141 replies to this topic

[fcharton]

Well, I don't really care about stories of people not getting dates. That's their personal problems. But there is a deeper, more subtle issue: as a legacy of the colonial age, non-Whites are sexually stereotyped. As a means of control, the European and American governments promoted views that Blacks are beastly and aggressive, while Asians are submissive and effeminate. This helps justify racialization, and helps create a subtle message that White people are "normal," and perhaps the emphasis of sexual deviance of other groups can 1) justify racialization on a biological -- hence inherent -- level, and 2) create the "shock" element so that the White populace would become wary of non-Whites, further helping them to "get" over the fact that non-Whites are colonized and enslaved.

Although I agree on the analysis, the idea that it is a colonial legacy seems weird to me. It seems to me that such stereotypes exist everywhere. Do you think that there are no negative stereotypes about blacks (similar to those you describe) in asian societies? Yet, asia did not take part in colonialism and slavery.

Every society has a natural tendency to xenophobia, which results from ignorance. You will usually find more racism in places where no foreigners are to be seen... There is no need for a government ploy to explain the negative stereotyping of foreigners.

I must say I am a bit puzzled by the current habit of seeing colonial legacies everywhere (not talking about you specifically, Mengtzu, there are quite a few european academics who share this view). I don't like it for two reasons :

1- it is extremely simplistic, colonialism was a pretty short lived period of history, and trying to interpret all relations between the West and other countries through this prism is very reductive, all the more as the colonial era begins to be a bit ancient,

2- it tends to promote some kind of "exceptionalist" interpretation of every problem : colonialism was, for the most of it, a 19th century european thing. The idea that sexual stereotypes, or racism, are legacies of colonialism seem to imply that they are very exceptional and specific to a certain place and date. I believe this is plain wrong. These problems are more universal, more related to human nature, and have to be thought as such if one wants to solve them.

Francois

Edited by fcharton, 10 May 2006 - 05:20 PM.

[MengTzu]

Although I agree on the analysis, the idea that it is a colonial legacy seems weird to me. It seems to me that such stereotypes exist everywhere. Do you think that there are no negative stereotypes about blacks (similar to those you describe) in asian societies? Yet, asia did not take part in colonialism and slavery.

There is wild discrimination against Blacks in Asian societies. The colonial mindset is very pervasive in Asian countries.

Every society has a natural tendency to xenophobia, which results from ignorance. You will usually find more racism in places where no foreigners are to be seen... There is no need for a government ploy to explain the negative stereotyping of foreigners.

Actually, you'll find more racial problems in places with lots of diversity. In homogenuous places, there tend to be more expressed, ignorant racial stereotypes, but very little racial hatred because the perceived fear isn't there.

1- it is extremely simplistic, colonialism was a pretty short lived period of history, and trying to interpret all relations between the West and other countries through this prism is very reductive, all the more as the colonial era begins to be a bit ancient,

I few centuries colonialism isn't very short-lived. And I'm not trying to reduce it to colonialism. It is nonetheless a huge part of our current situation. Sure, the Cold War was short, but look at the enormous impact it has on the present day political set up. And the Colonial Era is much longer than that, and its reach was very far, it influences countries that haven't even been colonized (like China and Japan.)

2- it tends to promote some kind of "exceptionalist" interpretation of every problem : colonialism was, for the most of it, a 19th century european thing. The idea that sexual stereotypes, or racism, are legacies of colonialism seem to imply that they are very exceptional and specific to a certain place and date. I believe this is plain wrong. These problems are more universal, more related to human nature, and have to be thought as such if one wants to solve them.

Francois

I disagree. While prejudice and hate are universal, this particular manifestation, replete with its particular terminology and constructs, IS a Colonial legacy. Race, as we know it, is a clever invention. It hasn't always existed, and its meaning changed. Black men certainly weren't always portrayed as sexually aggressive, and Asian women weren't always portaryed as sexually submissive. These are new inventions made possible by a very particular discourse the grew out of colonial racialization.

[somechineseperson]

Don't you think that racism is too big a word here? When it comes to choosing a life partner, most people tend to be conservative, and prefer someone like them to someone different from them. As I said previously, this goes both ways. A lot of Asian men would prefer an Asian wife. A western girl doesn't want a chinese husband, is it racism really? We are all faced with couples breaking apart, we all know that an enduring and happy marriage is not an easy thing to have. Although I personally would not act this way (the risk is part of the fun, imho), I can understand that people feel a bit shy about interracial marriages, and all the more when the other culture is considered quite different. Is it racism? I don't think so.

I know what you are trying to say, however it is more complicated than that. Statistics show that the greatest disparity is among people born in America, not recent arrivals. We are talking about Westernised Asian Americans here.

When one is rejected solely on the basis of race, it is racism. I'm not talking about people who only marry within their ethnic group. In fact, some Asian girls reject Asian guys because the guys are Asian.

I can understand why people might shy away from certain marriages due to cultural reasons, but not due to race. In fact, within the "White" race there are many quite different cultures. (Compare Russian culture with American culture for example) But some would marry another White person from a very different culture but not Asians. This then is clearly not an issue of cultural barriers, but racism.

This attitude is not specific to Asians, or to race. What do you think is the chance for a less educated worker to marry a more educated business woman? Of someone from a family with a low position in society to marry someone from the high society? In my opinion, endogamy (marrying someone from one's own "group") is a prevalent attitude everywhere. It makes interracial marriages rarer, as you observe, but it also makes inter-class marriages unusual. I see more human nature here than racism.

