The Language Of Inspiration...

...And Asian-American Feminism.

Well the latest big Asian-American news is that twitter exploded awhile back at the initiation of a feminist tweeter named Suey Park. Although consisting of a general rant (if that is the right word) about racist stereotypes about Asians that took the form of snappy twitter one-liners, the "trend" was hailed as an awakening for Asian-American feminists who are calling for a space dedicated exclusively to raising the voice of Asian-American feminism. I don't usually care to post content on topical subject matter, simply because all too often it is little more than a reaction and comes across as such, and it is often wise to see how any given situation plays out before passing comment. That said, at this early stage, some interesting things emerged from within the Asian-American community that I think are worth some commentary.

Specifically, long-time Asian-American feminist blogger Jenn Fang at Reappropriate posted an interesting commentary in this blog post at her site, but even more interesting was the ensuing conversation that I engaged in with her in the comments section at her blog. In particular, I had two initial points of interest that I raised with Jenn; the idea of "institutional sexism" within the community as well as what Jenn's thoughts were on the most significant issues of sexism facing asian-american women in 21st Century America. I was thrown by Jenn's response to the latter. This is what she listed as her most significant issues.....

1) that Asian Americans have the highest gender income gap of all races. APIA women make 73 cents to every dollar that an APIA man makes, which is the lowest of all other races by more than 5 cents.
2) mental health issues which we’ve discussed, which I would like to maintain a focus on APIA women, but which the community largely doesn’t talk about, and
3) human trafficking/immigration rights. Asian Americans, particularly women, are the second largest undocumented immigrant population in the States and growing, and worldwide, most trafficked sex workers come from Asian nations. Yet, this is an issue the community — either the APIA community or the feminist community — pretty much ignores.

I think that most reasonable Asian-American men (and  most Asian-American men are likely reasonable) would agree that these are immensely significant issues that they would happily lend support to with little reservation. Surely there would be little conflict about the merits of addressing these issues? But the reason I was thrown by the above list, is that the body of the Reappropriate piece made mention that the fact......

..of our community is also that institutionalized sexism has long silenced the voices of Asian American feminists.

As hard as I tried, I found it extremely difficult to find meaningful connection between institutional sexism within Asian-America and the list of most significant issues facing Asian feminism. From an Asian-American male's point of view, Asian misogyny, stifling of Asian women's voices, and rampant sexism resulting in limited opportunities, have been the most common charges leveled at Asian men, so naturally I would presume these charges might form a significant part of any priorities in feminism. Yet, the three most important issues - at least for one feminist - has seemingly little to do with any of these problems. As I pointed out in the comments over there, mental health issues are a taboo subject regardless of who suffers from them, and trafficking is a subject that most people, Asian or otherwise, are simply ignorant of, but would most likely be quite willing lend support to see it end. I see little connection between any suggested silencing of feminist voices and these two issues, and frankly see no reason why Asian men would not support it. As for Asian women's lower salary levels, again I doubt that Asian men would think that this is a fair state of affairs, and I see little reason to believe that it is caused mainly by Asian men's sexism.

And this is what threw me about the list; if these listed most significant issues (and I agree that they are significant) facing feminism have little ostensible connection with sexism in Asian-America, then where does this sexism fit into the Asian feminist dialogue? More precisely, how does using the language of first and second-wave feminism to describe what is obviously not first and second-wave feminist issues in Asian-America advance the Asian feminist cause? If we accept that any reasonable movement would have as its ultimate goal a synthesis, or adoption into mainstream attitudes and behaviours, of its tenets, then how pragmatic is it to use language that apparently repels rather than recruits Asian men to this end?

Surely trying to conceive of the gender dynamic in Asian-America using terms formed by a (predominantly white) feminist movement that was not complicated by race issues (specifically gender issues complicated by racism) is both intellectually lazy and unoriginal? Jenn writes...

The argument is that Asian men a) recognize that male privilege has afforded them an easier time to get where they are than is afforded to women, even if they are still disadvantaged based on race, and b) if they are in positions of achievement to be sensitive to Asian women who are working without male privilege to achieve.

