The Bright Side AF/WM

[doppelganger]

Here's something that got forwarded to me. Take it as you will:

I don’t know why some Asian guys get so bent out of shape when they see an Asian woman with a white guy. Don’t get me wrong. When I see a hot Asian girl with a dorky ass white guy, I sometimes think to myself, “Why can’t I be that dorky ass white guy banging the hot Asian chick?”
Now before I get the hate mail, I am a red blooded Asian man. I’ve just learned to look at the bright side of this volatile issue:

1) All relationships end. Ever hear of the “Romeo and Juliet” effect? If two people are drawn together and other people are telling them not to be together, then guess what? The lovebirds want each other even more. Let these couples have their fun, get married, and they’ll soon realize, “My God! I can’t stand this person! What was I thinking?” By the time such women realize they’ve been going out with losers, they’re bitter, old and divorced, and no guy wants them anyway. You just got cock blocked from seven to ten years of marital misery.

2) Not all Asian women who date white guys are that hot. Seriously. Why should I care if some average looking or boring, mousy Asian chick is doing it with a guy “so white and nerdy” or even “hot and purty” (as my white hillbilly friends like to say). I say, “Good riddance!” Hell, ugly women need lovin’ too, and ugly Asian women are no exception. I say it’s better to breed the average to ugly Asian women out of the Asian American population. Which relates to my next point:

3) Nerdy Asian guys need to be bred out of our community. This is the flip side to #2. If dorky Asian men can’t hook up with women, then they can’t reproduce more nerd spawn. No more William Hungs please!

4) We need more hot Hapa women! I love Eurasian women. If two negatives make a positive, then a mousy Asian girl with a pasty white guy should produce hot Hapa offspring. I say Asian women and white guys should get together and participate in this eugenics movement and create a race of super sexy Eurasians.

So the next time you see an Asian female and white male couple, thank them for adding a little chlorine to the Asian American gene pool.

[DONKEY]

wat is the purpose of thi--Zzzzzzzzzzz

[badwill]

I'd liked to slap whoever wrote this crap.

[AsianPlayboy]

3) Nerdy Asian guys need to be bred out of our community. This is the flip side to #2. If dorky Asian men can’t hook up with women, then they can’t reproduce more nerd spawn. No more William Hungs please!

I actually agree with this point. Evolve or die and let nature weed you out of the gene pool.

[Ike]

2) Not all Asian women who date white guys are that hot. Seriously.

QFT. It's mostly the ones that Asian guys won't ask out.

[CJF]

The trends are switching. More and more Asian guys are hooking up with hot white girls.

Usually it's the ugly Asian girls that go white. Asian guys are more picky when it comes to women whereas white guys are animals who just want to put their penis in vagina.

Go ahead, root out the bad weeds white men and go to Asia for a sex trip and die of AIDS.

[Scowl]

I'll be the first to agree that it does no good to harbor an unhealthy fixation on yokojohns. However, the problem with "looking at the bright side" is that it tends toward the negative rather than the positive, and what you have is a different kind of presentation for the same old self-hate.

3) Nerdy Asian guys need to be bred out of our community. This is the flip side to #2. If dorky Asian men can’t hook up with women, then they can’t reproduce more nerd spawn. No more William Hungs please!

While we're at it, let's kill all Asian guys who are under six feet tall with penises of a length shorter than six and a half inches. The ones who are good at math need to go, too. Those who wear eyeglasses must switch to contacts, get laser surgery, or die. And, of course, non-fluency in English is an instant death sentence. Sorry dad, it's been fun but now it's time to die.

Being stupid, however, is apparently forgivable since no one is calling for the death and extinction of Asian morons.

4) We need more hot Hapa women! I love Eurasian women. If two negatives make a positive, then a mousy Asian girl with a pasty white guy should produce hot Hapa offspring. I say Asian women and white guys should get together and participate in this eugenics movement and create a race of super sexy Eurasians.

I actually find this quite disturbing; I'm sure the guy who wrote this isn't being 100% dead serious, but it mirrors the kind of colonial mentality that exists in certain parts of Asia. While I am all for closer ties between AAs and Asia, this is one thing that we don't need over here. We have enough issues as it is without such a superficial fixation on mixed blood.

I actually agree with this point. Evolve or die and let nature weed you out of the gene pool.

If all the nerdy Asian guys who can't get laid were bred out of existence, wouldn't that put you out of business?

[theme]

The trends are switching. More and more Asian guys are hooking up with hot white girls.

Usually it's the ugly Asian girls that go white. Asian guys are more picky when it comes to women whereas white guys are animals who just want to put their penis in vagina.

Go ahead, root out the bad weeds white men and go to Asia for a sex trip and die of AIDS.

Go kill yourself.

[jaehwan]

I actually agree with this point. Evolve or die and let nature weed you out of the gene pool.
If all the nerdy Asian guys who can't get laid were bred out of existence, wouldn't that put you out of business?

It think it would put him out of existence too.

[Heli]

An nerd is only nerdy if he is not rich.

[Ike]

By the way, because of this thread, we are #3 on google for the search term "hot hapa" (no quotes).

[CJF]

Why are you searching hot hapas anyways? Go to EAN and they have tons of guys showing shirtless pics. If I ever get to losing 15 lbs, I'll rejoin EAN and post. (That won't happen)

[Ike]

So you know how when you search something on Google, sometimes it also gives you a sidebar with "You can buy xx-item on eBay!" I was trying to see if eBay thought you could buy hapas. You can't. They don't advertise selling slaves either.

[CJF]

I'm thinking you can get Hapa slaves in Vietnam. From what I hear, there are tons of poor street kid pick pocketer hapas running around there.

[Anansasem]

What of the kids themselves? I hear plenty about the vices of the Asian IR, though what of the kids of these unions?

Regardless of their parents mistakes, how will biracial children play into the 'race' issues in the next few decades? If anything could be considered positive from these relationships, I would think it would be the children. Growing up in such a twisted environment would either make them or break them, I'm afraid. Even so, I do believe it may be the one positive thing to emerge from the current IR issues.

Regardless of your Asian pride and unity, it is nothing more than a number in time before it is dissolved like any other 'race.' Anti-miscegenation laws and sentiments only delayed the integration in the U.S. With that barrier mostly eroded, interracial couples have risen to over 7% of all married couples in the U.S. It is projected to continue to climb, given the overwhelming preference and support by younger generations. No one argues that it will happen, provided we see no biblical or otherwise catastrophe, it's only the time and degree that are in question. If you have two groups of people in contact, they're going to fight, fuck, or both. Add this to the fact that there are no longer any completely isolated groups of humans left, and it's conclusive we cannot drift apart any more, leaving integration as the only possibility.

The only thing inconclusive is how we'll get there. Given the current disparities and hostility, would seem to indicate a rougher road.

Sorry to ramble off track.

[Ike]

"Anansasem" is also not purchaseable on eBay, according to a Google search.

[Ike]

Most of the mixed race people I know are okay people. They don't seem to hate or deny part of their heritage, and they seem to be pretty understanding of race issues.

For example, I went to see Rush Hour 3 last night, and my hapa (white/Japanese) friend and I discussed the stereotypical portrayal of Asians and the lumping of all Asians into one category. Not something your average white guy would have picked up on.

But then again, that could just be the people I associate with. I don't think I would befriend a racist moron - I'm pretty picky. (Could also be why I don't have many friends... ;_;)

[realist]

3) Nerdy Asian guys need to be bred out of our community. This is the flip side to #2. If dorky Asian men can’t hook up with women, then they can’t reproduce more nerd spawn. No more William Hungs please!

From a societal progress standpoint, we need more geeks, not less! Geeks contribute far more to society than bad boys. For one thing, without the intelligence that geeks provide, we wouldn't have computers, the Internet or the high-tech industry. The problem isn't the existence of geeks, it's that society no longer values geeks.

Under thousands of years of the Asian arranged marriage system, geeky men had better marriage prospects than bad boys because the parents who were doing the choosing were looking for successful men. Geeks were and are more likely to be successful husbands, providers and fathers than bad boys in a civilized culture that requires intelligence and cooperation. The selection pressure imposed by arranged marriage is why Asians are more likely to be geeky.

Since the 1960's or so, western society has allowed individual women unprecedented freedom to select sex and marriage partners based on their own instincts, which evolved during prehistoric times. For millions of years of evolution, high-testosterone traits like muscularity, aggressiveness (bad boyness), and physical size were important for primate males as they constantly battled for physical dominance. Women's instincts and emotions are still triggered by those traits, even though they're obsolete in civilized society (which has only existed for 5000 years).

Without social institutions that promote geeky guys, women will continue to choose badder boys, which is bad for society as a whole. Rather than eliminate geeks, society (and women who value long-lasting marriages, good providers and good fathers) would be far better off with new institutions that help women value geeks over bad boys in spite of their instinctual, emotional desires.

[DONKEY]

thats the biggest load of crap ive heard all year.
do people actually believe that geekiness is hereditary?
its an adaptive behavior. come on guys, you're not being very good geeks.

[realist]

thats the biggest load of crap ive heard all year.
do people actually believe that geekiness is hereditary?
its an adaptive behavior. come on guys, you're not being very good geeks.

There's plenty of scientific evidence supporting the idea that there are genetic and inherited components of personality. Obviously, "geekiness" isn't a scientific term, but many scientists have presented evidence about how personalty in general has evolved, developed and is inherited. Here are a few references (many "geeky" traits are explicitly discussed):

The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Robert-Wright/dp/0349107041)
Heroes, Rogues, and Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior (http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-Rogues-Lovers-Testosterone-Behavior/dp/0071357394)
The Essential Difference (http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Difference-Truth-about-Female/dp/0738208442)
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0140245480)

On another note, if you believe geekiness is an environmental adaptation, what do you suppose it's an adaptation to? What's the evidence to support that?

[DONKEY]

On another note, if you believe geekiness is an environmental adaptation, what do you suppose it's an adaptation to? What's the evidence to support that?
modern life? having to go to school and work in offices instead of learning to hunt, trap, and fish. sitting at computers for 9 hours a day instead of having to carry water around and grow food.
never before have reading and writing skills been so necessary. this all came about rather suddenly. biological adaptations are not made so quickly.
also some people are only geeks for part of their lives. hormonal changes can occur rapidly in a person even as an adult male. testosterone levels will increase if you switch to doing a job that is more physically demanding and then drop again if you quit it. ive experienced this before.

if geekiness is genetic then you could also say being religious is genetic, since its more likely that religious parents will have religious children. but this is not true, they are socialized to be religious. strong correlation does not mean causality. a child of the geekiest parents in the world will not turn out like them if they grow up in the wild.
The selection pressure imposed by arranged marriage is why Asians are more likely to be geeky.
this doesnt make any sense if you consider that Asian societies, like any others, have class systems and each social class has different values according to their needs. geekiness has no value in the lower classes. in fact it's a disadvantage. plus it's not even true that "Asians are more likely to be geeky." racist? yeah.. but true? no.

[realist]

if geekiness is genetic then you could also say being religious is genetic, since its more likely that religious parents will have religious children. but this is not true, they are socialized to be religious. strong correlation does not mean causality. a child of the geekiest parents in the world will not turn out like them if they grow up in the wild.

I'm simply saying that there is a great deal of scientific evidence that some traits that are typical of geekiness, particularly above average intelligence and social introversion are partially heritable. (The authors and scientists I listed have provided this evidence. Another book that discusses the heritability of some personality traits is Social Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman.)

plus it's not even true that "Asians are more likely to be geeky." racist? yeah.. but true? no.

There's a very good feature here (http://www.thefighting44s.com/archives/2007/02/18/race-stereotyping-and-socially-constructed-knowledge/) that discusses stereotyping. As the article suggests, stereotypes (like geekiness) form based on patterns that we see in the world. I propose that there is a high enough ratio of actual geeky Asian men that this has become a commonly perceived stereotype. As one piece of evidence that this perception is widespread, I would cite the numerous posts on this board and others lamenting that very stereotype.

By the way, I'm Asian, I'm geeky and I personally think that's a good thing for me and a good thing for society to have geeks around. For attracting modern American women, however, being geeky is not a good thing.

As for your point that I'm being racist, I believe that there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that genetic differences exist between racial groups. Physical differences are obvious and it's pretty clear that Asians have differently shaped eyes and are shorter on average than whites or blacks. Would I be considered racist for saying that?

There's a difference between the statement that people of one race are superior to people of another race and the statement that some traits are more or less common in particular races in the aggregate and on average. (Of course, I've heard many Asian women state that men of white or black descent are categorically superior to men of Asian descent, which I think is also wrong.)

Height is clearly affected by one's genes and is regulated by a series of hormonal triggers. There's also research showing that on average, Asians reach puberty later and haves higher metabolisms. These differences are also regulated by hormonal and neurochemical differences. Scientists have found a tremendous amount of evidence that neurochemicals and hormones affect psychological traits as well (the books I listed go into quite a bit of detail about the links between specific neurochemicals and specific personality traits).

10-15 years ago, it was considered sexist and highly taboo to suppose in academic circles that women and men had different, genetically determined psychological propensities and talents. Now, after much scientific research, those differences are accepted by a large part of the scientific community. (If you still don't believe that there are neurochemical and structural differences between male and female brains, I can cite plenty of research.)

10-15 years from now, I believe there will be a similar level of understanding about differences between people of different genetic groups. Race is a very crude way of assigning people to groups, but it seems to be a very natural way for us to identify ourselves (hence the racial focus of boards like this).

[xian]

There's a very good feature here that discusses stereotyping. As the article suggests, stereotypes (like geekiness) form based on patterns that we see in the world. I propose that there is a high enough ratio of actual geeky Asian men that this has become a commonly perceived stereotype. As one piece of evidence that this perception is widespread, I would cite the numerous posts on this board and others lamenting that very stereotype.

I don't think you are framing D's argument in that article fairly. He argues that generalizing and typing can be functional and can be healthy, but not in every application. They are logical patterns sought from people's perception.

That's not the same thing as stereotypes developing from what "we" see in the world. Significant social stereotypes developed based on the perceptions of the world multiplied by the social power and privilege of person identifying the pattern. I've seen a pattern of "quasi-liberal" white dudes with persecution complexes appearing and demanding attention in ethnic minority online communities, but that doesn't mean that white dudes are going to be plagued by that stereotype in every movie depiction from here on out.

Furthermore, the more privileged and therefore more impact a person has in a society, the less accurate their observations are likely to be as they have no incentive to gain the skill to observe and document from multiple perspectives.

So no, just because whites observed Chinese as inferior colored folks who were going to rape their women in one century and geeky asexual half-men in another doesn't mean that it is based on some underlying pattered truth.

In order to make any type of assessment of where the stereotypes come from, you need to peel back the layers of ethnocentric assumptions that filter observation. What is labelled "geeky" by our society is not some universal truth--it is merely the value system of a misogynistic, damaged society. In one century, it was a society that was ran by white males who believed that they owned all women and saw men of color as a threat. In this century, it is the same core belief, but adding a deeper insecurity and fear that encourages white males to emasculate their "lessers" in order to control their property (once again, not white women, but all women).

And the list could continue--anti-immigration has existed since the beginning of time, and the same adjectives have been recycled for every group "slow", "unable to learn English", "dirty", "deceitful", etc. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the groups were not nearly as "dirty" as the "original" European immigrants whose lack of personal hygiene is likely the one attribute that allowed them to conquer the continent in the first place--stereotypes without reality.

As for your point that I'm being racist, I believe that there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that genetic differences exist between racial groups. Physical differences are obvious and it's pretty clear that Asians have differently shaped eyes and are shorter on average than whites or blacks. Would I be considered racist for saying that?

Well, of course you are being racist, but I could care less. It's more troubling that you once again fail to parse between the logic and impetus for stereotyping and any scientific explanation. The height is complex and the average difference is closing all the time as diet and health care changes. Certainly you wouldn't look at the difference in life expectancy between the Nordic countries, Japan, white America and African America and decide that was biological difference would you?

The second critical error is in the failure to interpret the significance of your findings. Even in the examples that you give that are not bullshit--there are some generalizible genetic differences which are especially noticable in appearance--what does that show? The only point where it takes on significance is in the social interpretation of those realities. In other words, the idea that it's attractive to have "I haven't properly nourished myself" anemic looking skin is not some buried genetic trait.

How we define "geekiness" and "attractiveness" differ from society to society and from person to person. But in a marketplace of ideas, in a society, substantive, thoughtful valuation defeats bullshit when strategically applied. I mean, it's no coincidence that my wife's friends are jealous of what she gets at home, but then can't figure out why they can't find anything good themselves while they limit their dating option with stupid mainstream values.

But do you want to date them anyway?

[DONKEY]

I'm simply saying that there is a great deal of scientific evidence that some traits that are typical of geekiness, particularly above average intelligence and social introversion are partially heritable. (The authors and scientists I listed have provided this evidence. Another book that discusses the heritability of some personality traits is Social Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman.)

there's "scientific evidence" supporting and refuting almost anything you can think of. and if there's not yet, just wait a while for the right money to be put in the right place for X results in a scientific study, supporting a wide variety of dogmas and commercial interests.


There's a very good feature here (http://www.thefighting44s.com/archives/2007/02/18/race-stereotyping-and-socially-constructed-knowledge/) that discusses stereotyping. As the article suggests, stereotypes (like geekiness) form based on patterns that we see in the world. I propose that there is a high enough ratio of actual geeky Asian men that this has become a commonly perceived stereotype. As one piece of evidence that this perception is widespread, I would cite the numerous posts on this board and others lamenting that very stereotype.

the sample of Asians in America and/or Asian Americans are more likely to be geeky because of the factors which determine which Asians are to be found in America. Asian immigrants are more likely to come from an educated/wealthy background than other immigrants because Asia is a lot further away than Latin America (walking here from Asia is not an option). uneducated and working class people in Asia don't make it over here as often because they cant afford the risk of moving to a foreign country where they might not speak the language or be comfortable in a totally foreign place. the exception to this is refugees who are forced to move and if you look at refugee populations they are nothing like the other immigrants.


By the way, I'm Asian, I'm geeky and I personally think that's a good thing for me and a good thing for society to have geeks around. For attracting modern American women, however, being geeky is not a good thing.

im not against geeks, they have an important role in society. male geeks are not totally without social capital because after all there are plenty of female geeks who are interested in the same things. plus geeks can make a lot of money and this is a positive thing in any part of society. if american women value earning potential in a mate at all, geekiness is an attractive trait. but Asians who are geeks have an extra barrier blocking them: racism.


As for your point that I'm being racist, I believe that there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that genetic differences exist between racial groups. Physical differences are obvious and it's pretty clear that Asians have differently shaped eyes and are shorter on average than whites or blacks. Would I be considered racist for saying that?

There's a difference between the statement that people of one race are superior to people of another race and the statement that some traits are more or less common in particular races in the aggregate and on average. (Of course, I've heard many Asian women state that men of white or black descent are categorically superior to men of Asian descent, which I think is also wrong.)

Height is clearly affected by one's genes and is regulated by a series of hormonal triggers. There's also research showing that on average, Asians reach puberty later and haves higher metabolisms. These differences are also regulated by hormonal and neurochemical differences. Scientists have found a tremendous amount of evidence that neurochemicals and hormones affect psychological traits as well (the books I listed go into quite a bit of detail about the links between specific neurochemicals and specific personality traits).

10-15 years ago, it was considered sexist and highly taboo to suppose in academic circles that women and men had different, genetically determined psychological propensities and talents. Now, after much scientific research, those differences are accepted by a large part of the scientific community. (If you still don't believe that there are neurochemical and structural differences between male and female brains, I can cite plenty of research.)

10-15 years from now, I believe there will be a similar level of understanding about differences between people of different genetic groups. Race is a very crude way of assigning people to groups, but it seems to be a very natural way for us to identify ourselves (hence the racial focus of boards like this).
please spare me the righteous anti-pc crusade.
there are differences between the races and sexes, of course. but geekiness does not come into the picture here. it's an adaptation an individual makes to the demands of their situation because acting like troglodytes wouldnt get them very far. only the lower classes value physical prowess over intelligence.

[realist]

[Sterotypes] are logical patterns sought from people's perception...

That's not the same thing as stereotypes developing from what "we" see in the world.

I'm not sure I understand how those are not the same thing. Isn't "what we see in the world" essentially similar to "people's perception?"

Significant social stereotypes developed based on the perceptions of the world multiplied by the social power and privilege of person identifying the pattern.

I believe that stereotypes start at the personal level, based on the patterns that we as individuals see. When a lot of people see the same pattern, that stereotype gets magnified. There might be some additional magnification of the stereotype by people in power, but this requires an underlying pattern in order to have any kind of staying power. We as individuals constantly challenge the opinions and ideas of those in power, so a stereotype that had no element of truth would be easily debunked.

