Asian Feminist Jurisprudence
41 Responses | Leave a Comment »
A few days ago, a friend of mine sent me an article (download it here) that she wrote for the Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Law. In the article, Woan describes how “white sexual imperialism” affects “Asian feminist jurisprudence.” I agree on all the facts presented in the article, and while I don’t know if I’d embrace the thesis as it is (I’ll explain in an upcoming “Feature” blog post), it’s definitely a step in the right direction.
What sets this article apart from other “Asian feminist” works by Asian American women is that it doesn’t practice the same “Pin the Tail on the Asian Male” Kingstonian propaganda that normally characterizes so-called Asian American feminism. This is one of few instances I’ve seen in a mainstream publication where an Asian American female takes the white male patriarchy to task for colonialism and violence. Most so-called Asian American “feminists” gloss over real instances of racial mistreatment by colonialist attitudes in favor of attacking the much easier target of Asian men, and it was refreshing (though I was admittedly somewhat uncomfortable with the discussion of rape, violence, and prostitution) to see real perpetrators questioned.
I will be writing a more comprehensive treatment on Asian American feminism in the next week or two. In the meantime, what do you think of this article? (Even though Woan is a friend, feel free to share your real views about what she writes. Of course, the same rule applies to anything I write.)
(Image from http://evatt.org.au/news/53.html)
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
Dialectic
3:11 pm | Jun 01, 2008I may have more thoughts on this later (I’m at work right now); the article is well-researched, and I agree with the central thesis and intent. Indeed, I would hope that many of today’s Asian American “Feminists” would read more materials like this.
With regard to the tone and approach of the article itself, and this is just a personal opinion, it feels to me like something out of the 80s or early 90s with its Mackinnon-esque focus on rape, porn, and prostitution. While again, the content is solid, I feel that the discourse has - or ought to have - moved beyond the discussion of such obvious points and evils, such as the consequences of sexual imperialism, the existence of an “Asian fetish,” or the “intersectionality” of race and gender issues, but perhaps this sort of approach is still necessary even in academia.
I just wish more people would take a developmental approach and begin to understand how patriarchy and colonialism actually came to be, something which would take much of the rancor and mistrust out of the current discourse (it seems pervasive in papers like these, which sort of go down the “blame-game” route, which has become off-putting, and in my opinion, somewhat ineffective).
Think about it: if the social/political/economic/etc. structure and circumstances are largely to blame for certain groups becoming victims, shouldn’t that structure and those circumstances also largely take the blame for certain groups becoming oppressors? And what are the implications if we accept that?
I’ll be writing more on this stuff in the coming months.
nightshade
3:17 pm | Jun 01, 2008lol, D brought up Mackinnon.
Haha, I need to read the article.
Dialectic
3:20 pm | Jun 01, 2008Haha, well, Mackinnon is actually a major source of inspiration for the article itself, as you’ll see. As long as no one brings up the argument that all sex acts are rapes, I’m ok.
nightshade
7:46 pm | Jun 01, 2008Why the discomfort at the discussion on rape, violence and prostitution?
Women think about rape and violence on a daily basis. We may never speak of it, but we are constantly watching our drinks and figuring out travel routes that are the least dangerous. This is why sometimes I shake my head when dudes don’t understand that they have male privilege.
jaehwan
12:42 am | Jun 02, 2008D,
I had the exact same thoughts, and I agree that it may be the case of academic journals only allowing articles to go so far. I was happy to see it in a law journal though.
Looking forward to your thoughts. I’ll be writing mine soon too. Right now, I’m reading “The Feminine Mystique.” So far it’s been quite educational.
Nightshadiest:
Totally true.
I think many guys, including me, are at least aware of the male privilege that comes from not having to deal with this sort of thing. We’re aware because women friends often ask us to walk them places and stuff, while we men know that we can usually walk alone. So even though we don’t deal with it ourselves, we know it’s there.
I get discomfort with this stuff because we don’t talk about it. And we should. That’s exactly my problem with hypocritical Kingstonian feminism. We could be talking about rape, violence, prostitution, lack of respect, or stereotypes that Asian women face, but the only kind of “feminism” we get is “my-white-husband-isn’t
-a-rice-chaser-so-please-don’t-attack-him
-because-love-is-colorblind-and-all-you-Asian
-guys-are-footbinders” feminism.
I’m all for taking the dialogue to the next step. I’m uncomfortable, but guys need to be willing to be uncomfortable in order to take it to the next level.
nightshade
10:01 am | Jun 02, 2008There’s a really great Joan Didion essay called “Sentimental Journeys” (from the collection After Henry that addresses this discomfort/inability to talk about rape. She uses the example of the Central Park jogger who was gang raped and beaten until she was unrecognizable and left for dead.
An aside:
The thing I took from Woan’s piece is the language of white colonization of Asian women, and by extension of all Asians. The idea of an Asian woman being a sellout whore is steeped in this Orientalist idea of the Asian female body and commercialized sexual availability.
Thus, when an Asian man calls an Asian woman a sellout whore, he is in effect using the same language that white men use to degrade Asian women, and to essentially conquer all Asians.
Simply put, for all the retards that I’m actually trying to get through to, when you call an AF a sellout whore, you’re just doing the white man’s dirty work and destroying yourself in the process.
Xian
12:04 pm | Jun 02, 2008Off-topic: My most feminist student came in today and asked about foot-binding.
We got into a discussion that framed it more as a weird fusion of classism and general patriarchy that led her to draw conclusions to current examples of women being encouraged to give up power for vanity routes to demonstrate status in society.
It was cool. Hopefully it will turn into something good…
jaehwan
12:26 pm | Jun 02, 2008Nightshade,
Thanks for the rec. I’ll see if I can get that essay.
Good point.