Inter-racial marriages and inter-class marriages cannot be compared. There is a hierarchy among the classes, whether we like it or not, but intrinsically there isn't (there shouldn't be one) one for the various races. I am referring to cases where endogamy is not class or culture specific, but simply based on race. In such cases, it is racism.

As for the campaigning, I don't think that shouting "racism" is going to help. No one is going to enforce marriage quotas. These things will change as societies (western and asian) open more, and mentalities evolve to a point when being from a different ethnicity will not be felt as a difference. But then, the price to pay for this is a levelling of cultural differences, a high price admittedly. And anyway, it will take a lot of time.

No you don't really see the issue. The issue is that Asian men are disadvantaged in some Western countries (for example America) largely because Asian men have a bad image or stereotype associated with them. (Just as Black men are stereotyped as violent gansters, Asian men are stereotyped as un-romantic guys useless at dating and relationships) The correct way to proceed therefore is to take affirmative action and correct this biased media image of Asian guys.

Tell me, fcharton, when was the last time you saw a WF/AM pair on American TV? Why is it that you see many more AF/WM pairs than WF/AM pairs? Why is it that the AF/WM pairing is perceived to be more "natural" and more popular?

Also, I believe you are confusing the concepts of "culture", "ethnicity" and "race". Race is certainly not the same as culture. I really don't see why a truly colourblind society cannot have cultural diversity as well. Culture is not race-specific.

Edited by somechineseperson, 10 May 2006 - 08:09 PM.

[somechineseperson]

Although I agree on the analysis, the idea that it is a colonial legacy seems weird to me. It seems to me that such stereotypes exist everywhere. Do you think that there are no negative stereotypes about blacks (similar to those you describe) in asian societies? Yet, asia did not take part in colonialism and slavery.

Every society has a natural tendency to xenophobia, which results from ignorance. You will usually find more racism in places where no foreigners are to be seen... There is no need for a government ploy to explain the negative stereotyping of foreigners.

I must say I am a bit puzzled by the current habit of seeing colonial legacies everywhere (not talking about you specifically, Mengtzu, there are quite a few european academics who share this view). I don't like it for two reasons :

1- it is extremely simplistic, colonialism was a pretty short lived period of history, and trying to interpret all relations between the West and other countries through this prism is very reductive, all the more as the colonial era begins to be a bit ancient,

2- it tends to promote some kind of "exceptionalist" interpretation of every problem : colonialism was, for the most of it, a 19th century european thing. The idea that sexual stereotypes, or racism, are legacies of colonialism seem to imply that they are very exceptional and specific to a certain place and date. I believe this is plain wrong. These problems are more universal, more related to human nature, and have to be thought as such if one wants to solve them.

Francois

I agree with MengTzu here. While there are exceptions, for instance the interaction between the Jesuits and the Chinese literati wasn't a form of colonialism, and for China the colonial age did not begin until the 19th century (but it began much earlier in many other parts of the world), and the practice of colonialism, one can argue, wasn't exclusive to Europeans (one can argue that both the Arabs and the Han Chinese had their own forms of colonialism towards certain other ethnicities), the Europeans were the only people who expanded across the entire globe (both Arab and Han colonialisms were much more limited geographically), and therefore a lot of the racism we encounter nowadays is due to the European colonial legacy.

[Batcat]

The issue is that Asian men are disadvantaged in some Western countries (for example America) largely because Asian men have a bad image or stereotype associated with them. (Just as Black men are stereotyped as violent gansters, Asian men are stereotyped as un-romantic guys useless at dating and relationships) The correct way to proceed therefore is to take affirmative action and correct this biased media image of Asian guys.

What type of affirmative action do you suggest people take to correct it?

[MengTzu]

What type of affirmative action do you suggest people take to correct it?

Well, this isn't really an employment issue, so affirmative action model might not be helpful, except insofar as putting more ethnic minorities on TV, as models for clothing brands, etc. But this is sort of already required by American law, which requires that companies must not practice preferential hiring (that is, refusing to employ someone based on his race, gender, age, etc.) except in very, very exceptional cases (for example, there are jobs that pregnant women cannot safely or capably perform, and in such cases it might be okay to refuse employment, but the window here is very, very small.) In fact, Abrochrombie and Fitch (a very popular clothing brand in America) was sued not too long ago for hiring on White models.

I generally stand on the liberal side on this issue and generally favor affirmative action in education and employment (although I do note that AA, as it is practiced, has some major flaws; for example, the people who really benefited from AA are not poor Blacks, but middle class Blacks. This, however, is not so much because the basic idea of AA is flawed but because its terms in such a case isn't adequate. Race is not the only consideration; gender, poverty, etc, must also be considered.) However, affirmative action is only part of the game. We minorities must not only seek improvement through political means, but also work hard in our everyday life (this usually involves improving through economic means, though not always.)

The Asians, of course, don't need such a lecture, because the precise problem of Asian Americans is that they seek little improvement politically. They need the opposite lecture: the Asians, particularly Chinese, must realize that there is nothing wrong with seeking political representation. It is not a cop out from economic competition. It is a realistic strategy, a sacrifice of short term profit for long term profit. Hopefully more Chinese Americans will be participating in politics in the near future.

