Asian Female, Generation-X, and Sex
Thu Ha Nguyen
jgr...@lnxland1.denver.colorado.edu]
[Note to SCV: I am posting this article in English because I'm X-posting
this other ng's and I hate wrinting all the accent marks in comp.
Vietnamese :(. Plus, this post is somewhat prurient for this group but i
think many readers might identify with what I have to say.]
I'm a regular poster on ASFO, and a lurker on a.s.gen-x, SCV,and
SCAA. But lately, I have had a few things to bitch about here on the
'net and IRL. It has to do with the way generation-Xers are looked at by
Baby Boomers and how non-asians look at us Asians, especially us females.
True, many ASFOers will point to my dirty posts as nothing better but
all of them are in jest. However, I'm going to take a seriuos note with
this post. I see some things that I want to cover briefly first and then
delve into more deeply later.
Everyday, I see or feel the disgust that Boomers have for me and
other "twentysomethings" (I'm 22 next month). It has never occured to
them that this generation is so disgusted with their hypocritical ways.
It gets even worse when you're asian and are expected to be some
supersmart being, or if you're a female, to be some good little sex-object.
Maybe we should become apthetic like our white brethen. We deserve
to be. The way things are looking in Washington with Newt, it will get
worse for us Xers in the future. Or even in California with Prop 187-related
hatred.
Funny, one moment Asians are the ones that white Boomers look to
when they get into some jam at work ("Orientals are such hard/good workers")
then they're the ones who get all the help in the world from Uncle Sam
("Those goddam orientals get all those free handouts from the government
when they get here!") Myth. All myth.
Or even more amazing, is the stereotypes of AMs and AFs. The
males are either sexless, wimpy geeks or they're some gangster who wnats
to screw every white girl he sees becuase he has some fetish for "what he
can't have". With that in mind, any Gen-X AM who tries to buck the
prototype, gets labelled a sniveling, whining "Angry Asian Male". With us
females it's pretty straightforward. We're the meek, loving, loyal,
but sex-starved group who'll clean your house with out being told.
("asian women will take good care of you").
I can't confess to understand what it's like to be white nor do I
want to browbeat whites either but White Baby Boomers need to grow up.
they're the power brokers who help to form the attitudes of this nation,
and they're doing nothing to bring racial harmony. GenXer's are doing a
better job of it.
We need to drop the "hardworking oriental immigrants" picture.
Not all Asians here are immigrants; and this will explain why they object
to the label "oriental". Nor are we geeky FOBs who produce 4.0 GPAs.
We only look smarter than everyone else because it's our culture to bust
our buns to bring support to the group, to have pride in a job well done,
and to help out our families. When I came to the U.S. in 1980, I didn't
see the hardly anything for the Vietnamese except governmental help. I
only got it because I was a refugee and not an immigrant. But 15 years later,
I see Vietnamese plugging away just like other Asian-Americans. But the ties
to my old countryare strong, I don't see any reason to slack off and piss off
my parents. But don't categorize us for that. We have a sense of pride
and responsiblity.
And as for "handouts" isn't hard for somebody leaving everything
behind at home and not able to speak english to get some fancy job that
pays the bills. Why do you think a lot of us live togehter in 2 bedroom
apartments when we first get here? And just like other Gen-Xers i live at
home for economic reasons--but I also live with my Aunt's family beacause
it's tradition to live at home (or in my case other relatives) until we get
married.
I propose that Gen-X myth of slackerdom is a paradox when it
comes to Asians. I have a 2.9 GPA at school but my boss who's also
Vietnamese ( she was born here in 1955) and her white Baby Boomer co-workers
look at me as a freak because I'm asian but I have such a crappy
scholastic record.They tell also tell me that I don't know easy that I
have it. But then I later hear how such "hardworkers those orientals are".
Confusing? I don't get it either.
Speaking of work (and school), I hate how guys come up tell me
how they love to go out with Asian girls "becuase they're so gentle and
sweet girls". Oh, puh-leeze. We raised to respect and take care of our
husbands but come on, are all of us that way? Not even. A lot of us cheat
on our b.f.s, we're bitchy, and as agressive as any other race. Just
beacuse we're "oreintals" doesn't give us the market on niceness. Or even
sex for that matter. I don't know how many sex jokes that I have heard
from older white (or black, hispanic, etc.) maales as to our sexual
stamina or sexual hunger! Oh really? Race and sexual drive go hand-in-hand?
Curious. Gen-x is "shit" but the boomers want us for sex? so much
for equality.