Xian,
There are definitely lessons to be taken from footbinding. Let us know how it turns out.
Friedan actually mentions footbinding in “Feminine Mystique.” It’s a pretty (unintentionally) funny quote given the way it’s framed–keep in mind that China was still closed off when FM was written. I’ll see if I can post the quote up later or tomorrow.
JadeDragon
3:13 pm | Jun 02, 2008That’s similar to what Naomi Wolf addresses in “The Beauty Myth”, that ideas of conventional beauty and marketing from the cosmetics/diet/plastic surgery industries have superseded feminist ideas in the minds of most women after the heyday of the 70s, so they begin to believe that “beauty” is a form of power, but in truth, it’s a power that does a lot of harm to women. The book is great, if a little dated, and it’s one of my favourites.
Regarding Woan’s article, while I agree with much of the content, I’m not sure if her claim that white sexual imperialism accounts for the inequality faced by Asian women is completely true. White sexual imperialism does account for a lot of the troubles, that I can agree, but other things like extreme poverty, bad governance and widespread corruption had a hand in enforcing that inequality too.
Moreover, the article frames the body of the Asian woman as something akin to a commodity. What I mean is that while Woan criticises the sexual fetishisation of the Asian woman, she also treats her as this terribly desirable being that every white man wants to fuck in parts of her essay. D’s already noted the MacKinnon-esque influence in the article, and Catharine MacKinnon is well-known for her stance that women’s oppression solely arises from the male control of female sexuality, which doesn’t take a whole host of other factors into account.
Nightshade is right about women having to think about rape and violence on a daily basis. It is a problem, though, when this is taken to the extreme and it’s “all men are potential rapists”, as theorised by MacKinnon and her ilk.
Xian
7:26 pm | Jun 02, 2008Perhaps. It depends what people mean by “Every man is a potential rapist”. It’s when it is applied to drive an empathy wedge between men and women, it’s pure poison.
When it’s “Every person is a potential rapist” in the logic of the true lesson of the holocaust: “Every person is potentially complicit with genocide”, it’s perfectly reasonable.
The irony is that when rape is seen as purely male oppression of females, it falls into patriarchal values that men are the only agents of sexuality. The fact that women have to think about rape far more than men and that some men express their privilege by whining about women “playing the rape card” (not anyone here, but certainly I’ve seen it commonly) is rooted in the patriarchal core of the society. In a strongly matriarchal society, unethical females would use their power to exert sexual control over males.
nightshade
8:59 pm | Jun 02, 2008I haven’t read that book in so long. I have to credit Woolf for keeping me sane when I was in high school.
And yes, Mackinnon takes it too far…but I’m glad she does it.
nightshade
2:39 am | Jun 03, 2008Haha, I meant Wolf and not Woolf. I really need to get more sleep.
jaehwan
3:10 pm | Jun 03, 2008Yes, I agree with Jade.
I’m uncharacteristically quiet right now because I haven’t read MacKinnon or Wolf or Didion. I’m feeling illiterate.
Xian,
One thing that I can say though is that I wonder if anyone is doing any research into those matriarchal societies to see if there are any lessons we can pull. Anthropologists often look into patriarchal societies to see our roots, and I wonder if they’re doing that with matriarchal societies as well.
sargassosea
3:27 am | Jun 05, 2008I came across this blog while searching for Asian-American activists in Portland, and I am deeply disappointed by your current stance on Asian-American feminism. In this article you claim that one criminal should not represent an entire racial group, yet in another article, you use Maxine Hong Kingston and Amy Tan to stand in for all Asian-American feminists in much of the same way that you claim Jenn of Reappropriate uses Tuason to represent all Asian men.
Kingston and Tan, who you seem to believe epitomize Asian-American feminists, are only two women in an incredibly heterogenous group. (Furthermore, while they may personally identify as feminists, they are largely considered fiction writers and not political activists.) I find it ironic that you used the cover of Dragon Ladies as a picture for this article, because if you had actually read that book, you would understand how wonderfully intelligent and diverse Asian-American feminism is. Instead, you link to this essay, citing it as an example of Asian-American feminism when nowhere in the piece does the writer identify as a feminist.
Since you are apparently writing a more comprehensive piece on Asian-American feminism, I suggest you first read Dragon Ladies to acquire a firmer grasp on what actually constitutes today’s Asian-American feminism. At this point you are deeply disillusioned if you think that Woan’s article is vastly different from the type of scholarship that normally characterizes Asian-American feminist writing. Most AA feminists these days address topics such as decolonization, representations of Asian women in the media and popular culture, the shortcomings of Western feminism in addressing the concerns of Third World women, and, believe it or not, the fostering of solidarity across gender within Asian-American communities. You and the readers you cite who insist that AA feminism only exists as a way “to make it socially acceptable for Asian women to fuck non-Asian men” are not only operating under false assumptions of what AA feminism is, but are alienating fellow activists who identify as Asian-American feminists in the process.
I challenge you, in your upcoming article, to engage with current AA feminists who are not Kingston or Tan, and to broaden your limited scope. Karen Eng, Lynn Lu, Rey Chow, Mimi Thi Nguyen, Chandra Mohanty and Gayatri Spivak might be good places to start. I hope you come to change your views and realize how your statements against AA feminism are outdated, uninformed and damaging to AA solidarity.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Pan
jaehwan
6:00 pm | Jun 05, 2008Jennifer:
Glad that you’re in Portland. Thank you for voicing for concerns, and welcome to the 44’s. Though we disagree, I hope you’ll stick around. As I mentioned, I am still refining my ideas about feminism.
So are you saying that Kingston and Tan are criminals? If this is what you’re saying, then we agree. (though this probably isn’t what you’re saying.)
