SUMMARY:
In her article, Lee JeeYeun discusses three of the many heterogeneous forces that affect gender identities for Asian-American lesbian/bisexual women.
1. American Orientalisms is the idea that Asian-American women are viewed as Lotus Blossom Babies (hyperfeminine, passive/docile, exoticized and
eroticized for heterosexual white male consumption) or Dragon Ladies (hypersexual, cunning, sly wildcat sex goddesses). Lee's interviewees discuss gender presentation in terms of femme/butch identity — namely, how being femme subjects an Asian woman to the presumption of heteronormativity, while being butch or defying the hyperfeminine gender stereotypes would subject an Asian woman to violence and
backlash.
2. Looking like a "Lesbian" discusses the conflation of butch presentation with queerness, and femme presentation with straight-passing. Lee talks about the
idea that the sexualities of women of color are almost entirely erased — not, however, by simply adding or subtracting layers of one's identity ("I'm queer, I'm Asian, therefore I'm invisible"). The erasure instead happens because of a specific racializing concept of gender. For instance, femme Asian women's identities are immediately assumed to be as heterosexual objects of desire because of the specific Lotus
Blossom/Orientalisms behind being an Asian woman — especially for bisexual women, who
are viewed as "straight people who swing" / not "~Tru Queers~."
3. Cultural Norms of Gender discusses the cultural forces that play into Asian women's gender identities, as they face several cultural
norms that differ from the dominant standards of the U.S. white middle class. One Chinese interviewee talks about "domesticity in the kitchen" not being a culturally predominantly
feminine trait in her household as opposed to western norms. Another interviewee suggests that Asian norms of femininity, which do differ from white mainstream
standards, may be limiting or traditional, and when Asian women choose how they want
to present, they're more responding to those Asian ideas of gender norms/femininity
than necessarily to western ideas.
Lee concludes by noting that our gender presentation and gender
identities are responses not only to hegemonic gender norms and compulsory
heterosexuality but also to different cultural standards and racialized gender norms. In tinkering with our gender
identities, she says, we can maybe never truly fit fully outside the hegemonic structures
we seek to challenge, because there is no truly pure space untainted by these
dominant discourses — however, we can still resist and think critically about and question the structures of these
ideas.
REFLECTION:
I really enjoyed reading this piece, as you can probably tell from the behemoth of a summary I posted (sorry!). First off, it was personally relevant, as I identify as a queer Asian-American woman, and so the intersection of those issues is something I've been thinking a lot about lately. I liked the American Orientalisms section a lot — in some ways, I think, it dovetails very neatly with the idea of the Asian-American "model minority." In both cases, there's this insidious notion that Asian-Americans are passive and submissive to western societal standards. The model minority myth has historically been used as an antiblack attack, stereotyping all Asian-Americans as silent, hard-working STEM geniuses earning high incomes and falling neatly under the thumb of western capitalism — never mind the fact that this is 1) not actually true and harmful to Asian groups who don't fit under this stereotype, and 2) an insulting attempt to pit people of color against each other! Whereas the Lotus Blossom/Dragon Lady Orientalism stereotypes Asian women as obedient, sensual objects of white male desire. Just as it's not flattering to be told, "You're Asian so you must be really good at math" (I am not btw), it's very uncomfortable to hear something like "Asian women are so pretty, I've got yellow fever." Both of these scenarios, in short, feature the objectification of Asian-Americans under a white agenda. I'm also very interested in the cultural norms of gender Lee points out. I liked that she talked not only about difference in perception by ethnicity/geography but also according to one's class, which I think is a very salient point to remember. Now I really want to learn more about specific conceptions of gender identity/presentation in Asian cultures and how they might differ from western conceptions, which are the cultural constructs I'm most familiar with, so if anyone's well-versed on the subject you should come talk to me about it!
QUESTIONS:
-Lee says we may not be able to completely destroy the hegemonic structures of race/gender/sexuality, but we can shift the grounds on which they're built. Do you agree? How would you define shifting the grounds?
-When Lee talks about forming strategies of resistance to hegemonic gender norms, she emphasizes the idea that said strategies must change according to the specific racial/class-related/other forces you face. How does your own identity affect the way you approach gender norms in your life?