As for the males. These poor guys are looked down upon by whites
as sexless weakling nerds. In fact, that helps the older white males to
further their claims of "Sex-starved horny Asian women". Oh please. To
add insult to injury, when an Asian male steps to a white woman he's
blasted by whites as a "banana who should stick to his own kind". Most of
my older non-asian female co-workers have the opinion that asian men
can't get it on in bed. "They're not manly enough. Since when have you
seen an asian guy with a white girl unless she's hard up." "Four inches
isn't enough." oh really? I know of about 9 or 10 WF/AM couples and
they're okay with each other.
Wouldn't it be interesting to put us all in a dark room and
disguise our voices and see how much we all have in common?
Sex, race, and age shouldn't matter to anyone. A lot of us may say
it doesn't but deep down it does. It effects how we treat others, how we
do things, how we act when we see somebody walking down the street. Oh,
Boom can you see how we are so far behind the times? We're suppose to be
a higher race of aniamls. but are we? We fight at the drop of a hat
because of somebody's skincolor. We judge them as good or bad due to some
subconsciouss value system that we taught when we were young. Even us
Vietnamese aren't immune to this. The typical stereotype of tradtional
Vietnamese towards VF dating Americans is that she's a whore. It dates
back to the Vietnam War. But it still colors our perceptions even if we
don't recognize it. It's time forget about it. And everything else that
we bred to believe; we're "slaves to the system" Time to unlearn as John
Singleton preaches.
Thu Ha Nguyen
Jennifer Basil
: What I don't understand is how anyone who can express herself this
: well has only a GPA of 2.9. Is it poor math skills?
2.9 isn't bad at all. 2.5 is average..and 3.0 is often 'cum laude'
at many institutions. It means mostly Bs with one or 2 c's thrown
in. A bad freshman year can do that to you. I've often found that
numbers don't reflect a true scholar at all.
posting from asg-X,
Jenny
: Martin
--
Jennifer Basil (ba...@bio.bu.edu) Has angst, will travel.
"You live your life
like a canary in a coalmine!
You get so dizzy
even walking in a straight line.."
..The Police
Repo Man
: dno...@mail.brisnet.org.au (David Noakes) writes:
: >Some of us here respect other races, we just have a preference for
: asian females.
: >Not because they are submissive, but perhaps because they are
: a little different
: ^^^^^^^^^
: >from the normal white female, a touch of the exotic, a touch of class.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^
: (Perhaps this says something about how
: >white society is degenerating that a lot of guys I know find that
: they don't have much in common with
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >"white" females.
: [sigh] how many times do we have to hear this from yet another person?
: >I've been out with Asians, Indians and Europeans. Does this make me a misfit perhaps?
: Maybe David Noakes can explain why African women aren't similarly "exotic",
: and why WFs are so unexotic, so lacking in class, that some WM don't seem
: to have much in common with them. Nobody else seems to want to explain.
: What's different about the "normal" WFs?
CLASS?????? BWO HAAA HEHHE HI HOOO HAHAHA HEHEHEH!!!!
Yeah right, Hey Stef, you really have "class" ROTFL!!!!
Anyways, *I* don't attach any such mystical traits to them (THEM???? WHAT
DO YOU MEAN THEM BOOOO HOOOO NOW WE ARE US AND THEM HUH, HUH MOTHER
FUCKER>>>>>_)@!$#*!@#$^!@#&)( THEM??? AAAAIEIEIEIIEIEIE), I just htink
that black hair, and brown eyes is sexy as HELL and yes, I really dig
black chicks, latinas and dark featured caucasians too. Geez, since I
know what I like, it must mean that I am an equal opportunity
objectifier, BWOOO HA AHA AHEE!!
What is so funny is that when chicks (oh excuse me, femininely
gendered homo sapiens) manage to hold out for the little worms they claim
are the only "real" men, they become bored and cheat on their pathetic
little well-trained hubby-wubbies. HEEE HHHIIIHIOHOHJHEHHA!!!
-SNARF LOSERS!
-terry
Peter F. DeMos
>Amen, sis.
Ummmmmm, James? Two things:
a) That should read 'Amen, brother.',
and
b) Learn to use an editor, BONEHEAD!!!!!!! SHEESH Quote the entire friggin'
article to add one line? What, just get your net.drivers.license?
peterd
PS Just so you know, I DON'T edit the NG line, cuz I want to make SURE you
see this.
Sue Lee Katherine Troutman
--Sue
Thu Ha Nguyen
: James Pham <jp...@corp.sgi.com> writes, after 77 pages of drivel:
: >Amen, sis.
: Ummmmmm, James? Two things:
: a) That should read 'Amen, brother.',
: and
: b) Learn to use an editor, BONEHEAD!!!!!!! SHEESH Quote the entire friggin'
: article to add one line? What, just get your net.drivers.license?