Jenn did in fact extrapolate Tuason to all of us by linking him to our culture. She later made a distinction by saying it only applies to angry Asian men or a certain kind of Asian man, which, though it may be a nicer way of saying the same thing, is still logically wrong. She’s linking one criminal to a group of men by race despite the fact that, to the best of my knowledge AND hers, NO Asian male has condoned Tuason’s actions, and NO other Asian male has ever done what Tuason did. It would be like saying, “I saw an Asian prostitute,” and then saying “There’s a problem in Asian culture that makes a certain group of Asian women act like prostitutes. Let’s talk about what makes YOU people act like this. Let’s examine YOUR culture.” Pin the Tail on the Asian Male. It’s logically wrong. Jenn not is consciously against Asian men, but that extrapolation has no basis in logical reasoning. Historically, this kind of extrapolation has been used as a means of keeping the Asian man down.
What I’m doing is quite different. I’m linking activists based on a shared so-called intellectual tradition. While NO Asian American male has condoned Tuason’s actions, to the best of my knowledge NO “Asian American feminist” has rejected Kingston’s actions and lies. Kingston is by far the most prominent of these Asian American feminists. So if none of them are speaking out against her and so many of them are quoting her and referencing her and supporting her, I think it’s a pretty fair judgment to say that she serves as a representation for them. You just can’t have it both ways. These “Asian American feminists” can’t embrace her intellectually (along with the financial support she gets from the mainstream), and then suddenly disown her when people ask hard questions about her very questionable actions.
As I mentioned, I’m still working on writing a follow up to this article. But if you have time, check out JadeDragon’s excellent piece here. This is the usual mainstream AA Feminism that we see, and it always revolves around sexuality, and more often than not it’s about their right to fuck white men. As I’ve said many times, I’m on board with this: fuck fuck fuck away. I just think that it’s a pretty weak form of feminism.
I’ve not read all the people in that book, obviously, but I have read some. I’ve read Spivak, for example, and what I’ve read has been the same old deconstructionist postmodern nonsense–”I’m so oppressed that I can’t even think straight”–that brings us nowhere. What must it be this way? I’m reading Betty Friedan right now, and she makes perfectly strong arguments. Why can’t the Kingstonians do this?
And about them supporting Asian men: Kingston once wrote a soft-porn-style description of Asian men in her intro to Duras’s “The Lover.” She talked about how much she sexually desired us. It was disgusting. This isn’t the kind of support we want, and it’s not the kind of bridge that is going to get us working together.
As I mentioned, I’ve already read some of those authors in Dragon Ladies, but I hear this “Just read this” or “just watch that” kind of arguments all the time. It’s the old Falling for Grace argument–”it may not look good, but it really is.” I WILL read something if there is a compelling reason to do so. I read Nightshade’s recommendation of Joan Didion last night–which was excellent–and I plan to read Jade’s recommendation of The Beauty Myth. I’d be willing to read this book too–or parts of this book–if you give us a reason to do so.
How does this help Asian Americans? How does it help Asian American women?
So maybe tell me a bit about what these people stand for. Or maybe talk about why we should read it. Or maybe discuss some useful theories that they’ve presented? If Woan’s treatment of the subject is not unique (and Woan herself believes it’s relatively unique since she herself says in her abstract “few if any offer a precise theory for understanding the imperialized experience), share with us some of the knowledge that you’ve picked up from these people. This is the same question that I ask James and Jenn, and if you have knowledge to share, by all means we’re looking for it.
Jennifer, I’m glad you’re here, and if you’re in Portland, I hope you’ll come out to our events. If you’re not offended by my (still developing) views, feel free to discuss further. We’re all about learning here.
JH
PS: I only linked Dragon Ladies because of the picture on the cover. It was basically my view of how Asian American feminists see themselves, and I thought it was pretty funny that they confirmed it through their choice of a picture. If they didn’t want me to link it that way, couldn’t they have found a more serious picture to put on the cover?
sargassosea
11:29 pm | Jun 05, 2008JH, thank you for your thoughtful response. I see that our differences boil down to our respective notions of what the “typical” Asian-American feminist looks like today.
In response to my suggestion of Dragon Ladies, you state, “I WILL read something if there is a compelling reason to do so.” Isn’t broadening your understanding of what constitutes current Asian-American feminist discourse a compelling reason? At the end of my comment I listed the names of several prominent, published AA feminists not out of laziness, but because I assumed you would want to more deeply explore a subject you are clearly passionate about in some way. While you and JadeDragon are both capable of writing strongly opinionated essays, you so often refer to “Asian-American feminists” in the abstract, with few concrete examples of scholars who embody this type of feminism you are against. Who, besides Kingston, Tan, and Jade’s example of the pop singer Natalise are espousing this narcissistic, sex-positive AA feminism that you oppose? Give me a reading list like the one I’ve given you, because I can’t think of any AA feminist literature I’ve looked at recently that fits your description.
The feminists I mentioned, who are found not only in Dragon Ladies, but in a wide array of published works, do anything but hastily point fingers at Asian men. In one of my favorite essays, “Critical Visions: The Representation and Resistance of Asian Women,” Lynn Lu describes and analyzes the struggles Asian women face in popular culture and the media. She writes, “In media-driven U.S. culture, representations of Asian women play a significant role in both reflecting and shaping our status, our self-image, and our potential. As we struggle for visibility and recognition of our diversity, we not only face blatantly offensive depictions of ourselves, but also continually come up against the power of racist, heterosexist, classist, and imperialist ideologies to adapt and pervert our demands by creating new versions of old stereotypes.” That, to me, sounds more like the Woan article you champion than the whiny Kingstonian ideology you seem to think most AA feminists adhere to. In fact, I don’t think there’s a single essay in Dragon Ladies that one could claim fits your notion of Kingstonian AA feminism.
