Internalized Gendered Racism in Asian American Womens Accounts of Asian and White Masculinities. By Pyke, Karen.

The intersectionality of race and gender inequality generate a variety of oppressive structures or “scattered hegemonies” that cannot be adequately understood by focusing exclusively on their gendered or racial components. There is a simultaneity to structures of domination which generate forms of racial oppression that are gendered and forms of gender oppression that are racialized. In this presentation I discuss those forms of racism that denigrate the masculinity of Asian males, which I refer to as gendered racism. The exaggerated and derogatory images of Asian American masculinity serve to glorify those forms of masculinity associated with white males. I examine the specific forms of gendered racism that second generation Korean and Vietnamese American males face, and describe how these demonizing myths and images shape the perceptions of Asian American women. In an analysis of 100 interviews with daughters of Korean and Vietnamese immigrants, I find that they frequently juxtapose derogatory images of Asian masculinity with positive images of white masculinity that are circulated in the white-dominated society. In so doing, they (re)construct white males as more attractive and more gender egalitarian than Asian males.

This form of internalized gendered racism is part of the process by which Asian American females are made available to white males (Espiritu, 1997). It also reaffirms the hegemonic positioning of white masculinity. These data illustrate dynamics of internalized gendered racism among new Americans of Asian descent. Specifically, respondents reiterate the negative stereotypes of Asian males that are perpetuated in the white-dominated mainstream, while subscribing to views of white male supremacy. I argue that the processes of adaptation, acculturation and assimilation can entail forms of mental colonization whereby newcomers to the U.S. and their children are inundated with images and messages that promote notions of white supremacy, including the glorification of white masculinity, against which the cultures and bodies of non-whites are denigrated. This view challenges earlier notions of assimilation as a positive process that generates a common culture and opportunities of upward mobility for immigrants and their children.

Rather, I argue that part of the process of becoming American can entail the gradual adoption of the gendered racism associated with the white mainstream, contributing to self-hatred . This study illustrates white patriarchal racism’s immense power in securing compliance by getting the oppressed to do it to themselves. Background Racial stereotypes of Asian American men incorporate contradictory notions of subordinated masculinity. On the one hand, Asian and Asian American men are portrayed as effeminate, nonathletic, submissive, wimpy, small in stature, nerdy, and asexual and, on the other hand, as hyper-masculine martial art masters or gang members who are threatening and domineering, particularly in their personal relationships with women (Fung, 3 1996). They are thus seen as too masculine or not masculine enough, making them less desirable partners to Asian American women (as well as non-Asian American women). In contrast, white men are portrayed as embodying the ideal masculinity.

Compared to Asian American men, they are regarded as romantic and egalitarian heterosexual partners. Asian American women who internalize these racialized images of Asian American men can come to regard them as undesirable romantic partners and turn their gaze to white men (Espiritu, 1997: 96-7). Hence this imagery bolsters the power of white men by making Asian American women available to them as sexual partners. These racial caricatures are controlling images (Collins, 1991, pp. 67-68) that exalt the masculinity and desirability of white men and contribute to the subordinated masculinity of Asian American men. These images penetrate the consciousness of members of the society and are believed to contribute to the higher rates of outmarriage among Asian American women than men (Espiritu, 1997; Lee & Yamanaka, 1990.). White men often served in these accounts in forms both overt and implicit as the standard bearer of masculinity. A hegemonic form of masculinity associated with white, upper class, heterosexual males is glorified throughout the culture and reigns dominant (Connell 1987; 1995). It is an ideal type of masculinity whose power lies not in its attainment by individual men at the upper echelons of society for few males actually possess its associated traits, but rather in its ideological capacity to legitimize the dominance of white, upper class heterosexual males and the subordination of “other” males. The construction of hegemonic masculinity serves to reiterate and reaffirm hierarchies of race, class, sexuality, and gender by constructing some forms of masculinity as superior to other forms.