As it turns out, the fight for gender equality is not as simple as presenting issues to the community and garnering support with passionate oratory, persuasive arguments, and outlining of goal-oriented courses of action. In fact, those methods take a back seat and in their stead, what seems to be required is soul-searching and contritious confessions of the sin of privilege. Specifically, male privilege, and even more specifically, Asian male privilege as, apparently, conferred through the structures of the white patriarchy. That is, it seems to be the case that only via the cathartic process of acknowledging or owning male privilege - Asian male privilege - can Asian men be motivated or able to genuinely fight for equality and empowerment for Asian women. I question this line of reasoning, and submit that to speak so casually about Asian male privilege as some kind of trickle-down benefit deriving from white patriarchy is to simply not comprehend the experience of Asian men in the US, despite paying lip-service to the contrary.

Quite simply, the very essence of the Asian male experience of racism is one of dehumanization, and along with this is a denial of Asian men's masculinity and, hence, their "maleness". How does male privilege exist when maleness is denied? Sometimes the phrase "bro-culture", is used to describe the inclusive culture through which privilege is shared amongst the patriarchy, yet, it is difficult to see how Asian men are conceived of as "bros" in American culture. In fact, the opposite is probably more true and Asian men are most certainly not generally conceived of as "bros" at all. Sure, some of us may get past the prejudice - without, that is, ending it - but the reality of any supposed Asian "male privilege" is surely far more complex than a simple assertion that our gender makes achievement easier. Asking me to "own" it carries with it an implicit assertion that I - and other Asian men - have somehow benefitted from the racism we have experienced. We haven't.

And that might be one of the reasons why we have a paradox where Asian men roll their eyes at the rhetoric of Asian-American feminism, yet would almost certainly support efforts to rectify the issues listed above. I am perfectly willing to lend support to the above causes, yet I am able to do so because I feel that there is justice in fighting for equal pay for Asian women, the mentally ill deserve sensitive consideration, and trafficking is an abomination. That should be enough motivation for me and it should be sufficient to accept my support on those grounds alone. To insist that I also confess to what any reasonable person should see as dubious privilege is merely pointless chest-beating. Even worse though, it is counter-productive and at the end of the day amounts to self-sabotage. At some point, you have to stop the rhetorical calls to battle and actually start talking to people. That includes talking to Asian men.

The proof is in the pudding. After forty-eight comments and a fairly in-depth back and forth of ideas, the actual subject of the most significant issues for Asian-American feminism went almost completely unaddressed. Instead, the conversation was pretty much focused on why it is believed to be necessary to adopt a strategy of labeling and insisting on proclamations of contrition ahead of finding the most effective language and argumentation to recruit the support that might be required to create the kind of social awareness that these issues deserve. I have serious doubts that the vast majority of Asian-American men would refuse to participate in advocacy for these issues because of sexist attitudes. A little search on several of the blogs that I link to - bigWOWO, Nikkei View, Eurasian Sensation, Angry Asian Man - have carried supportive content on the sexism faced by Asian women, and I know of no Asian-American blogs, writers, or artists, who are hostile to Asian women, Asian feminism, or Asian women's issues - save, one. So whilst I would not deny that sexism exists and that there are some Asian men who do troll Asian women in cyber-space, I would submit that almost all of the most respected and read Asian male bloggers, writers, artists, and activists, are open to lending support to the cause of equality, indeed, they do that very thing.

All groups that experience marginalization or injustice seek primarily to have their experience not only heard, but also validated. By approaching Asian men in a manner that fundamentally dismisses their experience of prejudice by re-framing it as privilege, explicitly places us into an oppositional position and marginalizes us such that a group who would most likely happily throw their support behind such issues as the ones listed, are instead forced into defending themselves from presumptions that not only diminishes their experience of racism, but also tries to make the ludicrous claim that the very basis of anti-Asian-male prejudice (emasculation and denials of maleness) carries some kind of as yet vague flip-side of privilege.

