excerpts from “We Don’t Sleep
Around Like White Girls Do”: Family, Culture, and Gender in Fillipina-American
Lives
Sexuality, as a core aspect of social identity, is fundamental to the
structuring of gender inequality (Millett 1970). Sexuality is also a salient
marker of otherness and has figured prominently in racist and imperialist
ideologies (Gilman 1985; Stoler 1991). Historically, the sexuality of
subordinate groups – particularly that of racialized women – has been
systematically stereotyped by the dominant groups. At stake in these
stereotypes in the construction of women of color as morally lacking in the
areas of sexual restraint and traditional morality. Asian women – both in Asia
and in the United States – have been racialized as sexually immoral, and the “Orient”
– and its women – has long serves as a site of European male-power fantasies,
replete with lurid images of sexual license, gynecological aberrations, and
general perversion (Gilman 1985). […]
Filipinas – both in the Philippines and in the United States – have been
marked as desirable but dangerous “prostitutes” and/or submissive “mail-order
brides” (Halualani 1995; Egan 1996). These stereotypes emerged out of the
colonial process, especially the extensive U.S. Military presence in the
Philippines. […] Cognizant of the pervasive hypersexualization of Filipina
women, my respondents, especially women who grew up near military bases, were
quick to denounce prostitution, to condemn sex laborers, and to declare
(unasked) that they themselves did not frequent “that part of town.”
Many of my respondents also distanced themselves culturally from the
Filipinas who serviced U.S. soldiers by branding them “more Americanized” and “more
Westernized.” In other words, these women were sexually promiscuous because
they had assumed the sexual mores of white women. This characterization allows
my respondents to symbolically disown the Filipina “bad girl” and, in so doing,
to uphold the narrative of Filipina sexual virtuosity and white female sexual
promiscuity.
[…]
I do not wish to suggest that immigrant communities are the only ones
in which parents regulate their daughters’ mobility and sexuality. Feminist
scholars have long documented the construction, containment, and exploitation
of women’s sexuality in various societies (Maglin and Perry 1996). We also know
that the cultural anxiety over unbounded female sexuality is most apparent with
regard to adolescent girls (Tolman and Higgins 1996, 206). The difference is in
the ways immigrant and nonimmigrant families sanction girls’ sexuality. To
control sexually assertive girls nonimmigrant parents rely on the gender-based
good girl/bad girl dichotomy in which “good girls” are passive, threatened
sexual agents (Tolman and Higgins 1996). As Dasgupta and DasGupta write, “the
two most pervasive images of women across cultures are the goddess and whore,
the good and bad women” (1996, 236). This good girl/bad girl cultural story
conflates femininity with sexuality, increases women’s vulnerability to sexual
coercion, and justifies women’s containment in the domestic sphere.
Immigrant families, though, have an additional strategy: they can
discipline their daughters as racial/national subjects as well as gendered
ones. That is, as self-appointed guardians of “authentic” cultural memory,
immigrant parents can attempt to regulate their daughters’ independent choices
by linking them to cultural ignorance or betrayal.
[…]
Because the policing of women’s bodies is one of the main means of
asserting moral superiority, young women face numerous restrictions on their
autonomy, mobility, and personal decision making. This practice of cultural
(re)construction reveals how deeply the conduct of private life can be tied to
larger social structures.
The construction of white Americans as the “other” and American culture
as deviant serves a dual purpose: It allows immigrant communities both to
reinforce patriarchy through the sanctioning of women’s (mis)behavior and to
present an unblemished, if not morally superior, public face to the dominant
society. Strong in family values, heterosexual morality, and a hierarchical
family structure, this public face erases the Filipina “bad girl” and ignores
competing (im)moral practices in the Filipino communities. Through the
oppression of Filipina women and the denunciation of white women’s morality,
the immigrant community attempts to exert its moral superiority over the
dominant Western culture and to reaffirm to itself its self-worth in the face
of economic, social, political, and legal subordination. In other words, the
immigrant community uses restrictions on women’s lives as one form of
resistance to racism. This form of cultural resistance, however, severely
restricts the lives of women, particularly those of the second generation, and
it casts the family as a potential site of intense conflict and oppressive demands
in immigrant lives.
Yen Espiritu received her Ph.D. from UC Los Angeles in 1990. She is a
professor in the Department of Ethnic Studies at UCSD. Focusing on Asian
America, her research has sought to challenge the homogeneous descriptions of
communities of color and the narrowness of mutually exclusive binaries by
attending to generational, ethnic, class, and gender variations within
constructed racial categories. In particular, her work has called attention to
the ways in which racialized ethnicity is relational rather than atomized and
discrete and the ways in which group identities necessarily form through
interaction with other groups "through complicated experiences of conflict
and cooperation" and in structural contexts of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.