As you might have guessed, it caused an uproar in the Asian-American community, as you can find He-ah. Hit the link on the right that says "details" and you'll get the lowdown.
They claimed it was a negative stereotype and started a campaign against the magazine.
My first question is this: Is there a stereotype that Asians as a race are likely to be gay? I must of missed of that one.
Question 2: Would something like this "Gay or Asian" piece lead to such a stereotype? IMH(and assuredlly correct)O, I think not. It's a silly nothing piece that would have quickly faded from the consciousness of the limited readership of a relatively unknown magazine.
Question 3: So can we ask if this "protest" has really helped the Asian-Americans' cause (which someday I definitely intend to find out what that might be) to bring attention to this issue? May I ask what good do they hope to achieve by fighting against a percieved stereotype that doesn't even exist found in a magazine that is not widely read?
"Yes, before this event no one in America really thought that Asians were more likely to be gay than any other race, but now, thanks in part to our gallant efforts, they think the same thing! Victory!"
Question 4: If they are so angry about this, aren't they in some way saying that being perceived as gay is a negative thing? Really, what is the source of the anger here?
At their mighty 200 man protest, some who came out were gay and Asian, as you can see from the guy holding the pretty purple poster (very nice choice of colors, by the way)
So what point are they trying to make again? That being Asian and gay is a negative stereotype?
"Hey, I'm Asian AND gay and I just want to say that I am just, like, so totally opposed to people who propagate this evil stereotype that Asians are gay."
Well, can't argue with that logic.
Quiz!! Find the guy in the picture who is most likely Korean!
You'll also find on the site the results of a meeting several Asian American groups had with the editors of Detail magazine. They brought a list of demands. Here's a sampling:
FULL PAGE APOLOGY
Details had given us an apology statement from Daniel Peres, and provided the same statement to the media when asked about the protest. We demanded that the apology be printed as a full page in a future issue of the magazine. We also demanded that Whitney McNally also sign the apology.
Response: Daniel Peres made it clear that he takes full responsibility for the article. He will not ask Whitney McNally to sign the apology. The June/July issue will include a full page Letter from the Editor that will be longer than the apology statement that had been provided to us, but will probably contain language from that statement. The June/July issue also will include 2 pages of letters that Details received in Response to "Gay or Asian?" Patrick McCarthy stated that "a couple of people" thought the piece was funny, but Peres assured us that Details is not planning on publishing any letters in support of the piece.
Ah, that should do it right? These Asian-Americans are just reasonable people who have been hurt and would just like nothing more than a simple apology and retraction and they'll be on their way. After agreeing to the full page apology and promising to block any readers that defended the offending piece (that's what being PC is all about these days it seems; censoring all "inappropriate" opinions) the editors were probably picking up their briefcases and getting up to leave...
Eh...not so fast. Of course things didn't work out that way. As anyone who was here in Korea in 2002 knows, a demand for an apology is basically meaningless. Apologize all you want, it won't make the slightest damn difference. Demanding an apology is just a sort of throat-clearing gesture before making a list of highly questionnable demands to exploit the situation. Here comes the next demand...
DIVERSITY SENSITIVITY TRAINING
We demanded that Details writers and editors undergo diversity sensitivity training, and recommended that the Asian American Journalists Association conduct that training. Peres was provided with copies of AAJA's Stylebook, GLAAD's media reference guide, MANAA's Stereotype Busters memo, and a flyer for an online diversity sensitivity course offered by AAJA.
This was the first of about 6 or so more demands. God only knows what goes on in "diversity sensititivy training" sessions, but it can't be good. At best, it's a marathon session of being preached to by brainless Berkely graduates who are too incompetent to get a job teaching in a community college. At worst it would be like one of those "re-education" programs that are so popular a few hundred miles or so to the north of Seoul.
So, will the editors show some balls and end the meeting right here? Will they stand up to this PC bullying?
Response: Claudia Chung stated that she is in contact with Mae Cheng, the President of AAJA, regarding sensitivity training. They have a meeting with Cheng on Monday and will email Phil after that meeting. When asked what percentage of their staff are people of color or gay or lesbian, Peres refused to answer. McCarthy stated that they do not ask the sexual orientation of their staff. Chung stated that they will hire more Asian Americans at Details, and that someone from Human Relations will also attend the meeting with AAJA on Monday.
Well, looks like this Asian-American group gots theyselves a new bitch.
Hard to feel pity for a group of people like these editors so lacking in backbone. Enjoy the 8+ hours of humiliation...
Comments on original posts
Comments
I see that some people came to our site from this blog... any PR is good for us. :)
They weren't lacking in backbone. They were wrong. That's the bottomline.