Asian-American feminism isn’t about wanting to fuck white men. It’s about engaging and exploring the particular intersection of race and gender that defines the experiences of Asian-American women in white, male-dominated environments. It’s about addressing the ramifications of colonialism and imperialism around the globe. It’s about dispelling “model minority” myths, “lotus blossom” imagery and other stereotypes that harm Asian women. And, like other feminists of color and white feminists, not all AA feminists agree with each other all the time or subscribe to exactly the same beliefs. You have shown that you are willing to read a wide variety of white feminists. Why not extend that willingness to their Asian counterparts?
Jennifer Pan
jaehwan
1:08 am | Jun 06, 2008Jennifer,
Before I forget, will you be in town on July 11th and 12th for our Frank Chin event? It’ll be at OHSU. If you’d like to help us raise funds or organize, send me a PM. (or e-mail to naruguard-44 at yahoo dot com).
“Scholars” are important, but advocates have the greatest impact. Malcolm X was never a scholar, but he was a black activist and effective advocate. Sojourner Truth was never a scholar. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were never scholars. Friedan and Steinem really weren’t scholars in the traditional definition.
Still we have a decent list of writers who advocate, directly or indirectly, the philosophy:
Min Jin Lee, Patricia Chao, Lisa See, Anchee Min, Jessica Hagedorn (who is mentioned in Lynn Lu’s article, though Lu doesn’t mention how Hagedorn perpetuated the same stuff in Dogeaters), Cathy Bao Bean (though in fairness to her she now says she was appalled by Woman Warrior), those women who wrote Cleopatra Moon, Kim Wong Keltner, Annie Wang, and Wei Hui. If you’d like to count non-authors who perpetuate the same through their words, you have Bai Ling and Margaret Cho. Plus you have your movie writers like Fay Ann Lee (Falling for Grace), Georgia Lee, Jane Chen, and Mia Riverton (Red Doors). Plus you have men who perpetuate the same stuff like David Henry Hwang and Jimmy Lee (Close Call).
So if I ask for references, it’s not because I’m not interested in the subject matter; it’s because I’ve read way too much of the same Kingstonian garbage. There comes a point where the rational person needs to request good references rather than read whatever and whoever is out there. There’s just too much good stuff to read. Hope this makes sense.
Thanks also for the reference to the Lynn Lu article. I actually just googled it and read it in its entirety.
Here’s my feeling: I didn’t think it was a bad article. In fact, I think it was decent. I can’t really argue against anything she says. However–and tell me if you agree with this–unlike Woan or JadeDragon or Betty Friedan, Lu doesn’t really say anything. There’s no prescription or call for action at the end. I would think this would be a requirement of something deemed “feminist.”
Woan, for example, calls for recognition, which is an excellent “first step.” She simply asks for the law (and she has a real target rather than just an abstraction) to recognize the role that sexual imperialism plays. JadeDragon calls for getting away from sexuality. She says that there’s more to it than just sex. Friedan calls for letting women attain their goals through career. She says that a society is holding them back.
Lu doesn’t really say anything. Witness: “As our images proliferate and mutate, we may not like what we see, and we may not be seen as we like. But our critical presence in the production and reading of unruly representations ensures our continuing participation in the battle to control our own destinies and to make our voices heard.”
Okay…so what do you want me to do, Ms. Lu? Does just being there imply that we’re going to change things up?
So I’d agree with you partially–Lu is not Kingstonian. Then again, she’s not anti-Kingstonian. In this essay, she’s really not pro-anything other than describing a situation, which is a good perspective for an academic, but I don’t think it makes her a “feminist.” As I said in my Bi Bim Bap article, I think we need real feminists, but feminism, in my definition, would be one who advocates for change. Woan, JadeDragon, and Friedan would all fit this definition. With just the essay you recommended, Lu wouldn’t fit that definition (though admittedly she might have other articles or be involved in other projects that would qualify her).
What do you think? And more importantly, what do you think that Asian American feminists need to do?
Xian
7:58 am | Jun 06, 2008Jae, you were totally getting your ass handed to you until the last post. :D
Statements like this:
To the best of my knowledge NO “Asian American feminist” has rejected Kingston’s actions and lies.
…are just overreaches that as Ms. Pan correctly points out do little more than draw generalizations out of how we gerrymander the categories we are defining. Necessarily, as we’ve discussed, the need for Asian American feminism exists, and thus there are people doing good work in the area.
I am sure they are doing their very best to be active and as visible as necessary, and if we are at all sincere on the issues, it is our responsibility to do our damnedest to identify and collaborate with them.
If we sit around and say, “The mainstream identified Asian American feminists suck and I don’t see anyone else” that is extremely short-sighted as it just perpetuates the power of the mainstream’s lens on our community. Remember–the mainstream caricature of ANY minority power group sucks. When you say that Asian American feminism is often identified as want to fuck white men, you are right. But when Ms. Pan says that Asian Feminism isn’t about wanting to fuck white men, she’s exactly right–that no longer constitutes any useful, functional definition of the ideology.
However, you are completely right on one thing, and probably the most important thing. The time for esoteric posturing is over–maybe there never was a good time for it.
Our community pieces must be calls to action and we must integrate as many perspectives on what our community action must look like. I will read the linked articles tonight, but my feeling from the excerpts is that that outline the need well, but we need a battle plan.
This is true of any portion of our community–even those smaller in numbers than the gender groupings. After all, don’t you think I’m sick of reading “thoughtful pieces” on half-breeds “caught between two worlds and blahblahblah I’m so fucking special”?
Ms. Pan, it’s a pleasure to read your words. I hope to meet you in Portland.
JadeDragon
2:32 pm | Jun 06, 2008Hi, Jennifer, and welcome to the 44s.