Hegemonic masculinity is a vehicle by which multiple forms of inequality are signified and justified. It is does not create inequality but rather symbolically elaborates and legitimates it as natural. The construction of hegemonic forms of masculinity depend on the production of subordinated masculinities, including that form associated with Asian men. Asian masculinity is constructed not simply as different from white hegemonic masculinity but as its opposite. This inversion marks Asian masculinity as the “other” against which white masculinity is defined as superior. Implicit in the construction of Asian men as uniformly and essentially small, unattractive, non-athletic, and domineering is the notion of a superior form of white masculinity that embodies those very traits that seen as lacking in Asian men. Specifically, as evident in respondents narrative accounts of white males, white men are racialized as tall, big, attractive, athletic, and egalitarian in their relations with women. The juxtaposition of Asian and white masculinities makes clear that the subordination of Asian masculinity is rooted in its racialness.

Asian masculinity is an essentialized racial component that cannot be altered – it is in their blood, their bodies, as well as their culture. Asian masculinity monolithic and inevitable. The objectification and subordination of Asian masculinity is part of the larger racial project of white (male) domination. The purpose of this gendered racial system is not only to denigrate Asian masculinity but also to celebrate and mark as superior white masculinity. And what better way to make that happen than to get the subordinated group to buy into the belief system that marks white masculinity as superior and Asian masculinity as inferior and problematic. In the sections that follow, I describe the various ways that respondents internalized the derogatory beliefs about Asian masculinity, while reiterating and (re)constructing white males as superior.

Women’s Adoption of Racialized Stereotypes of Asian Men: “They’re Dictators” Monolithic Male Dominance These racialized gender stereotypes resonated in many of the descriptions female respondents provided of Asian men. There was a tendency to construct Asian ethnic culture as monolithically male dominated. Vietnamese males were depicted as “dominant and lazy, mean” (Ngen, FG 13, p. 7), and as not liking “a girl who has too many opinions. The guy is supposed to be the dominant person” (219-19). In a group interview with three other Vietnamese American women, Elizabeth, 19, suggests that Vietnamese males would not be attracted to her because she is “so outspoken” I don’t think I’m a woman that a Vietnamese guy would be attracted to just because of the personality that I have. Because I feel like I’m so outspoken. He wants you to be submissive.

He wants you to be passive. So I really don’t think that I’m gonna be his flavor of the month, you know. (Everybody laughs) FG 12 Korean males were similarly described as “very domineering toward their wives” (1008, p. 7) as “dictators” (1006, p. 8), and as wife beaters (FGrp 5, p13-14). One woman described Korean American males as: stubborn and [they] think that they are always right. They want to find a Korean girl who they can push around. Korean men like it that they can have power over their wives. It makes them feel important and strong. 1010-6 Some respondents acknowledged that not all coethnic males are overbearing and domineering.

However, recognition of internal variation was not stable and typically vanished into more general statements that reiterated the derogatory images of Asian masculinity. For example, in a group interview with three other Vietnamese American females, Gigi, a 20-year-old who has lived in the U.S. since she was 14, provides a brief reference to diversity among Vietnamese males that is dwarfed by a more generalized discussion of their need to be superordinate. She said: I think most of them, not all of them, are dominant too. I think they cannot stand the idea that their wife or girlfriend is more educated, makes more money than them.

That’s what I think of Vietnamese guys. I think wives have to be less educated than them a little bit so they can be the man of the house, and make all the decisions and stuff like that. (FG 13) Although both Korean and Vietnamese American females described men of their ethnic group, and Asian males in general, as domineering, Asian males were not always painted with the same broad stroke. A few respondents described ethnic variations in male dominance and invoked specific ethnic stereotypes. Korean American females were particularly likely to regard Korean males as the most brutal and stubborn of Asian ethnics. While both male and female Korean Americans referred to images of Korean males as wife beaters, only a few Vietnamese respondents applied the wife beater imagery to Vietnamese males.