-On page 126, Lee says, "It is important for analyses of gender ... to examine closely how the specificities of cultural differences affect gender, not only for women of color, but also for white women." What do you think she means?
-Lee talks about gender constructions not being a matter of
simply adding or subtracting identities but instead very specific/particular
racializing discourses of gender, e.g. assuming all femme Asian women are hyperfeminine and heterosexual. In what ways do you see these racialized
discourses of gender applied to other women of color?
-Lee talks about femme/butch stereotypes and how multiple
forces — one's race and cultural background, the threat of backlash when non-conforming to gender norms, the
idea of butch identity as somewhat of a sign of resistance — affect the gender identities of Asian women. I'd like to open this topic up to everyone and ask: In a
world where dominant stereotypes of gender are so prevalent, how much do you
think your own gender presentation has been affected by these forces?
To answer your third question, I think what Lee is saying ties in to what she says about racializing discourses of gender, and how multiple identities of race, gender, and sexuality are not all subjected to the same homophobic/sexist/racist logic when compounded. I think Lee is pointing out that it is important to dissect how these identities compound themselves when women and faced with how to present their gender, and how the decisions they make about how to present are affected by these compounded assumptions. Her inclusion of "not only for women of color, but also for white women" I think is merely a reminder that racial discourse has a history of viewing white as "normal" and nonwhite as "other", and that white women have just as much reason to examine the culture they are a part of when discussing gender and gender presentation, even if they don't see that culture as explicitly tied to their race.
ReplyDeleteTo reflect on your final question, I think personally that the idea of butch identity as a sign of resistance probably has the biggest effect on how I actively choose to present my gender on a day-to-day basis, but that my race and cultural background probably operate on my gender presentation in ways I don't even realize because I, as a white woman, havent been forced to engage with how my race affects my gender presentation, and as such haven't considered it. (That was the world's longest and probably most poorly constructed sentence, sorry). I can say that as a queer person, I actively choose to present my gender in some ways that can be seen as butch (short hair, mens clothes, etc) because I feel like it makes my queerness known or public in some way, and because it feels like a pushback against the hyper-femininity of the southern culture I grew up and was forced to participate in. In a way, I suppose that is sort of how my "cultural background" affects my gender presentation.
I can definitely relate to your experiences in choosing to present your gender in some ways that can be seen as butch and that you do so because you feel it makes your queerness known or public in some way. I do the same things for the same reason, even though i was NOT forced to act super feminine. I am also a queer (I'm just starting to get used to using that word), white woman by nature, and for a long time i identified my gender to be female, and for awhile--especially ever since taking this class--i've been questioning my gender a lot. I grew up with both female- and male-gendered clothing and activities, some clothing and activities neutral, and having friends of both sexes so that is why I say i wasn't really pushed or forced into the "female idea". As a result i identify with both or mixed genders. That said, some days i may appear more feminine while still feeling "butch" or tough-shelled while others i definitely appear more butch (little or no makeup, baggy clothes, androgynous hairstyle) and might carry myself with a stronger step. I know it REALLY does not and SHOULD not matter how others perceive me but in the back of my mind I always think about gender presentation.
DeleteI did not grow up in the south so i cannot relate to your "cultural background", and as a New Englander I'm not sure if there is a "standard" cultural background. Again, if there is it is thought about subconsciously or i may have discussed it with friends (and mocked it) in the past but can't recall much, and I probably didn't follow it--or at least haven't since middle school. What I DO remember about Longmeadow, MA is the students at the public schools have always been all-around talented and academically successful and ethnically/spiritually/culturally diverse, so i grew up pretty aware of the world. On the flip side there were many stereotypical feminine girls who cared about money and popularity, many who came from upper or upper-middle class families, and i was very aware of that.. And I suppose my family living in Sandwich, Cape Cod the past 6 years has made me recognize that it is pretty sheltered--the Cape as a whole is despite the artsy/cultural areas of it--and a lot of girls and women there are pretty feminine and wear the "Cape Cod" clothing and jewelry. And course they go to the beach a lot and are obsessed with sunbathing or looking fit/tan. NOT everyone is like that though--i have a lot of friends and acquaintances who don't fit that mold. I think if i grew up there I would lack a [positive] "cultural background", per se, and wouldn't have discovered myself and evolved the way I did.
