The marginalization of Asian American women's experience in the public discourse

During our class discussion on stereotypes about Asian Americans last week, we talked about the concept of "model minority" and how it contributes to the stereotyping of Asian Americans as being "apolitical." Not only that the voice of the Asian community is seldom represented in the major public debate, but whenever there emerges a controversy regarding Asian Americans, it is about cultural differences in parenting style (such as the "Tiger Mother" debate) or about fashion, acting and the construction of beauty ideal (as it appears on the top Google search results). I remembered following the past midterm election and was struck by the fact that only the state of Hawaii had Asian Amercian candidates. In formal politics arena, Asian American women's voice is even further diminuated as out of the 12 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders currently serving in the 112th Congress, only three are women.

I also noticed that in the arena of feminist movement and women's studies, a parallel could be drawn in that the issue concerning Asian American women seldom makes onto the syllabus. From the Intro to Women's Studies to Junior Feminist Theory Seminar, I have read plenty of writings on Third World feminism, but the readings mostly covered Chicana feminism and African American feminist thoughts. Asian American women's writings had been sporadically inserted into the syllabus here and there, as if merely to complement the diversity spectrum. Before taking this ASAM course, and because of these impressions I got from the mainstream discourse, I used to hold that perhaps the reason why Asian American women's writings weren't on the syllabus could be explained away by the "fact" that there simply aren't many literatures available. However, I came to realize that such conception is totally wrong.

Now that I have learned about the politics and history of Asian American women, through literature, class readings and documentary films, among other mediums, I start to see the above-mentioned instances as the structured consequences of the construction of the "model minority" image, which constrained the public knowledge on the participation and representation of Asian American women's community. As we mentioned in the class, while it's true that stereotypes may only be canged when the dominant society no longer need such stereotypes, people can still implement changes by breaking the controlling images and change the social context under which current stereotypes have been propelled.

Losing a Language

May said something during today's reflections on the documentary film that resonated with me after class ended.

I too lost the ability to speak my family's native tongue at an early age, but I have never really thought about it in terms of being an Asian American and what it might mean. One of the many languages my parents speak, Kannada, was my first language. My first words were Kannada, but by the time I had finished kindergarten I had completely lost the ability to speak Kannada and was only speaking in and responding to English. Even though today I completley understand the language when heard, I cannot correctly put sentences together myself. My brother, on the other hand, cannot understand anything my parents say when spoken to in Kannada. The language is competley lost with him, and he shows no signs of wanting to learn in the hopes of passing it on to the next generation of our family. It's interesting to think that if I make no effort now, Kannada may be lost with my generation (in the family).

Today's documentary seemed to portray the protagonists loss of language as a sign of her adoptive family (which could be seen as a metaphor for American culture and structure) stripping away her culture. I think supression of her original culture was what led to her lifelong search for an identity. But thinking about the loss of a language in terms of my family, it seems as if my parents stripped away part of our identity as well. And left us with quite the burden. Because my parents never enforced Kannada on me when I began to lose it, I have lost a piece of my identity. I am not able to converse with my grandma who lives in India. I have become more American. Because my parents did not speak fluent Kannada to my brother (due to the loss of the language they watched me experience), he has lost that whole identity.

Currently I have found myself questioning how the loss of this language will affect my future identity and the identity of my future family. If I am never able to speak fluent Kannada, does that mean my children will not? Won't that make them even more American than me? Has my parent's choice to not enforce Kannada left me with the decision of whether or not the language continues on in the family? I can't help but feel that I may be changing the identity of our family from Asian American to American Asian.

Yes, my parents coming to this country makes us Asian Americans. But soon, will anyone even be able tell that that was the case?

From One Korean Transracial Adoptee to Another

Dear Deann,

Although we are from different eras, different geographical regions and have vastly different experiences in many respects, I feel like I know you in a way that I don't know many other people. As you mentioned, it's a difficult thing, to look into Caucasian eyes, reaching out to touch white skin and equating family, love, respect and even normal. It's also difficult to return to a place that was once your home, wanting it to be your home, frozen by the whispers of dietetic memory and the constant identity that you embody, yet you will never fully understand.

While my parents encouraged me to learn about Korea, even attending Korean lessons with me for a large portion of my childhood, I still feel a disjuncture. I can't speak to my parents about the duality of my identity because it's something they cannot grasp. I can't speak to other adoptees about my experience because the adoptee's experience is so varied. I am truly an singualar product for whom identity is a constant quandary.

Today I watched you as you searched for meaning within your two families. I watched as your American parents showed the same dedication to their child as mine did. I watched as you grew up as an undoubtedly American young woman. And I watched as you found your biological family. I am at that final crossroads now. A young man with an ambiguous past that constant knocks, passing unexplainable knowledge from the unknown to my body. Now I look to the future.

My experience and my consciousness tells me I don't need the reunion you had. I don't need to meet my mother, my father or any other family I may not know about. I'm uncomfortable with that reality. However, when I saw your mother's face as she held her long lost flesh and blood in her arms again, I hesitated. And when I saw the spark in your eye when you perhaps realized where you got your eyes, I hesitated further.

This is the third time I have seen your film and this is also the third time in my life I have seriously thought about my birth family. I'm not sure what to make of it yet, but I know it's undoubtedly important and much bigger than just me.


Thank You,

Galen

Stereotypes and First Person Plural

Last Wednesday at Frank Dining Hall, a panel composing of two professors, Professor Seung Hye Suh and Professor Sharon Goto, and the director of the AARC, Sefa Aina, used Amy Chua’s article, “Why Chinese Mother’s Are Superior” as a catalyst for a discussion regarding “Asian parenting”. During the talk, Professor Goto brought up a psychology related point of sociability versus competence. Sociability, or the inclination of being sociable, is normally seen as a support related trait involving qualities such as trustworthiness, morality, and helpfulness. On the other hand, competence can be considered a status-related trait, which can involve, but is not limited to, qualities such as intellect, ability, and respectability. Professor Goto stated that these two things are believed to be inversely related, that is, the greater a person’s sociability skills, the lesser their competence, and vice versa. If this inverse relationship is true, then it can be assumed that one would need to give up activities such as play dates or sports in favor of studying or practicing the violin as Chua said she had her daughters do.

After hearing that sports were considered more of a social activity and not to be seen as something that would make a person as competent in society as playing the violin would, I became a bit upset and began wondering why sports are seen in this way, and thus have less Asian participation compared to Westerners. To begin answering this question, I considered the fact that stereotypes arise from some sort of ideological function in society. So, what catalyzed the idea that are sports are mainly a social activity, and what do Asian have to gain by engaging less in this area?

To answer the second half of the question for myself, I concluded that people may engage less in sports because, as a socially labeled activity, this implies that sports would fulfill ones wants for fun and being in the company of others. This is not exactly what comes to mind when one thinks of professional jobs or economical success. So by thinking that sports are just “for fun”, one may devote more time to things such as education which has been shown to be a great factor in professional success. One reason for why sports are even seen as a social activity in the first place may come from the stereotyping of athletes, or more specifically, jocks. Jocks tend to be stereotyped as big, loud, not-very-bright white males who like to party and hook up with girls every weekend. This image is quite different from the image of how most people who value education would like to be viewed and screams incompetence in society. I currently cannot think of additional reasons at this moment, thoughts?

I also would like to comment on the film was saw in class today, First Person Plural, by Deann Borshay. Something I enjoyed from the film was how they took the time to film Ok Jin’s Korean family and hear their stories about her adoption and their reunion with each other. Most of the perspectives in our readings have involved the immigrant herself, her daughters, and/or an analysis from an outside, interested party. Because our readings rarely speak of families across the Pacific, it was refreshing to see an example of an interaction between the women we read about and their initial family. Going off on a tangent, I was also wondering if many of the adopted children around Ok Jin’s age when she arrived in America experienced memory loss and then recovery as she did?

Identity and Sterotype

According to Margaret Chung, one of the most controversial issues in the Asian American women studies is known to be the gender queer identity. In addition, cross-dressing or adoption of a masculine name can be viewed as attempts to assimilate. However, it is rather the one-sided stereotype, indeed.

Thus, there are the differences between the ‘breaking’ gender stereotype and ‘crossing’ gender stereotypes. However, both of them were challenged by Margaret Chung. She managed to challenge and cross the above mentioned gender stereotypes, for instance, by means of opting to enter the male profession of surgeons or by choosing for a female to be presented in a masculine dress, in spite of the obvious social pressures and even bans of doing so.

I believe any stereotype can be dissolved. Since all stereotypes reside in the collective consciousness of a particular community and are perpetuated through their repetition, any stereotype breaking must happen on a mass scale even though some of them are set historically. For example, some beliefs in the ability of females to master certain masculine types of occupations have been largely challenged in the popular American consciousness.

Anyway, it is historically occurred and influences even the modern gender perception that the stereotypes cannot be broken and blemish on the collective consciousness. To overcome them, it will take much time. I believe that breaking the stereotypes is more effective on the level of individual’s consciousness rather than on the collective. It is the point of each independent person whether consider Asian American style of wearing clothes to be acceptable or not, masculine name, profession, behavior, lifestyle to be socially wrong or right, etc.

Multiculturalism - Korean Military Brides and Korean Adoptees

When doing last nights reading, I found I had a larger reaction to the essay titled, Imagined Community: Sisterhood and Resistance Among Korean Military Brides in America 1950 - 1996 by Ji-Yeon Yuh. Yuh emphasizes that one of the major struggles of military brides is becoming American while retaining their Korean identities. She talks about how the military brides kept their identities despite the American values that were forced upon them and the rejection they faced from many Koreans because of their status by forming their own communities and networks, filling them with people who share that similar experience. Although I understand the ideas Yuh presents, and it sounds like she emphasizes that these women fought against society's expectation in American and Korea and therefore the importance of embracing multiculturalism. But I feel that the last line, "Why do we have to wipe out the Otherness in order to experience a notion of Oneness" (235) kind of contradicts what she talks about in the essay. Didn't the Korean military brides use their Otherness to create a community and network of women and families with shared experiences, thus fostering oneness?

I really liked how the film, First Person Plural, by Deann Borshay complimented the reading (about Korean military brides). Although the two tell different stories, I like that they talk about very similar experiences. In both cases, the Korean military brides and Korean adoptees went to or were sent to the United States, anticipating a future full of promise and opportunity that Korea, for various reasons, could not offer to them. I feel that the struggles both groups face are very similar. For the Korean military brides, this struggle involved embracing American culture in order to succeed, while attempting to hold on to Korean tradition and values. For Korean adoptees, or specifically, Deann, the struggle involved working hard to become American and therefore a loss of her original Korean identity, which she later on strives to recover. In both cases, there a various obstacles which stand in the way from reattaining or maintaining this sense of Korean identity. For the Korean military brides, those obstacles included the husbands who insisted upon American traditions and values, and many Koreans who wrote military brides off as low class prostitutes. Deanna's family stood as an obstacle - she knew who her mother and her family was, and yet, in Korea, there was another family waiting to meet her for the first time in 30 years. I like how in both cases, the stories refuse to choose sides, and instead, embrace an Asian American identity. This really resonates with me because although I haven't been through the same struggles, I really do embrace my identity as a Chinese American.

Before today's class, I started drafting a post on historiography. We've read a considerable amount of fiction set in the periods we're studying but written much later. Of course historical memory is as relevant as the events that transpired. It's impossible anyway to understand history without something of a presentist lens; why not go straight to what Yamashita thinks of WWII, what Divakaruni thinks of the early 1900s, what Lau thinks of the 1860s? But it made me wonder if there's a problem of voicelessness. By using modern sources we're in danger of making the assumption that the "picture brides", for example, cannot speak for themselves -- that there are no interviews, letters, pictures from these women that we could be reading. In a context where the idea of an intermediary is so fraught -- cf Nomura -- is this adding another?

Well, that'd be true if this was a history class, which: it isn't! We're studying Asian-American women's experiences, which means Divakaruni and Yamamoto's, too. So much of what we've talked about so far has put stress on the necessity of generational continuity. The Filipina-American journalling project is primarily figured as valuable so that it can foster communication and tradition transmission between first- and second-generation Filipina-Americans. And then there's the movie, which -- combined with class reactions -- is a treatise on the necessity of continuity, of cultural connection, and of personal experiences as reinterpreted through the viewer's eyes. Enough people have posted stories of their own Wilshire bus that it's pretty obvious straight-up history is only half the story, and the less important half.

Immigration and Mixed Race

The stories of Asian women immigrating to the United States were particularly interesting because it is something that every Asian American’s family has experienced. In “A Bowlful of Tears,” Lee Puey You tells her story of immigrating to the United States to Judy Yung, the author, and Mark Lai. Although Yung and Lai did not uncover You’s entire experience the first time, eventually most of her story was pieced together. She had a very difficult experience at Angel Island and with Woo Tong, the man she was promised to. This story made me realize that many people do not know their own family history. If this information is not preserved, it will be even more difficult to retrieve it later. Similar to this idea, we discussed an article that addresses the different forms of collecting information. In “Filipina American Journal Writing: Recovering Women’s History,” the idea of journal writing is explored as a way of collecting first and second generation Filipino women’s experiences. Connecting this to Asian American immigration, some first and second generation immigrants have already passed or are not able to share their stories. This only emphasizes the point that we need to preserve the information now in order to understand the experiences of these Asian American women. I feel like many later generations of Asian Americans do not appreciate the experiences of their ancestors and collecting information is more vital than ever. I never knew how my great grandparents entered the United States until I took this class and realized the importance. I found out that my great grandmother stayed one night at Angel Island before she entered the United States as the wife of her brother’s roommate. When I asked further questions regarding my ancestor’s immigration, my grandparents lacked some details. This means that knowledge has already been lost concerning Asian American immigration and journal writing could have prevented this.

On a different note, the discrimination addressed in the articles “Leaves from the Mental Portfolio of an Eurasian” and “Imagined Community: Sisterhood and Resistance among Korean Military Brides in America, 1950-1996” targets mixed race couples and children. This is particularly interesting because neither Asian American nor White communities accepted these Eurasian children or Korean military brides. This left these groups of people without a sense of belonging or identity. I think this continues to be an important concept today because there are more and more mixed race children and couples. Although the idea has become more accepted, there is still the struggle to balance the different cultures and to incorporate both into one’s identity. Also, many groups and institutions, such as the SAT, do not take into consideration mixed race. When asked to mark one’s identity, these groups do not let the individual mark more than one option. Although this is a small hindrance, it forces individuals to choose one identity over another. It is important to let people form their own identity even if that means choosing to incorporate multiple ethnicities. Continuing with this topic, last year I received a survey from a senior inquiring about mixed race couples and feelings of discrimination from the community for her thesis. Although I have never personally felt discriminated against for being in a mixed race relationship, it is still an issue in our society. Korean military brides were discriminated against because of their assumed background working in camptowns and as prostitutes. Perhaps this is partially why the discrimination against mixed race couples continues.

Real Life Application

Earlier this month a friend, ‘Pat’, asked me if “it was ‘okay’ to ask someone if they are Asian”. I replied that they should instead inquire about their ethnicity. At the time, ethnicity seemed to be a quick and simple solution to issues resulting from racial categorization, since ethnicity allows incorporation of cultural aspects. I assumed ‘Pat’ was asking in order to gather information about a person and determining their ethnicity can be considered more effective than determining their race.

Upon further reflection I wonder if that was the correct response. Our discussion of the Glenn article defined race as a social construction. Further discussions have questioned what being Asian means and the subjectivity of the Asian experience, which differs due to legal status, location and subcategory of Asian. Ethnic labels generalize these experiences as race does, and although allowing for more subjectivity than race, defining ethnicity still permits for societal ideas of an ethnic group to influence a person’s opinion and public identity.

I am still contemplating the implication of ‘Pat’s’ question. Our society categorizes people by race and those categories physically manifest. These physical manifestations affect our lives through laws, jobs and social interactions that affect those categorized as certain races in similar ways (although many other factors must be considered when determining the degree and manner). By asking that question, did ‘Pat’ hope to discover more about their unique experience within this socially constructed racial category? Or does ‘Pat’ believe that being Asian is a similar experience for all who identify as Asian, and the simple yes or no response would supply reliable information? Unfortunately I have not been able to ask ‘Pat’ of their intentions, but it has led me to examine how the term ‘Asian’ functions in our society. Asia, the continent, is immense and includes extremely diverse groups of people: Russian, Pilipino, Japanese, Indian, etc., so what does society hope to accomplish by lumping these groups under one blanket term?

I have discussed the inaccuracy of the blanket term ‘Asian’ with peers outside of class, and while most seem to comprehend the concept, the idea of applying it to everyday life is met with apathy, implying that encouraging the disuse of ‘Asian’ as a blanket term is too nit-picky and not worth the effort. How can we encourage the application of concepts learned in class to our (and our peers’) everyday lives? Sparking discussion has been successful in introducing concepts, but has anyone experienced similar situations and found effective methods to combat apathy?

My Wilshire Bus

While reading about Wilshire Bus, it reminded me of a story I had myself. When I was in middle school, I was a part of the Wind Ensemble. In seventh grade, the Wind Ensemble took a week long trip to Florida. The Wind Ensemble itself was majority Asian so heading to a majority White area in a clustered group of Asians, many thought we were a tourist group. A lot of people went up to us and asked how to say hi in our language, and since they were so polite about it we just gave them the answer they wanted. However, we never really met much hostility until we went to Island of Adventures and boarded a ride with an elderly white lady with her husband and grandson. We went on the Spiderman ride, which was not that thrilling but being twelve/thirteen year old girls, of course we would scream at the sudden objects popping out or any random noises that seemed to shriek at us. My friends and I never really thought this was a problem because we just assumed it was normal to scream on rides that seemed fun. However, towards the end of the ride we realized that the woman felt differently. When we began to pull up toward the workers to get out of the ride, the woman began slamming her water bottle on the cart yelling, "IN AMERICA, WE DON'T SCREAM IN RIDES. IN AMERICA, WE RESECT OTHER PEOPLE. IN AMERICA, WE CALL THAT RUDE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE IN YOUR COUNTRY, BUT IN AMERICA THIS IS HOW WE DO THINGS!". My friends and I were so shocked. We didn't even know how to respond. Both us and the ride workers stood there is disbelief at what was happening. Her husband was grabbing onto her arm and laughing it off to try to pacify her while her grandson was shrinking away in embarrassment. The workers looked at us in pity as we left the ride and walked away from the woman's screaming at what it was to be "Americans". We felt ashamed. All of us were born in America and lived here all our lives, but suddenly we were being taught how to be Americans and not even recognized as on at that. I wished I could've spoken up for myself, but I couldn't because my parents always told me never to make a scene and do not talk back to adults because that is rude. Although my friends and I retold this story to our other friends as a funny story, I'd be lying saying it did not bother me. It was my first experience that I had to acknowledge the fact that I was indeed a minority and made me begin to become very conscious of my environment. It definitely was not my last experience, but it was the one that left the biggest impression.

Korean Communities and Wilshire Bus

In previous articles, authors explored Asian brides and their relationship with their husbands, touching on how the Oriental stereotype demanded domesticity and docility from these women. However, in Ji-Yeon Yuh's “Imagined Community Sisterhood and Resistance among Korean Military Brides in America, 1950–1996,” the author states that “the rhetoric of domesticity... expand[ed] the boundaries of acceptable activities for respectable women” as Korean military wives formed groups in order to better their living situations. Their very dissatisfaction with being treated poorly due to “domination... based primarily on gender, race, language, and cultural difference” led them to rebel in “a wide variety of lowprofile forms of resistance” against these restrictions and form groups that provided support.

However, interestingly enough, there were distinctions between these various groups, as military brides were separated from women married to civilians. As military brides were associated with prostitution, “women in the latter category often strive to set themselves apart... perceiving themselves to be superior.” This reflects a similar idea to that expressed in Yamamoto's “Wilshire Bus”: although different individuals are placed in similar situations, fear of discrimination leads them to point out their differences rather than similarities. Just as Esther hopes that the drunk man hurling racial epithets at a Chinese couple does not associate her, a Japanese woman, with them, Korean civilian brides tended to distance themselves from those they believed were beneath them. Some did “try to assume leadership roles over women they view as uneducated and in need of uplift” with the same intention as Esther smiling at the Chinese woman: to establish some sense of camaraderie without being associated with the “inferior” party. The results in both cases suggest that perhaps lines between groups should either be clearly drawn rather than blurred lest the gray area prove detrimental to both factions. Just as the Chinese couple managed to function without Esther, the Korean military brides formed their own successful communities mainly through their own efforts.

Immigrants in the workforce and short stories

I found the latest reading “Asian Immigrant Women and Global Restructuring, 1970s – 1990s” by Rhacel Salazar Parreῆas to be one of the more interesting readings thus far. The article seemed to outline the job situation of Asian immigrants to the United States in a rather unbiased manner. Unlike a number of the other articles that we have read where Asian women travelled across the ocean to the United States as a bride, this article focuses on the jobs that these women took on, and how they were of benefit to the economy. I guess what I liked about this article was that the author gave credit to the abilities these women had. He mentions that “Asian immigrant women have a high rate of labor market participation and a diverse range of levels of educational attainment” (Parreῆas 276). This article, unlike many of the others talked about the capabilities of the Asian American women in a generally positive light, emphasizing how they managed to find jobs by practicing skills that no one else wanted to do. While it is sad that the jobs these Asian women were capable of were at the lower end of the job spectrum, and had to make do with lower tier jobs and pay, this was great for businesses in industries such as fabric and packing which were labor intensive but also penalized the local people who were in those fields. This is because language barriers prevented immigrants from demanding higher salaries and benefits and were the cheaper option for such companies.

Unfortunate as this is, I found this article intriguing as it mentioned Singapore and Malaysia as “newly industrialized nations” which experienced labor migration from export-orientated developing countries. (273); perhaps this was a similar situation as that in America, except occurring in the East. In Singapore, foreign labor is largely used in the domestic sector as well as in construction businesses. The main cause for this is the low pay and physical work associated with these jobs. In Parreῆas article, he suggests that immigrants were competition for the locals for these low paying jobs. In the case of Singapore, this was significantly different. Because of our small population and educational qualifications, such jobs were not being filled and hence we required immigrants to fill these jobs. In fact, it is thanks to these immigrant workers that Singapore has managed to develop to the way it is today.

Moving on, looking at all the short stories we have read, it seems to be that most of these stories are based on the same beginnings and tell largely the same story. They center on Asian immigrants in the United States who came in hope of a better life, but end up struggling to identify and fit in with this new community. I am not complaining, I really enjoy these readings, but maybe we should look more at why these stories were written? Were they just personal diary entries expressing the feelings of these people, or were they meant to be cries of help, not that anything we do would be of direct benefit to them, but perhaps for the youth of today and for the future. Also, with all these stories and immigrants being in the United States for quite some time now, one would have thought that the Asian community would be comfortable with their identities already, but are they? Are these literature pieces and published papers benefitting the youth today, or only making them more confused with who they really are?

Wilshire Bus

Something we didn't talk about in our discussion of Wilshire Bus was the role of the girl sitting next to the drunk man, so I thought it would be interesting to look at her part in the story. At the end, when the older man tells her that she "deserve[s] a purple heart or something" for putting up with her seatmate, I think that upon first reading I took this to just be another sign that he was a good person, even if he hadn't stood up to the drunk man. However, upon rereading, I'm now wondering if perhaps this line shows that he, too, still unthinkingly maintains some of the racism he claims to be against. (Oh gosh, that was an awkwardly worded sentence.)
I'm fairly certain the girl is not Asian or Asian American, or else the drunken man would not have been having a normal, albeit one-sided, conversation with her early in the story. For sitting next to the drunk and not saying anything in response to his racist comments, she deserves a purple heart? I think that if it had been a man sitting next to the drunk, the elder man would not have given this same praise; because she was a woman and didn't respond or stand up for herself or anyone else, she was brave and deserving of merit. So, while he tries to show himself as anti-racist, he still maintains gender stereotypes.
In addition, he doesn't offer the same praise to the couple or Esther that he gives the girl - and she doesn't even take the brunt of the verbal barrage. The purple heart is an American military award - does it not seem fit to give that same praise to the Asian Americans sitting there? In fact, ironically, both groups (the couple and Esther) are visiting relations at the hospital who did earn purple hearts (being killed or injured in battle is awarded a purple heart, so Esther's husband would have one as would the couple's son who dies).
I'm wondering if I'm perhaps analyzing the man's simple statement about purple hearts too deeply. Did anyone else find it to be slightly in opposition to his stated morals, or was it interpreted differently by anyone else?