First of all, I think I need to explain that my personal interpretation of feminism may not be the same as others. I am a third-waver myself and I was born and raised in South-east Asia, although I’m ethnically Chinese. My focus in feminism has always been on gender politics, racial/cultural difference and queer theory. And while third-wave feminism, not just Asian-American, also examines theories of sexuality far more than its predecessor, sometimes this is over-emphasised and takes away atttention from issues that are equally important for women. Remember the media hoopla that burst out in the 1990s when “girl power” was popularised? Even now, young girls are being taught about “girl power” via texts like “Mean Girls”, which originated from Rosalind Wiseman’s book on relationships between teenage girls “Queen Bees and Wannabes”.
Regarding the scholarly side of feminism, I am of the opinion that while reading feminist literature should be encouraged and promoted, it is problematic to simply follow what the writers say without criticising or formulating responses of one’s own, whether in writing, art or performance. And I’m a believer in that old chestnut “if you believe in equal rights for women, then you’re a feminist”. So when I speak of Asian-American feminists, I am speaking of women who espouse equality between the sexes, and the ones I criticise are those who revel in those rights which their predecessors have fought for but use them as ammunition for selfish reasons.
Therefore, I agree with you that Asian-American feminism isn’t about wanting to fuck white men, but look at the artistic output by Asian-American women that mainstream audiences are more likely to be exposed to. Movies such as Red Doors, Falling For Grace and the classic novel-turned-movie The Joy Luck Club cast Asian-American women in this soft, hazy glow while Asian-American men are relegated to one-dimensional roles, if they are even shown at all. Old-school feminism was about challenging the patriarchy, but third-wave feminism shouldn’t focus on just that. Even Rebecca Walker mentioned that boys who are growing up in this generation need guidance that society and their environments may not be able to give.
This is just an example of what I feel Asian-American feminism is lacking. There’s plenty of writing and other creative output on what Asian-American feminism is about and what it can do, but a lot of it is steeped within heteronormative and woman-only boundaries and hasn’t changed for quite a while. Even the Lynn Lu article you cite, while it recognises that changes are necessary to destroy negative stereotypes of Asian-American women, says nothing new that has not been written by other feminists. That’s why I read works by other feminists of colour and sexual orientations, and even white feminists, because I might learn something different.
Akrypti
2:43 pm | Jun 06, 2008Could someone clarify for me why the animosity toward Kingston and the coining of the term “Kingstonian” to what I can only conclude to denote any APA female with political opinions on APA issues who happen to date white men? How in the devil did this come about and where was I when it happened?
First of all, Professor Kingston has always been a powerhouse of a voice for APA political activism. She’s a fiction writer first and foremost, then a poet, and so her personal efforts concentrate on literature. However, she has been quite a force in the anti-war protests, among other political movements in the last two decades, oftentimes the only APA let alone APA female voice heard and resonating through the mainstream crowds. She takes that role with gravity and has always been a positive role model for her students, in particular the APAs.
Also, the antipathy between Frank Chin and Maxine Hong Kingston need to be taken into context, a lot of which is not known by those who weren’t on campus when it first started. It’s not my place to disclose any more, but please just keep in mind there’s always a LOT more to the story than you may think. It’s not always just politics or logic pure and simple. Often, it begins from somewhere personal and quite irrational.
To peg this entire counter-feminist sort of thought — the “I’m a feminist who believes APA feminism is all about getting the white man of my dreams” doctrine as “Kingstonian” is first, a misnomer since it was never her thesis to begin with; second, unfair to Professor Kingston who has never harbored even one iota of such a thought; and third, a betrayal if you ask me to someone who has worked her entire life for the APA community.
If any one of you knew how hard she worked, how zealous and passionate she is on a day to day, minute by minute basis for the APA causes, how much she champions her APA students, how much she has single-handedly done for APAs, in particular those on the west coast, in particular those at Berkeley, then none of you would dare disrespect her the way you have here at this forum. She is a figure we as an APA community should applaud. Seriously. Who cares who she married? Are we still that backward that the sum of a woman’s worth, no matter what, is still just her husband?
jaehwan
6:46 pm | Jun 06, 2008Xian,
Haha…now that the 44’s is attracting smart people from all over the world, I need to always be aware of the fact that someone might call me out! It makes me reminisce about the days when Catatonic was here, and we could win arguments with him while drunk and read our victory in the morning. No more. On the other hand, smart people help us to refine our views, which is way more awesome than any ego-stroking one gets from beating on Catatonic.
I think Asian American feminism needs its champions. I think you’re right–we need to identify them and them then do our best to collaborate with them and to give them the platform that they need to share their views. But where are they? I hope they’ll feel free to come here and share their views. Let’s get the action going!
Akrypti:
We’ve got lots of women here who are dating white men too, and we don’t refer to them as Kingstonian. Kingstonian has nothing to do with who one dates or marries. Min Jin Lee is married to an Asian guy, and she’s a total Kingstonian. Though I think there is a difference in perception that marriage choices cause (see Dialectic’s article here), we all agree that people have a right to date or marry whomever, and that all in all, IR is a good thing. Kingstonian refers to when it becomes a narcissistic, pseudo-activist movement, as in “I’ll sleep with whomever I want! You don’t own me, footbinder! I am the Woman Warrior.” That’s Kingstonism. I think the term was actually coined by Garrett Hongo. He was trying to use it as a positive term. But it turned sour once people actually realized the detriment that Kingstonism has had on our people.
I’ve mentioned this before on this forum, but I’ll mention it again. Kingstonism is when truth doesn’t matter, when emotion matters more than truth. See my other blog post here. I resent the fact that she claimed that the Chinese word for “slave” and “woman” is the same. I resent the fact that she has promoted IR as a means of empowerment, and that her friends have attacked Frank Chin with the worst ad-hominem unsubstantiated nonsense (he had a literary award yanked because supposedly he used the c-word to refer to some woman. Supposedly. And supposedly the word for “slave” and “woman” is the same in Chinese.). The sad thing is that Kingstonism, which deviates from truth, is now the dominant form of so-called “activism.”