Now I think I know why he hates me
He doesn't like an assertive AAf that doesn't mind to contrict his sexist
mind. With Nam he doesn't like me because behave like a good little
traditional Vietnamese girl. Too Bad. You'll get over it someday when
both of you guys are old skeezers in nursing homes.....
Thu
Thu Ha Nguyen
:I'm not sure whether I'm a "Baby Boomer" or "Generation-X"
(ok, i'm ignorant) - I am 29, so where do i fit?
Welcome to the club! You're an Xer!
Thu Ha "I'm a Xer!" Nguyen
James Pham
> Or even more amazing, is the stereotypes of AMs and AFs. The
> males are either sexless, wimpy geeks or they're some gangster who wnats
> to screw every white girl he sees becuase he has some fetish for "what he
> can't have". With that in mind, any Gen-X AM who tries to buck the
> prototype, gets labelled a sniveling, whining "Angry Asian Male". With us
> females it's pretty straightforward. We're the meek, loving, loyal,
> but sex-starved group who'll clean your house with out being told.
> ("asian women will take good care of you").
> As for the males. These poor guys are looked down upon by whites
> as sexless weakling nerds. In fact, that helps the older white males to
> further their claims of "Sex-starved horny Asian women". Oh please. To
> add insult to injury, when an Asian male steps to a white woman he's
> blasted by whites as a "banana who should stick to his own kind". Most of
> my older non-asian female co-workers have the opinion that asian men
> can't get it on in bed. "They're not manly enough. Since when have you
> seen an asian guy with a white girl unless she's hard up." "Four inches
> isn't enough." oh really? I know of about 9 or 10 WF/AM couples and
> they're okay with each other.
> The typical stereotype of tradtional
> Vietnamese towards VF dating Americans is that she's a whore. It dates
> back to the Vietnam War. But it still colors our perceptions even if we
> don't recognize it. It's time forget about it. And everything else that
> we bred to believe; we're "slaves to the system" Time to unlearn as John
> Singleton preaches.
>
> Thu Ha Nguyen
At 29, I'm on the bubble between the GenX'ers and the Boomers so I can't
identify myself with neither side, but I'm in agreement with you on the
sexual (or non-sexual) stereotypes of AMs by non-Asians.
These perpetual stereotypes are also aided by our own Asian communities, however.
AFs are taught and raised to be meek and mild and like you said, a VF dating
(non-Asian) Americans is seen as a whore not only to other non-Asians but
to the Vietnamese as well.
I've dated all sorts of women -- white, black, hispanic, asian -- and have
been blasted by their respective peers and by my own Vietnamese "peers" as
"a banana who should stick to his own". But I can't help it if I am truly
attracted to and find beauty in all these women ... I haven't lost my
Vietnamese-American identity because of them ... so I'll keep on doin' what
I'm doing and if that means I'm bucking the system, so be it.
J.P.
Repo Man
: Personally, those words don't belong to me, just to Thu Ha.
: You seem to live a vacuum, you can expect to be dumb for the rest of your
: life regarding what an Amerasian is cuz I ain't gonna tell ya dumb HICK.
How much longer can Justin hold it together?????? The pressure to just go
ahead and let your personality experience that self modifying schism that
it's going to do *somedaY* must be INTENSE! So just let it happen!!! That
way Thu Ha can, in "her" own way, become a real person. Try it!!!
-terry
Terminator
Amerasian > A combination of an American, generally white or black and
any of several Asian countrys, Thi, Viet, Lao, Cambo. Rarely Chinese or
Japanese.
Amerasian > A left-over that nobody wanted after the Vietnam War...
And kids that America has only recently begun to do the right thing about...
TE
On 7 Feb 1995, Justin Greene wrote:
what an Amerasian is
Peter F. DeMos
>Actually I think that there are two perceptions of Asian Women by non
>Asian people, men especially. We are the demure, subservient, good
>housewife figure whose sole purpose in life is to bolster the husband's
>fragile ego...or we are the sex-driven, "exotic" Dragon Lady.
Excuse me. Can I put you back on the bus that BROUGHT you to this planet?
Please don't x-post your moronic generalizations and stereotypes to asfo
in the future. In OUR mind, you are full of bull.
and......
>I don't really know exactly how these two images of AF have been perpetuated
I'll give you a hint. It's perpetuated by YOU! And your racist FRIENDS!!!!!
Sheesh, what a maroon.
Quiz at 1100 hours on Friday.
peterd
Repo Man
: In article <3h95vf$6...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
: William Bangs <wbb...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
: >For the person responding to Thu Ha Nguyen's post and the response of a
: >white man who likes Asian women better than whites: we like them because
: >(in general, not always) they are simply more courtious to us, prettier
: >(in our eyes) and just plain nicer. For myself (responding to your
: >question of why black females, for instance, aren't in the same position)
: >I can only say that the black women I HAVE KNOWN have been much louder,
: >crasser and LESS FUN TO BE AROUND than Asian women. Does this mean I'm
: >an Orientalist looking for a Madam Butterfly? Not a bit of it!
: Au contraire; you fit the definition to a "T".
I am forced to agree. Traits like "courteous" "nicer" and the bad traits of
"louder" "crasser" have nothing to do with anything. They *may* be the
way some asian women have been raised to *appear* but if you cared/loved
the woman you would be interested in how she was really *feeling* and
asian women (being the "surprise" normal people they are) have the same
feelings as everybody else. meaning they are CRASS and LOUD and SMALTY
and FART just like everyone else. The fact that you dont see this and are
happy to settle for the outward appearances of docility means you dont
want to see the entire person.
-terry
Tim Gasser
> (some deletion)
>Even to some extent today in
>Western society, the dual image of women as either the "sexless" and
>subordinate housewife/mother figure or as the "sex-starved" whore is
>still prevalent.
(some more deletion)
>Men equated mother-figures with their own mothers, and as a result the
>thought of the mother, and subsequently their mothers, having or wanting
>to have sex was very disconcerting. Naturally then, the duty of the wife
>was compartmentalized to procreation...and thus sex with the wife was
>only necessary for that purpose. Sex was not synonymous with the spouse,
>so the outlet for having sex just for the sake of sex was the mistress or
>concubine. Men could easily dissociate their guilts from
>"enjoying" the act of sex with mistresses and whores because procreation
>was not a consideration(linked to mother-figure). If we look at present
>day Western society we see remnants of this in the perpetuation of
>prostitution.
>
>Yumi
Where did you come up with this gem? While I cannot speak for "Western
society", I am able to say that this kind of reasoning or thought process
has never occurred to me, nor, as far as I know, to anyone I know. It
sounds alot like the kind of garbage some professor might write, in order
to help ensure tenure.
Tim Gasser
Yumi
On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Peter F. DeMos wrote:
> Yumi <al...@oci.utoronto.ca> writes, amongst other things:
>
> Excuse me. Can I put you back on the bus that BROUGHT you to this planet?
> Please don't x-post your moronic generalizations and stereotypes to asfo
> in the future. In OUR mind, you are full of bull.
You are using the collective "we" now...are you implying that other
people sympathize with you, or that you are of royal blood? Or, are you
unable to validate or support any of your own ideas that you need to
convince yourself that others believe your stupid ravings? If you are
telling me that these stereotypes do NOT exist in Western
society I suggest that you brush up on your study of society and
history. I dislike racists, but the one thing that I hate the most are
ignoramuses like you. Try reading some books(past and present) on the
Western concepts of Asian people...or perhaps even reading is too much for
you to handle as well. If your only form of "rebuttal" to my statements
are "you are full of bull", then you are truly the moron.
>
I'll give you a hint. It's perpetuated by YOU! And your racist FRIENDS!!!!!
> Sheesh, what a maroon.
>
> peterd
Oh please crawl back into the hole from whence you came...your asinine
remarks do not merit any response.
Yumi
Tutoring is Fun
>Where did you come up with this gem? While I cannot speak for "Western
>society", I am able to say that this kind of reasoning or thought process
>has never occurred to me, nor, as far as I know, to anyone I know. It
>sounds alot like the kind of garbage some professor might write, in order
>to help ensure tenure.
Sigh, the respect some people have for professors and intellectual discourse.
John (PO)
Sea Otter
>For the person responding to Thu Ha Nguyen's post and the response of a
>white man who likes Asian women better than whites: we like them because
>(in general, not always) they are simply more courtious to us, prettier
>(in our eyes) and just plain nicer. For myself (responding to your
>question of why black females, for instance, aren't in the same position)
>I can only say that the black women I HAVE KNOWN have been much louder,
>crasser and LESS FUN TO BE AROUND than Asian women. Does this mean I'm
My experience definitely supports this. I've gone out with four or five
black women, and had an unpleasant experience every time. They were all
really flaky, if not simply dishonest. Again, this isn't making a
statement about ALL black women - but I do think it's a statistically
significant sample.
n...@u.washington.edu
must be eliminated. If the war wasn't end in 1972, you had no reason to get
out of Vietnam alive. Now you came back. You're fucked up just like others,
huh?