[snowybeagle]

No, read my words again. I am arguing against the American neo-liberal philosophy of radical individualism. I am saying logically speaking there is no such thing as an abstract individual that exists in a vaccum. There is strictly speaking no such thing as a purely free personal choice, and we should not even act as if there really are these perfectly free individuals roaming around.

No, you are not answering the question, let me rephrase it another way:
Is choosing one's college major a purely free personal choice?
According to you, it is not.
But it only translates to the fact that nothing that anyone choose can be termed as "purely free personal choice."

Not the choice of college major, not the choice of college, not the choice of careers, not the choice of sports we play ... etc.

Therefore, harping on it is meaningless.

No it is the objective truth. Western radical individualism is illogical.

And who is talking about Western radical individualism?

Firstly, you have no right to say to another person: "You have an inferiority complex". I usually find that people who say such things have a deep-seated inferiority complex themselves.

It goes both ways, people who deny it have deep-seated inferiority complex.

I cited inferiority complex as an instance, not a blanket designation. Get that right.

What you know is irrelevant. I have repeatedly stressed that this is not a personal discussion.

It is not about whether this is personal discussion, it is about whether our actual experiences and personal observations of the people around us supports or detracts from the proposition.

When the choice is based on racism, it is racism. What you said here is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what?
In the context of a guy asking a girl a for date and being turned down for racist opinions on the girl,
what is racism relevant to?
Relevant to the guy? Or relevant to the girl? Or relevant to a third-party?

When there is systematic discrimination, of course something should be done about it.

Rosa Park was a victim of systematic discrimination. She was being denied her rights.
If you say there is systematic discrimination in the dating scenario, who is the victim?
Wait, I see you answered that further below, so I'll address it there.

What you said before is that every person who complains about this issue must have an inferiority complex.

Show me where in my post did I say that. You are just putting words into my mouth.

Wait a minute. You were suggesting that the lack of confidence is the cause of the disparity. But here you say "confidence problem is not an issue particular to specific ethnic groups". Therefore how can confidence be the cause of the disparity?

First, it is a cause, not the cause.
Second, I said individuals of other ethnicity can and do suffer from lack of confidence.
It does not mean it will translate into a disparity in the dating scene.

I hope you are not suggesting that when a girl rejects a guy solely due to his race, it is the problem of the guy. What should the guy do? Change his race?

No, I am asking you a very pointed question: who is the victim?
Whose problem is it since you are insisting that there is a problem?

I was not talking about the so-called "dating protocol". The reason I made that parallel comparison is to show that in both cases, it is racism.

And your parallel comparison is invalid because you are assigning incorrect roles to the person asking for a date and the person deciding whether to accept a date.

But the prerogative can still be a racist one, it can still be an unjust one, in which case it should not be respected, merely tolerated.

Whether it is just or unjust, it is still a prerogative.
Whether it should be respected is a matter of personal opinion, but ask yourself this question: do you allow the opinions of other people to influence what is your own prerogative?

I have already said many times, this is not a personal discussion. Please do not "lecture" me.
This is the last time I will respond to any personal remarks. From this point on, if you make a personal remark again, I will simply ignore you.

It is not a personal remark. You are insisting on fitting a square peg into a round hole by attributing the wrong roles to the person asking for a date and the person deciding whether to accept it.

Being a "nerd" is not a fundamental attribute of a person. When A considers B to be a nerd, C might not do the same. In addition, fundamentally a nerd can stop being a nerd and change.

You don't get it. It is not about fundamental attribute but the perception.
Girl A might consider going out with an Asian guy as uncool but Girl B might not.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in being an Asian guy itself.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in being a nerd either.

Whether going out with a nerd is uncool and whether going out with an Asian guy is a matter of perception.

That is the comparison between nerdism and racism I am drawing to.

Please tell me, when a guy is rejected solely because of his race, how is that not racism?

The prospective employer is obliged to consider all candidates without regards to their ethnicities.

Is a girl supposed to be obliged to consider all guys who ask her for a date without regards to their ethnicities as well?

If she is not under such obligation, what is the point of making this an issue of racism?

What do the so-called "victims" of racism in the dating scene want?
The right not to be denied for dates because of their race?

You are absolutely right. To be rejected solely because of race is to suffer racism.

What kind of a right is it for a guy to tell a girl "You cannot reject dating me solely because of race."?

And how exactly do you know that people who complain about racism in dating are not proud, confident people?

What I said was victims of racism like Rosa Parks are proud people and assert themselves and stand up for their rights.

Rosa Parks stood up to the bus driver, the bus company and the police.

Now, who exactly are the people who complain about racism in dating standing up to?

Asian guys do not need this. But girls might absorb these stereotypes and reject Asian men by default as a result of it.

So the problem seems to be these girls are too gullible.

Can anyone imagine Dr. Martin Luther King, having made his "I have a dream speech.", refusing to answer the question whether he got any non-black friends or shook hands with a non-black?

Huh? When did I say I am intrinsically against the idea of inter-racial dating? I have repeatedly said that I am not against it.

The reference to King is not about whether you are against inter-racial dating.
It is about you refusing to answer the questions about whether you have any real-life experience or real-life observations in support of your views.

If Martin Luther King refuse to say whether he got any non-black friends after maing his famous speech, he undermines his own credibility.

Edited by snowybeagle, 10 May 2006 - 11:28 PM.

[MengTzu]

The prospective employer is obliged to consider all candidates without regards to their ethnicities.

Is a girl supposed to be obliged to consider all guys who ask her for a date without regards to their ethnicities as well?