No, Asian men have a sense of justice, we have compassion and even empathy! It's true! And Asian-Americans - particularly the younger generation I would certainly bet - would be open to hearing about these issues. Although it makes for great copy to utilize hyperbole and labeling to draw attention to a cause, it does little to actually motivate participation simply because the presumptions it entails serves to bulldoze agency and steamroller the experience of people who may themselves feel as though their stories are marginalized. Worst of all, this strategy seems to be little more than manipulation that over-rides extant goodwill and willingness to contribute.

To summarize, there has to be a point where the language of ontology and theory ceases and the language that enables positive and meaningful engagement - that is, language that fosters inspiration and commitment - becomes more useful. Language that reaches people who are not in the choir and inspires them to want to see the same changes you want to see, would seem obviously more potent. And that is something that I sense is lacking in Asian-American feminism as it relates its issues to those not ostensibly a part of it - it lacks the substance of language to inspire. To be fair, I have a general sense that the ways that Asian-Americans present their experiences are generally uninspiring (for example, we are always highlighting our "offence", but why should anyone care that we are offended?) to those not in the community.

Furthermore, it belies the nuanced spirit of third-wave feminism to stick to such strategies seemingly based on rigid, unnuanced language, when  third-wave feminism itself calls for a widening of concepts of feminism and the experiences that go with it. By shifting away from this approach, it might create the possibility of engaging with people in such a away that humanizes them, instead of turning them into a series of labels and negative characteristics. For any group that has felt the pinch of marginalization, invisibility, and prejudice (Asian men included), humanizing them will most likely get you further than continuing the strategy that fundamentally dehumanizes them further by what amounts to gross generalizations.

On a very final note, I cannot help but find irony in the guilt-by-association charge of "maleness" transcending race and somehow privilege emerging from the emasculation and anti-male attitudes towards Asian men. If white male privilege is imparted by mere association, then what privileges are conferred through personal relationships of dating and marriage? This is a serious problem for those Asian feminists who insist that people own privilege, after all, who is it out of all women of colour that engages in and seemingly pursues inter-racial relationships with white men most of all? That's right, it is Asian women, who alone out of all groups do not discriminate between white men and men of their own race. This is an inconsistency problematic for Asian feminism; if Asian men are privileged by sharing gender, and must therefore own it before they can genuinely support the fight for justice, then surely marrying into whiteness confers degrees more privilege that must be acknowledged as well?

As I wrote here, social scientists maintain that inter-marriage is the final barrier into full acceptance into the mainstream. That is, once intermarriage between groups becomes normalized - as it more or less has for Asian women and white men - then it is believed that the last barrier into whiteness has been crossed. That is to say that by marrying into the white mainstream, Asian women are implicitly beneficiaries of white privilege. This is awkward in the extreme. Defending dating choices of Asian women (that is the right - privilege? - to date and marry white men) has become an integral aspect of the Asian feminist dialogue, but with no mention of the implicit privilege doing so confers. To me, this represents an almost fatal blind-spot for Asian-American feminism, particularly at times when charges of privileges are being so casually thrown around.

Foot-Binding Ain't So Bad

The Case For a More Nuanced Dialogue.

Few would argue that the now abolished Chinese cultural practice of the foot-binding of Chinese women has been the subject of much debate amongst the men and women (but mainly the women) of the Asian minority of America. Although a phenomenon existing exclusively within Chinese culture, some Asian-American women find value in representing the practice as the essence of female oppression in Asia (and by extension within the Asian-Amerian community). Subsequently, the burden of correcting the historical wrongdoings of the culture of foot-binding falls on "Asian men" in general. Apparently Indian, Uzbek, Siberian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino, as well as Chinese and all other Asian men - all must equally share the responsibility for the phenomenon of foot-binding - even though ultimately it took the willpower of strong Asian men to end the practice.