Asian Americans have long been regarded as "model minorities," doing well in school, working hard and not making waves. It took a very long time for many of us to realize that we have not really been regarded as part of American society. The piece "Gay or Asian?" really woke Asian Americans up to this harsh reality.
I'm sure it wasn't intended that way but Details galvanized the Asian American community. 30,000 plus people in the petition and 250 people at the protest even though it was during the workday really pissed some people off, eh?
Posted by: James Fujikawa | June 02, 2004 at 10:38 AM
I see that some people came to our site from this blog... any PR is good for us. :)
They weren't lacking in backbone. They were wrong. That's the bottomline.
Asian Americans have long been regarded as "model minorities," doing well in school, working hard and not making waves. It took a very long time for many of us to realize that we have not really been regarded as part of American society. The piece "Gay or Asian?" really woke Asian Americans up to this harsh reality.
I'm sure it wasn't intended that way but Details galvanized the Asian American community. 30,000 plus people in the petition and 250 people at the protest even though it was during the workday really pissed some people off, eh?
Posted by: James Fujikawa | June 02, 2004 at 10:39 AM
Thanks for the comment. Since you stayed civil, the least I can do is return the favor. I'd be interested in hearing your answers to the four questions I posed earlier in the piece, especially #4.
My take is that the article in Details was just silly. It's biggest crime in my opinion is that it wasn't that funny. So what I question is whether or not this is something that you need to make a big deal out of. Certainly there must be more pressing issues to deal with, eh?
Posted by: Scott | June 02, 2004 at 11:46 PM
I didn't expect the response so I didn't notice till today. Anyway, answers....
#1. Whenever you see Asian males on American TV/Film, it's still less likely to be seen as love interest for someone, compared to other minorities. And unfortunately, it is true that Asian males are more prone to be portrayed as sexless or gay (at the best). When is the last time you saw Asian male character getting a girl and how often? I still remember BD Wong was talking about this. He said, "Asian males like me are, for some reason, not allowed to have any love interest." And that's coming from APA gay male. That's sad.
#2. I need you to take a look at this. Doesn't this kinda look like, "Gay or Asian?" in nature? And remember what happened to Japanese Americans during World War 2.
http://www.josephluk.com/scrapbook/time1941/howtotell-bw.pdf
or this
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/foster/lifemag.htm
History repeats itself. That's a well-known fact. We can't be too vigilant when it comes to it.
#3 Please refer to my comment on 6/2.
#4. We didn't want to come off as anti-gay. That's why we teamed up with GAPIMNY (Gay Asian Pacific Islander Men of New York) and the guy you see on the pic is its co-chair Glenn Magpantay. The source of anger is media under representation of both straight Asians and gay Asians. The bottom line is, we don't need some white people to define who we are. We can do it ourselves. We don't mind white people to laugh WITH us but do mind white people laughing AT us. That is why many APAs got angry at this "Gay or Asian?" The piece pit straight Asians and gay Asians against each other. People saw it and that's why they wanted to protest. What is an APA media watch group like us to do?
Sure, there are many other issues to deal with but our job is to promote fair and balanced portrayals of APAs in American media/entertainment. Because we all know that the media image goes a long way in this country.
Posted by: James Fujikawa | June 06, 2004 at 12:36 AM
#1 I mostly agree with what you say on point #1 about Asians not being portrayed as people with romantic interests. That doesn't really answer the question about whether or not a stereotype that Asians are more likely to be gay exists however.
Off hand, I can think of some other minority groups that have had gay characters, but I can't think of even on Asian one. Frankly, I just don't think that stereotype exists.
On #2 I've seen those "How to tell a Jap from a Chinese" posters (some much worse than the ones you linked, by the way). To suggest that the author of "Gay or Asian" has any such similar intention or to conclude that the public in general would read it that way is quite a big leap of logic though.
Yes, you CAN be too vigilant in you efforts to prevent racism. Do you see ANY humorous reference to an ethnic group as a cause for protests and boycotts? And the demands your group made to the magazine to ensure that Asian-Americans were hired and that they run a quota of articles putting Asian-Americans in a positive light was bordering on fascism. Is it not good enough that they apologize and agree not to do something like that again? Do you really need to force them to think "correctly?"
Had your group just demanded an apology and agreement not to run material that you feel is harmful to your group, I probably wouldn't have felt the need to blog about it. But when you start to pressure them to hire whom you think they should hire and to write what you think they should write about you crossed the line. Forcing others to accept what you believe to be right is wrong and, in the long run, counterproductive to your own goals.
Posted by: scott | June 13, 2004 at 10:28 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment