Asian American Women

Everyone in this world has viewed United States of America as the “Promise land” as it upholds life, liberty and justice for all. With the hope clinging to the American Dream, almost everybody in the world, especially those who are in Asia, those who have lost these sense of worth from the aftermath of war, political tribulation, economic unrest and plainly poverty seemed to force themselves to be accepted in this scheme of the United State's Dream.

The point in discussion is Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) which was made to assert a communal interest of attaining political alliances. Unfortunately, numerous political sector found it a questionable Act as it cut off some civil rights of the black working class and the Third World migrants who were refugees of war .Almost all the community groups in the United States direct the interest in a very distinct spectrum of Asian American Poverty. The PRWORA is a potential act of eliminating the subsidence of millions of working and jobless poor who will be removed from all federal assistance programs that they were enjoying under the Social Security Act of 2002.

The question on would it actually stop Asian American Poverty considering that most of the Asians residing in America are now green-card holders and are licensed naturalized citizen of the State. Thus they are entitled with all the amenities of the Government as equal to that of the real Americans who had their ancestry rooted in the State. And what is the impact of such PRWORA to the black community, who have been receiving the bitter end of the subtle racist act?

Such demeanor may ruin the so-called American Dream as what former President Bill Clinton has promised of providing equal opportunities for the enhancement of the livelihood of every American. U.S. political leaders should now be educated with the perception that United States of America is truly a United State of Being as the Country is made of different people of different lineage and yet focused on one vision, which is to live as an American!

Victim and Agency

The class readings and film-screening throughout this semester have introduced me to the ways in which different groups of Asian American women immigrants were exploited and victimized by the intersectional oppressions of racism, classism and sexism. While at the same time, what's empowering about Asian American women's experiences is women's ability to mobilize their own agencies in resisting the status quo and make change for the community - through forming women's clubs, waging campaigns for Daycare Centers, participating in or refusing to participate in beauty contests, among many other expressions of women's agencies. However, recently after reading some articles on the global sex trade and after watching the documentary "Eating Welfare", I came to a revision of my previous optimism and start to recognize the limitation to women's agency, especially women of the unprivileged groups. To be clear, I neither deny women's capability in transforming the fates of their own and the outlook of their communities, nor am I blind to the real progress achieved by women's organizing. When we situate female cheap labor and women of color within the global economic system, where increasingly larger numbers of people are being pushed into marginality and informal sector work, both due to the lack of economic alternatives in their home countries and to the corporations' demand for cheap labor in the United States, it seems that the problem lies in the structural global inequalities of wealth and power, and to address that problem, there has to be an organized pressure on the government and transnational corporations to recognize the need of the majority of the population. Then my question would be, to what extent can the feminist project mobilize women's agencies in challenging the global power structure? How can we combine the daily struggles of individuals and the organizing efforts of different oppressed groups into a collective challenge?

Hmong Women in the US

I'm having a little trouble formulating thoughts for my post today, so I thought I would just focus on a small portion of the Hmong Women in the US (AAW) article that we read.

"Not knowing that they can instruct the welfare office otherwise, Hmong women let the welfare office issue the check in their names. Hmong men resent this because of the appearance that they are not the breadwinners and because their wives now have control of the finances, power women did not have in Laos" (151).

Now that I'm typing it up again, it doesn't seem as glaring, but on my first read through the article this portion really jumped out at me - because I remember being so irked by it that I remembered it even after I had finished the rest of the sections. I think it was mostly the way this short section was written more than the actual content, but I felt that there was almost the feeling that the women should be changing the names on the checks because that was a solution to one of the problems. I, however, disagree, because of course there are much deeper rooted problems in the male/female power relationship in these communities than just whose name is on the welfare checks. In addition, that men resent that they "appear" to not be the breadwinners doesn't seem to be what's causing the resentment - I think it's a combination of them not being the breadwinners, because the wife brings in the welfare checks, and also perhaps some shame that the family needs the welfare and that the women receive it for the family when the man is most likely working as well.

I feel like I'm just being nitpicky about the language used in the article, but it's something that I think shows the attitude of the author to the readers, and in this case, I think I found myself disagreeing with their assessment of the situation shown here. Am I over-analyzing such a short part of this article? Do other people find that when they read pieces they find the style of writing affecting their ability too view the work objectively?

Language and Education

What struck me the most through the readings and the videos we have touched upon in class was the importance of language. In the video First Person Plural Deann could not communicate with her own mother, and it was seen in Eating Welfare that many mothers had to bring their children because they could not speak English. However, those who were able to speak the language were given somewhat of a privilege as Linda Vo states, "Overall, the educational and class backgrounds and their linguistic and cultural skills (of the Vietnamese) have given them privileges in the States" (238). I'm bringing this issue up right now because I recently read a news article about schools in New York being successful at reducing racial gaps in educational performance. They note that 40 % of black students and 46% of Hispanic students met state standards in math, compared with 75 % of white students and 82% of Asian students. I know this slightly goes off tangents with the Asian American issue, but it's heartwarming to know that someone is actually trying to make a difference for the minority.

Now that I think about it, I think it was especially hard for Asian American women to learn English post-migration because they still had to fulfill the expectations as a wife (or a woman in general). They could have easily picked up a little of the foreign language through socializing with people, like repetition, or listening to conversations. However, the roles of women in society (regardless of the country) were usually those of reproductive labor--raising kids, house chores, cooking, etc. I guess we shouldn't or cannot blame them because most of them were simply trying to live up to the expectations of what a good wife/woman should be doing.

Different reactions to Asians in America

The article Caring across Borders: Motherhood, Marriage, and Filipina Domestic Workers in California by Charlene Tung really struck me as I was reading it. Having grown up with a Filipino domestic helper, somehow I managed to understand their struggles. It was heartening to read about how these women left their home and families to venture to foreign lands to make a living.

Compared to the Cambodian/Vietnamese women we saw in the film Eating Welfare on Monday, these Filipino women were in better circumstances as many of them could speak English.

It might be selfish of me to say this, but I empathize with the Filipinos, but not so much with the Cambodians. This is because these Filipino women put in the effort to learn the language and travel all the way to the United States on their own to work. The jobs they take up are physically and emotionally taxing, but yet they continue to work to make money. On the other hand, it seemed in the film that the Cambodians/Vietnamese who came to the United States started out on welfare and I guess took that for granted. They remained in their communities and did not learn the language unlike the Filipinos who integrated themselves into the American lifestyle because of who they lived with. I thought it was unfair that the children had to skip school and act as translators for their parents who were trying to reclaim their welfare after it was taken away. I do not see why the parents thought that they would be able to come to America for a better life without learning the language and relying on welfare, after all is it not tax money that is going towards their welfare? It might seem heartless for me to say this, but then why do people protest when their tax payments increase?

Young Activists and Managing Survival

Upon reading the past few essays such as “Managing Survival” by Linda Trinh Vo and “Scarred, yet Undefeated” by Sucheng Chan, and seeing the documentary “Eating Welfare”, I have found myself continually questioning the psychological state of the children of these refugees and activists. My thoughts regarding the children is not to ignore their parents’, or more specifically their mother’s, mental and physical hardships, but to look deeper into the hardships children faced that may have been similar or different to the adult experience. In “Scarred, yet Undefeated”, there was a brief story of a girl who escaped with her siblings to Thailand that related some difficulties that arouse during their escape. Assuming they, and others, made it to Thailand safely, did they all settle down into centers or camps? Or, because they were without parents, were they possibly adopted? And if they did go to a camp, and assuming they survived the cruel treatment from the guards, sickness, and hunger, how did the children grow mentally throughout the rest of their lives? Did they suffer from their traumas like many Cambodian women did and was it possibly worse because their minds were younger? In “Managing Survival”, women’s contributions to the household income, along with their work at home such as child-caring is brought to light. I wondered about what their children were doing either at home, or at school, and what they thought about their parents. Also, if a family was struggling to make ends meet, and thus, for example, unable to give their children food for lunch at school, would the children receive food from other students, or resort to trying to find their own food through other methods?

Watching “Eating Welfare”, reminded me of my Asian American Mentor Program (AAMP) training at Pomona from the past summer when we went into Los Angeles, and toured the old Chinatown with some young activists as our tour guides. My co-mentors and I were all extremely impressed with the students, but like the documentary said, who else is going to be doing the work? Although the students were working with adults and other supporters, it was amazing to see how much the students cared about their community. “Eating Welfare” prompted me to question how much of a choice those activists in L.A. had a choice in creating change in their community if they wanted to see it. It also reminded me of a conversation between the AAMP mentors and the L.A. activists where we asked them what their parents thought about their children’s work. We were told that their parents didn’t really understand what they were doing, or why they were doing it. After a brief pause, several of the students said, with strong and amused, yet sad looks, that their parents thought they were doing drugs or getting into mischief after school. When asked about how they found the organization they were currently a part of, they said that they had heard about the organization through their schools, and joined from their own desires to create a better place for their families and themselves.

Asians in the Library and Alexandra Wallace

I feel like this video has gone around a million times already, so most of you have probably seen it, but for those of you who haven't here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoLLEZlpUxk

In the video, Alexandra Wallace, a UCLA student, complains about the Asian students at UCLA. I feel that this video is worth discussing because of all the issues that have arisen because of it.

There have been various responses to this racist rant; because of death threats and racist rants, Alexandra has withdrawn from UCLA. I understand that people are offended, hurt, or angry by her words, but I feel that this isn't the correct response to what she did. Many people have created response videos on YouTube making fun of her and bullying her, but many others have expressed disappointment, and highlight the fact that instead of insulting her, people should find time to educate her.

There are so many people in the world who have the same beliefs as Alexandra, but she was the one UCLA student who decided to put her thoughts online. It just goes to show how many ignorant people are in the world, who don't understand other cultures - she talks about how the parents of Asian families fill the hallways at UCLA, bringing their kids home cooked meals and preventing them from learning to fend for themselves. But in reality, many Asian families do this because of our culture - when we graduate, many Asian/Asian American adults live at home with their extended families because that's a part of the culture Asian or Asian Americans have grown up with.

I think this misunderstanding of the Asian culture which many Asian American families are built upon plays a major role in the discrimination we have faced: the Eating Welfare film emphasized that the welfare system didn't understand that Asian American women needed to stay home to take care of their families, and instead forced many to take part in workfare. The Union which initially opposed childcare services for working Chinese immigrants failed to understand that these women needed childcare services so that they could make money to support their families. I know that in these cases, misunderstanding isn't the only issue which causes people to discriminate against other races, but I think it's a major factor that people should be fighting to fix. UCLA decided not to take action against this student, but I've heard suggestions from others that instead of punishing one person, why not change the system so that these incidences do not happen again? She mentioned that perhaps UCLA should have an ethnic studies requirement so that in the future, students could be educated about other races. Although this wouldn't completely solve the problem, I feel that this might one small step that we take towards fighting discrimination.

Has anyone else seen this video? Are there any other issues that come along with this video that you feel need to be addressed?

I also just wanted to note that I found it interesting that although the ideas were similar, Eating Welfare contrasted with the Chinese immigrant women's fight for childcare. In Eating Welfare, some women were fighting for welfare rights in order to stay at home to support their families. However the Chinese immigrant women who fought for childcare seemed to fight for the opposite - the Chinese immigrant women fought for childcare so that they themselves could be better providers for their families.

Highest Suicide Rates Among AA Women

Recently, the study of Asian American women having the highest rates of suicide has caught my attention. Also, it is stated that Asian American girls also have the highest rate of depression symptoms. The main explanation behind this was the constant pressure of being the model minority which is the expectation for them to become the perfect mother, daughter, and wife. Also, girls in general are more affected by family pressures than boys are. I am not that surprised myself at the results, especially after all the readings in class and from personal experience. In most of the readings, families expect such a high ideals from women. The women are expected to be beautiful, pure, obedient, soft-spoken, hardworking, and faithful. However, with such high expectations, their worth is still below that of a male. So much pressure is placed upon the girl to succeed in all aspects in their life while males are only expected to make money.

Another issue is that I feel that depression is more prevalent because Asian families are more sensitive toward the topic and choose to avoid it altogether. They find it a shame to be depressed and do not understand the severity of it. Growing up in a city with a large number of Asians, I knew a lot of girls that were clearly depressed but would never tell their families about it so they could never get the proper treatment because they too were ashamed of their depression or only referred to it as a phase. In my family, the word suicide was like taboo. One time as a joke I just exclaimed ,"I might as well just go kill myself." My dad lectured me for about an hour how that he never wants to hear me say things like that again and that I am very blessed and options like suicide are foolish. My mom on the other hand talked it out with me closely, but I think it is because she was more sympathetic toward my position being a Asian woman living in America herself.

Overall, I am not sure how a change would be made in order to lessen these high suicide rates among Asian American women without completely altering the culture and traditions of their ethnic backgrounds. However, I hope that these problems are more abundantly discussed as these statistics show a clear problem among Asian American women that need to be addressed.

Eating the Welfare State

While I was fascinated by the issues brought forward by the documentary Eating Welfare, I was confused as to what exactly the main focus of the actions taken by the student organization was. It was refreshing to see such an oft-ignored but incredibly pressing issue being addressed so directly. However, the actually progression of the documentary and the lack of a lot of context within the film itself left me confused. I do not have much background in the specifics of welfare laws, and I was having difficulty following how the Personal Responsibility Act and other new laws affected those who were on welfare. Since I did not know how the welfare system functioned before these new laws, I did not really understand the magnitude or even the kind of change that occurred as a result. Therefore, because I did not understand what changes occurred, I could not fully comprehend the impetus for organizing around this one issue.

Moreover, this documentary in conjunction with a variety of other readings we have recently done often discuss welfare. For the most part, welfare is portrayed as a liberating force, especially for women operating within patriarchal cultures, and grants women a certain level of power within their families. However, I do not remember if any of these articles critically examined the welfare system or even acknowledged the pitfalls in the broken U.S. welfare system. Even though, again, I am not very well-versed in the specifics of welfare law, I am acutely aware that welfare is incredibly inadequate in addressing poverty.

For instance, in Lora Jo Foo's overview of that status of Hmong women in America, she notes how women often use welfare as a means to self-sufficiency (151). Nonetheless, despite explicitly noting how this success is based on the welfare system, Foo does not even acknowledge that the welfare system is often capable of failing. If so many women become self-sufficient as a result of welfare, I think it is important to at least acknowledge that this avenue is unavailable for some women for whatever reasons.

Nonetheless, I greatly appreciated the point made towards the end outlining the importance of continuing welfare programs. I forget who made the point, but essentially, the speaker stated that welfare allowed women who would otherwise have to spend their time working for income for their families' subsistences to be physically present and to take care of their families. She also compared the difference afforded to tax breaks to middle class married women with children and to welfare. This point really illustrated the reason why welfare was a valuable resource for families, and I feel like if this point had been made earlier in the film, I would have been more engaged during the rest of the film.

Not Just the Big Three: What I Have Learned about Being “Asian” in America

The first of our readings that really explored what it meant to be defined as “Asian” was one all the way back in February: Debbie Hippolite Wright and Paul Spickard's “Pacific Islander Americans and Asian American Identity.” Never before that reading had I given much thought to the idea that Pacific Islanders would want to seek their own label independent from “Asian” since I had always thought of “Asians” as people who live in or have ancestral roots in the continent of Asia. However, I began to realize more and more that many share the view that the “true” Asians are only those who are of Chinese, Korean, or Japanese descent. One of my suitemates, who is Indian, sometimes jokingly refers to herself as a “fake Asian” because she looks different from the so-called traditional appearance of a “true” Asian.

The film from Monday, CAAAV's “Eating Welfare”, as well as today's “Collateral Damage” by Eric Tang also explored other aspects of what people commonly consider Asian. Though Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Hmong women fit the phenotypic stereotypical Asian, their economic status in America excludes them from common consideration. Many believe that since many Chinese, Korean, and Japanese immigrants have achieved success and have become a “model minority”, the rest of the Asian-Americans are well-off as well. However, this prevents recognition of the living situations of many Southeast Asian immigrants who are heavily dependent on welfare programs that are slowly being stripped away. Perhaps due to media attention given to other Asian communities, people believe that welfare given to Asians is unnecessary, but to look at the deplorable conditions in which many Southeast Asians live it is obvious that the stereotype that all Asians have “made it” in America is false.

The reading and film challenged my own perceptions of Asian success in America. Coming from a fairly upper-middle class area that was 57% Asian in 2010, I have mostly seen what can be perceived as the success of Asian immigrants. Many of my high school peers drove BMW's as their first cars; the student parking lot was populated with more luxury vehicles than the faculty lot. However, to read about the horrid conditions that Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Hmong women even in America face made me realize that my Asian community is only a blip on the greater map of the United States. Mind you, I wasn't unaware that not all Asian-Americans are blessed with the living conditions I had but I believe I needed a reminder that no matter how much the media would like to portray Asians as completely successful immigrants, there are groups that still struggle daily to survive.

Filipina Domestic Workers

Charlene Tung’s “Caring across Borders: Motherhood, Marriage, and Filipina Domestic Workers in California,” and the class discussion on how we were raised made an impression on me because I was raised by my mother and my Filipina housekeeper. Tung explains the role of Filipina caregivers in the United States, and the difficult decisions they were forced to make between physically care giving for their child in the Philippines, or coming to America to find better work with higher wages.

The class discussion made me realize that even among us in the same environment today, the ways in which we were raised are vastly different. In addition, it made me think of the few Filipina housekeepers that helped raise me, and the obstacles they must have gone through to become a domestic worker in Japan while raising children at the same time. Yet, what always amazed me was the tight knit community of housekeepers and care givers; Tung mentions, “Filipina women usually obtained jobs through a network of other Filipina caregivers” (303), and in my situation, it was exactly that. Although my experience was in Japan, it seems to be the same way for Filipina women caregivers in America also.

I felt a lot of compassion for the Filipina women because they showed strength and independence, and although they moved from stereotypical women’s care giving in Philippines to the same female sphere in America, they were able to overcome the challenges of migration and being separated from their families. They were able to gain financial independence while working in rough conditions, and bearing emotional and physical responsibilities. Tung claims that along with the “emotional and physical labor inherent in caring for the elderly, Filipina women must contend too with the emotional costs of mothering from afar” (305). College is the first time I have been away from my parents, and I can feel the stress on my parents because of the distance from my sister and I. However, these women were emotionally and physically strained while being away from their young children, who may not have been able to care for themselves. Thus, I feel that the Filipina domestic workers have helped inspire other Asian American women to strive for financial independence and strength.

First Thoughts on "Scarred, yet Undefeated"

When I read the essay by Sucheng Chan I was not shocked that once again, like most other groups, the Hmong's kinship system was patrilineal, patrilocal, and patriarchal. Reading further, it made me somewhat angry that even though the men were in charge, the women were responsible for a much longer list of chores. And on top of that, all of them were tedious and very physical. The men are listed as having to make decisions and control their families. So what exactly does that entail? I feel like cultivating and harvesting crops, gathering firewoood and water, and making clothes (and whatever else the women had to do) is just as important, and if not more conducive to the families' well-being. Anyone else agree with that? On the other hand, the part about the Khmer's kinship system took away a small part of the anger. It was nice to finally read that the gender roles were complementary; though the women were required to perform tasks that are typically done by females (cooking, raising children, etc.), they were also allowed to assist in the decision making. Like some of the other essays we have read regarding the Hawaiian women and the Japanese Nisei, it seems as if women are able to make strides in breaking down gender roles, but are also being more oppressed at the same time. The Khmer women are another example we can add to the list. They are given the opportunity to advise their husbands, yet they are still judged on how beautiful they are and how well they carry themselves. I guess I am a bit torn on how I should be feeling about all this. It is unfortunate that this happens, but still encouraging to see that some of the women mentioned in this essay were courageous and strong, and managed to break free.

Motherhood and Independence

In Charlene Tung’s “Caring Across Borders: Motherhood, Marriage, and Filipina Domestic Workers in California,” women are faced with a tough decision. Many Filipina women must choose between staying with their children and providing for their family financially by becoming a live-in caregiver in the United States. After discussing our childhood daycare arrangements in class, I realized how different this concept is to me because my mother stayed at home while my father worked. This made life much more simple and my parents were not forced with the decisions many of these women were required to make. However, even today women have limited options for childcare. Many single mothers or families where both parents work must find daycare for their children. For families that cannot afford to hire a nanny or do not have friends or relatives available to watch their children, they must select work based on available childcare. This severely limits the availability of work for parents, and perhaps the solution is to have more daycare centers.

On another note, it is interesting that Filipina women went to the United States for better working conditions even though they were not paid well in comparison to other workers. This reinforces the idea that they had even fewer options in the Philippines and there was not an alternative to leaving their children. These live-in caregivers were often looked down upon because of their separated marriages and their traditional “women’s” work. Some women were considered failures because they created a broken home by leaving. However, if a man separated from his wife, he would experience little to no discrimination. Women on the other hand were treated as if they were living “in sin” and were not accepted by society. There is no justification for these attitudes towards women and not men, but it makes me support Filipina live-in caregivers more because they were overcoming more obstacles than leaving their children. If the community found out these women were separated and having marital troubles, they lost respect from society. Additionally, it was difficult for a woman to remarry while men often started new relationships after a failed marriage. Filipina women faced a lot of discrimination during this time period, but they successfully created a life for themselves despite the difficult conditions.

Although it may seem like these women were not breaking any gender barriers, they definitely showed strength and independence. The Filipina women left their homes and lives behind and started working in the United States to become financially independent. Some even started lives with new men in the Unites States even though they knew they would not be accepted back home. These women may not have obviously changed the idea of women in society, but they made it one step closer to equality by becoming independent. This was one of the first steps towards acceptance of Asian American women divorcing, remarrying, and being independent.

Internal Problems with Asian Lesbian Organizations

Sorry this is a little late.

In Trinity A. Ordona's "Asian Lesbians in San Francisco: Struggles to Create a Safe Space, 1790s-1780s, she explores the difficulties in creating an atmosphere for LGBTQ Asian women, especially due to turmoil within the groups themselves. Although there were many collective struggles of different groups to achieve civil rights, I was struck by how many of their issues seemed to be complicated by organizational difficulties. Ordona recounted various groups dissolved by conflicts from within from the AWG to Unbound Feet. Although her article achieves its purpose of demonstrating how difficult it was to create a safe atmosphere for Asian lesbians, it was certainly frustrating that many of their efforts seemed to be dissolved by internal issues. An interesting aspect to consider is how organizing into groups presented problems that would perhaps not be so prevalent in heterosexual organizations. Though not all of the issues were specified, one of them that was particularly interesting was how organizing led to dating and relationships that presented various problems. While creating organizations themselves was part of making safe havens for Asian Americans who were persecuted by others for their sexual orientation, it also dissolved them as it led to relationships that eventually had negative effects on the groups' initial goals.

Politicizing Motherhood

I found this reading to be very refreshing. Among all the other readings, this was the first that showed the empowerment of women through real jobs that did not stem from the usually assumed role as a housewife. For example, the Chinese women were able to raise up to an equal position as their husbands as they proved their worth as solid bread earners for their family. In addition, for once, the jobs the women gained were outside the realms of promoting their sexuality as women through mainstream ideals such as beauty or entertainment like dancing. It was also interesting to see how women balanced their two main duties as mothers and workers. They had to adjust the entire arrangement of the family by having less children who are of closer age to one another. Also, they had to start to diverge from the role of a sole caretaker as they were forced to leave their children in daycare, if possible. It is rare to see an incident of when Asian women united to fight for a right that they rightly deserved because in the other readings, the women never vocalized their opinions in public, but rather hid behind the shadows of their husband or bonded with other women as they kept it within the world of the Asian mothers. However, in this scenario, the mothers are able to take their case to public and win. It was very empowering as an Asian American to read this as it revealed a whole other side to the Asian American women in history other than a silenced individual who had no other way to redeem herself as an individual outside the publicized images of an exotic beauty.

Politicizing Motherhood

The history of female Chinese garment workers in New York and their agency in establishing adequate child-care programs, as described in Xiaolan Bao’s article, Politicizing Motherhood, resulted in a new type of mother. This mother is a woman who financially provides for her family, while still completing the domestic labor that, throughout history, has been assigned to the mother. Not only were they working mothers, but they also dedicated any free time to campaigning for day cares. It amazes me how much labor these women performed, as garment factory workers, mothers and as political activists. Although these women worked on more of a part-time basis than their husbands, I cannot help but wonder what the male role in their movement was, and if one existed. When their husbands were unable to provide for their families financially, these women took on work so ensure their families survival, in addition to the full-time job of caring for children and homes. I cannot help but question whether their husbands could have spared time to help their cause. And since I understand child care was seen as female labor, it angers me that mothers took on additional responsibilities, and when it proved impossible to effectively handle the immense workload, it was their job to find a solution, seemingly without help from their husbands. I wonder if it would have been constructive to encourage male support and engagement in the issue as to begin dissolving the gendered views of domestic and economic labor.

In "Asian Lesbians in San Francisco", Ordona seems to outline some interesting blurring of boundaries between political movements in the seventies and eighties. Though some of her attention is on the community formation of the AAF, Unbound Feet, and the Asian Women's Group, which are unambiguously Asian lesbian activist groups, an equal amount of space is dedicated to groups that were not specifically formed along Asian-American lesbian identity lines. Zee Wong's co-foundation of Gente is an act of Asian lesbian protest, but in the context of a broader movement of lesbians of color. This Bridge Called My Back's inclusion of Asian lesbian writers is a similar situation.

Even more puzzling to me is Ordona's evidence that, concurrently with the movements she discusses in the text -- i. e., during the early eighties -- broader social movements were beginning to integrate Asian queer members. Bridge's official notice of Asian American protesters, the performance of Aw Shucks by a mainstream Asian American theater company, and Unbound Feet's success a feminist (not an explicitly lesbian) performance group as early as 1979 all indicate integrative or at the very least extremely intersectional efforts. I may be overly cynical, but I'd be extremely surprised to hear that this happened organically, that the Asian American left went from being as homophobic and sexist as Kitty Tsui describes it to being a movement willing to recognize and laud Asian lesbians in San Francisco. Surely lesbian activists were working hard to accomplish that in more ways than forming internal networks of support; surely it's not as simple as saying that as visibility increased, and as lesbians of color united, other movements began to recognize them more and more?

I'm just very confused by the proposed chronology here*, and more confused by the size of the community that she represents. There is no return, for example, to the Oakland KPD, or anything as overtly political. Most of the names here are Chinese, and many of them are Zee Wong! San Francisco alone has about a hundred thousand Asian American women living in it, and using the general population rate of 10%, that's ten thousand Asian American lesbians within the boundaries of the city. The largest organization discussed is 112 people. While I don't doubt the importance of Lisa Chun and Zee Wong's efforts, the references to the familial nature of the community, the romantic and sexual relationships formed and reformed, and the repetition of so many names makes me cautious of Ordona's article as a representative sampling. Can you really say that a group has formed a community network when you're not even discussing one percent of that group's population? Or is my skepticism misplaced?

*Even moreso when I see that Lisa Chun discovered her lesbianism in 1979 and yet founded the Asian Women's Group mailing list in 1977. Perhaps that's a typo?

Politicizing Motherhood

In Xiaolan Bao’s essay, “Politicizing Motherhood”, Bao occasionally, and consciously, makes an effort to compare Chinese women to women of European descent in order to first show how these Chinese women had the same merits as those of white women and then to show the additional difficulties Chinese women faced because of their double responsibilities of working and parenthood. By doing so, Bao skips over stereotypes of Chinese women that readers may have had, while emphasizing the root problems of Chinese women to be a lack of child care facilities. This in turn, created their dilemma between choosing to take care of their kids in a healthy fashion or to work so that they could fulfill their family’s economic needs. Similarly, the Chinese women tried to emphasize their childcare problems by using arguments explaining the problems working-class families faced from a lack of childcare facilities in the community instead of dwelling on the difficulties they faced from being both mothers and workers.

Something I found interesting about this essay was that even though these women were low-paid, unskilled, garment industry workers, their arguments for childcare facilities were very well thought out. In addition, they knew that they could pressure union leaders by publicizing their purpose for meetings in the news and to their communities. What was most impressive was their ability to, throughout the years, and through their limited free time, build up organizational skills, as well as a greater knowledge about the U.S. political system and labor laws. And I agree with Skyler when she says that there was a lack of focus on the political activism of the women. They knew exactly what they needed in order to help relieve some stress from multiple responsibilities, and from what I gathered about Bao’s writing was that these Chinese women knew the best, or at least better, ways to go about building support for their cause.

Politicizing Motherhood

For today's reading, I thought Politicizing Motherhood by Xiaolan Bao was interesting because it illustrated the change in economic structure of the Chinese community by the Chinese women. In some of the readings we have read in class, women were portrayed as rather powerless and lower-class compared to men, staying indoors taking care of the family and the house. However, this article depicts the changes the Chinese women have made economically, culturally, and the image of themselves. Although many Chinese men were employed, the women were looked at as an important role in the families because of the employment benefits they could provide (health insurance) from the garment industry. The increased responsibilities won them growing respect from their parents, children, and other family members.
Not only that they supported their families, the women got together to campaign for Daycare centers. These women established numerous meetings and gave reports of the difficulties working-class families face due to the lack of childcare facilities in the community, which showed the rest of the world their strong sense of family obligations. It is surprising how much work and effort they put into this while working and providing for their family.
How the women were portrayed in this article was very similar to Stillman's article, because they both tell their stories with women in the foreground. Stillman illustrated the importance of women in the Hawaiian hula culture, because they preserved, maintained, and passed on the tradition and knowledge from generation to generation. Similarly, Chinese women in the garment industry were important, for they changed the economic structure of their community and the gender roles in many Chinese immigrant working-class families. Without their strength, the daycare activists wouldn't have been able to gain much additional credibility to challenge the authority of their community and the union. It seems like not much story is told on the positive contributions women have made in the past, and this article made me want to know more about women's roles and other examples of impacts they have made.

Bao's "Politicizing Motherhood"

I found Xiaolan Bao’s “Politicizing Motherhood: Chinese Garment Workers’ Campaign for Daycare Centers in New York City, 1977 – 1982,” especially interesting because of the unity that the garment worker’s had even through all their struggles. Bao outlines the ways in which Chinese women were excluded from the work force, and the fact that they had to resort to the garment industry. I agree with Katrina in that Asians tend to have high motivation but avoid confrontation. However, this essay was inspiring because instead of conforming to American society, these women were able to keep their cultural values. This essay reminded me of another essay in which Korean women united and were able to conserve their culture and connect on a different level.

I felt that these women should gain more credit because in addition to providing for their families, they were fighting for a cause. It reminded me of Evelyn Nakano Glenn’s article, where she mentions Asian Americans tended to care for children as well as working. However, it inspires me that these women were able to create a change for the rest of Chinese immigrants even to present day.

Challenges of Working, Politicizing Motherhood

I thought the article Politicizing Motherhood was interesting going off the previous reading on Asian Immigrant Women and Global Restructuring. This article identified how hard it was for women to work and keep up with roles classified to be female-roles such as housework and looking after children.

This made it seem like working was a double-edged sword for these women. While it was a good thing that these jobs provided these women with their own source of income and taught them new skills, not only were these women playing dual roles in the family, it was not always guaranteed that they would be respected by their families. In some cases, family tensions were aggravated and “some women had to endure additional stress from strained relationships with their husbands and other family members” (289). Adding to this, the lack of affordable childcare centers made it difficult for women to focus on their jobs because both the home and work places were seen to be present danger to their children.

Already these women are working so hard, I feel like it should be unsaid that simply providing more childcare centers would reduce their worries significantly. These women work so hard to provide for their families, as well as to fight for a stand, it is only fair for them to be heard.

Irony of Discrimination

I found it ironic that Chinese women were considered to be so far underneath men in status, when they facilitated the economic boom and reevaluated the gender roles in the Chinese community. In Xiaolan Bao’s article “Politicizing Motherhood”, Bao talks about the influx of Asian immigrants after the Second World War. At that time, women were still considered lesser than men and especially in the Chinese society and culture, so they were pushed into the background. Quite literally Chinese women worked in the back of restaurants and small stores that their husbands ran. There were limited job opportunities for Chinese women, and the garment industry was the best option. Bao lays out all of statistics in how the gender ratio of Asian men to women grew enormously after WWII, and consequently how the number of Chinese women involved in the garment industry in New York grew just as quickly.

What I found interesting was that this industry exploded because of the prejudice against women within the Chinese society, but ended up being one of the most lucrative jobs and created a new family dynamic. Children looked to women for food and care, men began to become threatened by women’s financial abilities/security, and the family dynamic adapted to these new lifestyles. It’s truly amazing that the initial gender inequalities and disequilibrium was eventually eradicated by the work that women had been forced to do by those gender norms. I suppose being forced into those gender norms provoked a necessity for change by the women. Its empowering to think that women who were so historically lesser than their male counterparts could break through that stereotype and create a new male to female dynamic. Even though they were discriminated against for being Chinese and for being Women, they managed cause a cultural change that has lasted (and continued to evolve) to the present day.

Social and Political, Personal and Impersonal

One of the main things that stood out to me while I was reading Ordona's Asian Lesbians in San Francisco essay was, what seemed to me at least, a lack of focus on the political activism of these women in their communities. After Canyon Sam is quoted as saying "What was really exciting for me was the political atmosphere" (325) I was expecting more information about participation in local or nation-wide political groups. However, I felt like this was glossed over in favor of focusing on the social aspects of the community, which seemed to have offered more impact to the story Ordona is trying to tell.

The essay is mainly focused on the roughly half-dozen women leaders that she profiles and follows the social lives of, and I think that this approach is what is making me have mixed opinions about this essay. Though I agree with the importance of introducing the main players in the Asian lesbian movement, I felt as though it there was a lack of information about the other, more average members. Obviously not all of the other 100 women on their mailing lists were active performers who were out to the community at large - how were their struggles different than the more public figures? How did they maintain ties and relations when the community seemed to be breaking apart and reforming? Though I did enjoy this essay and found the movement interesting to read about, I had a hard time viewing it as an essay about what its title makes it out to be; I thought the topic was too focused on the leaders of Asian lesbians in San Francisco, not on the community as a whole.

I think it would extremely interesting to read more about the movements that followed, which Ordona describes as the "out, loud, and proud" groups - and how these newer movements worked together or were opposed to the first generations of Asian lesbian activists.

Now that I'm thinking a little more about it, I'm wondering if maybe my issue with this essay is just the fact that it's a fairly personal account of events in the activist community. Most essays that I've read about political movements are extremely impersonal - usually talking about the group as a whole or regional groups as distinct entities that all shared the same ideals. My question then, is, Can highly personal accounts of political movements really tell the whole story? Because I didn't know much about the Asian lesbian movement at all before this essay, I do feel it gives me a good grounding to learn more about it. However, I wonder if Ordona's purpose is intentionally profiling just the most active participants or some other cause.

Placing the blame, and goals v. reality

I also found Xiaolan Bao’s “Politicizing Motherhood” article to be a lot more empowering for Asian American women than most of the articles that we have read. However, I have a somewhat different opinion on the fact that the garment workers did not get as much as they needed. Rather than a failing of the group at lobbying for their needs – which they did extremely well considering the circumstances – I see the failing on the side of the union leaders. Those leaders saw this issue as finished when they gave the activists “what they wanted” – a daycare center. It would have been very difficult for the garment workers to have forced the issue after having gotten the daycare there, since the union leaders would have spun the issue so that the garment workers would have seemed ungrateful. That might have lost them the popular support of people not in their community.

Regarding Odona’s article “Asian Lesbians in San Francisco,” while I understand the problems that led various interest groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to become separatist, I still do not quite understand how their goals became so separate that they excluded others while preaching tolerance. All of these groups want inclusion, or at least say so, and yet they push away others with the same goal.

Memory

While reading this Politicizing Motherhood Chinese Garment Workers’ Campaign for Daycare Centers in New York City, 1977-1982” written by Xiaolan Bao, it recalls me a lot of memory I heard from my grandmother.Although my grandmother is not immigrant, in the result of city-countryside dual system in China, she faced the same burden when she was moving to the big city as the crochet worker with super low pay.

My grandpa is the farmer who is selling the tea. His income were not able to support the family which have 7 kids.As children were responsible for the lives of their aging parent in Chinese cultural, they work to provide their children with a better education. However, when my parents recalled their childhood, they were still asked for work more than 6 hours everyday to support the family.

I always listened to my grandparents’ story when I was a child. They told me they only earn 10rmb=$1 every year and the food is limited at the same time. The crochet factory was bad for the air condition and the work was always overload. Some of their kids is too young to work so that they can only make them to live (away from home) at the countryside to avoid the high price level in the city.

With further reading , Chinese garment worker have double or even triple burdens compare to other working mother around the world.

“The societal refusal to acknowledge women’s domestic contribution, coupled with the peculiar setting of their family business, reinforced the concept of traditional gender roles in Chinese working-class family.”(296)

Although women become the desire labor of the city’s garment industry ,most of them work in them work in the low-paying labor sector and offer no employment benefits, women’s employment in the garment become crucial for the well-being of their families.(289)The working condition brings the change to their family, they would love to have fewer children and shorter interval one.They bring their children to work.After immigration, the gender roles might change and add additional burdens on women workers.(296)The article make me better understanding the gender role(working mother) and dilemma for immigrant.

Feminist: to be, or not to be

Out of all of the articles we’ve read so far in class, I found Bell hooks’ “Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression” to be one of the most thought provoking. I’ve always been curious about why it seems to be that our parents’ (or at least my parents’) generation is more willing to adopt and embrace the term “feminist” than our generation. I clearly remember one conversation with a friend about feminism, in which I asked if she considers herself to be one. Her response was to furrow her eyebrows and curl her nose before negating any such connection to the word, as if I had asked her to change a baby’s diaper. I definitely agree with Bell hooks in that: “Many women are reluctant to advocate feminism because they are uncertain about the meaning of the term” (23). Since the movements of the 60s and 70s, it seems this feminist discussion has slipped by the wayside, which is why our generation seems more hesitant about the term. If one aspect of feminism is simply “a struggle to end sexist oppression” (24), then how could anyone (especially a woman) not consider herself/himself a feminist? Following this definition of feminism, I could even argue that my dad was a feminist based on his work fighting for the rights of women and those within the LGBTQ community as a union negotiator for The Newspaper Guild. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Does one have to satisfy certain requirements before being able to claim the word “feminist”? Or should the term be open to anyone, men included?

Politicizing Motherhood

I think what stood out to me the most in Politicizing Motherhood, by Xiaolan Bao, was the last paragraph, which talks about how the 1982 strike was historic, an event in which "the union claimed a leading role" in the campaign for daycare. Although the article does give most of the credit to women workers for their contributions in leading the campaign, I think the references to the union and its role in helping with the day care campaign are just confusing in general. Maybe I'm just not understanding the material, but it sounds like initially, the Union leader, Jay Mazur, was against providing daycare to women workers, and kept searching for ways to avoid the issue. But then, the union called a strike and suddenly, all daycare problems were solved. I think I'm just confused by this sudden transition from dodging requests to the "strike, in which the union claimed a leading role." I understand the significance of the union's actions, but it sounds like the author champions the union's role. When I read this, I couldn't stop thinking about how the union leaders so thoroughly refused the requests of women workers and how the end of the essay contrasted with the earlier negative connotation of the union.

The essay "Politicizing Motherhood" was inspiring for me to read. At a time where women were clearly overlooked and lacked the power they have now, these garment workers never backed down from their position. I feel like Asians stereotypically have high motivation and perseverance, but also try to avoid confrontations. As new immigrants, these women not only went against the norm of society and decided to speak up for themselves, they were also very bold in their moves. Their struggle lasted for several years, but in the end they were able to achieve the outcome they wanted. I was happy to read that after all the years of work they put in, they were finally able to get the childcare programs. Although it was a minimal amount of childcare, it was still a start. Going back to our discussion of model minority, this essay shows that perhaps Asians aren't so silent and willing to endure just anything that is thrown at them.

Labor Rights and Cosmetic Concessions

Xiaolan Bao's piece on the Chinese women garment workers' campaign for daycare center bothered me a little bit. I was incredibly impressed with the work of these women and the strength and endurance of their determination. As Bao notes, they were successful to a certain degree in negotiating for daycare centers for the children of garment workers. What bothered me was the extent at which Bao glossed over how inadequate the concessions made by the union were.

Towards the beginning of the article, Bao states that there were an estimated sixteen thousand garment workers in Chinatown by 1980 (288). However, the original daycare center only provided spots for 70 preschool aged children per year (296). Of course, not all 16,000 women would have preschool aged children, but 70 spots is still woefully inadequate. Even when a second daycare center was established in 1993, "the two daycare centers are insufficient in meeting the tremendous needs of working mothers in the community" (296).

The degree to which the concessions made by the union met the needs of the working mothers is partially outside of the scope of Bao's argument. Bao's goals seemed to be to illuminate the unique experience of female immigrant garment workers and how they are perceived by detailing a mass organized movement to demand resources to address their needs. In this way, to what extent the needs of these women were addressed is secondary to the fact that they got the attention of the management and were able to catalyze some action at all.

Nonetheless, I would have appreciated a more in depth discussion or even a small acknowledgement that many of the concessions made by unions and the government in regards to social services are often cosmetic, addressing the needs of only a small percentage of the people who desperately need help. These small patches allow the government, union, whoever to make a small change to demonstrate that they have acknowledged the existence of the problem. By making that small change, they seem enlightened and beneficent and can pretend to be looking out for the interest of the worker. They seem to care, but they have not addressed the issue in full. The problem will continue (and does continue) to persist so long as society is willing to be content with any forward action. In this, I am not saying that actions forward are categorically bad but that they are not enough. As far as the right to early childcare goes, pushing for some forward action, any forward action, without acknowledging that the final goal should be accessible and affordable early childcare for everyone who wants and needs it may easily lead to contentment with one's situation once one's particular wants and needs have been addressed.