To respond to your first question, I think it is definitely possible to change the hegemonic structure of race, gender, and sexuality. I think it already has shifted since Lee published this article, especially in the recognition of non-heterosexual sexualities as valid. Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I see improvements for minority races/genders/sexualities everyday. While there is always room for improvement, I think we've come a long way, especially in the past century. I would define "shifting the ground" as weakening the accepted majority races/genders/sexualities and creating further acceptance for minority groups. Education is incredibly important in this regard, and has proved to be a great tool. Overall, the hegemony is shifty, albeit slowly.
ReplyDeleteI don't think acceptance is enough. Hegemony is a power-laden concept and simply accepting groups of people, which in my mind the equivalent of saying "Okay, yes, we hear you. We know you're there. Now shut up", is not going to weaken any existing power structures at any level. In order to truly change the hegemonic structures of race, gender and sexuality we need to demand much more than acceptance, which doesn't guarantee that anyone will be listened to or trusted with a position of power. Laverne Cox is killing it on the media stage and slowly chipping away hegemonic structures of race, gender and sexuality without waiting for someone to say, "okay fine, we accept you, maybe you should run for office?". She is rewriting the rules and making people listen, instead of asking them to listen. That sounds like shifting the ground to me!
DeleteI'm going to address your second and last questions, and before that acknowledge a lot of my sentiments will echo what @Micaela has said. As a white, queer, woman, my gender presentation has been most heavily influenced by my queer identity. I think in part that comes from the privilege of whiteness being treated as the norm, so I am not always conscious of how the ways I present myself reflect that whiteness, since I am (at least at Tufts and at home) surrounded by other white people. One aspect of white-dominated media, gender expectations, and beauty standards that I will note is (and this will come as no surprise) the way that the ways in which femininity is presented in other cultures is seen as lesser than white femininity; for example, society looks down upon "kinky" or "natural" hair, even if it is long (a standard white beauty standard), as well as emphasizing large eyes as feminine (excluding Asian or Asian American women).
ReplyDeleteAs for my queer identity, I have also made active choices to be visually (and stereotypically) queer (e.g. butch, short hair, plaid). I used to have very long hair, and when I cut it all off, the primary motivator was to donate it to charity, BUT I had an underlying (but conscious) desire to look butch. As a lesbian, I am defying the male gaze and compulsory heterosexuality by focusing my love and energy on other women and non-men (e.g. genderfluid people), and I wanted to "look" even more queer so as to deter straight men and connect more easily with other queer people. That all being said, this article very much changed my mind about that. JeeYeun spoke of femininity as a rebellion against the stereotypical queer look; she seemed to believe that feminine queer women were (and this is my interpretation) reclaiming femininity for queer women. That is, dissociating femininity and heterosexuality. So while I am not probably going to grow out my hair and start wearing make-up anytime soon, this piece made me think about the fact that both "butch" and "femme" lesbian and bisexual women should work together, instead of taking sides.
The blog is lagging and/or refusing to publish my comment :( (So sorry if there are two versions of my comment)
ReplyDelete-
Response to second question.
I am a bisexual (same and other, in before "that's cissexist") Asian cis woman, and I cannot separate my Asian-ness (my Chinese-ness) from my sexuality or from my gender expression, particularly considering reminders of the intersectionality between my race/nationality, sexuality, and gender expression are so obvious to me all the time. I recently cut my hair from hip-length to super short (i.e., boy short). While I, unfortunately, am very disappointed in the state of my hairdo and anticipate having long, flowing locks of onyx once again, I've received nothing but compliments from everyone, particularly my mother. This was actually pretty surprising to me. I thought she'd think I'd want to be a boy, or something. Though I guess it wasn't surprising, in that she was very vocal about her dissatisfaction with my long hair. In China, women with long hair carry the same stereotype as American blondes---stupid, foolish, low IQ, etc. My mom cited this stereotype as the primary reason why she disliked my long hair, but I can't help but wonder if she was aware of the Western stereotypes of "lotus blossom" and "exotic whore"...or if that was just my reflection. That aside, butch/femme isn't something that's named in mainland China, though I can't speak for Taiwan or Hong Kong, places that have had greater Western influence. Walking around Beijing, you see women who are ultra-feminine and women who look like thirteen-year-old boys. But it isn't something that's named; they're all women, just women with long hair in dresses or women with short hair in some very snazzy jeans. I think the reason for this is that butch/femme is a dynamic with an origin heavy in lesbianism, and -of course- lesbianism/gaiety/all those immoral things (that are totally not benign variation in sexual shenanigans) can't exist in the perfect country that is China, those are all American phenomena. So I can't separate my Chinese-ness from my bi-ness from my femininity, because a large part of my culture tells me that I can't/don't exist.