Foot-binding was a practice in which Chinese girls as young as 3 or 4 underwent an extremely painful process to modify the shape and size of the foot. In order to achieve this, the bones of young girls' feet were broken and bandaged in whatever was the desired shape. Foot-bound women lived in constant pain, and infections were a frequent complication. Definitely an ugly practice. Yet, what were the circumstances that brought about this practice? Most accounts maintain that the phenomenon started as a fashion statement amongst the rich and well-to-do of the Tang Dynasty and slowly evolved into a tradition that involved every echelon of Chinese society.

Women who had their feet bound were highly prized in feudal China - their value as wives were increased and for many it was a means to escape poverty. Asthetically, bound feet were considered sexually attractive, and those who had undergone the procedure were widely considered to be chaste. Although it is maintained that foot-binding was a means to  keep women disempowered, on the flip side, mutilating the feet of Chinese women effectively increased their value and thus was a practice that was propagated by the men and women of feudal China.

Ironically, the American practice of modifying the body through cosmetic surgery, bears some remarkable similarities to the Chinese tradition. As was the case with women's feet in feudal China, women in modern America aspire to a standard body shape and type that is extremely difficult or impossible to maintain by natural means, and which is a standard determlned by a patriarchy and not the women themselves. In order to do this some women are pro-active and seek out invasive surgery to meet the required standard. Other women in America simply become sick - that is, they develope eating disorders from attempts at body sculpting through extreme dieting and vomiting. Those women who achieve the desired body shape through mutilation (a.k.a cosmetic surgery), become highly valued and desirable.

Clearly the underlying principles that drove the Chinese tradition of foot-binding and continue to drive the modern American culture of cosmetic mutilation are almost exactly the same. Strangely, yet not unsurprisingly, some Asian-American feminism seems to somehow not notice this fact, and continue with the "Asian men are foot-binding mysogynists" battle cry, seeming to be intellectually stuck in feudal China. Apparently, for some Asian-American feminists a traditiıon not practised by the majority of Asian cultures and one that has been abolished for decades, is more of a threat to their empowerment than an American patriarchy that is powerful enough to pressure millions of women to undergo cosmetic surgery. Somehow, Asian women seem fortunate enough to be unaffected by this American culture of control over women's body image, yet remarkably enslaved to an abolished culture of foot-binding that, incidentally, was never practised by the communities that they grew up in within the United States. This reminds very much of the type of disconnect that I noted here. I look on bemused.

The more I notice this similarity between foot-binding and cosmetic surgery, the more difficult it becomes to view the former as an inherently wicked practice without viewing the latter in the same light. Strange as it sounds, the fundamental difference between the two traditions is the availability of aneasthesia, anti-biotics, and painkillers. Unfortunately, what this means for those too lazy to make nuanced and balanced arguments against the practice, is that foot-binding would be no different and no less brutal that routine cosmetic surgery if practised in the present. Wheelchairs, Segways and escalators make the immobility issue a non-issue, painkillers and aneasthesia make the procedure painless. Modern surgical techniques might even make the practice easier and painless.

With this in mind, it is clear that if I am to be held responsible for a practice that has been abolished for decades, and which was never practised within my own Asian culture, then Asian feminists have to come up with better arguments for their case against me. Otherwise, it becomes extremely difficult to take this type of feminism seriously.

Sadly, as with much of the intellectual discourse that occurs within Asian America, the issue is often overly generalized to the point of becoming simplistic. Often this process goes hand-in-hand with a selective ommission of historical and social realities and an uncritical lack of nuance in the argumentation. Since foot-binding wasn't practised outside of China and never occurred amongst any Asian minority group in America (including the Chinese), it strikes me as strange in the extreme that this phenomenon could cause so much resentment toward the general Asian-American male population and serve as something of the rallying cry for the empowerment of Asian-American women. So how is it that some of the voices of Asian feminism rail vehemently against a practice that was not a Pan-Asian phenomenon and has been abolished for decades, yet few rail against the modern day manipulation of women into undergoing cosmetic surgery?

Hat Tip...