarian State, and Communism.
Confucianism also specifies a kind of a social contract. It defines a framework of ideal relationships between the old and young, parent and child, man and woman, ruler and subject. It also specifies a Rule of Reciprocity. A ruler is supposed to be virtuous and subjects must obey the ruler. The Mandate of Heaven says that as long as a ruler is virtuous he has the authority from heaven to rule the land. The Confucian concept of the “Superior Man” also propounds a similar idea but applied to everyday common life. The underlying principle behind all this is that Man is fundamentally good.
It was a dangerous assumption. There is no need for a system of checks and balances. The Mandate of Heaven was never challenged in Chinese civilization. On the other hand, in 16th century England, a group of nobles challenged the absolute authority of the monarch, which gave rise to the Magna Carta. This famous document is considered to be one of the foundational principles which will give rise to what would later be called “liberal democracy”. The absolute authority of the Catholic Church, Europe’s equivalent of Confucianism, was challenged by rogue kings and Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation. Asian civilizations never produced a “Chinese Magna Carta” or a “Confucian Reformation”.
In the context of everyday life, where traditional Asian culture has failed lies in the fact that leaders became less than virtuous while followers were still expected to follow or obey. The original Confucian hierarchical framework of parent vs child, ruler vs subject, man vs woman remained intact but this framework became slowly bankrupted of the Reciprocity Principle (do unto others as you would have others do unto you, Confucius had said that also hundreds of years before Christ), the “glue” that holds everything together and makes it harmonious. The reason why the Reciprocity Principle faded is because there was no robust system of checks and balances. In turn, the reason why there’s no checks and balances is because the dominant philosophy that permeates everything from government to common life says that Man is inherently good. I am vastly oversimplifying things here for the sake of clarity.
In the context of man vs woman, likewise husbands became less than virtuous, perhaps even extremely chauvinistic and tyrannical, due to fallible human nature, but wives were still expect to follow/obey her husband and still “put fresh food on the table”, so to speak. Where is the “checks and balances” ? As late as my parents generation, divorce was unheard of in Korea. The courts favored men over women. The institutional hoju-je patriarchial system, which was in place since the Chosun Dynasty, was abolished by the Constitutional Court only in 2005. Now, things are radically different in Korea. Divorce is through the roof. Adultery is rampant and women are just as bad as the men. This is what happens women are liberated but are not governed by moral principle, they just repeat the worst vices of men and then some. Such is the price of change.
The “liberal white man” that Asian women love so much is not because white guys are somehow inherently good or morally superior but because white women have been reforming white patriarchy since the days of Jane Austen. White boys have been reared by their white mothers to have proper manners and respect for women while Asian boys are raised by Asian mothers to become insufferable Momma’s Boys and when they grow up, they are pressured by their mothers and sisters to marry a nice, traditional, and compliant woman. In a sense, Asian women who say that they don’t like Asian men because of X, Y, or Z and view white guys as a “savior” from stuffy Asian traditionalism are parasitically leeching off of the efforts of white women. Running into the arms of a white man has become Asian women’s form of feminism, or what I call Joy Luck Club feminism. It’s extremely passive-aggressive. Asian women generally lack the intellectual wherewithal, moral fortitude, and courage to even attempt to reform the Asian community, on their own terms, in the manner that white women and black women have done in their own communities. In Korea, you will be hard pressed to find women’s civic groups that addresses social ills that ruin families or even the mindless cosmetic surgery craze, which I think is fundamentally demeaning to Asian womanhood. Reverse-sexism abounds. A properly marriageable male is someone who graduated from one of the top universities and has a prestigious job. The standards are not very flexible. Of course, reverse-sexism results in more sexism from the part of males. Such an environment is not conducive to gender reform. This is why I maintain that Righteous Asian babes are very far and few in between.