In some cases female respondents portrayed Chinese American males as the least domineering of ethnic Asian males. In a group interview with other Korean American females, Susan, a U.S.-born 20-year-old, called up the stereotype of Chinese males as more egalitarian in explaining her dating preferences. She said: I have dated one Korean guy and eight Chinese guys. I found the Korean guy to be very self-centered and such a jerk. I know that I have to end up marrying one. I’m sure there is one out there, I just have to find one. Why do I always end up with a Chinese guy? I don’t know. Sometimes [Korean males] could be so thick headed. I don’t find them treating me as nice as like the Chinese guys. They are so much nicer. Chinese women, from what I’ve heard, have more power, and the Chinese male is stereotyped as a nicer guy.(FG5, p14) Susan draws on her experience with one Korean boyfriend to generalize all Korean males as “thick headed.” In many cases female respondents drew on limited personal experiences to confirm common stereotypes.

Indeed, stereotypes are often understood to represent truth rather than gross generalizations and racist denigrations. Thus when Susan said that Chinese males are stereotyped as more egalitarian and nicer than other guys, she implied that there is veracity to that notion. Stereotypes were often introduced in respondents’ account of reality in ways that gave shape and meaning to their experiences. Some linked Korean male dominance and brutishness to “Korean pride,” which refers to a strong commitment to maintaining one’s Korean identity and culture along with a pride in Korean cultural practices that some respondents negatively described as an arrogant belief in Korean cultural superiority particularly in comparison to the U.S. mainstream culture.

While several Korean respondents referred to Korean pride, Vietnamese respondents were much less likely to refer to Vietnamese pride. This difference could be reflective of the different pathways to immigration experienced by Koreans and Vietnamese. Koreans, who arrived voluntary and with more cultural and economic capital might have a stronger sense of pride in their homeland than Vietnamese who arrived as refugees from a war-torn homeland and with fewer economic resources and opportunities for return migration. While most Korean immigrants are from the middle class in Korea, Vietnamese arrivals to the U.S. are from a wider class background. Many Vietnamese who were members of the urban middle and upper class in their homeland do not feel a kinship toward lower-class Vietnamese immigrants from rural areas, and emphasize such differences when raising their children. Lower- income Vietnamese in the U.S. often live in or near urban ethnic enclaves that the more educated and acculturated middle class Vietnamese associate with teen rebellion, Asian gangs, and isolation from mainstream U.S. and the opportunities it offers for upward mobility.

Class differences among the Vietnamese undermines a sense of collective identity needed to sustain ethnic pride. A lack of pride among Vietnamese immigrants was discussed in a group interview with four Vietnamese American women: Sandy: You know, I think that out of all the cultures, I don’t think that Vietnamese people have a lot of pride. I see like Korean people, if you’re another Korean and you’re Korean, you’re just like automatically friends. But I don’t see that among Vietnamese people at all. Do you guys see that? Elizabeth: I don’t feel like there is. I don’t know. Sandy: Like do you feel like if you see another Vietnamese person there’s like a bond because you’re both Vietnamese. I don’t see that. But I see that in Korean people and other ethnicities. Elizabeth: Yeah, like if you look at the black community, ( Josephine and Sandy nod) you see it’s really, really tight knit based upon their race. Regardless of where they grew up or how long they’ve been in America, they’re still part of like that one group, right. But when you’re Vietnamese, I feel like it’s just more fragmented and it’s kind of exclusive, you know. It’s fragmented along cultural lines, age lines, educational lines, social economic lines. There’s all this fragmentation that people don’t look past. Among Asian ethnic groups, Koreans are regarded as the most successful at maintaining strong ethnic practices and identities.

They have very tight communities and more ethnic organizations relative to their numbers than any other Asian ethnic group (Min, 1998). While ethnic pride provides many psychological and sociocultural awards, some respondents recast it as a negative characteristic of Korean males. Tina, a 24-year-old Korean American and law firm receptionist who immigrated at five years of age, linked “Korean pride” to a litany of negative traits she associated with Korean males. She said: Simply put, [Korean American men are] short-tempered, controlling, dominant, hard-headed and lacking in communication skills. You know they've got this like Korean pride. (1015, p7) Being proud of one’s Korean identity and culture is an important strategy for maintaining ethnicity and resisting assimilation. However, by blaming ethnic pride rather than a pan-racial gender inequality, the problem of male dominance is linked to a refusal among Korean males to cast off their ethnic identity and embrace the values and practices of the white- dominated U.S. culture.

As discussed in chapter 7, the narrative construction of male dominance as a uniquely Asian problem obscures the practice of gender inequality among white males, thereby bolstering white male privilege vis a vis Asian males. Some respondents differentiated between coethnic males who are more Vietnamese or “Koreanized” compared to Americanized coethnics because they maintain ethnic practices and beliefs. Those more closely tied to their ethnic culture were commonly identified as the coethnic males most to be avoided as romantic partners. Nga, a 20-year-old U.S.- born Vietnamese American, notes: Asian American males have a tendency – the ones that aren't so much Americanized but ones, like Vietnamese guys that are very cultural – to take a stronger stance. They try to be more of a man in the relationship. (00Gen201 p. 5)

Sandy, 20, who immigrated at three, shared the following in a group interview with three other Vietnamese American females: For me, I won’t date a FOB (laughs) because I think they’d expect me to be like the traditional Vietnamese girl, like cook for the husband. That’s not me. That’s a role I could never fulfill. And in some ways, I think they’d probably look down on me because maybe they’d think, “Oh she’s bad because she goes out. She’s outspoken. She talks back.” That’s one of the reasons why I wouldn’t date someone who’s not assimilated. At other times during the group interview, Sandy states that she will never date a Vietnamese male and makes no distinction between those who are assimilated and those who are not. Similarly, Janet, a 20-year-old Korean American who was born in Canada and immigrated at age 7, makes a distinction in levels of dominance between those Korean American males who are Koreanized and those who are more Americanized. However, as often occurred, this internal distinction is fleeting and followed by a more generalized discussion of Asian American males as a monolithic group who are so domineering as to be unacceptable marriage partners. She explained: Like for me, I don’t want to get married to a Korean person because they’re really stubborn. They’re so like, "Me first! Me first!" I don’t want to marry a Koreanized person.

Like if I were to marry a Korean person he would have to be really Americanized. I can’t handle it because they’re so stubborn. Like my friend David, he wants a wife, he doesn’t want her to work. He wants her to cook, clean, take care of the kids and that’s it. He’ll give her money. He wants to totally regulate her. That’s why I don’t want to marry a Korean guy. I told my dad and he just laughed. He’s like, "I understand, Korean guys are like that." There’s a lot of Korean guys that hit their wife and stuff. (99rm102 pg 20) These respondents fashion an implicitly pro-assimilation narrative by framing coethnic males who display pride in their ethnicity and are very “cultural” as problematic. To be a very Vietnamese or Koreanized male is understood to mean that one subscribes to traditional patriarchal values that accord husbands power and dominance over their wives. As seen in Chapter 7 (earlier chapter), ethnic culture and patriarchy are seen as one and the same. Likewise, those males that identify with their ethnic culture, embrace and uphold it, are regarded as unable to engage in any other gender practice in heterosexual relationships than that of male dominance. Only by casting off their commitment to their ethnic culture and adopting the values of the white dominated U.S. mainstream can such males move toward egalitarianism.

Assimilation is the only pathway to egalitarianism as the ethnic culture is constructed as monolithically male-domineering and impervious to change. Respondents thus mimic in their accounts the disdain that the white-dominated culture holds for immigrants who do not cast off their foreign ways and eagerly adopt white American values. This dynamic was also apparent in the way that many respondents attributed the alleged dominance of Asian males to their traditional ethnic upbringing. Childhood socialization was regarded as an irreversible and static force in shaping the kind of gender arrangements sought by Asian-origin males. Jessica, 21, a Korean American who immigrated at 10, provides an example in her account of coethnic males: I have to say they’re dictators. I’m not trying to say all Korean guys are but generally I view them as [dictators] since they were raised that way. They saw how their parents were. They want to be the man. The ego and all that. For example if I grab a group of Korean guys who go to [this university], out of ten guys, like eight Korean guys would say that they want the girl to be serving them, who’s gonna be there for them constantly, not having their own thing. I think that no matter how Americanized the Korean guy is, they have that little bit n them, every guy I know. (1006, p8) Similarly, Teresa, a 23-year-old U.S. born Korean American, said: I think Korean men think that once they marry their girlfriend, they own her and can tell her what to do. Koreans treat women like property. They don’t honor them at all. They treat women the way they saw women treated in their home, so it’s not really their fault. It’s like passed down from their parents. (1010, p6-7) A double standard is evident in many of these accounts as a traditional upbringing is regarded as determining male but not female attitudes. Asian males are viewed as simple products of their traditional ethnic upbringing. It is as if they lack all agency and ability to change and adopt values that differ in any way from the ones they were raised with. Hence Teresa suggests “it’s not really their fault” that they are that way. In these narratives, Asian males are fated to recreate the male domineering relationships attributed to their parents’ generation.