If she is not under such obligation, what is the point of making this an issue of racism?

I think you and SCP are experiencing some kind of conversational break down, and I'm guessing it's because he assumed that you already know the whole background story to this ongoing debate.

It really is NOT about whether some people are getting dates and what not. It comes from a view that is currently quite popular in the academia -- that we are living in a post-colonial legacy.

Instead of re-writing, I'll just repost here what I wrote earlier to Fcharton:

....as a legacy of the colonial age, non-Whites are sexually stereotyped. As a means of control, the European and American governments promoted views that Blacks are beastly and aggressive, while Asians are submissive and effeminate. This helps justify racialization, and helps create a subtle message that White people are "normal," and perhaps the emphasis of sexual deviance of other groups can 1) justify racialization on a biological -- hence inherent -- level, and 2) create the "shock" element so that the White populace would become wary of non-Whites, further helping them to "get" over the fact that non-Whites are colonized and enslaved.

This isn't some conspiracy some leftwing extremists cooked up. It is quite accepted in the academia as a valid explanation of racialization. Keep in mind that I'm not trying blame or guilt-trip our White readers -- I blame only the colonial leaders and the intellectuals who came up with theories to justify their agression. I believe the majority of the White populace then and today aren't guilty for any of this, nor do I believe in inheriting collective guilt.

There are two parts to this argument: 1) that it is a colonial legacy, and 2) that it is a part of our society. It is the second part that's the most relevant here.

How much do we wish to tie this to colonialism is irrelevant. The point is that we are forcefed certain views from our everyday life (such as by watching TV) from an early age. To use a comparison to better demonstrate this, think of how genders are taught. Boys are taught that they should be active, play sports, etc, and girls tend to be taught to do the opposite (that doesn't mean that girls don't play sports; the point is that gender education isn't biologically innate.

So here's the main drive of the argument: the reason that in North America, there are more WM/AF couples than AM/WF couples is due to a preference that comes from day to day "education" from TV and other forms of media. It is due to Asians being portrayed a certain way. White men and women are portrayed often as a standard for beauty -- a very subtle, subconscious fact that is nonetheless not difficult to see by looking at commercials and adverstisements. Blacks are portrayed as aggressive and masculine (a part of the myth that Black men have bigger male members and are great sex partners) and Asians are portrayed as withdrawn and effeminate. As a result, Asian men are portrayed as asexual and indifferent to romance, while Asian women are portrayed as even more effeminate -- submissive and exotic. These are all familiar stereotypes to anyone who has studied American media for the past few decades up until now. The China Doll (submissive sex slave) and Dragon Lady (dangerous femme fatale) stereotypes of Asian women are just two prime examples, to name a few.

It's probably difficult to make out what SCP is really saying because he seems pretty passionate about this, but in a nutshell what he's really trying to say is that these subtle, subconscious forces are at work in our minds when we choose the people we date. The reality is that we never choose to like what we like -- I do not say, "today, I make a conscious effort to like apples," and then start liking apples just because I make that choice. Our preferences are generally not conscious choices. We can conscious accustom ourselves to like something, but if we end up liking something because of this, it's not because we choose to like something, but because we became used to a new habit.

I fully believe that interracial relationships are genuine. I know people (some are relatives) who are/were interracially dating: my aunt married a Jewish man. My cousin in England is dating (probably gonna soon marry) a British boy. And it's not always White man/Asian woman either. Two of my male cousins dated White girls. I knew a White girl in university dorms who was dating an Asian guy (may be they are still dating. Funny thing was that the guy was shorter.) I'm quite sure that these are all genuine relationships.

The question is, are there forces that we did not choose but are influencing what we choose? You bet there are. The choices are free in a legal and physical sense, but not in an absolute sense: for example, hetersexual people are habitually not drawn by people of the same gender. Their choices are free, yet insofar as they are "preconditioned" to prefer people of the opposite gender, their choices aren't free in the sense of completely unrestrained and unconditional. You might ask: how can anyone have such freedom? We can't choose to fly because we don't have wings; we usually won't choose to eat disgusting food because it is disgusting. But that's precisely the point of this argument.

Some people resist to use the word "racist" to describe the phenomenon here because it doens't involve conscious, malicious hatred, and they have a point. The academia actually has a word for this kind of problem: structural racism. Structural racism is covert and built into society, and it's not overt or conscious. I don't care what word is used -- I prefer to see this as a problem than a fault. There's no point in pointing finger or placing blame. It is a sign of our collective ignorance, and to an extent, everyone who is a part of this phenomenon is both an offender and a victim. For example, I've never quite seen the low self-esteemed, cultural inferiority until I dated a girl from Hong Kong who is head over heel for everything "White." It seems that a lot of Asians have embraced this inferiority with open arms and implemented it many times, and while I usually prefer not to blame the victims, this is a case of people accepting victimhood.

I'm sorry if I'm rambling on here, and as is usually the case, long posts aren't really read (at least not carefully read). I still hope that it helps you and SCP communicate better.

[urofpersia]

I am not whining. I am simply pointing out a legitimate issue. You have no right to accuse me of whining.

In fact, those who like to accuse others of whining are often the biggest whiners themselves.

On the contrary, anyone has as much right to do so as you have in terming them whiners as well.

"Open" yes, but certainly within limits. No-one has the right to insult other people or other peoples' opinions in this forum.

Unfortunately the moderators do not agree with your definition of what is insulting.

No. In fact the very usage of the term "whining" is illogical and has no place in a logical debate.

The moderators do not think so either.

And do not think this is just a "personal" response either. I am speaking on behalf of my Asian brothers who get rebuked and labelled as "whiners" simply because they brought up this issue of inequality.

Its good to know your Asian brothers have someone here on CHF to speak on their behalf.

I am aware of MengTzu's position, (and I do agree with some of what he says) you do not need to inform me about it. The fact remains that the usage of terms such as "whining" has no place in a proper objective logical debate.

Neither is insisting the other person has no right to say so. You are challenging his right to say what is on his mind? If you disagree wthi him say so, but you have no right and no ability to deny his right to say so.

You have no right to label other peoples' point of view as "sad" and "un-Chinese".

I have as much right to give my opinion of your statement as you have in saying others have no right to have said opinion. Just to clear any possible confusion, it was your point of view that I found sad and un-Chinese.

Remember I never got personal in this thread to start with. I only responded in a quasi-personal way because other people are getting personal and are beginning to use insulting and condescending tones.

"quasi-personal'? Either you are getting personal or you are not. If someone was being insulting the moderators would have stepped in and put the person right. If you still believe this is the case, then please write to the moderator to give that person a warning.

Edited by urofpersia, 11 May 2006 - 12:49 AM.

[fcharton]

I can understand why people might shy away from certain marriages due to cultural reasons, but not due to race. In fact, within the "White" race there are many quite different cultures. (Compare Russian culture with American culture for example) But some would marry another White person from a very different culture but not Asians. This then is clearly not an issue of cultural barriers, but racism.

Your last sentence is precisely where I disagree. I know lots of people who would not marry a foreigner, even a german or english, because they consider that small cultural differences make marriage more difficult. I also know (quite well for one of them) girls who whould not go out with a football fan, because they know their relation would be harmed by it. In my opinion, this is not xenophobia, and anti-football discrimination but just personal choice: we are not talking about work, or career or money but sentiments...

Now, there are grades of cultural differences, and the differences between two european cultures are much less than the differences between China and any european culture. As such, it is true that the reluctance (for a french girl, say) to marry a german is probably less than the reluctance (taken in a broad statistical sense) to marry a chinese.

You say this is racism, because the race difference is visible, but I believe culture is the main factor. And no, it doesn't disappear after one generation because chinese culture is quite resilient, and second generation chinese usually retain a lot of their original culture (which is a good thing, but silver linings come with clouds attached to them).

Inter-racial marriages and inter-class marriages cannot be compared. There is a hierarchy among the classes, whether we like it or not, but intrinsically there isn't (there shouldn't be one) one for the various races. I am referring to cases where endogamy is not class or culture specific, but simply based on race. In such cases, it is racism.

The problem, as I see it, comes with introducing "race" as a factor. My impression is that endogamy is always, to some extent, class or culture specific, and different races do have different cultures.

Also, I believe you are confusing the concepts of "culture", "ethnicity" and "race". Race is certainly not the same as culture. I really don't see why a truly colourblind society cannot have cultural diversity as well. Culture is not race-specific.

I absolutely agree, and this is why I refuse to attribute to race what belongs to culture...

Tell me, fcharton, when was the last time you saw a WF/AM pair on American TV? Why is it that you see many more AF/WM pairs than WF/AM pairs? Why is it that the AF/WM pairing is perceived to be more "natural" and more popular?

Now, you have a point here. But I would like to venture a few comments

1- if it were pure racism, both pairs would be discouraged. We are no more in societies where women are considered as commodities, and if asians are considered as inferior, it should go for both men and women (I honestly don't think that western men who marry asian girls do this because they consider them submissive, and let me tell you I *do* have some experience of this)
2- so it would be some racism targetted at asian men only... Now if you look at youngsters you'll observe that in "mixed environments" the discrepancy is much lower than you think. My children (half asian both) go to a school where all kind of ethnicities are represented, I live in a district with a sizeable asian community and there is a middle school on the corner of my street. I can tell you that in both cases, the dating is quite "colourblind". Practically, I think the whole thing is changing quick. And I must say I am absolutely not worried that my son, or any of his chinese friends would get rejected because of their skin colour (even though my son is quite typical of the asian stereotype).

On the other hand, it is true that, among older people you see more AF/WM pairs. As I said before, I think it is because for an intercultural marriage to work, the "minority culture" needs to somehow "bridge the gap", by adopting some of the majority culture (and who is the minority and majority depends on where you live). Cultural diversity is great, but not everyday at breakfast, lunch and dinner (or so do many people think). My impression is that in the past, for a number of reason, which do have to do with the status of women in asian cultures, girls were more ready to "adapt" than boys.

This also has a lot to do with the status of women in the past. Note also that the same it true for interclass marriage : you see more poor girl/rich guy pairs, than rich girl/poor guy pairs... But I think this is changing right now.


Francois

Edited by fcharton, 11 May 2006 - 03:36 AM.

[MengTzu]

Your last sentence is precisely where I disagree. I know lots of people who would not marry a foreigner, even a german or english, because they consider that small cultural differences make marriage more difficult. I also know (quite well for one of them) girls who whould not go out with a football fan, because they know their relation would be harmed by it. In my opinion, this is not xenophobia, and anti-football discrimination but just personal choice: we are not talking about work, or career or money but sentiments...

Sure. But SCP isn't talking about that. He's talking about media creating stereotypes and can possibly affect choices. Just because there are those who make decisions based on pragmatic reasons, there still might be those who make decisions based on stereotypical influences instilled as they grew up.

Of course, the seriousness of this situation varies, and really might not be as serious as some state it to be. I personally never really experienced it. Nonetheless, I can't deny that some have experienced it.

Now, there are grades of cultural differences, and the differences between two european cultures are much less than the differences between China and any european culture. As such, it is true that the reluctance (for a french girl, say) to marry a german is probably less than the reluctance (taken in a broad statistical sense) to marry a chinese.

I actually find that the problem stated by SCP appears more prevalent in Anglo-Saxon countries, and particularly North America. We really shouldn't lump all the White people together in this. I have the impression that French girls are more willing to marry Asian than Americans.

1- if it were pure racism, both pairs would be discouraged. We are no more in societies where women are considered as commodities, and if asians are considered as inferior, it should go for both men and women (I honestly don't think that western men who marry asian girls do this because they consider them submissive, and let me tell you I *do* have some experience of this)

Actually, women are very much objectified today. The implicit racial stereotype involved here is much more than making a people inferior, but making them abnormal and deviant. The very problem is PRECISELY that because Asians are portrayed as so sexually deviant (extremely effeminate) Asian women are even more objectified (the sexually submissive stereotype) than, say, White women. May be in France such a view doesn't exist (and I surely hope so), but this view is implicit in American media. Now all this involves objectification of a race (for a all practical purposes, "Asian" is considered a race today in the US), and objectification of women (sexist.) You really can't blame those who call this racist.

2- so it would be some racism targetted at asian men only... Now if you look at youngsters you'll observe that in "mixed environments" the discrepancy is much lower than you think. My children (half asian both) go to a school where all kind of ethnicities are represented, I live in a district with a sizeable asian community and there is a middle school on the corner of my street. I can tell you that in both cases, the dating is quite "colourblind". Practically, I think the whole thing is changing quick. And I must say I am absolutely not worried that my son, or any of his chinese friends would get rejected because of their skin colour (even though my son is quite typical of the asian stereotype).

What I do find is that younger people are generally less susceptible to these things. From personal expeience and from hearing others' stories, I find younger White girls more open to Asian men. Perhaps when they get older, there other things involved, like status, pressure from how others perceive oneself. The idea that status (not just material status, the social status of how one is perceived by others) is at all involved leads us to this consideration you yourself raised:

On the other hand, it is true that, among older people you see more AF/WM pairs. As I said before, I think it is because for an intercultural marriage to work, the "minority culture" needs to somehow "bridge the gap", by adopting some of the majority culture (and who is the minority and majority depends on where you live). Cultural diversity is great, but not everyday at breakfast, lunch and dinner (or so do many people think). My impression is that in the past, for a number of reason, which do have to do with the status of women in asian cultures, girls were more ready to "adapt" than boys.

This also has a lot to do with the status of women in the past. Note also that the same it true for interclass marriage : you see more poor girl/rich guy pairs, than rich girl/poor guy pairs... But I think this is changing right now.
Francois

I dunno if you simply missed this subtle implication in your own statement, but you basically just admitted that there is a sense of White superiority in all this -- not that you yourself accept this, but that this sense exists in North American society and some other parts of the world. Because you're essentially saying that the situation of girls "marrying up" is analogous to the situation of WM/AF pairs more than AM/WF pairs, you're essentially saying that Asian girls marrying to White guys, at least in North America and some other parts of the world, are seen as "marrying up." If that's the case, then it is very much a racial problem, an issue of perceived racial superiority. Can you really fault those who call this racist?

Keep in mind that no one is claiming that interracial marriages are not genuine, that White guys who date Asian women only care about Asian fetishes. I have many relatives who dated non-Chinese, and some of my male cousins dated White girls, and I know these are genuine relationship. This is in the same way that many hetersexual relationships are genuine, but heterosexuals are still "disposed" to prefer to date people of the opposite gender. Now I'm not saying some Asian girls are "disposed" in the same manner and extent to prefer to date White guys; the analogy I'm drawing here is that our preferences are shaped by many factors outside of our conscious choices, and is precisely the argument that SCP is making here. We don't choose to like what we have feelings about. I can't just say, "I'll start liking apples today" and suddenly start to like apples.

I understand that you married an Asian woman, and are perhaps feeling the need to defend the genuineness of your relationship. Rest assured that this genuineness is not under attack at all, and if you feel that it is, you've completely misunderstood what this is all about. This argument is about something else.

[fcharton]

Sure. But SCP isn't talking about that. He's talking about media creating stereotypes and can possibly affect choices. Just because there are those who make decisions based on pragmatic reasons, there still might be those who make decisions based on stereotypical influences instilled as they grew up.

Here is the "last sentence I referred to :

But some would marry another White person from a very different culture but not Asians. This then is clearly not an issue of cultural barriers, but racism.

I really don't think we are talking about media stereotypes here, what I read is that when it is about asians, it is about racism, and this is just what I react against.

Actually, women are very much objectified today. The implicit racial stereotype involved here is much more than making a people inferior, but making them abnormal and deviant. The very problem is PRECISELY that because Asians are portrayed as so sexually deviant (extremely effeminate) Asian women are even more objectified (the sexually submissive stereotype) than, say, White women.

Modern media and advertising objectify everything, women are objectified, but so are children, youngsters, feelings, .... This is the way modern media work. The real question is, then : how much does this actually influence individual choices? I think most people do understand that media/advertising stereotypes are, well, just that. When it comes down to "real people" (ie not the young lady in the Ferrero advert) making sentimental decisions, women are not specifically objectified, and I would say much less so in the US than in other countries.

I do have a problem with these "media minded" psycho-social theories : they tend to see signs everywhere (which they always find because they look for them) and overestimate their effect. In a way, they consider that everyone (except the proponents of the said theories, of course) is a bit dumb and falls blindly for every story the media tells him. I think people, in all stratas of society, are on average more intelligent than what these theorists believe, and do "decipher" the media better. If it were not the case, advertising would be much more efficient. Such implicit messages do have influence, but need to be very often and explicitly repeated to achieve anything.

Back to the subject, don't you think that "Asians are portrayed as so sexually deviant (extremely effeminate)" is a little bit exaggerated? And don't you think that this portrayal is more characteristic of the media of the past (say 50 years ago)? If it is so, if these negative stereotypes are both old, getting rarer, and in fact much less visible than this, how can they be so influent that they are the major reason for the marriage imbalance which scp observes?

In other words, isn't the media bias the (very convenient) tree which prevents one from seeing the forest (of other, maybe more complex, explanations)?

What I do find is that younger people are generally less susceptible to these things. From personal expeience and from hearing others' stories, I find younger White girls more open to Asian men. Perhaps when they get older, there other things involved, like status, pressure from how others perceive oneself.

Or maybe the young people from today are different from the young people from yesterday, because they happen to live in a more open society...

I dunno if you simply missed this subtle implication in your own statement, but you basically just admitted that there is a sense of White superiority in all this -- not that you yourself accept this, but that this sense exists in North American society and some other parts of the world. Because you're essentially saying that the situation of girls "marrying up" is analogous to the situation of WM/AF pairs more than AM/WF pairs, you're essentially saying that Asian girls marrying to White guys, at least in North America and some other parts of the world, are seen as "marrying up." If that's the case, then it is very much a racial problem, an issue of perceived racial superiority. Can you really fault those who call this racist?

I cannot prevent you from seeing a subtle implication, yet this was not implied (I know I will not convince you, by now, you are probably thinking that my subconscious is shading me from my post-colonial guilts...). I was just trying to make a point about girls being the first to "bridge the gap", be it social or cultural. You introduce this idea of "marrying up", which btw could be thought as "marrying down" for the other side... What I am saying is that when it comes to marriage, girls have traditionally been more "mobile" in society than guys.

I am tempted to return you the question: why is it that you saw a subtle implication in my comparison? Could it be because I have an oh so western user name? (I will end up changing it to sun wukong, I tell you) At this stage, I realise that you might feel a bit offended by my last remark. Well, welcome in my shoes, Mengtzu!

I understand that you married an Asian woman, and are perhaps feeling the need to defend the genuineness of your relationship. Rest assured that this genuineness is not under attack at all, and if you feel that it is, you've completely misunderstood what this is all about. This argument is about something else.

Taking it to the personal level, eh? One more like this and I call the mods...

Actually, I both married and divorced a chinese girl, so I suppose I can stand on both sides of the fence, and have nothing to "defend" on these matters. Why, oh, why, do people want to see agendas and personal history behind everything?

What I do believe, though, is that seeing racism and oppression everywhere is generally mistaken. I dislike these ideas because I think they provide cheap, simplistic and demagogic answers to complex questions.

Why does this happen to me? Because I am discriminated against. Why do people act this way? Because the media lured them into these ideas, in a complex postcolonial ploy. Why did I lose my job? Because foreigners took it. Why didn't I get a salary raise? Because I am {choose appropriate minority}.

Nothing constructive ever comes from these lines of reasoning, they just fuel rancour and hatred, and are the soil on which populism grows.

Francois

Edited by fcharton, 12 May 2006 - 03:58 AM.

[somechineseperson]

On the contrary, anyone has as much right to do so as you have in terming them whiners as well.

I never called anyone a "whiner". Get your facts right.

Unfortunately the moderators do not agree with your definition of what is insulting.

The moderators do not think so either.

And who says the moderators are always right?

Neither is insisting the other person has no right to say so. You are challenging his right to say what is on his mind? If you disagree wthi him say so, but you have no right and no ability to deny his right to say so.

I have a right to state that terms such as "whining" do not belong in proper debate.

I have as much right to give my opinion of your statement as you have in saying others have no right to have said opinion. Just to clear any possible confusion, it was your point of view that I found sad and un-Chinese.

And you cannot just make offensive personal remarks without expecting any consequences. Any assertion without justification is simply moot. So pray tell, how is my point of view "sad" and "un-Chinese"?

"quasi-personal'? Either you are getting personal or you are not.

It is not just black and white in this case. How "personal" one gets is a matter of degree.

[somechineseperson]

Your last sentence is precisely where I disagree. I know lots of people who would not marry a foreigner, even a german or english, because they consider that small cultural differences make marriage more difficult. I also know (quite well for one of them) girls who whould not go out with a football fan, because they know their relation would be harmed by it. In my opinion, this is not xenophobia, and anti-football discrimination but just personal choice: we are not talking about work, or career or money but sentiments...

Now, there are grades of cultural differences, and the differences between two european cultures are much less than the differences between China and any european culture. As such, it is true that the reluctance (for a french girl, say) to marry a german is probably less than the reluctance (taken in a broad statistical sense) to marry a chinese.