Wilshire Bus

Towards the end of class we began to discuss the significance of the ending to the story. This story is particularly interesting because Esther uses gender as an excuse for her emotional breakdown, linking her sobbing to the stereotypes of women as emotional. This mindset is peculiar because she decides to retreat into the traditional gender role instead of sharing what has just happened to Buro, perhaps because she was scared that Buro may question her about her dismissive attitude (that she knows was wrong). I think her action also portrays one of her characteristics, which is to detach herself from anything she finds unpleasant. For example, during the bus ride she keeps herself occupied by looking outside as the drunk man insults the Chinese woman. She does this to avoid the situation, and to call the least attention to herself as possible, for she is scared that the man might mistaken her as Chinese and scorn her too.

After the bus ride Esther reflects on her actions and realizes that her dismissing the drunk man was not acceptable. Through her stream of consciousness and realization of what is right/wrong, we can conclude that the bus ride not only took her from one place to the other but from one mode of consciousness to the other.

What saddens me is how silent the others were on the bus as they simply watched this happen instead of speaking up against the racist remarks the drunk man was making. The mild looking man smiling at the Chinese woman mirrored Esther’s earlier smile, but like Esther he does it just little enough to not call attention to himself, but enough to show the lady that he sympathizes with her. Though he comes over to the Chinese lady later, his words come too late and are very ineffective.

Stereotypes and Wilshire Bus

Our discussion on Wednesday got me thinking about stereotypes and why they exist. I guess first we should define a stereotype and the distinction of one from prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice is preconceived feelings, that are typically negative, about someone or something and stereotypes are beliefs about people based on their membership in a particular group. Discrimination is making a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit; this is usually done using stereotypes and prejudices. I agree with Professor Suh in that stereotypes don't just come about on their own. There is always some sort of historical background to it. But my question is, why do they still exist? Many stereotypes originate from early history, yet we still choose to use them today. Is it just something that we've always known and are too afraid to stray away from? From a social psychology perspective, people use stereotypes because they allow people to quickly process new information, organize people’s past experiences, and help people to make predictions about other people’s behavior. Basically, it's the easy way out. In a society that's always on the go, anything that makes life easier/faster will be taken advantage of. According to social psych, stereotypes are hard to change because when people encounter instances that disconfirm their stereotypes of a particular group, they tend to assume that those instances are just exceptions. Also people’s perceptions are influenced by their expectations and people selectively recall instances that confirm their stereotypes and forget about disconfirming instances.

In regards to "Wilshire Bus," I really enjoyed our discussion. We came up with many details the author included that I had not seen when I read it on my own. I was interested in the fact that a distinction was made between the Chinese and the Japanese passengers. This discrimination against only certain Asian groups has come up again and again. In terms of our readings, there definitely is historical context and reasoning as to why this is. We also talked about why Esther and the Scottish/French man chose to say something after the matter. This has a lot to do with stereotypes and trying to break them. I think one of the main points of this story is that we have this ideal of ending discrimination, but at the same time many don't put effort into trying to make this happen. Certain groups don't want to be victimized and so they conform because they want to be accepted by the group, and because they fear rejection by the group. Again, this is the easier thing to do.

And now to address Professor Suh's question that was asked at the end of the class: how does the story connect with the last scene at the soldiers' home? I think the scene strongly demonstrates what I came up with above as the take-away message of the story. The husband is sitting in a room with a bunch of other soldiers and plays the macho, manly role when he "patted her head, looked around smugly at his roommates, and asked tenderly, 'What's the matter? You've been missing me a whole lot, huh?'" In front of "the guys" he feels the need to conform and fit the stereotype of a man. Instead of trying to comfort his wife and expressing some sympathy, he comes across as sarcastic and narcissistic. The wife also contributes to this example. She spends the whole story debating about her identity and deciding if she should exclude herself from the other Asian groups or not. At the end of the bus ride I feel as if she has come to a conclusion and wants to feel bad for the Chinese family. However, once she sees her husband again she loses all liberation and conforms to the stereotype of a woman. Instead of telling her husband what's wrong, she simply answers, "yes, [are]n't women silly?"