This view also fails to allow for variation in gender arrangements among the parental generation. Yet when female respondents describe themselves, many of whom were raised in families with traditional gender arrangements, they do not suggest that they are merely the products of their socialization. Instead they describe themselves as having agency and options that permit them to disregard the gender dictates of a culture they depict as monolithically male-dominated. These notions mimic those in the larger society that regard Asian women as more culturally malleable and assimilable than Asian males (Espiritu, 1997).

The construction of Asian American males as steadfast tyrants undergirded many respondents’ distrust of those who claim to possess gender egalitarian attitudes. Several respondents made distinctions between males who admit their desire for more power, and those who claim egalitarian values but actually want a traditional gender hierarchy. Rarely were Asian American males who hold and enact egalitarian gender attitudes considered. The invisibility of such males is apparent in Teresa’s narrative. She divides Korean males into two types separated only by the degree to which they admit their desire to dominate their wives. She said: I guess there are the ones who want to dominate their wives and say so, and there are the ones who want to dominate their wives and just don't admit it.

They'll let you believe that they are all for an equal relationship but I have a lot of friends who got married to Korean guys and they said that their husbands totally changed from when they were just dating. Like one of my girlfriends, she's not even allowed to go out with her girlfriends unless he says it's okay. But he was cool when they were just boyfriend and girlfriend. (1010, p6-7) The notion that Asian American males who profess a commitment to gender equity in marriage are not to be trusted was commonplace. Many respondents assumed that after the nuptials Asian American males would change and invoke their male privilege. There was a sense that the desire to dominate women was an essential component of Asian masculinity. It was predetermined and could not be changed through free will.

Asian males simply cannot be trusted as male dominance is in their race, in their blood, in their culture, and in their family. This is the context in which many respondents cast white men as the ideal alternative to Asian males. The Racialization of White Males as Egalitarian The inculcation of white supremacist thinking is readily apparent in the narrative construction of binary categories of an inferior Asian masculinity and superior white masculinity. Notions of Asian American men as overbearing and brutish were contingent on the contrasting representation of white males as egalitarian. Belief in an ideal masculinity associated with whiteness undergirded derogations of Asian maleness and the concomitant reproduction of white masculinity as ascendant. In this regard, Asian and white males were constructed as opposites: Asian males are bad and to be avoided in contrast to white males who are good and to be embraced. The juxtaposition of Asian and white masculinity in the narrative of Mimi, a 21-year-old U.S.-born Korean American, illustrates how these masculinities are constructed in opposition to one another. She said: Most Asian guys have this expectation that Asian women belong at home and they shouldn’t go out at night, whereas I think a white person feels that a woman has a more equal status with the man, and she can do whatever she wants. She can take care of herself. 1014, p. 12 Over and over again respondents described Asian males as zealous patriarchs against whom whites males were cast as angelic liberators. The opposing forces of domination and liberation were represented in the categorical representation of Asian and white maleness. Similarly, Asian males were constructed as unsympathetic and mean and white males as caring and supportive. Such was the case in the narrative of Chang-hee, an 18-year-old Korean American who immigrated to the U.S. when she was eight. She noted: If I’m not hanging out with Asian people, I’m usually with Caucasian people and I think, as a woman, they are more gentle about things. I don’t know why, but Asian guys are more harsh with females, not physically, but with their words and their tones of voice. The way they demand things. Caucasians are not so demanding. They don't say, "Do this!” or “Do that!" They are just more interested in you and what you think and feel, unlike Asian men who could care less about how you feel or what you think.