Haha…yes, she got all bent out of shape during Vietnam because white Americans were dying…okay, that was just a joke. But seriously, where was she when Japanese Americans were trying to get redress? Why hasn’t she spoken out against the high suicide rate among Asian women for which she is much to blame? What has she done?
I think the real story here is how little she has achieved despite working at it for 35 years and having nearly an unlimited budget. She’s met with President Clinton and had his ear, and yet she still wasn’t able to achieve anything other than “you don’t own me.” With the millions she’s earned off “Woman Warrior,” with her tenured professor’s salary, why is it that we still can’t get stories outside of the standard Kingstonian trope of Asian-woman-fighting-against-her-culture? Why is it that Asian American authors still use the same groundless attacks against Asian men and raise white men on a pedestal?
I can’t comment on her personally, but the damage she has done to our collective culture has been enormous. In the wake of her destruction, people attack Asian men and Asian culture with an almost totally unrestrained abandon. Look at the JV and Elvis show. Look at the caricatures that greeted Fukudome near his own home crowd. Thank you, Hong Kingston.
When does it all end? When do we stop elevating the Tans, Hwangs, and Kingstons who have created this mess?
sargassosea
7:40 pm | Jun 06, 2008JH, your statement that “Scholars are important, but advocates have the greatest impact” is well-taken. It’s true that the women I cited are mostly academics and not popular writers or artists. However, while I certainly recognize that feminism manifests in many different cultural forms and is not restricted to the academy, my main point was that your sweeping condemnations of AA feminism fail to take into account some very good work that is currently coming out of the academy. Perhaps this isn’t the most visible form of AA feminism, especially to “mainstream” American audiences, but if it is the most productive and progressive, shouldn’t the AA community work to support it and make it more visible?
Perhaps I should clarify what I thought was implicitly stated in my prior comments: Although I identify as an Asian-American feminist (insofar as I am both Asian-American and a feminist), I do not support or subscribe to a frivolous, self-centered, “sex-positive” brand of “feminism” that prioritizes one’s personal exploration of sexuality above all other issues. Like you, Jade, I find myself frequently dissatisfied with the particular “girl power” strain of the third wave that tries to pass off selfishness and personal gain as feminism. Also like you, I look to non-Asian feminists for information and inspiration all the time. I am in no way defending the “Kingstonian” ideology that you and JH seem to believe most self-identified AA feminists subscribe to. Rather, I am trying to point out that it is outdated to categorize the majority of AA feminists as “Kingstonians,” and thereby detrimental to the AA community to view women who identify as AA feminists with suspicion if not outright contempt.
JH, thank you for the invitation to the Frank Chin event. Xian and Jade, thank you for your responses. I appreciate being part of this dialogue. I know I haven’t addressed all of your remarks yet, but I am definitely thinking them over and will hopefully have a chance to return to them at a later date.
Jennifer Pan
Akrypti
7:57 pm | Jun 06, 2008Jaehwan–
Just got the info from my father: The word “serf” in Mandarin Chinese is “nong2 nu2″ or ??. The origin of that term came from the history in China of selling women, unwanted daughters, into slavery. Also, as you can see, the root in “nu2″ here is the same “nu” for woman.
Furthermore, in case you were ever wondering how the character “nu3″ ever came to be, ?, it’s supposed to resemble a pregnant woman, the only state when a woman is of any value to society. That’s the history of the word ? and the reason this character is embedded in the term “serf” or ?? is because women, the castaway daughters, were the ones originally traded and sold as such.
Finally, even if you want to be literal, the direct translation of “slave” is “nu2 li” or ??. Again, the root word is ?.
There you have it. In this sense, Kingston wasn’t pulling one over anybody’s eyes.
Akrypti
7:59 pm | Jun 06, 2008darn. none of the Chinese characters showed up. okay then. you can either take my word for it or look it up. =)
Xian
9:08 pm | Jun 06, 2008The sad thing is that Kingstonism, which deviates from truth, is now the dominant form of so-called “activism.”
Yes, but it is not the dominant form of activism (no quotes).
I think we need to waste less time and energy complaining about fake activists and spend more time strategically planning our real activism. I suppose that’s what August will be for.
We all know this in other realms–the more time you spend complaining about people that suck, the less time you have to be and teach others to be awesome.
Xian
9:13 pm | Jun 06, 2008There you have it. In this sense, Kingston wasn’t pulling one over anybody’s eyes.
Yes, and the Latino race was created by white dudes raping indigenous women. WTF does that have to do with anything?
In Japanese, “Noisy” is three women. “She” is “Female he”.
So what? English is full of sexism too. It’s simply because language reflects the values of the society that it was invented in.
I’ll answer my own question–WTF it has to do with anything is that mainstream feminism was not interested in addressing issues of racism and ethnocentrism and therefore naturally focused more on ethnic other sexism than mainstream racism. So it served a massive short-term purpose, but in the end was not a real social justice movement.
AsianBGirl
10:56 pm | Jun 06, 2008You know..after reading all this, I have to wonder if our own judgement of the certain sections within APIA activism is based on our own limited surroundings and resources, therefore fueling our bias.
Jae has said many times before that in his personal experience, he’s run into the types that follow Kingstonian feminism. Yet Jennifer Pan claims that this isn’t the type of feminism that real APIA feminist have been following. And honestly I have to agree completely with Jennifer. The APIA activists I’ve worked with, men and women who also very much identify as feminists, are pretty much what Jennifer describes. They are very much into the issues of race, gender, sexuality, class, and none of it has ever been the self-serving, self-objectifying “Asian culture(s) are more oppressive” bullshit. But then again, the activist circles I run in are based in Chicago. Maybe our main problems are that we’re limited to our areas?