In my particular case, I happen to have been exposed to a large number of people working at high levels in the math, science, engineering and technology arenas. There are clear statistics to show that Asian men are vastly overrepresented in these areas, despite the fact that a lot of white, black and latino men and women also desire and apply for these programs and positions. In my experience, typically "geeky" traits like intelligence, focus, cooperation (as opposed to aggressiveness) and systematic thinking are beneficial in these areas. Those who show the opposite of geekiness, "badboyness," rarely succeed in these areas. I see a pattern of Asian men in these roles (which is also backed up by statistics) so I hold the stereotype that Asian men are particularly good in these roles. I know that many people with a similar background to myself also hold that stereotype. This stereotype has nothing to do with what white, powerful men have told me to believe.

The main problem I have is that the "geeky," "nice guy" stereotype is considered by women to be negative and unattractive. This, I believe to be a problem with women themselves moreso than women being controlled by white men. I don't think white men have all that much control over women and there are plenty of places where men of all races also lament the state of modern American women and their choices in men. (http://www.the-niceguy.com, http://nomoremrniceguy.com, http://nomarriage.com, http://angryharry.com, etc.) As I said below, geekiness should actually be attractive to women!

Well, of course you are being racist, but I could care less. It's more troubling that you once again fail to parse between the logic and impetus for stereotyping and any scientific explanation. The height is complex and the average difference is closing all the time as diet and health care changes. Certainly you wouldn't look at the difference in life expectancy between the Nordic countries, Japan, white America and African America and decide that was biological difference would you?

Are you saying that you don't believe there is a genetic component to height or aging? There are hundreds of studies that would say otherwise. Studies with identical twins both separated and not separated at birth are one way the heritability of height has been determined. There are hundreds if not thousands of researchers also working to understand the genetic mechanisms behind aging, and a great deal of progress has been made there as well. Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human (http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/0060006781) has an excellent discussion of how science is working to understand what is and isn't heritable.

How we define "geekiness" and "attractiveness" differ from society to society and from person to person. But in a marketplace of ideas, in a society, substantive, thoughtful valuation defeats bullshit when strategically applied. I mean, it's no coincidence that my wife's friends are jealous of what she gets at home, but then can't figure out why they can't find anything good themselves while they limit their dating option with stupid mainstream values.

But do you want to date them anyway?

I agree! There is absolutely a tremendous social element in all of this and societies and people clearly differ. I'm simply proposing that differences among people aren't 100% determined by society or white men in power. I believe that individuals have some genetically determined traits, talents and dispositions. I think it's very possible that these genetic differences are relatively small but are then magnified by society, but in my experience and research, they appear to have some basis in reality.

I am also in absolute agreement that the mainstream values of your wife's friends are what need to be changed! My original post was in opposition to the idea that geeks should be bred out of society. In fact, I think that we need new institutions and social norms to change mainstream values such that geeks, nice guys and others who contribute most to society should be considered to be attractive rather than eliminated.

[realist]

the sample of Asians in America and/or Asian Americans are more likely to be geeky because of the factors which determine which Asians are to be found in America. Asian immigrants are more likely to come from an educated/wealthy background than other immigrants because Asia is a lot further away than Latin America (walking here from Asia is not an option).

I think you're actually agreeing with me to some extent here. It sounds like you're saying that Asian-Americans are more likely to have geeky traits because they come from backgrounds/families that have those traits. You're also saying that Asians with those geeky traits were more likely to be educated and wealthy in their homelands. It would follow, then, that you believe the Asian-American "geeky" stereotype has some basis in fact (due to immigration patterns) and is not just a creation of racist white men in power.

only the lower classes value physical prowess over intelligence.

In my experience, there are a lot more high-class, wealthy, attractive women dating football, baseball and basketball stars (who have average intelligence at best) than there are dating chess and math champions.

[xian]

In my experience, there are a lot more high-class, wealthy, attractive women dating football, baseball and basketball stars (who have average intelligence at best) than there are dating chess and math champions.

I call selection bias. The only reason why you know of more high-class, wealthy, attractive women dating sports stars is because sports stars are higher-profile than math and chess champions. Media interest is not the same as attracting high-class people. Just because everyone won't shut up about Paris doesn't mean that folks with class want to hook up with her.

Furthermore, if you define "intelligence" as a chess or math champion, then your definition is terribly problematic.

As to your first question for me, you answer it in the next quote. My argument makes perfect sense if you accept the supposition that stereotypes are cultivated by power. I gave examples and you just hand-waved them away because you believe in individuals and blah blah blah.

What makes you so special that your opinion is worth more than historical precendent?

I know that many people with a similar background to myself also hold that stereotype. This stereotype has nothing to do with what white, powerful men have told me to believe.

Of course, institutional racism has a massive influence over career choices and interest pursuits even from a young age. The leap from "there may be some genetic influence" to "societal influence doesn't matter at all" is massive.

This coincides with the problem here:

Are you saying that you don't believe there is a genetic component to height or aging? There are hundreds of studies that would say otherwise. Studies with identical twins both separated and not separated at birth are one way the heritability of height has been determined. There are hundreds if not thousands of researchers also working to understand the genetic mechanisms behind aging, and a great deal of progress has been made there as well. Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human has an excellent discussion of how science is working to understand what is and isn't heritable.

So what? The argument wasn't that there is categorically no genetic height difference. The twin studies suggest that genetics play a factor, but say nothing about race. The argument was that you:
1) were reaching in alloting contemporary height differences according to race to genetic when the only solid evidence we have is that historical height differences are closing as international exchange has made access to various dietary and health components uniform.
2) were in cases where there was a genetic component making a leap in logic to conclude that there was a logical link to attractiveness that resulted.