(#107, p20) In an interesting reversal of this tendency to construct Asian males as tyrannical and overpowering, Jenny, a 19-year-old U.S.-born Korean American, invokes instead the stereotype of the wimpy Asian male against whom the white male is seen as commanding: White guys, they’re so much more persistent. They are very manly men. It doesn't mean Asian men are girly or anything. I don't think their mom taught them to be the man and bring home the bacon. (99rm101 pg 10) In the rare instance when white males are depicted as more domineering in their relations with women than are Asian males, male dominance assumes a positive meaning. While powerful Asian males were described in other accounts as overbearing, brutish, and “self-centered jerks” who are unsuitable partners, Jenny uses positive terms like “persistent” and “manly” to describe powerful white males. Meanwhile, she suggests that Asian males are deficient because they never learned how to be the “the man.” In this construction, powerful white males attain an aura of charisma that enhances their attractiveness. This illustrates how the meaning and value of a trait can change dramatically depending on whether it is associated with dominant white males or subordinated Asian males. While the value of traits can change, the construction of superior white males and inferior Asian males remains consistent.

Not only were white males regarded as more egalitarian than Asian males, but also as more affectionate, caring, expressive, and romantic. Asian males were regarded as insensitive, unloving, and uncommunicative by contrast. Inah, a 21-year-old U.S.-born Korean American, observed: Korean American men are very unaffectionate to their wives from what I see, and American men are more caring and they tend to love their wife a lot more than Korean American guys would. 1005-6 Racialized stereotypes of masculinity propped up many respondents’ stated preferences for white men as romantic partners. Respondents who prefer to date white males drew on the controlling images of Asian men as hyper-domineering, on the one hand, and wimpy, small, asexual, and unromantic on the other hand, in presenting often detailed arguments to justify their preferences.

Chang-hee who previously characterized Asian males as harsh and white males as caring explained her preference for white males: To tell you the truth, as far as males, I tend to like Caucasian males better. And the reason why I'm saying Caucasian is because I've never dated an African American or Hispanic. I've noticed that non-Asian people tend to be more verbal about things. I’ve noticed that Caucasian guys – I’m just talking about this because I’ve dated a Caucasian – they tend to be friendlier. They tend to come up and ask you, "How are you?" “How are you doing?" They’re not so held back. It's not like Asian males, they don't do that. They're not approachable. It's like they expect you to approach them. And I noticed that Caucasian males, not Asian males, tend to be more verbal about their feelings. That's just kind of what I've come across, which is what I like too. And I think the majority of Korean people are not verbal.

Generally Asian men are not ready to accept Asian woman who have a higher degree and higher education and they're actually very intimidated by it because they're so used to the woman being quiet in the family that when you do start getting an education and you do have a higher degree you will have more things to say. I've noticed that women that are twenty eight, that are Asian, or specifically Korean, it's harder for them to find Asian males who are ready to accept them having a masters or having a higher education. That's really interesting that Asian males are turned off by that. Asian guys do not like outspoken women. They don't. (#107, p14-15) Chang-hee picks up on several related themes often invoked by respondents in their explanation of why Asian males are undesirable partners: a lack of expressiveness and close talk, male dominance and a preference for quiet, submissive females, and a lack of assertiveness in approaching females.

Asian males are thus simultaneously cast as too bossy and too timid. Chang-hee calls up her dating experience with one white man who comes to represent all white men in her account. This rhetorical device was often deployed in interview accounts to lend credibility to discussions of the distinctions between white and Asian males. Jenny similarly draws on her experience with one white male to make sweeping statements about the difference between white and Asian males. She said: Let me go ahead and make one comparison. I know I’m judging all the white guys from this one white guy, but white guys are very chivalrous. Maybe they don’t open doors and stuff like that, but they do what you would expect to only happen in fairy tales. Asian guys don’t do that. They don’t really give a shit.