I will say this. If it is the case that the majority of APIA feminism is filled with the hype of ideas that Kingston/Tan created, then I will definitely a support a change/redifining of APIA feminism. But in my personal experience, it’s been happening. The only difference is that unlike Kingston and Tan, they’re not acknowledged by white people.
Xian
11:28 pm | Jun 06, 2008Absolutely. And we need to ask ourselves why we are internalizing the world view of the white mainstream.
Wait, Chicago? Have we worked together before? Message me if you want :)
nightshade
2:12 pm | Jun 07, 2008The Chinese character for good, ??also contains the woman radical, but that shit isn’t brought up. Only a someone who can’t read in Chinese would say that the word for “good” is “woman” or the word for “slave” is “woman” when it’s a RADICAL.
It’s like saying that weird, warped, and wicked are interchangeable with woman because they all start with “w.”
P.S. Jennifer, thanks for adding to the discussion and bringing up good points.
zhangfei
2:44 pm | Jun 07, 2008Since the discussion isn’t about Chinese language, I’ll make it short. What I am gonna to say has nothing to do with feminism.
“nong2 nu2?is a contemporary word, a combination of character “nong2″ and “nu2″. There is no evidence that the term was coined before year 1900 or from the history of woman slavery. A few of us here can read Classical Chinese and Vernacular Chinese. If you have other sources, other than your father, I would be happy to look them up.
Historically, the character “bi4″ and the character “nu2″ were generally used to describe, women and men respectively, who were in bondage.
Chinese characters appeared as early as 8000 years ago and,like other languages,it kept evolving. Sometimes they don’t make sense at all in contemporary setting. A few illustrations: The character for woman/“n?3” could also mean “you”, and its pronunciation is “r?3”; the character for slave/”nu2” could also mean “I”, or stagnant”. Or even stranger, it could also be used as a term of endearment, as in “nu2 g?4”. “ge4” means “elder brother”. So what the hell does “nu2 ge4” mean? Well, it’s English equivalent of “sweetheart, or honey.” It was what men called their women.
Alright, a few more, then I’ll stop. Character “zi3” means “son or boy”. But in ancient China, people called their son or daughter“zi3”. In the Tang dynasty, people often addressed their father “ge4”.(aka, elder brother)
My point is that Chinese language and history are a little more complicated than some people think. Now, I am not saying Chinese language is devoid of sexism. But you need more to prove that character “woman=slave”. I sincerely want to find out the origin of character “nu2″, and its subsequent usage.
In the Bible, God created Adam from dust, and later created Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. In Chinese folklore, a goddess created women first and then men. Were they matriarchal societies? When slavery was first practiced? Who were the slaves? Who enslaved them? What language did they use? What did the laws say? That is another topic for another day.
jaehwan
12:34 am | Jun 08, 2008Excellent post, Zhangfei. The discussion on Chinese language may not be specifically focused on feminism, but it’s very MUCH important since the whole crux of Kingstonian feminism is based on accusations against Asian men, some of which are blatant lies, others of which are partial lies. It’s important to know history, so it’s definitely relevant.
I was going to mention that no serious scholar came to Kingston’s defense when Chin called her out on the woman/slave thing. Kingston had the entire academic world at her beck and call, and yet they were speechless when Chin called her out. They literally couldn’t come to her defense because there was no defense. So Akrypti, your father may have some views and speculations on the origins of the word slave and woman, but it’s not one that has been verified by any expert on Chinese language.
Nightshade:
Or someone who had a HArrowing experience had a similar time as someone with a HAppy experience.
You’re right. It’s a radical. It more than likely has to do with pronunciation rather than meaning. And it’s not the same word! If you said nuren or nusheng to someone, they know that you’re not saying “slave.” As everyone here agrees, the Chinese have a different word for that.
Xian:
I think we definitely have to spend more time strategically planning real activism, and I’m looking forward to August.
I do think, however, that it does make sense to define positions. We can’t just blow Kingstonism off since she is the mainstream style of AA feminism. Since she’s the mainstream, you see her influence on everything that comes out of the universities. Our tax dollars pay for public universities to teach this nonsense. You’ll always be fighting against it unless you put it away. I’ll address this in my upcoming feature (AA Feminism 4), but we aren’t just complaining, we’re setting boundaries, and we’re identifying ourselves as different from the mainstream. It’s important for people to know what they’re getting whether through the 44’s, through Thymos, or through any organization that we lead.
Anyway, I’ll say more about this in my upcoming feature, hopefully in the next few days.
Sargasso, AsianBGirl:
I think we’re all on the same page. I’m totally excited about this. Thanks.
AsianBGirl, definitely message Xian. It’s great that you two are in the same area, and it would be awesome for you two to get some Chicago activism going.
Sargasso, it’s just you and me from the 44’s in Portland for now. Represent!
Xian
11:30 am | Jun 08, 2008It’s my firm believe that if you build “it” (an equitable social justice ideology) they will come.
There is no need to actively destroy mainstream ideas. We merely complete our comprehensive, inclusive agenda, and do outreach.
I’m excited.
AsianBGirl
5:17 pm | Jun 08, 2008Xian -
Call me incredibly slow, but how do I message you? >.<
jaehwan
2:46 am | Jun 09, 2008Bgirl,
Go to the forum (click on the red bar on top). When you get to the forum, click on “private messages” right under the red bar on top. “Send new message” will be on the right hand side under the “Private messages” part.