On 7 Feb 1995, The Crokodile wrote:
>
> I don't blame you for being angry. Stereotypes and hatred are taught at an
> early age in this country. They must be, you must learn to hate before you are
> seven years old if you are ever going to become a bigot. But the fact is that this
> tribalism goes back 35,000 years and evolution doesn't work that quick.
>
> Human's haven't had enough time to evolve. The ideas of equality and fairness get
> really jumbled when sex comes into play. It doesn't matter how rationally you've
> been taught or how many novinas you say, when the hormones start screaming to
> procreate -- all any man wants to do is fuck.
>
> I had a perpetual hard-on from the age of thirteen until uh, about age 35.
> All I wanted was to scratch the itch. It's there for a reason.
>
> I am a Native American and have experienced my share of bigotry. I also
> experienced the incredible bigotry of my fellow countrymen towards
> 'indigeonous personnel' during a 7 month tour of Viet Nam in 1972. It was
> ghastley. I was ashamed. The general attitude was that Viets were subhuman, not
> as good as the noble race that was there to fix their goddamn country. Some of this
> can be attributed to a war face -- dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to
> kill the 'gooks' -- but the majority of the bigotry was taught to these folks as
> children. And it's always easier to go along with the crowd, which is
> probably why I've had so much strife in my life. I didn't follow the crowd.
>
> I had relations with Viet women, but it was to satisfy the itch. I'd have fucked
> about anything 'round that time. But it was always a mutual thing. I can't
> actually claim that I loved the girls, but my lust was sincere. I did love the
> people, however. What a wonderful culture. What a beautiful country. What a
> beautiful people. And I'm looking forward to returning as soon as the morons
> in D.C. pull their collective heads from their asses.
>
> I'm from the Beat generation and I have a 19 year-old Gen-X son who just married
> an 18 year-old Gen-X-er. We speak the same language. We share a disgust and
> disdain for what this alleged society has become.
>
> The point is: You've painted with a wide brush and fortunately there are
> a few of us who view Asians as fellow humans, planet Earth...
>
> The Crokodile Man....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <3h0ru8$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu>, jgr...@lnxland1.denver.colorado.edu (Thu Ha Nguyen) says:
> >
> >[Note to all ng's: mail all e-mail responses to my b.f.'s e-mail address:
> > jgr...@lnxland1.denver.colorado.edu]
> >[Note to SCV: I am posting this article in English because I'm X-posting
> >this other ng's and I hate wrinting all the accent marks in comp.
> >Vietnamese :(. Plus, this post is somewhat prurient for this group but i
> >think many readers might identify with what I have to say.]
> >
> >>
> >Thu Ha Nguyen
>
>
Terminator
to make the movies, (vanishing son?) then the next newbees get to be the
bad guys.
TE
On 9 Feb 1995, MARTIN wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.950208193218.2917A-100000@pip> Yumi <al...@oci.utoronto.ca> writes:
> >
> >Even to some extent today in
> >Western society, the dual image of women as either the "sexless" and
> >subordinate housewife/mother figure or as the "sex-starved" whore is
>
> Do you realise that you've just managed to create a parallel between
> the (supposed) stereotypes of Asian women with the (supposed)
> stereotypes of Asian men? I've seen a LOT of posts on scaa claiming
> that Asian males are either seen as "asexual" or "evil". I, personally,
> have argued that this has a lot to do with there being few Asian actors
> getting roles in Hollywood movies and that it is the individual actors
> who are often typecast as either "asexual" or "evil" but your post
> suggests another possibility: certainly we all realise that the people
> we actually know in real life are neither priestine nor villainous; it
> is only people we don't know who we see as such extremes. Thus, I
> suppose one could argue that these apparent stereotypes are just the
> impressions that might naturally arise in the minds of people who aren't
> familiar with Asian people and are also too stupid to realise that
> they're essentially just like everybody else.
>
> Anyway, it's just a thought. :)
>
> Martin
>
>
>
Luong Pham
jgr...@lnxland1.denver.colorado.edu says...
>...
>... I have had a few things to bitch about here on the net and IRL. It
>and how non-asians look at us Asians, especially us females.
Ouch! In a couple of sentences Thu Ha has managed to define "racism",
"sexism" and "ageism"! It hurts even more when Thu Ha (I'm not going to
refer Thu Ha as "she" since I, once, adopted a VNese female-sounding
nom-de-plumme) was one of those who have delivered stinging criticism at
"bananaism", one of those "isms" that I just love to disagree! I
loved it when Thu Ha, I assumed as a woman's name, talked as a female
"banana", gave those people a lesson about labelling. I thought that
persons like Thu Ha would never draw lines. I thought that I had seen
them all, but, obviously, I did not! You see, once upon a time, when I
lived in NYC, an old wise man walked me down to Time Sq. and said to me:
"Son, sit here for awhile and you will see everything that can ever be!".