Having been raised and born in Hong Kong, I can see why your mother seemed to love your short hair as it doesn't associate with sexuality as much as personality in the standards of Chinese culture. I find that Asian culture fixates more on the "humbleness", "submissive", "ordinary" characteristics of a woman. Having short hair removes the sexuality of a woman, and rather seems to insinuate "cuteness" and "modesty" of a woman. This would be our definition of being feminine. This is preferred from having long, gorgeous hair which associates with Westernization or prostitution in some extent. In Hong Kong, short hair is adopted by a dominant number of females as it is seen as 'fashionable' more so than anything else.
DeleteI find it vastly interesting to see how culture affects gender/sexuality norms, and these contradictions are evident within this clash of 'femininity' between the west and China. Of course, sexuality and gender identification does not have to correlate, but in reading many of these comments, I see that many who identify as queer prefer to dress in a manner that would openly establish themselves as a person of the queer community. The solution to these contradictions, in an ideal world, would be for society to not focus on appearances and rather, have an open mind that sexuality is fluid and shouldn't have ignorant, defining external characteristics (e.g. lesbians wear vests!).
Your fourth question (regarding how racialized discourses of gender applied to other women of color) is something that has been on my mind quite a lot lately. As a white woman I have the privilege of not being subject to these same racialized discourses of gender. But that is something that is rare. Asian-American women constantly face these gendered stereotypes JeeYeun discusses-- being seen as always hyper-feminine and docile. AA women are attributed sexualized stereotypes of submissiveness in this dominant stereotype and therefore their sexualities are also racialized. In contrast are the gendered stereotypes black women face. In our American society black women are both gendered more masculine and coded as always sexually available. The discord between being a black woman and coded as masculine is something many black women writers have addressed going back as far as Sojourner Truth's 1851 speech "Ain't I A Woman?" where she beseeches her audience to think about the unique position of black women who are considered just neither women nor black: "I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"
ReplyDeleteThese racialized ideas of gender and sexuality therefore affect all women (and persons) of color. These stereotypes blockade anyone but a white person from being able to code their own gender or "look like a lesbian."
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece, as well as reading all of your insightful comments. First, I am glad that I am now educated on the term "yellow fever". I have heard the term before, but I was not really aware of its origin nor did I really go beyond the face value of the term. After reading this piece, my vision is a lot more clear on how Asian women are exoticized and fetishized when presented in the media. The narrative, with regard to Asian women, is the following: Asian women are exotic looking individuals who are meek and submissive at a glance, but secretly they have a ferocious sexual appetite. This narrative is extremely problematic and dangerous because it objects Asian and Asian-American identified women to the discretion of white, heterosexual men as well as mainstream (i.e. white) western ideals.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your second and fifth questions, for me personally, I identify as a black, heterosexual, cisgender man. Of those three adjectives that I have used to describe myself, two of them bring me a great deal of privilege. Specifically with regard to gender norms, I choose to express myself in a more traditionally masculine manner (e.g. wear looser fitting clothing, more darker or neutral colors, etc.), which means I do not express my gender in a traditionally feminine way (e.g. wearing makeup or nail polish or wearing high heels). Then again, I wonder how much of my gender expression is of my "choosing". We were all born into a society where there was a narrow (and thus, detrimental) view of gender, gender expression, and sexuality. So perhaps the way I "choose" to outwardly express myself as a man is more of what I was taught to think and believe and less of what I consciously do.