Ultimately, the issue is not about “having fresh food on the table”. It is a control issue. I once heard an Asian woman say that her white husband was “well trained” and she would never leave him because “its so hard to have to train another one”. I know a Pinay girl – white guy couple who lives in my building. The guy looks totally whipped and it is clear who wears the pants in the relationship and it ain’t him. The last time I saw them he was carrying a big bundle of laundry and following her in tow. I always clown this guy when I see him. I was returning from a camping trip and carrying my camping gear into the building when I saw him carrying the laundry and looking very whipped. I pointed at the evidence of his domesticated castration and said sarcastically: “hey, what’s all this shit?” He mumbled something inaudible. The girl, she absolutely loves it…LOVES IT…when I clown this guy. My point is, in a relationship, there is a power struggle between a man and a woman. On a more macro level, the relation between men and women as gender groups is ALSO a power struggle. The IR disparity is a passive-aggressive way in which Asian women keep Asian men in check. It’s a power/control thing. It’s also a zero-sum game in which Asian women’s empowerment comes at the expense of Asian men. This is why I advocate that Asian men must stop worrying about Asian women, leave them, cut them out of the equation, and purely focus on our own empowerment, by any means necessary.
You are what we Koreans call yangban.
Be honest with me Kobukson, is that a Korean curse word!!???
“You have the luxury of being able to be more objective about these issues because you are not emotionally invested in it in the way that we AM’s are.
I hope this to be my small value to you. Some forums insist on the racial purity of it’s posters. But it might be wise to have a few opinions from outside of the rice fields, from time to time, for just that reason.
As for the rest, your powers of analysis are very strong. You reveal something of the engineer’s mind, in your writing. I will think a little on what you’ve said.
Finally! The Nazis! I was going to say… this thread (the sum of 3+ separate posts, mind you) has gone on long enough without any Nazi references. Phew. Godwin’s law prevails again.
I didn’t finish reading before commenting earlier about Godwin’s. I was just too excited.
Re: “My point is, in a relationship, there is a power struggle between a man and a woman.” (Kobu)
What’s with all the talk about power struggles? I just don’t see it (in a healthy marriage). Depending on when you look, it may appear at a certain instance that my husband is whipped. In fact, it’s 2 am and right now he is out fetching me Exedrin because I have a huge migraine and he didn’t want me to go along because it’s cold outside and he didn’t want me to catch a cold, so he went himself. Is that whipped?
We both work all day, but when we get home, I fetch him a cold drink and snack, bring it to his desk where he’s watching sports and playing video games, and then I proceed into the kitchen to prepare dinner, which he doesn’t help with at all. When dinner’s ready, I call him to the table, he sits down and eats. Every morning I wake up 2 hours before he does to make us breakfast and pack our lunches. Am I whipped?
AA men and women do not need to be at war with each other. It does not need to be a power struggle. We do not need to be passive-aggressive toward one another. Kobukson, perhaps you and I are marching to the beats of different drums, because I just don’t see what you’re talking about. Enlighten me?
@King: Spot on. Again. I’m getting a little tired of you always being so logical and objective. Byron, you need to post on a subject matter that hits a raw nerve of King’s so that he can go a little batty and spew nonsense.
King,
I just wiki’ed yangban:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangban
Not that I’m nationalistic, but if you decide to get it tattooed to your arm, the Chinese characters might look really cool.
We agree on #2.
I think you need to put yourself in her shoes to see #1.
Asian women and black men have social power over their counterparts when it comes to media. When non-black people want to know about black culture, they typically consult black men. The loudest voices are people like Malcolm, Martin, Sharpton, and Jackson. It’s the opposite for Asians–voices usually come from Tan, Kingston, Shu Smolin, Zia, etc. I’m not protesting this right now–just saying that that’s the way things are.
Now King, let’s say that you were of the type who mostly dated White, as Hai was (Greg was the only one). Now lets say that you had the same history–married the first black woman you dated, then divorced her for what were very stereotypical reasons. Now let’s say a reporter approached you and said, “King, I’m gonna write a report on interracial dating trends, and I want you to comment on your ex-wife.” (From my experience, reporters ALWAYS tell you why they’re interviewing you.)