He didn't know about the net!
>... Everyday, I see or feel the disgust that Boomers have for me and
>other "twentysomethings" (I'm 22 next month). It has never occured to
>them that this generation is so disgusted with their hypocritical ways.
Thu Ha, please define "their hypocritical ways". Are these "ways"
something you've noticed in all, 95%, 33%, 5% or some people of that
particular age group? Are they, therefore, theirs as as group or theirs
as for these individuals only? You see, Thu Ha, I'm one of those
"Boomers": I'm turning 40; I'm one of those "Bananas": I was born in
Saigon; and I'm a male (wish that I could post my pix in this group). So,
what do I know 'bout the X-ers eh? Well.. it just so happens that I share
a humongous part of my life with this with this white, ex-hippi woman
whose son's age is about yours: he's turning 21. He and I are getting on
quit well, partly because we don't have this father-son "heavy"
reationship bullshit (wow, what a mouthful) to deal with, but mainly
because we like the persons, the guys, the dudes... within ourselves. I
can only hope with these credentials, you, Thu Ha, will let me touch the
subject. But then, what the heck... this, after all, is the net where any
being with 2 or more brain cells can mouth off about anything he/she/it,
or he->she, or she->he, or.... likes.
>... The way things are looking in Washington with Newt, it will get
>worse for us Xers in the future.
Agree, Thu Ha. From where I am, I see that the future can be quite a ride
for ALL of us with the current political/sentimental situation in the
good ol' US of A. I just want to remind you that Newt's stand has one
thing in common with yours: let's define "us" and "them".
>... Funny, one moment Asians are the ones that white Boomers look to
>when they get into some jam at work ("Orientals are such hard/good
>workers")... Myth. All myth....
Again, I agree. The points you touched are all myths since I've seen lazy
bums with dark hair and yellow skin quite a numbers of time. As the
matter of fact, I just saw one this morning while shaving. But I want,
from your paragraph above, to add to the lengthly list of myth: "white
Boomers look to...". I think that the myth "Orientals are such ..." is a
maladie generic to the "so-called" Caucasian population, I am not so sure
that it is specific to the "white Boomers" only.
>... Or even more amazing, is the stereotypes of AMs and AFs. The males
>are either sexless, wimpy geeks or they're some gangster who wnats to
>screw every white girl he sees becuase he has some fetish for "what he
>can't have". With that in mind, any Gen-X AM who tries to buck the
>prototype, gets labelled...
There 2 points I want to make concerning this paragraph:
1. being a heterosexual male, I do want to screw/intercourse/make love
with all the women- be them black, white, pink, yellow or green- I've
seen and will be seeing in my life. (Whether it's physically,
politically, emotinally or, darn it, morally possible is a very different
issue.) I believe that as long as people are willing to subscribe to the
"us/them" dogma, there will always be whiners with lines such as: "Those
fuddling-dudling '_fill_in_your_favourite_ethnic_group_here_' are
screwing our women!".
2. being a Boomer, when I buck the trend, I'm labelled as well. So
there, if it makes you, Thu Ha, feel any better.
>... With us females it's pretty straightforward. We're the meek, loving,
>loyal, but sex-starved group who'll clean your house...
Gee, this is what women all over the world have complained. I didn't know
that those white male Boomer "bastards" ONLY looked at yellow female
X-ers as sex-objects/slaves.
>... White Baby Boomers ... 're doing nothing to bring racial harmony.
>GenXer's are doing a better job of it.
Proof, Thu Ha, proof. I know personally more than 20 couples (some
married, some otherwise arranged) whose the male half and the female half
are comming from different cultures. A majority of them falls under the
Boomer category, quite a few are X-ers, one couple are in their 70's. My
girl-friend's (it's very hard for me to refer to a woman in her age as a
girl-anything, but it will have to do) son, an X-er, has dated "all over
the map". And I've done more than some "gangster's share" (bragging!). So
the point you make above is NOT true.
>... Not all Asians here are immigrants; and this will explain why they
>object to the label "oriental"...
This is exactly the thing that can make one feels so helpless! After
giving them hell for starting on "banana", how can you, Thu Ha, fall for
this "oriental" crap? The last time I looked "oriental" means "from the
east". Why does this make you suddenly become so sensitive? If you object
to the word "oriental", would you never object to the word "asian" ten
years down the line? To put myself on a limb here: Frankly, I don't see
why some "black" people are objecting to the word "Negro" when it only
means "black". "Nigger", that I, as well as anyone, can see, but "Negro"?