On question 4: I had a conversation about race and gender expectations/stereotypes in my History and Culture of Music Videos just last night that I think touches on what you're asking about. We watched Taylor Swift's "Shake It Off," which there's been some controversy about online recently. Most of the online complaints have been about how the ballet troupe in the video is exclusively white, when all the other dance troupes contain people of a variety of races, but the people in class were more concerned with the way the segment with the hip-hop dancers was shot in contrast to the ballerinas. The hip-hop dancers, who were all black women, were shown in scanty outfits; the focus was on their on their butts and legs rather than on their faces. The white ballerinas, on the other hand and presented in a series of much more respectful full-body shots and facial close-ups. The male-gaziness of the camera in the hip-hop part of Shake It Up reflects the hypersexualization of black women. Society at large seems to have two major stereotypical images of black women: 1) the one seen in Shake It Up, portrayed as aggressively sexual and "animal," and 2) as the sexless "mammy" (who I think showed up in one of the earlier readings? I've done enough reading about racial stereotyping that I forget what I read for this class and what I read on my own time, haha)
ReplyDeleteSorry if that was super incoherent. I didn't sleep much last night!
On question 5: I've been thinking about this a ton. I think my gender presentation has been hugely affected by gender stereotypes--whose hasn't? But how? That's where I'm less certain. Sometimes I see prevalent archetypes of gender as something to reinterpret/reappropriate/ 'hack,' probably out a desire not to be controlled by them. Right now I'm occupying a presentation something like Annie Lennox mashed up with dad-on-a-cruise (the internet has been calling it Fruit Goth, I think) and I'm constantly wondering how pop culture and gender stereotypes and just general. . .societal stuff has affected my choice of presentation and whether I feel weird about wearing nail polish because it's not something people of my gender are "supposed" to wear or because it somehow makes my gender into some kind of invalid layer cake of female-assigned/masculine-identified/feminine-presenting (even though the only part of me that's presenting femininely is my fingers???) or for some other reason entirely.
That got super long and I'm going to shut up now.
In response to the last question, I think that my gender expression has been heavily affected by external sources such as my cultural background, the media, society, and other factors. That being said, I am very comfortable with my femme gender presentation and actively choose to look that way. One part of this piece that really resonated with me was Lee's chapter about "Looking like a Lesbian." In queer circles, I often feel invisible because I don't look "queer" enough. At the same time, I have no plans to change the way I present my gender and feel that I shouldn't have to. My Latina identity definitely plays into this as well, at least when I am in Latino spaces.
ReplyDeleteJen, I'm really glad you chose this reading (which i ALSO enjoyed!) and discussed it from not only an analytical/critical view but also a personal view--i find personal experiences really insightful. I especially like that you pointed out the stereotypical myths of "all Asian-Americans as silent, hard-working STEM geniuses earning high incomes and falling neatly under the thumb of western capitalism" and that "they all are good at math". These presentations of Asians and Asian-Americans erk me too and remind me of being in middle school and high school.
ReplyDeleteThere were a handful of Asian-American kids in my grade, a couple I was friends with, and I saw the assumptions play out in front of me all the time, sadly. Lazy pre-teens and teens--who were always of OTHER ethnicities, mostly Americans--would often tap on an Asian-American student's shoulder and say something like, "Can you help me with this problem?" "You are going to be in MY work group!" and even "What's the answer to this?" Some wouldn't even ask or suggest anything, but instead try to sneak looking at the kid's paper assuming everything is correct. I always felt bad for the Asian-American students and got angry at the lazy ones.
I would like to try to answer the first question, "How would you define shifting the grounds?" "Shifting the grounds" to me says the act of changing the way a person looks at an idea or an assumption, changing the way they think, changing their view of someone; moving forward in a positive way from something outdated.. this can happen by pointing out when someone is making a judgement or assumption based on someone's race, gender or sexuality and calling them out on it, telling them why what they are saying is wrong and/or incorrect. Just doing that simple act will bring attention to the issue and may even surprise one's self; if it is a friend or family member that person may say, "Did i really just say that? Do I act like that all the time?" and start to question his/her/their actions. In this case it will cause a ripple effect, and that person may start to correct OTHER people, hence slowly "shifting the grounds". On a grander scale there are opportunities to do class or school-wide projects, even bigger presentations--the kind where you visit other schools, businesses, public stages, gov't settings... TEDtalks are great too, and those are not only in person but recorded for television and its online website, as well as other online sites. The list goes on. The point is that things are shifting, change CAN be made, and all it starts with is one person's positive action(s).