I think you’d be unlikely to say, “Man, it was definitely a change going from all those white chicks to Jane. When I met Jane, it was a change–she actually knew about black people beyond what she saw in Tyler Perry movies and hip hop videos. But then Jane started acting gangstah on me like the tradition in our community: hand on the hip, other hand in your face, always complaining about how I never treated her with respect. So I dumped her, and now I’m happily married to white Becky. Of course my parents have their prejudices against White people, but luv conquers all. It’s inevitable.”
That would be a nasty thing to stick on your ex despite the positive superficial idea that you came from the same background. Neutral Observer would have a field day with your interview (NO, if you’re reading, we do miss you), as would White women competing for black men’s attention.
Most likely, King, I think you’d just refuse to comment on Jane, whether or not she fit stereotypes. That’s why no one knows why Tipper and Al are divorcing other than the unrevealing idea that they’re just going their separate ways. More than likely, even if Jane did what White people like to think Black women do, you wouldn’t reduce her to that. After all, you were once married to her. Classy people don’t smear their divorced exes in the open mainstream media in order to smear their exes with a racial stereotype (and again, from my experience, ALL reporters reveal why they’re writing an article. They’d say, “Hi this is Hope Yen, and I’m writing to get people’s opinions on interracial relationships” or “Hi, this is Hope Yen, and I’m trying to pin the tail on the Asian male…”)
Well, I do see where you’re coming from Jaeh, but I also think that you have to look at people as Activists and Non-Activists. As an Activist, you are much more aware of the divisions and stereotypes which effect the Asian American community, (such as it is) but everyone is not at the same level of awareness. To be honest, most of the people of Asian descent whom I know or run into are not as sharply aware of the things we discuss here, or on the 44s. Most of them have never even visited “Model Minority” for that matter. I don’t think that you can make a clear case that Hai certainly knew that her comments would be used to strengthen an existing stereotype about Asian men in general.
In fact, if we take the words of our one Vietnamese poster on this thread, we find that conditions in the Vietnamese community might indeed not even mirror those of the Asian American community at large, vis-a-vis the disparity.
“Further, us Vietnamese folks are generally insular and don’t marry outside of our race as much as other Asians.” Thomas Ngo
I would also echo Thomas’ point that we really have no idea what was even said in the FULL interview. What she said to the reporter was probably recorded, then typed to transcript, then 95% of it was thrown away and the part that fit the story that the reporter wanted to tell was quoted. To be fair, none of us knows how positive or negative the initial interview was.
But even so, I am hesitant to demand that a true story should be self-censored because it might make a certain group look bad in the long run. What if we all reacted in this way?
-I’m not going to tell my story because it might make my race look bad.
-I’m not going to tell my story because it might make my family look bad.
-I’m not going to tell my story because it might make my company look bad.
-I’m not going to tell my story because it might make Islam look bad.
-I’m not going to tell my story because it might make my country look bad.
What would journalism be if we all went about protecting our interests by shutting our mouths? I think that it’s much better if people just tell their stories with cogent voracity. It will lead to some unavoidable harms, but it surely serves the greater good in the end.
As long as a story is told without malicious agenda, misinformation, venom, or broad-brushing, I think that it is valuable. Hai was telling her story, I find no venom in it, it just happens to fit the meme—that is not her fault. The real question is not why her story was told, but rather, why have other stories not been told to balance it.
“Byron, you need to post on a subject matter that hits a raw nerve of King’s so that he can go a little batty and spew nonsense.”
Lol! Fair enough.
Byron, my raw nerve topics are:
1) Kohlrabi
2) Barney Fife
3) Citizen Caine
4) Pantalones
5) $3.00 Taco
6) Bagpipe Serenade
I would suggest you respond to all his points rather than cherry pick what you feel comfortable addressing. Or, despite overwhelming evidence, go back to the “not all AFs are like that” argument.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I’ve noticed the same thing regarding who has the power in the relationship.