You see, I'm one of those blessed with some broken Latin, can only feel
so sad when people, for reasons unknown, decided to be "language polices"
without making efforts to understand the "language" part first!
>... I propose that Gen-X myth of slackerdom is a paradox when it
>comes to Asians. I have a 2.9 GPA at school...
Thu Ha, reading these words of yours makes me wonder whether you,
yourself, are a myth/paradox. Such a strong statement, such a convincing
proposal as "I propose that .... is a paradox." Why did you dilute it
with the phase "... when it comes to Asians"?
And, beside, 2.9 GPA is nothing to be ashamed of. The question remains,
however: Did you learn anything while at school?
>... A lot of us cheat on our b.f.s, we're bitchy... Race and sexual
>drive go hand-in-hand?
Hey erveryone! Thu Ha, speaking as a female Oriental, and I, speaking as
a male Oriental, want to submit our own cases (with your permission, of
course, Thu Ha) as "dis-proofs" to the myth that female Orientals are
such and such and male Orientals are such and such. You heard it from the
horse mouth that Thu Ha IS NOT one of those "Chinese baby dolls". And
under the roof I share with my girl-friend, and her children, and her
cats, and her fish, and her car... it is I who do the cooking, the
shopping and bed-making; she does the laundry, cleaning and baking. We
share dish-washing, gardening, etc. Btw, she, like all my exes, lately
has complained that I "...have only sex in mind"! What else am I supposed
to have when lying next to this INCREDIBLY sexy woman?
>... Gen-x is "shit" but the boomers want us for sex? ...
Look, Thu Ha. I don't know about you. But when I want sex, it's usually
sex that I want, NOT sex with just only A and therefore exclude myself
from B, NOR only with B and therefore not A. As long as the person I have
sex with is someone I like and also someone who likes me, why should I
care if she is 20, 30, 40 or 900? From the above-mentioned line, I can
only feel sorry for those boomers who have been keeping themselves pure,
and chaste waiting for the X-ers!
>... I know of about 9 or 10 WF/AM couples and they're okay with each
>other.
Great! Now, do you really, really care whether these couples are Boomers
or X-ers?
>... Wouldn't it be interesting to put us all in a dark room and
>disguise our voices and see how much we all have in common?
You touch me here, Thu Ha. It's the "common man" inherent to all of us
who is crying out for some recognition here. It's that same "common man"
(I use the term "man" as in Latin's "mano" or "hand", which includes both
sexes) that brought me to tears when I saw those starving Ethiopian kids.
It also the same "common man", I believe, that I heard when I read your
post concerning "banana". However, unlike you, I am very weary about that
"common man"! What if that "common man", on certain days, comes to the
conclusion that certain behaviours are "common" to all of us, and
therefore "good", others, being not "common", and therefore "bad"... You
see my point?
I, therefore, say that after 1/2 hour in the darkroom, let's turn on the
light, look at each other, recognize our differences as well as our
similarities and learn to live with them or, better still, love them.
Love & Peace, man! Am I being too much of a Boomer/Hippi? And if I am, am
I hypocritical?
>... Sex, race, and age shouldn't matter to anyone.... Boom can you see
>how we are so far behind the times? ... Even us Vietnamese aren't immune
>to this...
So... what are you saying Thu Ha? Is it still worth it to erase the lines
created by our past ignorances, or are we too "doomed" to be saved?
If you agree with me that whatever happend in the past gives us lessons
so that we can improve on today, toward a better tomorrow, then I will
propose to you to drop the "collective rights/guilts" metallity that I
hear in this article. Let me explain. The Boomers, like the X-ers, or
Hippies, or Yuppies, or Greyers, etc. are demographic (or is it
demographical? anyway, none of them are in my OED) labels created by the
adv. industry to categorize us. When you ask the Boomers whether they can
see, they/us can only answer "Well... some of us can, some cannot, and
among the can, some can more than others!" And this is true to any
generation. Not all bads are created by one generation, not all goods are
to be expected of one generation. Life is a long, beautiful and extremely
mysterious journey and none of us has a compass or any inklings to where
it leads us. Blaming others (as you are doing with this article) or
abusing others (as your claimed of the white boomers doing this to the
oriental x-ers) will not help, not even one lousy bit. If you think that
you, as an individual, have been maltreated by others, take issues with
those individuals. It's your rights as a person that are violated, NOT
the X-ers' rights since COLLECTIVES DON'T HAVE RIGHTS. If those
over-the-hill assholes actually treated you as you claimed, then they,
themselves, are guilty, NOT the whole Boomers since COLLECTIVES FEEL NO
GUILTS. Just imagine how Nazi-like the world would be if we, stupid
enough, give groups the rights over the individuals of the group! And
just imagine how the terrible the world would be if every single
individual feels the guilts of of others in the same the group(s) he/she
belongs to!
