I’d like to point out one more thing in your comment above:

Everything I’ve seen online, in academia, and in activist and artistic circles points to women being in the dominant and visible positions when it comes to the APIA on- and offline community. In fact, when you look at the major sites, their web traffic, and their linked networks, you’re far from being the black sheep: we are. And we are because our site had a very “masculine” tone and feel, and because we do not toe the standard feminist/ academic/ activist line in our opinions.

There is a financial angle to this whole debate as well. In her precursor to the link you posted above where she debates with, of all people, Xian, Jenn also writes:

And imagine that everyday, there is a slow whittling down of your pride in the community — and your willingness to be reasonable and respectful — because Asian American women would come to you and call you the enemy for earning roughly equal the dollar every White man earns while we still earn only $0.75 to the dollar, expecting you to quit your jobs in order to make way for AF applicants, as you quietly sat around trying to argue. And because you are being respectful, no one is listening.

That is what it is like with me.

And I *pay* for this site with money I don’t have because I am a graduate student.

Jenn reverses the genders in order to make a hypothetical point to Xian. There are some things that are just out of nowhere: I’ve NEVER, even among internet crazies, heard anyone call for Asian women to quit their jobs in order to make room for Asian men.

But the more important economic issue that dovetails with what you wrote above is that women are the dominant force in APA academic, activist, and artistic circles, and these “Asian American feminists” are supported by cold hard cash. I feel bad that Jenn is losing money on her site and I respect her for pursuing the sciences, but the fact is that Jenn could become a millionaire by writing a book like the millionaire orientalist Amy Tan. She could become a full time “diversity consultant,” like her friend Carmen Van Kerckhove, who has the privilege of decrying our Asian American male “sexism” here since she’s a paid “expert” on these things. Even in a small city like Portland, any Asian person who echoes the Kingstonian mantra can become a “diversity consultant,” though quite understandably because of the philosophy involved, most of these people are Asian women. These jobs are not readily available to the more “male-centric”–I actually prefer “equality-centric”–positions, and I can honestly say that I know ZERO Asian American equality-centric people who teach diversity full time. I literally don’t know any Asian men in these full time positions. Most of them are part-timers like us who can’t quit our day jobs. The message is clear: if you take concrete steps to fight the dominant racial hierarchy, you get cast out into the cold, much like many of the main Asian American sites have done to the 44’s.

That’s why I think nightshade and mg are correct in referring to the Kingstonian movement as “fake feminism” or “fauxminism.” It’s just white supremacy wrapped up in nicer wrapping paper.

“I feel like I’ve been banging my head against a brick wall, and all I have to show for it is ostracization, derision, and occasionally ridicule from some Asian American men.”

Replace “AA men” with “AA women” and “white males” and now you have some idea of what we have felt. At the same time, I find a statement like this hard to believe:

“I feel like the adage “working twice as hard to get half as far” is poignantly relevant to how hard I’ve struggled for the same acceptance in the APIA online community that some of my male colleagues enjoy almost innately.”

Everything I’ve seen online, in academia, and in activist and artistic circles points to women being in the dominant and visible positions when it comes to the APIA on- and offline community. In fact, when you look at the major sites, their web traffic, and their linked networks, you’re far from being the black sheep: we are. And we are because our site had a very “masculine” tone and feel, and because we do not tow the standard feminist/ academic/ activist line in our opinions.