"Politicizing Motherhood" Response

Xiaolan Bao mentions in “Politicizing Motherhood: Chinese Garment Worker’s Campaign for Daycare Centers in New York City, 1977-1982,” that many women worked even if it meant their children were left at home unsupervised or the children had to go to work and suffer dangerous conditions with their mothers. This was surprising at first; however, since most mothers chose one of these options, it became evident that Chinese garment workers had no other options. Working was an economic necessity for most of these women. Although it may seem “liberating” that women were beginning to be accepted into the labor force, women were still required to take care of the children, fulfill all of the household duties, and they were not treated well as employees. Despite these obstacles, one could still argue that the benefits of working outweighed the consequences. The concept of Chinese women working outside of the home in a traditionally male oriented industry was a step towards equalization between people of different race, class, and gender. In fact, children began to respect their mothers more as gender roles were modified. This is an interesting comparison to the Korean military brides who were not respected by their children because they were raised to view their mothers as inferior. Overall, the idea of Chinese women working in the garment industry is significant because women started to have a place in society and not just as the housewife.

On a separate note, the main point of the article is the Chinese garment workers’ struggle for daycare centers. These women turned to The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union for help. While the ILGWU resisted at first, the workers overcame many obstacles and eventually saw some results. Like the article mentions, this may not be the greatest accomplishment of these women, but it was one of the first. The Chinese garment workers found a problem and worked together to obtain a solution. This concept has been carried on today and many women have united to make change happen. Even at Scripps there are many instances of women having their voices heard. For example, Scripps students saved the olive trees when the college wanted to build the Humanities building on top of them. Although the petition for daycare centers may seem small, it triggered many future events. Out of the readings so far, this article may be one of the most empowering of Asian American women. Instead of accepting their fate, the Chinese garment workers fought for their rights.

"Feminism"

As a student of an all women’s college, the word feminism and feminist get thrown around a lot. In everything I’ve read about feminism or the feminist movement, the definition of feminism has been completely different. In my Core 1 discussion section I think my class came to the decision that feminism is what you personally make of it and that there is no overarching definition. All of these things that have happened to me personally were completely reflected in the Hooks reading. This is in fact the first reading about feminism that I’ve read since being at an all women’s college that has resonated with me personally. When I saw the title of this reading, I honestly was a bit frustrated. I thought, “Oh here comes another definition of Feminism spouting idyllic hopes for equality.” I completely doubted that this reading would do nothing but confuse me further about what feminism is and means in the context of my life as a woman. Within the first several words, my mind was changed. It states “A central problem within feminist discourse has been our inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what feminism is or accept definition(s) that could serve as points of unification” (Hooks 17).

The truth of this statement to me is mind-blowing, and I’m so surprised that this belief about feminism doesn’t arise more often in academic discussions that I’ve been a part of. In every class I’ve had that talks about feminism a reoccurring topic had always come up. Why are men afraid to say they are feminists? Or Why do men fear feminists themselves? In every class, to answer these questions, we’ve simply come to the conclusion that those who are “afraid” of feminism and/or feminists don’t understand what feminism is. This statement alone shows that the entire word/idea creates a sense of confusion and disjointed community. I always believed that the point of the movement was to unify women and men through equality, when what it’s proven to do, at least in the experiences that I’ve had with it, is the opposite. For many people it has created a divide between feminists and others. Other times, people claim to believe in many feminist thoughts but don’t refer to themselves as feminists. For example, my friend one said to me “I believe in the equality of men and women and in the continued support of women’s rights, but I wouldn’t call myself a feminist”.

All of these issues have stereotypical connotations. The stereotype of a feminist is usually, at least from many men’s perspectives, a man-hating woman, and that is one of the core reasons that men “fear” or avoid feminism/feminists. I think, though it may be a slight stretch, that the stereotype of feminists can be paralleled with the stereotypes of ethnicity. When Asian American families were trying to assimilate into American culture and society, American’s showed this strange, somewhat ingrained fear of “allowing” Asian immigrants to become part of American society. I think this was for many of the same reasons, like fear of different or otherness. This entirely new culture and group of people were being introduced into American communities and the majority of people had a very hard time with that idea. In many ways there is also a parallel between the Asian immigrants fight for equality and women’s fight for equality, and thus illustrates the extreme difficulties Asian American WOMEN must have been going through with two levels of equality battles to fight.

Feminism and Perspectives of America

The bell hooks article was very interesting to me, because I had never understood what was negative about the word “feminism.” The fact that it has never had an adequate accepted definition was also new to me, but also explains a lot of the confusion I have seen from people who are attempting to define it. From the article, it seems that feminism is, rather than a quest for gender equality as is generally assumed, a quest for revolutionary change of the status quo that allows men to hold power and suppress women. Feminists do tend to be characterized as somewhat militant, possibly relating to this early desire for violent social change, and perhaps a desire to not associate with advocating that kind of change is part of what causes people to retreat from the word “feminism.” Bourgeois white middle-class American women are often rather comfortable with their lifestyles, and therefore loath to change them unduly. They therefore frame feminism as a lifestyle choice and as the pursuit of small goals rather than a social shift.

Aguilar’s article on her experiences speaking with Asian American women of different nationalities also brought up an interesting point. The women of other cultures to whom Aguilar spoke did not like American ways of looking at things. They found it intrusive and insulting. For example, Aguilar realized that Yasmin, who had written the paper that used a critique of the decadence of the United States to exhort women to stay in their place, was actually defending her cultural pride against the intrusion of American “moral decadence and degeneration.” The other women also distanced themselves from the American women representatives at the seminar.

Often the American representatives and Aguilar had trouble seeing things from the other women’s perspectives. When describing the story of the Peruvian women who used whistles to call when their husbands beat them, the author found to her surprise that the women in the seminar reacted quite negatively. I also found it interesting that the non-American women at the seminar described their proposed solutions in terms of specific groups of women rather than women as a whole, where Americans would tend to create an overly broad solution that would fail for that reason.