Asian American Feminism 4 is up.
caocao
9:33 am | Jun 09, 2008i also want to point out errors with Akrypti’s statements on Chinese characters and pronunciations.
i’m more cynical and less polite than the others here, so i personally believe it’s grasping for straws to say that her father told her the characters or pronunciation for slave is the same as for woman.
any real Mandarin Chinese speaker before the 1970s wouldn’t even know what this BS argument is for “nu3″ or “nu2″ because that’s with the introduction of the pinyin system of Chinese using Roman letters that evil people who want to distort Chinese latched unto somehow “nu” (slave) is the same as for “nv” (woman). and “nu” alone doesn’t mean anything without “nu li” in terms of Mandarin Chinese for “slave.”
therefore, the pinyin system is moot as far to bring up slave=woman because it’s just racist and ignorant to say that Chinese always had woman=slave when in fact it’s only the pinyin system using occidental Roman letters provided the auto-racists a means to appease to the occidentals superiority complexes.
even nowadays in China, the pinyin and simplified character is typed using “NV.” you can easily verify this with any Chinese input software.
so I’m calling Akrypti out for lying about Chinese, the same as the “kingstonians” do when they pin non-existent racist caricatures upon Chinese people and culture.
caocao
9:39 am | Jun 09, 2008i also want to point out that in as far discussions on asian american feminism or sexuality or gender politics go, the “kingstonians” are still making the mistake (or willfully perpetuating the racist caricature) about Chinese culture as some sexist female aborting hellhole and equating that with asian american males.
like the mainstream racist media who label asian-americans as the forever inscrutable foreigners, these “kingstonians” are using that racist ideology to pin and label anything that has to do with asians (namely AM in this gender wars) as being the same as their reified and self-constructed straw-man notion of China as a female aborting, footbinding hellhole for women.
to them, like in popular media, all AM are inscrutable foreigners with thick accents and cannot be assimilated, while the AFs are perfect amerikkkan dialect speaking romantic partners for WMs.
this is nothing less than the racist stereotypes constructed by white media and society and willfully perpetuated and distorted images of Asian cultures by the auto-racists like the “kingstonians” for their own nefarious selfish purposes.
caocao
9:45 am | Jun 09, 2008now lastly, as a Mandarin speaker myself, I’d like to know what other dialects and other Chinese writing systems there are as Zhangfei (my arch nemesis) points out are there for “slave” and “woman.”
because for certain the kingstonian racists always point out to China as some sort of monolithic straw-man entity they point fingers at for being footbinding female aborting hellhole; when in the reality there’s much diversity and transitions and changes during China’s 5,000 years of written history alone.
there were many systems of writing invented by many of China’s sub-ethnic groups and there are still many different dialects.
and there are even today news of small regional matriarchal communities where women control the resources and make the politics.
therefore, it’s nothing less of racist for the kingstonians to make these BS accusations against asian americans with fake made up racist caricatures of Chinese history and culture.
jaehwan
1:53 pm | Jun 09, 2008Caocao:
I think Akrypti tried to print the actual Chinese characters, but they don’t come out on our English-centric board. But as nightshade pointed out, it’s just pronunciation anyway.
Cao Cao and Zhang Fei weren’t archnemeses! C’mon, there are numerous versions and myths! In the Maxine Hong Kingston version, Cao Cao and Zhang Fei are best friends who were fighting over Mulan until a white guy came along and rescued her from them. In the David Henry Hwang version, they were gay lovers.
I’m just kidding, though I’m not all that far off since Mulan had characters written on her back in Kingston’s version of Fa Mu Lan and David Henry Hwang had Kwan Yin going crazy head over heels in love with the white hero in the Lost Empire.
So I agree with you. Why have we come so far away from trying to learn truth? Let’s elevate the importance of truth and history. We need to get rid of this deconstructionist approach to culture.
nightshade
12:10 am | Jun 10, 2008I didn’t say it was pronunciation–I said it was a radical. (I’m not a Mandarin speaker–I’m a Cantonese speaker.)
Akrypti
3:25 am | Feb 20, 2009First, many of the posters here come across as ignorant, narrow-minded, and full of shit.
Second, yes, it’s a radical; thank you for presuming I didn’t know that. Woman came from man, etymologically and mythologically. Likewise, the history of Chinese linguistics is inextricable from social circumstances and contexts.
So what? I didn’t say such connections unequivocally prove sex inequality. No one would make that argument. As you folks have argued time and time again on this forum, it comes down to awareness. We ask for acknowledgement.
The word for man is comprised of “land” and “strength.” At one point, a man was validated by the crops his toil could yield. I’d love to see all men up in arms about being objectified for their brute. Feeling offended by this history won’t change anything. Denying it altogether *definitely* won’t change anything.
And really. The “angle” for this website is intellectualism? Is intellect hinged on education only? We need to preface what we say with our skill sets and qualifications and if we don’t, it’s bunk?
By the way, yes, the alleged “Kingstonian” view certainly has been substantiated by reputed and creditable members of the academia. In China. And the opposing views espoused here are also “substantiated by reputed and creditable members of the academia.” None of us can go back in time and verify for sure what the intentions were in the conception of these words and radicals. Yet to pass it all off as a matter of coincidence and of no relevance to today’s “intellectual” discussions is, as I first mentioned, ignorant, narrow-minded, and evident of a group of bloggers who are full of shit.
jaehwan
2:59 pm | Feb 21, 2009Akrypti,
As you know, the politics of this site has turned 180 degrees since this conversation first took place. The 44s has since become far more feminist (according to some definitions). Since this post, I’ve personally agreed not to post about feminism or other controversial topics, and I’m going to stick to that promise. But since you’re bringing it up, I just wanted to acknowledge that I’ve read your comment (and am not just ducking you!).
Anyway, if you’re interested in front paging, I think Dialectic and Lopes would be interested in your opinions. I would too. Let us know!