The discussion of stereotypes in last week’s class and in this blog have started to get me thinking about the ways in which Asian American women are seen in contemporary society. Susan commented on a Modern Family episode that stereotypically shows a Chinese landlady with a heavy accent. I think Mrs. Ko’s role as a landlady is in some way commenting on the white dominance in American society. Her role as a landlady gives the sense that she is the caregiver and doing maintenance work instead of being a Chinese American woman with a stable career and family. This connects to Evelyn Nakano Glenn’s article, in which she mentions, women of color “shouldered the burdens of household maintenance” (Glenn 18), which reflects upon Mrs. Ko’s character. Having a stereotypical Chinese woman as the landlady gives the white tenants a sense of superiority and focuses on the racial minority of Asian American women. In addition, I found it interesting that the actress was actually Japanese American, and it reminded me of Kathleen Uno’s essay, which discussed Orientalism and the notion of lumping all Asian countries together. By casting a Japanese American woman as Chinese American gives the sense that Asian nationalities are interchangeable, and supports the common stereotype that “all Asians look the same.”

On another note, I found the class discussion on picture brides and mail order brides interesting because I had never heard of these systems before. To me, these organizations seem somewhat corrupt, and also appear to be giving into stereotypes of Asian women as exotic, vulnerable, and quieter than Western women. I feel that this also speaks to the white dominance in American society, and the sense of white superiority. In my opinion, Asian American women’s struggles haven’t yet subsided, and the stereotypes showing inferiority of minority races still exist in contemporary society.

Assimilation without compromise?

One of the things I've found most interesting throughout all of our readings is the struggle that every Asian American goes through when attempting to conform to American societal norms. We read in Shirley Lim's article about the internal struggle Asian immigrants went through when trying to appear American without compromising their ethnic roots and heritage. America has always had an ingrained fear of otherness and change. This is a clear motivator as to why immigrants would adopt American pastimes and beliefs, but is it the only reason? I believe that too much emphasis is put on that contributor when really there are multiple reasons why immigrants began to “conform” to American culture.

Have you ever noticed that after hanging around a certain friend consistently for say, a week, you begin to pick up some of their mannerisms and quirks? Its because you see it so often when in their presence that your subconscious begins to take up their mannerisms and then you being reflecting them yourself. I think that this had a lot to do with the reason Asian immigrants wanted to conform to the societal norms. With such an overwhelming presence, American culture couldn’t be ignored. Older immigrants tried to uphold and carry on cultural practices from their homes, but it became harder and harder as immigrants became more attuned to the surrounding culture.

Although the pressures of American citizens’ judgment of immigrant otherness was a huge factor in desires for assimilation, I think that the natural conformation to the surrounding culture is often overlooked. Maybe the truth of the matter is that some immigrants began to immigrate more naturally than others by simply “waiting it out” while others more actively tried to conform to the societal norms. What tactic would you take? Actively trying to change of sitting back and letting it happen? Or a mixture of the two? I don’t think I could ever make the distinction personally, but could you?

The Chinese Landlady Stereotype in "Modern Family"

Since Wednesday's discussion on stereotypes and how each serves an ideological function in society, I’ve been thinking about stereotypes about the Asian/Asian American community that remain today. In “What Happened to the Women? Chinese and Indian Male Migration to the United States in Global Perspective,” Sucheta Mazumdar explores how, despite the need for labor from 1870 to 1920, white-collar jobs in the U.S. were rarely open to married immigrant women and so many ended up stuck at home as domestic workers. Specifically addressing the Chinese immigrant community, Mazumdar talks about how: “For Chinese women, if they were married and had a sliver of space to spare, taking in boarders was a primary occupation” (Mazumdar 62). This was the first time I had ever read anything that seemed to give a historical background to the “Chinese landlady” stereotype. This immediately made me think of the recent “Modern Family” episode “Slow Down Your Neighbors.” In this episode, the gay couple Cameron (Eric Stonestreet) and Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) befriend their wacky new neighbor Barry (James Marsdan), only to find out after talking to their landlady Mrs. Ko that he is not a new tenant, but has been squatting in their daughter Lily’s play castle. While Mrs. Ko has a very small part in this episode, it stuck in my mind because the daughter of the actress who plays Mrs. Ko (names omitted for privacy) is a Scripps student. Mrs. Ko’s character is the stereotypical heavily-accented Chinese landlady who, after becoming visably agitated by her husband’s car honking, tells him “You two so lucky they don’t let you get married.” I’ve still been unable to figure out what function Mrs. Ko serves in this episode besides just being a stereotype. The actress who plays her is in fact Japanese American, and so it is puzzling to me why the creators of the show decided Mrs. Ko should be portrayed as an unhappily married, heavily-accented Chinese woman, instead of just allowing the character to be an American woman, as the actress is herself. It seems to me that this stereotype is no longer relevant in today’s society, and so it makes me wonder why the creators of “Modern Family” decided to feature it in the episode. Thoughts?