You say this is racism, because the race difference is visible, but I believe culture is the main factor. And no, it doesn't disappear after one generation because chinese culture is quite resilient, and second generation chinese usually retain a lot of their original culture (which is a good thing, but silver linings come with clouds attached to them).

The problem, as I see it, comes with introducing "race" as a factor. My impression is that endogamy is always, to some extent, class or culture specific, and different races do have different cultures.

And I see a problem with your statement. You need to face the reality. RACE IS A FACTOR. We cannot simply pretend that we live in a colourblind society because society is not colourblind.

Your interpretation is simply refuted by the statistics. Because if it is merely culture that caused the disparity, we should expect the amount of disparity to decrease with each generation as the Asians become more and more Westernised. (True, they don't lose all of their Asian culture in just one generation, but statistically one does expect them to become more and more Westernised with each generation). But in actual fact statistics show that the amount of disparity increases with each generation.

I absolutely agree, and this is why I refuse to attribute to race what belongs to culture...

You are attributing to culture what actually belongs to race here.

My original point was that you were implicitly suggesting that somehow if there are more WF/AM pairs, cultural diversity would suffer as a result. I simply do not see why that would be so at all.

Now, you have a point here. But I would like to venture a few comments

1- if it were pure racism, both pairs would be discouraged.

Not so. It depends on how severe the racism is. With severe racism both pairs would be discouraged. With milder forms of racism (like what we are talking about here) it is acceptable to marry the females of the other race but not males.

An example of white patriachial racism against Asian men I am talking about:

"I like the Japanese, have great respect for their intelligence individually and for their society (extraordinarily productive, unfailingly courteous, almost free of crime.) Yet if my daughter told me she planned to marry a Japanese boy of impeccable credentials, I'd nonetheless feel a visceral resentment. I wouldn't act on it, but I'd feel it. By contrast, if my son told me he planned to marry a similarly admirable Japanese girl, I'd think he was one lucky guy."

We are no more in societies where women are considered as commodities,

This is simply false. Sexual discrimination still abound in our world.

and if asians are considered as inferior, it should go for both men and women

I already explained above why this is not so.

(I honestly don't think that western men who marry asian girls do this because they consider them submissive, and let me tell you I *do* have some experience of this)

Sorry. Individual personal experiences are not considered to be reliable sources in this context. Perhaps you did not marry a Chinese girl because you thought Chinese girls are submissive, but you can only speak for yourself, you have neither the right nor the qualification to speak for all Western men. Some Western men do marry Asian girls largely due to Asian fetish. That is a fact. Just because it isn't so in your case doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

2- so it would be some racism targetted at asian men only... Now if you look at youngsters you'll observe that in "mixed environments" the discrepancy is much lower than you think. My children (half asian both) go to a school where all kind of ethnicities are represented, I live in a district with a sizeable asian community and there is a middle school on the corner of my street. I can tell you that in both cases, the dating is quite "colourblind". Practically, I think the whole thing is changing quick. And I must say I am absolutely not worried that my son, or any of his chinese friends would get rejected because of their skin colour (even though my son is quite typical of the asian stereotype).

Where exactly do you live anyway? France? I certainly hope things are getting better and that the disparity will disappear, but I reserve judgement on whether or not this is indeed the trend until I have more evidence.

On the other hand, it is true that, among older people you see more AF/WM pairs. As I said before, I think it is because for an intercultural marriage to work, the "minority culture" needs to somehow "bridge the gap", by adopting some of the majority culture (and who is the minority and majority depends on where you live).

So how do you explain that even in East Asia, where Asians ARE THE MAJORITY, there are still more AF/WM pairs than WF/AM? And I am not even talking about a relatively poor country like mainland China, but very rich and advanced countries such as Japan and South Korea (which are actually wealthier than most Western countries). Care to explain?

Cultural diversity is great, but not everyday at breakfast, lunch and dinner (or so do many people think). My impression is that in the past, for a number of reason, which do have to do with the status of women in asian cultures, girls were more ready to "adapt" than boys.

Another reason why Asian girls "westernise" more easily than Asian guys in the West is that western people "welcome" girls more than guys.

This also has a lot to do with the status of women in the past. Note also that the same it true for interclass marriage : you see more poor girl/rich guy pairs, than rich girl/poor guy pairs... But I think this is changing right now.

So are you implicitly assuming the existence of a racial hierarchy here, with whites above Asians? After all, you are comparing white men to "rich guys" and Asian men to "poor guys".

Edited by somechineseperson, 12 May 2006 - 04:34 PM.

[somechineseperson]

Taking it to the personal level, eh? One more like this and I call the mods...

Your reaction here is too extreme. MengTzu did not insult you personally in any way at all. You are over-reacting.

Also, do not forget the fact that MengTzu is a moderator.

Why does this happen to me? Because I am discriminated against. Why do people act this way? Because the media lured them into these ideas, in a complex postcolonial ploy. Why did I lose my job? Because foreigners took it. Why didn't I get a salary raise? Because I am {choose appropriate minority}.

Nothing constructive ever comes from these lines of reasoning, they just fuel rancour and hatred, and are the soil on which populism grows.

I must say I disagree with your right-wing conservative elitest point of view. If it wasn't for people campaigning for social justice and against inequality, we would never have got the 8-hour work-day, the national health service, and an end to institutional racism against non-white people.