If the AF is fobby, the WM holds all the power. If the AF is American born, she is the one who controls the WM. I think that AF also wish to date and marry out because they know they can’t control AMs.
“Are people fundamentally good at heart? It is a deep philosophical question.”
I would say that people can choose whether to be good or evil. A person who is good may not remain so. A person who does evil may change his bent. I suppose that my belief is that all people have the *potential* to do good, just as all have the *potential* to choose it’s opposite.
But to say that, “all people are fundamentally good” is to ignore the long lesson of human history—Anne Frank notwithstanding.
You’ve penned quite an opus here… fascinating! I’ve copied it to my desktop so that if someone blows up Byron’s blogsite, I won’t lose it. It’s truly insightful. I’m tempted to simply question you about all the great information and analysis. You seem to be close to something here… I’m not sure why I say that, but I feel that you’re onto something quite interesting and extraordinary. There’s a lot of naked honesty there too! You will press on further with this, won’t you?
I find myself agreeing with your ideas of “Reverse-sexism” (I know what you mean) which is a close to the conversation that TZ was having with her husband. This power competition is an interesting dynamic that occurs in all human relationships, but is kept to a minimum in the best of them. Anyway, nice job on the history, the philosophy, the analysis. Have you considered formalizing your thinking in a position paper of some kind?
Well anyway, I believe that your thinking will eventually lead you to some different conclusions than the ones in which you are currently entrenched. There is too much understanding of the “why” in what you have said, to simply answer it with mass abandonment. Of all the people who I’ve spoken to on this subject, I believe that you understand the sociological and historic reasons behind the disparity more than anyone (and I do not say that lightly.) You simply cannot leave it at: “So I decided to just do without Asian women.” Surely there is more to it than that—you must keep looking! There is more of an answer than that out there, and I think that you are capable of finding it.
Now, this is why I think that your current conclusions are flawed. I don’t believe that an intra-racial war, divided along gender lines, is ultimately winnable. If you truly examine it, the entire concept is impractical.
For one thing, how about your family? How about your Mother, your aunts, your female cousins, your nieces, your daughters? Are you really going to ignore them, or treat them like the enemy? Will you impose your collective banishment and disregard upon all the women of your family? Because nobody else is going to understand this. You’re going to come across as a cold, bitter, ruthless ass, and nobody (including your non-Asian wife) is going to applaud your calculated indifference, and peevish spite.
OK, so maybe you don’t mean to go quite that far. Maybe you just mean to abandon Asian females romantically. So you will still have meaningful and loving relationships with your Mom, your aunts, and your female family members. You may even keep up your friendships with Asian women who you’ve known since you were a kid. In fact, you can have trusting and amicable relationships with Asian women in every other aspect of life, EXCEPT when it comes to romance, because when it comes to THAT, those Asian she-devils are all the same!!!
Let’s say that you marry a White wife, but your daughter ends up looking phenotypically Asian? Will you warn off all potential Asian boyfriends not to date her because she’s a devious chinky chick? So then, who should date her, a White guy? WAIT! A White guy with an Asian looking girl!!! Pffft! Better find her a Black or Latino boyfriend. Or maybe she’s OK for Asian guys after all, ’cause hey, she’s got some White blood in her, so she may be acceptable?
And if you think about it, what is it that you’re choosing? By rejecting Asian women, you are becoming something else. For instance, if you marry a White girl and you encourage your son to marry a White girl, your grandson will be well… White! (for all practical purposes) Wouldn’t it be cool if your White grandson looked at an Asian girl one day and caught “YELLOW FEVER?” That would be like a Twighlight Zone wouldn’t it? Your own grandson could look down on ethnic Asian guys as “too effeminate” and prance around Koreatown with a whitewashed Asian cutie on his arm!
I just don’t see this as the answer, but I do think that in your analysis of the problem, you’re getting closer to the answer. I hope you will continue searching for alternate conclusions.