Regarding the last question - I think my own gender presentation has definitely been heavily influenced by the dominant stereotypes construed for white, heterosexual women, as I identified as heterosexual for most of my life (but questioned back then, and still figuring it out). I could easily pick up cues from the media and women around me on what being a femme heterosexual "looked like". It was extremely easy for me to slip into this normalized representation because I was white and automatically assumed to be heterosexual anyway. It felt like being femme was something concrete or that I was supposed to do. Once I started questioning, my immediate response was to go the defiance route, since the heterosexual-femme stereotype had been so heavily ingrained in me: the normalized logic in a white, heterosexual culture looks first at representation and then makes a decision on sexuality based on this (similar to the Asian woman being assumed as heterosexual because of Western fantasy). Due to the stronghold Western heterosexual culture has had on me, I felt a need to change this representation to “pass” as queer as a starting point in my sexuality journey, but I recognize that representing to pass is not a solution but almost conforming in a similar way. I think my own personal reaction to representation and sexuality speaks to the grip these stereotypes have on our society, because even though I’m aware that representation does not equate to sexuality, I still found that my initial reaction conformed to this.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your last question, I wholeheartedly agree that gender expression is heavily regulated by cultural influences. Even moreso, gender expression can be regulated specific to context. For example, I feel myself more comfortable crossing my legs in my WGSS classes than in any of my white, male-dominated political science classes. As a white male I have had the privilege to have not been confronted by societal regulation or stereotypes as much, but the thought does cross my mind when I'm one of the only boy in a room without sperry's, a backwards baseball hat, and high school athletic team shirt on.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to quickly bring up a connection between this essay and Ross’ article in that the way people are first identified is by their race. When discussing the role of sexual identities, Ross writes that “Foucault’s s scientists can script their human subjects as total homosexual compositions only because those bodies are not already marked as Negroid or Oriental” (167). This is to say that in white dominated culture, racial stereotypes erases aspects of colored peoples’ identities. Parallels can be made between Ross’ and Lee’s essays, where Ross states that Black gay men are always first identified as being black, and Lee says that Asian women are lumped together into one racial identity which is assumed to be heterosexual. Though these essays both have different focuses, they both bring up this important point on how racial differences can affect a person of color’s perceived identity (and various implications due to that erasure).
ReplyDeleteLee is completely accurate in stating that we will never be able to destroy the "hegemonic structures of race/gender/sexuality". By destroying these preconceived notion of culture, would be to completely ignore the historical significance of cultural identity. There will always be different notions and beliefs according to each culture, and I find that to be a beautiful thing even though some of these notions can be contradictory. For example, US fixates on 'equality', ethics, manners etc, and Chinese cultures traditionally focuses on respect. My friend was telling me how in her travels to China, when she asks a Chinese man a question, the chinese man would respond directly to the man that she was with. I can see how this would be offensive as it defy's "gender equality", but in Asian culture, the act of speaking to the man insinuates respect more so than "sexism".
ReplyDeleteYet, we still have to find grounds to make culture/sexuality function in an equal environment without discrimination. Lee writes about a woman who has long hair because of her culture, which causes her sexuality as a lesbian to be questioned because of the "femme" associations with long hair. This is unfair, and it should be time that we shift grounds on which these hegemonic structures. I find that these issues occur because of 1) the notion that white is norm and 2) the stereotypical appearances that associates with queerness. As long hair for women is prevalent among the whites, short hair would be seen as an rejection of defining features of femme identity, thus associates with lesbianism. Yet, in Chinese cultures, short hair is seen as femme because of its connotations of modesty and shyness- defining characteristics of a feminine female. Stereotypes work in the same way with identifying ones sexuality with their appearances. In forgoing these preconceived perceptions, society can progress as a more open minded place of acceptance for differing communities. It is often that appearances correlate to ones sexuality, and I find this to be a wrong concept. This, plus education as @Katie Mieher says, would shift the ground of ignorance and bigotry.