The main problem I have is that the "geeky," "nice guy" stereotype is considered by women to be negative and unattractive. This, I believe to be a problem with women themselves moreso than women being controlled by white men. I don't think white men have all that much control over women and there are plenty of places where men of all races also lament the state of modern American women and their choices in men. (http://www.the-niceguy.com, http://nomoremrniceguy.com, http://nomarriage.com, http://angryharry.com, etc.) As I said below, geekiness should actually be attractive to women!

You've added an additional fallacy to the mix by equating geekiness with "nice guy". The problem is that "nice guy" syndrome has nothing to do with being nice and much more with being cowardly and self-absorbed.

I haven't seen a problem with actual nice guys finding folks to date except through existing stereotypes and racism.

[Iron Mike]

I am also in absolute agreement that the mainstream values of your wife's friends are what need to be changed! My original post was in opposition to the idea that geeks should be bred out of society. In fact, I think that we need new institutions and social norms to change mainstream values such that geeks, nice guys and others who contribute most to society should be considered to be attractive rather than eliminated.

I know you're probably talking generally and using a flexible definition of the word "geek," but a cursory glance of your posts makes it seem like there are only two types of men in the world: geeks and bad boys. I'm not a woman, but if I was, I'd stay away from both types. And I'm sure when you say "nice guy" you mean someone who is generally a kind, compassionate person, but the term itself conjures up images of insecure dipshits (for lack of a better term - http://heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml )

[xian]

Yeah, I thought the same thing.

[Iron Mike]

In my experience, there are a lot more high-class, wealthy, attractive women dating football, baseball and basketball stars (who have average intelligence at best) than there are dating chess and math champions.

In my experience, those who play organized sports tend to be more open, sociable, and just plain fun than those shut-ins who become chess champions.

[realist]

I know you're probably talking generally and using a flexible definition of the word "geek," but a cursory glance of your posts makes it seem like there are only two types of men in the world: geeks and bad boys. I'm not a woman, but if I was, I'd stay away from both types.

Thanks Mike, I agree that the terms "geek" and "bad boy" are simplifications that encapsulate a whole lot of traits. To some extent, I intended those types to describe two ends of a spectrum, with low-testosterone, heavily geeky guys on one end and high-testosterone, bad boy, player types on the other end. That spectrum is discussed in more detail in this book (www.amazon.com/Heroes-Rogues-Lovers-Testosterone-Behavior/dp/0071357394). Most guys fall in the middle and most women prefer men somewhere in the middle. My supposition is that in recent, post-feminism years, female mate preference has shifted in the direction of the bad boy side of the spectrum. Of course, there are a lot of other dimensions to male behavior, but in trying to keep this discussion somewhat readable, I've used that simplification.

And I'm sure when you say "nice guy" you mean someone who is generally a kind, compassionate person, but the term itself conjures up images of insecure dipshits (for lack of a better term - http://heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml )

I was in fact meaning "nice guy" in the kind, compassionate sense. Any ideas for a better term?

[xian]

I don't if that applies to star players, who understandably tend to be more one-dimensional. But I will say I know ample folks--including among Asian Americans--who are both Chess Champions and play organized sports.

[realist]

The only reason why you know of more high-class, wealthy, attractive women dating sports stars is because sports stars are higher-profile than math and chess champions.

Do you seriously believe this? You really think that there are an equal number of attractive women dating math and chess champions as there are dating sports stars? We just don't know about them? I'll leave that up to others to decide if that sounds reasonable.


Before we get too bogged down in details, I'm going to try and summarize the arguments made so far:

We both agree:

A stereotype of Asian men as geeky exists.
This stereotype negatively affects Asian men in the dating arena.


You believe:

The stereotype is perpetrated by white men in power and doesn't have a basis in reality.
There aren't genetic differences between races.
For Asian men, the solution is to refute untrue stereotypes of us.


I believe:

The main problem for men everywhere as well as for society and families is that women are putting an increasing value on guys from the bad boy/player side of the male spectrum rather than the geeky/nice guy side of the spectrum. (See previous post for a quick discussion of this spectrum.)
The geeky Asian stereotype has some basis in reality and Asian-American men are more likely to fall on the geeky/nice guy side of the spectrum.
There is some genetic basis for racial differences.

Please correct me if I've mischaracterized your opinions.


On the last point, it appears to me that Dialectic agrees (quoting from this article (http://www.thefighting44s.com/archives/2007/02/18/race-stereotyping-and-socially-constructed-knowledge/) again):

At the same time, we know there is some biological basis for recognizing “genetic clustering”: certain “genotypes” vary in frequency across populations and react differently to pharmaceuticals; certain peoples require different diets, respond differently to atmospheric conditions, and incline toward different physiological defects as they age. There is no doubt that certain genetic patterns give rise to certain general physical characteristics (”phenotypes”), which is why you can be reasonably sure that if you and your spouse are of Chinese descent, your baby will look Chinese, too. We know that groups can be distinguished by recognizing general patterns in their objective behavior, and even if one refuses to acknowledge “race,” it is still possible to recognize types of behavior in a population if they are pointed out objectively, regardless of one’s relationship to the population or one’s cultural milieu.

Race is both a subjective and an objective affair. It does have a socially-constructed component, it is partially defined by relationships, but it also has an observable, objective component, something much of the world, incidentally, would not deny. To put forth the idea of race as purely a social construct is to imply that it is arbitrary; that if we could simply think differently and erase notions of patterns and groups from our minds, race would no longer exist. Not only is this impossible - recognizing and responding to patterns in groups, both ethnocentrically and rationally, is a normal, healthy part of development - but it is incorrect: “race” would still exist, because certain observable patterns would still fall along racial lines, and it would hurt us not to acknowledge those patterns.