Wouldn’t it be cool if your White grandson looked at an Asian girl one day and caught “YELLOW FEVER?” That would be like a Twighlight Zone wouldn’t it?
King, that is the funniest line out of this whole cluster of IR threads.
Byron, write a Twilight Zone story on this.
Lol!
Help me out here Alpha, old friend!
BTW, I love the way your T-shirts turned out.
Nice graphic work there! I might have to buy one!
Alpha,
I’d love to tell that story, but quite honestly, I’d have to put that one in line–behind the one where the Asian guy who has rebelled against the AFCC by swearing off Asian women falls in love with one.
King,
I have to agree with urb4n in this case. You avoided ALL of the major points in my last post. Most significantly this one:
If you think the story makes sense, put yourself in her shoes and think about how you would answer.
I don’t think anyone was saying that she was being malicious (see urbs’s first comment); she slammed her ex, but “venom” is a strong word. Again, I don’t know if it’s the truth. Put yourself in her shoes, and it seems fishy.
Also, Hope Yen is equally to blame, if not more so.
Or why it’s told differently, as I mentioned to Thomas. When White men want food on the table, it’s a joke about women needing a wife. When Asian men do it, it’s because they are “traditional.” Pin the tail…
It’s been a while since I’ve chimed in but I think I will today. There is something fundamentally flawed here with this article because journalism usually tells both sides of the story. Hope is hastily concluding that Asian men just don’t understand women wanting a career which is absolutely ridiculous. Last time I checked, most Asian men that I met were dating career-oriented women and were doing just fine. This isn’t 1950. It’s f-ing 2010 for crying out loud. Let me remind this bitch Hope that her article focuses on an older demographic. Why didn’t the bitch compare and contrast the new AA male vs his predecessors? What is it about these white-dick jumpers and their propensity to deem Asian men as this?
Additionally, one of my close Asian friends has dated many women of color. A significant numbe of them were Asian who “surprise surprise” only dated white guys until he hit ‘em up. They liked him a lot because he acted pretty white but still understood Asian culture very much. In essence, he is what Hope consider a non-traditional Asian male. Yet nobody wants to speak of folks like this.
Oh! Sorry, I thought that Urb4n was fencing with TZ on that one. Sorry Urb4n, I didn’t mean to ignore it then.
OK, I’m on it.
“Asian women and black men have social power over their counterparts when it comes to media. When non-black people want to know about black culture, they typically consult black men.
Actually, I don’t think that’s fundamentally true. Oprah Winfrey is one of the biggest voices in media today—she publishes a widely circulated magazine, she owns her own film company, she owns her own T.V. network. She has the biggest megaphone in African-American culture at the moment. But even if you reach back, into the African-American experience, you will find herculean female figures like Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Madam C.J. Walker, Rosa Parks, Angela Davis. These names are the rival of most male figures in African-American history and influence. Malcolm and Martin came at the breaking point of the civil rights showdown and thus, their names are most prominent today. However, I think that you will find that African-American women have, and continue to be, the equal of their Black male counterparts in shaping and speaking for the definition of African-American culture.
“Now King, let’s say that you were of the type who mostly dated White”
Ridiculous!!! You’re clearly trying to taint the jury pool!!
“Now let’s say a reporter approached you and said, “King, I’m gonna write a report on interracial dating trends, and I want you to comment on your ex-wife.” (From my experience, reporters ALWAYS tell you why they’re interviewing you.)”
Well… I do have some indirect experience that says that it depends on the publication and also on how desperate the reporter is to get the story finished. Few reporters are going to tell you the slant that the story is going to take in it’s final form, and when called on it, they’ll tell you that they weren’t sure at the time of the interview which way it was going to go, as it was a work-in-progress. And, of course, you often get that old chestnut: it was the editor who changed the story at the last minute, and that the original story was much more friendly to your point of view.
That’s why I say that we don’t really know what the initial interview was like. We only have a few paltry paraphrases and no context to put them in.