(99rm101 pg 10) Even though Jenny acknowledges she is drawing on her experience with only one white male, she nonetheless proceeds to use him as confirmatory evidence of her generalized account. The view that white men are more egalitarian than Asian men is so pervasive that it also shaped expectations among those who had never dated a white man before. Such was the case with Mimi who believes she might be happier married to a white man than a Korean American. She draws on the stereotypes of Korean males as domineering and white males as egalitarian in explaining her belief. She said: I would [marry a Korean man] because my parents would be happy, but then, on the other hand, like 80 percent of Korean guys are really overbearing and controlling. So I was thinking maybe I should go for a Caucasian to marry because I’ll be happier, you know?

[Interviewer asks: Why do you think marrying a Caucasian would make you happier?] Well, I’ve never really dated a Caucasian before, but I hear that most of them don’t treat their women like a possession, like they want communication instead of the woman always doing what the man wants. Like in Korea, or actually many Asian cultures, the girl is expected to be like submissive and real quiet, not talk back to the husband, be the husband’s slave. I don't think a white guy would be like that. If I married a white guy, then of course he would be nontraditional, but with a Korean guy, well, you do anything the guy says pretty much. It's like they have this power over you that you can't do anything about because it is not our place to. Also stuff like I said before, like cleaning, cooking, serving my husband food down to eat, going along with the things he says, stuff like that. Like I remember once when we were in my guy friend’s house, and we started like doing the dishes and doing the laundry and we were like "what the heck are we doing," so it's weird because I see how I'm acting now, and that is not even my husband, so I know that with my husband, he would probably expect that from me, and I don't want to do that...although I guess I was doing it at this guy’s house, but I guess it wasn't like I was pressured this time, whereas like I know it would be like that if I were married to someone with more traditional beliefs.(1014, p5-6) Mimi begins her account by suggesting that 80 percent of Korean males are overbearing and thereby allows that some Korean males are not domineering in their relations with women.

This internal variation among Korean males is lost, however, when her discussion moves to a comparison of Korean and white males. The juxtaposition of controlling Asian men and egalitarian white men served to create monolithic categories of racialized masculinity. Thus in this context marriage to a Korean male means having to submit while marriage to a white man would mean, in her words, “of course he would be nontraditional.” Mimi describes a time she performed traditional female domestic tasks, such as washing dishes and doing the laundry, when at the home of a Korean male friend. She admits that she was not “pressured” by her Korean male friend to do this work and implies that she falls into a pattern of behavior in response to a generalized expectation of what constitute appropriate gender arrangements in Korean ethnic settings. She thus seemingly nonconsciously complies with a set of gender expectations that she assumes to be operating and later regrets her behavior.

Mimi’s account poignantly reveals the dynamics at play that undergird many respondents’ preference for white partners. Because male dominance and female submission is so tightly bound with their notions of traditional ethnic society, some females engage a form femininity that they believe is expected of them when interacting with male coethnics, even when such behavior is not overtly expected, and may not be desired. They lay blame for this traditional gender behavior on coethnic males and underestimate the feasibility of successfully resisting male power and privilege within ethnic settings. Meanwhile, the white dominated mainstream and white males are constructed as egalitarian by contrast. Thus when they interact with white males, these women might engage a more egalitarian form of femininity that they associate with whiteness, and credit white males for their non-traditional gender performance. In fact, racialized expectations that white males are egalitarian while coethnic males are not could prompt a gross misreading of the gender preferences of individual men.

Some women might engage a more egalitarian display of femininity marked by greater assertiveness in the presence of white males, including white males who actually prefer traditional gender hierarchies, while displaying a more traditional form of femininity around coethnic males, including those who are egalitarian. By engaging distinct forms of gender that conform with racialized notions of what they believe white and Asian males expect, Asian American women can inadvertently engage in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Source Allacademic.com Internalized Gendered Racism in Asian American Womens Accounts of Asian and White Masculinities. By Pyke, Karen. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA,, Aug 14, 2004