Furthermore, if you define "intelligence" as a chess or math champion, then your definition is terribly problematic.

I wasn't intending those to be used as definitions, rather as examples of groups I consider to be generally intelligent.

As to your first question for me, you answer it in the next quote. My argument makes perfect sense if you accept the supposition that stereotypes are cultivated by power. I gave examples and you just hand-waved them away because you believe in individuals and blah blah blah.

I suppose I do believe in individuals and blah blah blah. I agree with you that stereotypes can be cultivated by power. However, I think they more often have a basis in reality.

What makes you so special that your opinion is worth more than historical precendent?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Of course, institutional racism has a massive influence over career choices and interest pursuits even from a young age. The leap from "there may be some genetic influence" to "societal influence doesn't matter at all" is massive.

I don't believe I've said that societal influence doesn't matter at all, but I wouldn't characterize racist influence as "massive." Is it your belief that white men are actively trying to push Asian men into fields like math, science, engineering and technology?

I believe that in modern American society, people have wide latitude in their career choices regardless of race. I also believe that at the highest levels (especially in fields like math and engineering), an individual's talents and desires are more important to success than their social conditioning.


So what? The argument wasn't that there is categorically no genetic height difference. The twin studies suggest that genetics play a factor, but say nothing about race. The argument was that you:
1) were reaching in alloting contemporary height differences according to race to genetic when the only solid evidence we have is that historical height differences are closing as international exchange has made access to various dietary and health components uniform.

I first wanted to establish that height does have some genetic component. To your point about controlling for dietary and health components, I would suggest that Caucasian-Americans and Asian-Americans generally have greater access to food and health care than do African-Americans. Yet, numerous statistics show that African-Americans are significantly taller on average than either Caucasian-Americans or Asian-Americans.


You've added an additional fallacy to the mix by equating geekiness with "nice guy". The problem is that "nice guy" syndrome has nothing to do with being nice and much more with being cowardly and self-absorbed.

I haven't seen a problem with actual nice guys finding folks to date except through existing stereotypes and racism.

As I mentioned to Mike, I didn't realize that "nice guy" had such negative connotations on this board. Perhaps I should have used your term "actual nice guy."

[CJF]

Both have good points

But the reason why Asians fall into geeky is because the cultural values value education. But is it really just geeky? Tons of these geeks get into the arts and learn to play the violin at very high levels. Don't women like artists?

Many of these geeks get black belts in Tae Kwon Do or do Kung Fu form tournaments. Is that really that geeky?

Many AA geeks get envolved with student government where they learn to make decisions for a large amount of people. Is it really that geeky?

While academics comes first for AA's, many of them also have tons of extra curricular activities.

And women love men who are into the arts, physically fit and know fighting, and on top of that are good academically.

So sure, Asians are more likely to be "geeky" in terms of more academic oriented, but for some reasons it's not translating into AM getting more favor among women.

But sure enough, I really do see things changing. There's a slowly but growing legion of women who are exclusively into Asian men because they see how Asian men are usually more smart, fit, and well cultured than their counterparts.

[Scowl]

Well, it's like this; in America, being a geek is Bad. No matter how good it may actually be, it's still Bad. And not Good-Bad, either, but Bad-Bad.

Now, let's say that geekiness can be measured on a scale of 1 to 10, with 5 being the start of true geekdom. Being an Asian dude just starts you off with 3 or 4 points by default. Woe if you wear eyeglasses.

But sure enough, I really do see things changing. There's a slowly but growing legion of women who are exclusively into Asian men because they see how Asian men are usually more smart, fit, and well cultured than their counterparts.

I think you can find fetishists for just about any group of people, but in the end a fetish is still a fetish.

[Unconcerned Citizen]

I think you can find fetishists for just about any group of people, but in the end a fetish is still a fetish.

That's sig material. I'm too much of a Bruce Lee fanboy to change mine, though...

[Vahz]

"But sure enough, I really do see things changing. There's a slowly but growing legion of women who are exclusively into Asian men because they see how Asian men are usually more smart, fit, and well cultured than their counterparts."

I think you can find fetishists for just about any group of people, but in the end a fetish is still a fetish.

Assuming you're talking about non-Asian women, I'd much rather more Asian women look inward towards Asian men. I don't see what's so special about non-Asian women honestly. Sure, many are pretty but I think that only Asian women can truly understand what it means to be Asian American.

There are times where I just don't feel like explaining things.

[Ike]

There are times where I just don't feel like explaining things.

Agreed 103%.

[CJF]

Well, it's like this; in America, being a geek is Bad. No matter how good it may actually be, it's still Bad. And not Good-Bad, either, but Bad-Bad.

Now, let's say that geekiness can be measured on a scale of 1 to 10, with 5 being the start of true geekdom. Being an Asian dude just starts you off with 3 or 4 points by default. Woe if you wear eyeglasses.



I think you can find fetishists for just about any group of people, but in the end a fetish is still a fetish.
Well it is different though.

One fetish is where the women are hooking up to get into a higher class and the men are hooking up to fulfill sexual fantasy.

Another is where the women (white or nonasian) are taking a genuine interest and liking to Asian culture, and love it that the men are talented and well rounded individuals.

I don't think they are really the same.

Anyways, there are some non-asian women that understand AA issues better than those whitewashed Asian women. I bet the average black women understands what's going on with Asians discrimination better than those particular white washed white only dating Asian chick

[xian]

I don't believe I've said that societal influence doesn't matter at all, but I wouldn't characterize racist influence as "massive." Is it your belief that white men are actively trying to push Asian men into fields like math, science, engineering and technology?

I believe that in modern American society, people have wide latitude in their career choices regardless of race. I also believe that at the highest levels (especially in fields like math and engineering), an individual's talents and desires are more important to success than their social conditioning.


You are haven't difficulty understanding that institutional racism is often not evidenced by overt, intentional racism. This is causing you to severely underrate the role of such racism in the society.

Just because you ask white realtors, "Do you actively steer black buyers away from white neighborhoods?" and they answer, "No!" doesn't mean that racism is not a factor and research supports this.

Asian Americans face resistance from both external and internal factors when pursuing any number of professions. If you need help with identifying them, please feel free to ask.

As to the other point being discussed:
It is true that not all fetishes are equal, but in the end if you are dating some into you for a fetish that slightly not as bad as some other fetish, you are still fucked, and not in a good way.

[Ike]

As to the other point being discussed:
It is true that not all fetishes are equal, but in the end if you are dating some into you for a fetish that slightly not as bad as some other fetish, you are still fucked, and not in a good way.

Does this apply to all fetishes, or just racial ones?

I know it's been discussed tons of times, but where does a preference end and a fetish begin? Because certainly no relationship can be preference-free.

[xian]

Good point, Ike. While I suppose one could argue that ultimately every attraction should be based on the quality of one's character, that's certainly not something I was meaning to imply.

To be sure, in a world where race was "just a characteristic" and held no broader social context, a racial fetish would be no different than being attracted to someone because of their amazing feel.

But that social context does exist and help frame the significance of a racial fetish.

[Vahz]

I'm surprised a thread that seems trollish has actually gotten play.

[Scowl]

Turning shit into gold, that's what we do here at 44s.

[nightshade]

Turning shit into gold, that's what we do here at 44s.

Does that make the 44s the Rumpelstiltskins of the Internet? Or maybe just alchemists.

[PhoenixRisen]

Chlorine in the asian american gene pool???
Damn that's so highly f'd up.

[Senkeh]

Does this apply to all fetishes, or just racial ones?

I know it's been discussed tons of times, but where does a preference end and a fetish begin? Because certainly no relationship can be preference-free.

I agree. One could say that preference is about "the whole package"--the other person's religion, culture, values, etc. either match or mesh with yours. Fetish is about the fantasy. For example, this one guy I was having drinks with admitted he that would just love to have a Japanese girlfriend. When I snickered, he asked if I could blame him: he watched a lot of anime, loved Lady Snowblood, had taught himself to use the kitana...none of which means a thing in a mature relationship, and more importantly, none of which really has anything to do with your average, flesh-and-blood Japanese woman. (What brought up the conversation was the I mentioned my friend Rieko, and if I were to tell her of that conversation she'd be horrified).

Anyway, if you marry someone you prefer, chances are you'll be together for a good long while. But if you marry someone who fulfills a fetish/fantasy, then you'll want to break up with them the moment they "break character".

Just my opinion.

[Scowl]

Does that make the 44s the Rumpelstiltskins of the Internet? Or maybe just alchemists.

We are the ethnic alchemists of the new milennium, the yellow peril prestidigators of the information age. We might be the Rumpelstiltskins, too, since no one knows our names. Well, I guess they do, they just can't pronounce them.

he watched a lot of anime, loved Lady Snowblood, had taught himself to use the kitana...

Hahaha! This is stuff he actually said out loud?

Whoa.... get the man a Japanese girl! Pronto! I'll drive her over to his place myself, because goddammit, he fucking deserves one. He taught himself how to use a Japanese sword! Who the fuck does that? Someone who is entitled to some Japanese schoolgirl ass, that's who!

[evil_FUX]

Whoa.... get the man a Japanese girl! Pronto! I'll drive her over to his place myself, because goddammit, he fucking deserves one. He taught himself how to use a Japanese sword! Who the fuck does that? Someone who is entitled to some Japanese schoolgirl ass, that's who!

Hahah nice, that totally conjured up the image of some fool with his arms crossed holding a katana and tapping his foot waiting on some japanese schoolgirl ass and steaming over the potential wasted effort he put in.

[SamuraiJack]

I actually agree with this point. Evolve or die and let nature weed you out of the gene pool.

Yeah, weed out the nerdy Asian guys and bring in the nerdy whities. I've rarely, if ever, seen an Asian girl marry what would be considered a "hot" white guy.

[blockthebox]

Yeah, weed out the nerdy Asian guys and bring in the nerdy whities. I've rarely, if ever, seen an Asian girl marry what would be considered a "hot" white guy.

I've seen it and all I can say is "Right on." If you can bag yourself anything hot or rich regardless of race, more power to you. A good personality though is not enough.

[Ike]

A good personality though is not enough.

Yeah, anyone who says they go for personality is a liar.

[Senkeh]

Hahaha! This is stuff he actually said out loud?

Yup. I'll admit that we'd tossed back a few at this point...I found myself politely nodding and smiling. Moments like that are so awkward; I had no absolutely idea what to say to him.