I think you’d be unlikely to say, “Man, it was definitely a change going from all those white chicks to Jane. When I met Jane, it was a change–she actually knew about black people beyond what she saw in Tyler Perry movies and hip hop videos. But then Jane started acting gangstah on me like the tradition in our community: hand on the hip, other hand in your face, always complaining about how I never treated her with respect. So I dumped her, and now I’m happily married to white Becky. Of course my parents have their prejudices against White people, but luv conquers all. It’s inevitable.”
Now, here is where I think you’re going off track, because the ONLY thing that Hai said was this:
“Their connection soon began to fade, due partly to Nguyen’s budding career as a business analyst, which clashed with more traditional expectations for her to “always have fresh food on the table.”
And, if you’ll notice, that is a third person, paraphrase, not a direct quote. So, due PARTLY to conflicts with her budding career and her husbands traditional expectations, their connection began to fade, finally ending in divorce. Nowhere did she say that ALL Asian guys expect this kind of thing. Nowhere does she say that ALL White guys are non-traditionalists. She never even makes a direct comparison on that subject. Nowhere does she say that traditional Asian culture is wrong. She just related how that particular expectation was wrong for HER. Obviously that was not the only issue in breaking them up.
Does ANYONE else have any other place where Hai is degrading the Asian Male? Is this really it in it’s entirety?
Nguyen’s budding career as a business analyst clashed with more traditional expectations.
This is why I think that it’s hard to make a direct case against Hai for giving an interview that included some inconvenient facts. We have no idea what she might have left out. For all we know, she might have withheld all of the worst parts of her story in protection of her ex husband and the reputation of Asian men. The point is, we just don’t know, and there is precious little here to pass judgement on Hai Nguyen.
But also, I think that we often forget just how academic some of the things we discuss here are. I’ll wager that the vast majority of Asians have never even read Frank Chin or Maxine Hong Kingston, and to them, the bellicose thunder of this debate on the power of gender is but a dim background noise to the flow of their daily lives. Can they really all be held accountable if in the telling of their own stories, one side or another of the debate is strengthened? Now, when someone crosses the line, and starts making stupid statements about Asian guys, or Asian culture, I’m right there with the rest of you, voicing my consternation and disapproval. I just don’t see that Hai has quite crossed that line here.
Now is the article slanted? I’d say, yes. And is it true that this side of the story is ALWAYS told while the other side is ALWAYS ignored? Yes! I think that this is the true media bias. Someone ought to do a media study to document this imbalance in tangible terms. BTW, has anyone ever done this???
TZ: What’s with all the talk about power struggles? I just don’t see it (in a healthy marriage).
Did you see that movie “Avatar”? Of course you’ve seen it. Everyone’s seen it like 3 or 4 times. Great special effects. The storyline, however, is a complete rip-off of Pocahontas.
Do you recall the scene where Jake, Neytiri, and a group of Na’vi warriors trek up to a mountain cliff to a place where there’s a whole bunch of the flying banshees? Jake has to choose a banshee as part of his rite of passage into becoming a warrior. He asks Neytiri, how do I know which one will be mine? She answers, it’ll pick you. He asks, how do I know that? She says, you’ll know because it’ll be the one that tries to kill you. Jake has to overpower and subdue a wild, fiercely independent banshee that’s trying to kill him but once he succeeds and achieves the “bond”, that creature is now his loyal flying companion.
I think this picture aptly describes human mating rituals as well. A woman is like a wild banshee. During mating ritual, it’s the man’s role to establish control, demonstrate who’s the leader, and steer. Men lead women, not the other way around, but a woman will fling all kinds of “shit-tests” at a man to see what he’s made of. If he succeeds in overcoming the shit-tests and achieves the “bond”, then, well, you know the rest.
Sounds like a power struggle to me.
Hey King,
Haha! No problem. This is like one of those medieval sword battles where every man is looking for someone to hit!
King, I’m not going to open myself to getting my ass kicked by speaking about black culture
, but what do you think about this: The Black Male Privileges Checklist Check out the first ten numbered points. Oprah may be the most powerful black media icons in the world today, but how often do people ask her about black culture? I think more people usually solicit opinions from Sharpton and Jackson.
Yes, but this is really just a deflection. The point is that there are two Asian people involved–the writer and the subject, and one or both of them created a story that tars the Asian man. The comparison with the reporters who reported black men “looting” and white people “finding” after Katrina is the same. No one is saying that all black people loot, but the different treatment in the media begs the question of why the same meme keeps on coming back when we talk about Asian men or Asian culture.
Again, I have to disagree with this. If some reporter asked me about my ex, I’d say nothing but positive things. Or I’d say nothing at all.
I haven’t even brought up the issue of ol’ Hai posing for all those corny pictures with her new husband. That’s a crime as bad as any. Siggy usually goes crazy over pics of Asian women, but I think even he was retching to get the saccharine out of his mouth on this one.
I think you and I agree on this. I actually don’t know of any study on race bias in the media. Political bias, yes. Race bias? I think that would be interesting.
Kobu:
Is this really true?
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household, and it’s definitely true in that culture. There was a huge emphasis on “being a man.” Women followed men because that’s what God ordered, according to the interpretation by the church I was in.
But I think in Chinese culture, women typically lead men. Despite whatever the Kingstonians say (and they wouldn’t know anyway since they don’t marry or date non-White men), I think the typical Chinese relationship is more egalitarian, or even pro-female. Not sure about other Asian cultures.
Sorry King, I forgot to post. Here are all the corny pics:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127126832
Holy shit, you guys are getting way too cerebral for me. I just rely on my gut instinct. When I read this article, it made me throw up in my mouth a little.
King- You always try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and I think that’s very noble of you, but you know as the saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …”
Hey, I know that shit is unfair. Maybe if AF start dating black men or brown men in equal numbers, then all these AM complaints about IR would be moot. Shit, this chick could have found another Asian man who treated her better and I’m sure her parents would love that. But we know that all Asian men are traditionalist and sexist and an AF finding her escape in the arms of a white man is just par for the course. It isn’t just the media; many AF in IR are reinforcing this meme.
MT- hola! Man, I’m starting to miss your succinct style of writing!
@ Jaeh
Well, I agree that males of every ethnicity have benefited from the broad blanket of male privilege—of course, in the best of cases, this was balanced with the counter weight of male role expectations and responsibility, but often not.
As to the bloggers checklist, it is simply inaccurate. Harriet Tubman is a giant in Black History books. She is bigger than Fredrick Douglas, she’s called the “Black Moses,” for crying out loud! Rosa Parks is a HUGE figure in the civil rights mythos, and every school kid grew up knowing her name and what she did. For every Henry Dumas, there was a Phillis Wheatley, for Every Langston Hughes, there was a Gwendolyn Brooks. For every Count Basie, there was a Lena Horne. These women are not in the shadows, they are every bit as renowned and respected as their Black male counterparts. That is quite easy to verify. People often blog based on their own general impressions, rather than on actual hard research. I think this is the case when it comes to the checklist.
“Oprah may be the most powerful black media icons in the world today, but how often do people ask her about black culture? I think more people usually solicit opinions from Sharpton and Jackson.”
Sorry friend, but I think you’re making my point for me,
How many people listen to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson any more?
How many people listen to Oprah Winfrey?
Just because Oprah doesn’t fit into the mold of the ’60s “civil rights activist” doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have a huge hand in defining Black culture. Who had the bigger hand in electing the first Black President, Oprah, Al, or Jesse? People look to Oprah to define Black culture every day, just in a different (and arguably, more effective) venue from the boys.
As to the questions about what was wrong with the article, you see it as a problem, from the very start, with the Hai Nguyen giving any potentially negative information to the reporter. I disagree with this kind of self-censorship. If we all censored ourselves to that degree, based on our loyalties, group associations, and alliances, then journalism and research would be impossible. What if people in the ghetto stopped reporting crime statistics because they felt it made them look bad?
Therefore, my emphasis is not on the individual, truthfully telling her story, but on the system, and how the story is used. I agree with you that the AM stereotype is being bolstered here, but my solution is not to believe that Hai should have kept her little mouth shut, but rather that the media must become aware that they are guilty of perpetuating a “single story.”
“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …”
Leon, I do see your point, but that theory is better applied to Duck watching than to Duck Hunting.
King- I’m not advocating strict censorship. I just believe that freedoms of expression should be tempered by personal responsibility and common sense. Sure, we all have the right to speak our mind. Nobody’s denying that. But should everyone just run their mouths and make accusations and reinforce stereotypes? Yes you have the freedom to do so, but should you do it?
Many Asian Americans abuse this privilege by throwing their own people under the bus for a few minutes of fame. Some have an axe to grind or some personal agenda, and others are just plain ignorant (and shouldn’t speak in the first place). People acting without thinking how it will effect others is just plain selfish. It’s this complete lack of responsibility that keeps this community from growing.
King,
I have to disagree with you on the Oprah thing. People go to Oprah for her talk show or magazine. They don’t go to her to talk about African American issues. That’s more of Sharpton’s or Jackson’s domain. In fact, Oprah took her money and put it in African schools rather than American schools because:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801418.html
“I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn’t there,” she said. “If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don’t ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school.”
I think Oprah’s done great things–don’t get me wrong. But to view her as an African American leader vs. just a leader, I think, is an exaggeration. She’s a great media leader, a phenomenal media pioneer, and a great business leader who happens to be African American. Sure, she helped get Obama elected, but so did Caroline Kennedy–would you consider Caroline to be an African American leader?
As a counterexample, Connie Chung had lots of power back in her day, but Amy Tan was still seen as more of a leader in Asian American circles (a job she herself said she didn’t want, although of course she was happy to get $$ from it.).
I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I hear more of Martin Luther King more than Rosa Parks (Who got to deliver the big speech?), Frederick Douglass more than Harriet Tubman (who got invited to the White House?). Even among media stars, Bill Cosby talks more about African American issues than Oprah. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that. The question is: who is driving the conversation?
Maybe we should be directing more of the blame towards Hope rather than Hai. Maybe Hope was employing the Kristof Technique. I certainly don’t believe in censorship, but as I mentioned–if you put yourself in her shoes, it’s fishy, and you wonder whether or not it really is the truth.
Well, I suppose it depends on your perceptions, and where you draw the lines. I see Oprah’s media power—to make movies (Harpo Productions), to make or break books, and to put people on television, as more significant than that of Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson is a bit of a joke these days, and if that’s true, where does that leave Al Sharpton?
Oprah’s movies are not just entertainment, they make strong political and social statements, often definitive of the roles of Blacks and women in society.
The Great Debaters (2007)
The Wedding (1998)
Before Women Had Wings (1997)
The Women of Brewster Place (1989)
Now, I grant you, every time there is a discrimination lawsuit brewing, there’s not a reporter sticking a mic under Oprah’s chin, but I’d argue that today, she does more to define African-American culture to the masses than does Al Sharpton. But that is just an opinion.
Bear in mind also that Oprah is not Connie Chung. Oprah is more of a Connie Chung+Ted Turner+HarperCollins book review all rolled into one. She OWNS it all and she makes the final decisions.
Now as to the icons, Everyone has heard more about Martin Luther King than anyone else, because he was THE pivotal figure at the most critical juncture of the civil rights movement. However, to say that Black men were dominant in defining African-American culture is probably a bit of an overstatement. There were far too many iconic Black women visible in the struggle at the highest levels for that to be strictly true.
But I agree with you, that the most culpable person in regard to the slant of this article would be Hope rather than Hai.
Pingback: Teaching Apple to Really "Think Different" | bigWOWO