Margaret Chung and "Contested Beauty"

First, I am in agreement with Faye’s take on Margaret Chung’s “breaking” of gender roles. Such things cannot truly be broken without some catastrophic change that makes them moot. Chung did not fit in well with society’s views of gender roles, but her adoption of male dress allowed her to some extent to slide between the boundaries. Whether she intended for it to do so regardless, her choice of dress made her more acceptable to her medical colleagues and made some of her patients feel more comfortable. More easily parsed is her adoption of Chinese décor for her office, which attracted clients who wanted a less Western approach to their treatment and were engaging in an early form of medical tourism.

On another subject, I was somewhat bothered by Lim’s article “Contested Beauty” as Lim did not relate Asian American women’s experiences in the pageants to today’s notion of pageants at all. Today’s view of pageants is focused on their objectification of women, which is something that Lim does not mention in her article. Lim writes as if she finds the pageants empowering for the women who took part. While some women no doubt chose to participate on their own terms, for which they are to be commended, others likely were pressured into doing so by family and community members who wanted the money and status associated with winning a pageant. I do not believe that for the majority of women they served as a positive influence in the long run.

On the other hand, I do accept that the pageants were good for the Asian American communities, who by using them to emphasize their American-ness managed to become more accepted into American society. By conforming to American ideals of beauty and ladylike conduct, Asian American women could prove their community to be more American than Asian, and allied ideologically with America. Such was important for the Japanese during World War II to distance themselves from their homeland, and for the Chinese during the Cold War due to Americans’ desperate fear of communism. For the Chinese particularly, conforming to American ideals of beauty allowed their purchased goods to show their endorsement of the capitalist system. Using beauty pageants to ally themselves to America and prove their American-ness was surprisingly effective, and improved cultural relations to some extent.

Margaret Chung and Stereotypes

Last class's discussion on Margaret Chung piqued my interest, especially since Emma brought up Chung's possible genderqueer identity. In the context of the Judy Wu article, this possibility did not seem to be discussed at all. Instead, Wu analyzed Chung's cross-dressing and adoption of a masculine name only as an attempt at assimilation. As such, the article only gives a one-sided perspective on Chung's reasons for cross-dressing. It is impossible to know what Chung's exact reasons were for cross-dressing short of asking her directly (which does not seem to be a feasible action to take); however, to discuss the cross-dressing as merely a tool for assimilation and to only include evidence in support of that assertion skews the readers' evaluation of Chung's actions in relation to her personal gender identity. To not even mention the possibility of this alternate personal conception of self on Chung's part is a huge omission within the analysis of the article.

I have also been thinking about the discussion on the difference between "breaking" gender stereotype and "crossing" gender stereotypes. I believe I was personally uncomfortable with any assertion that Margaret Chung "broke" gender and racial stereotypes, because that phrase suggests that gender stereotypes were somehow changed, or even rendered non-existent, due to her actions. I think the article argues convincingly was not the case. Nonetheless, I definitely do agree that Margaret Chung challenged and crossed gender stereotypes first and foremost by opting to enter the masculine profession of surgeons and also by choosing to present herself in a masculine dress despite the obvious social pressures against doing so.

Within that framework, there is also the question of whether or not stereotypes can be "broken" in any sense of the word, which I think is another point that was briefly mentioned during class. I do not know if all stereotypes can be dissolved, but I do firmly believe that stereotypes can undergo the changes that would "break" them. Since stereotypes reside in the collective consciousness and are perpetuated through repetition, any "breaking" of a stereotype must happen on a mass scale. As such, even if Margaret Chung were trying to "break" stereotypes, she could never have been the sole perpetrator of such a change. She may have been a catalyst, but she would have had to have a critical mass of complicit participants to truly have any effect.

To a certain extent, "breakage" of stereotypes may always be imperfect. Many stereotypes that are not necessarily completely salient within the mass consciousness often still appear as historical artifacts that affect other assumptions. For instance, the belief in (and most of the major barriers to) women's ability to take on certain types of professions has been largely debunked in the American popular consciousness. However, women are still not equally represented in a variety of professions. In part, many pressures related to the original stereotype that set up indirect barriers (such as the belief that women are more suited to - both in the sense that they are more suited than men and more suited to be doing - domestic work) still exist. In addition, other stereotypes have been "broken" only because other (contradictory) stereotypes have usurped them. For example, the late-19th to early 20th presumption of the Asian (Chinese in particular) man as a sexually-threatening laborer has been replaced by the impotent nerd.

As stated previously, neither of these outcomes are ideal, and, in my eternal optimism, I believe that other "breakages" of stereotypes can occur outside of these two possibilities that can result in lasting positive changes. Right now, I can't think of any historical examples of a stereotype that has been disappeared without leaving any blemishes on the collective consciousness, and I won't necessarily spout any nonsense about universal acceptance and love of all human beings as the solution to the problem (mainly because I believe those models are also flawed in their own ways), but work against these stereotypes and the harm they bring is a large part of the feminist, anti-racist, anti-classist, etc. project. As such, it's always better to believe that the goal is achievable.