And, what do you mean by "Even the Viet..."? Are you trying to say "And
of course, the Viet..."? The Vietnamese, like any other group, of course
are NOT beyond anything.
Agree, anybody?
Luong Pham
jgr...@lnxland1.denver.colorado.edu says...>: jgr...@lnxland1.denver.colorado.edu (Justine) says:
>: Everyday, I see or feel the disgust that Boomers have for me ...
>
>: Trust me, Justine. It has NOTHING to do with your 'boomerness' ...
>
>Personally, those words don't belong to me...
I remember that there is a mechnics called "personal email" for this kind
of crap! Btw, Justine... if you lend your addr. out, this is what you
should expect!
Why should I, or any one, have to put up with net abusers like this?
Agree, anyone?
Joan Shields
>>Even to some extent today in
>>Western society, the dual image of women as either the "sexless" and
>>subordinate housewife/mother figure or as the "sex-starved" whore is
>>still prevalent.
>>Sex was not synonymous with the spouse,
>>so the outlet for having sex just for the sake of sex was the mistress or
>>concubine. Men could easily dissociate their guilts from
>>"enjoying" the act of sex with mistresses and whores because procreation
>>was not a consideration(linked to mother-figure).
Tim Gasser <tga...@ese.ogi.edu> wrote:
>Where did you come up with this gem? While I cannot speak for "Western
>society", I am able to say that this kind of reasoning or thought process
>has never occurred to me, nor, as far as I know, to anyone I know. It
>sounds alot like the kind of garbage some professor might write, in order
>to help ensure tenure.
Actually, in many respects Yumi is correct. In old Spain, for example,
sexual pleasure was reserved for the mistress. If a wife started getting
pleasure out of sex the husband immediately suspected infidelity. For many
years women weren't expected to enjoy sex and if they did they were
considered whores. Sex was one of those things a man "needed" and a woman
put up with. To a large extent in many civilized cultures this was the
case. Today you can take a look at any magazine with studies about men and
women and sex - they usually say that most (if not all) men think about
sex on a daily basis but that only about 19% of women do. Women aren't
supposed to care about the orgasm, just the closeness. Women are still
not expected to enjoy sex as much as men but we're now being told that
that is ok because we (women) can appreciate the closeness that intamicy
brings. If a man brags about his "conquests" he's a stud - a woman who
does the same is a whore and a slut. A lot of a woman's worth is wrapped
up in her appearance and ability to be sexually attractive. Things are
changing but there's still a lot to do. The important thing is to keep
working and moving forward.
Anyway, the only thing I would disagree is with the role of concubines and
wives in the China of generations back. A wife, very often, was also a
status symbol (depending on who her father/family was) and a concubine was
also used for procreation. If a wife didn't have a son it would have to
be up to the concubines to provide. This wass actually true in many areas
of the world. A man could get special religious dispensation to put aside
a "barren" wife and take another if a son were not born. Of course, this
also had a lot to do with how much you were worth - not just anyone could
get this but if you had enough power and money, well... a lot of uppity
women also ended up in insane asylums. If this is all hard to swallow,
take a look at anthropology texts and Elizabethan English history. You
can also take a look at present day Brazil where it's still (I believe)
considered ok for a man to kill his wife if he even suspects her of
committing adultry (I've heard there were plans to change this but I'm not
sure if it has or not).
While Tim may take offense at this, I'm sorry but you really can't change
history and the way people are/were because it's uncomfortable to look at.
You may not treat women this way and if so then that's great - but, there
are plenty of men still doing this and a lot of women buying into it.
joan
Peter F. DeMos
>: > We need to drop the "hardworking oriental immigrants" picture.
>: > Not all Asians here are immigrants; and this will explain why they object
>: > to the label "oriental". Nor are we geeky FOBs who produce 4.0 GPAs.
>: > We only look smarter than everyone else because it's our culture to bust
>: > our buns to bring support to the group, to have pride in a job well done,
>: > and to help out our families.
You Justine, just need to drop the schizoid personality. THAT will get you far.
and.....
>: > Curious. Gen-x is "shit" but the boomers want us for sex? so much
>: > for equality.
To which the scholar Justine is talking with replies:
>: What are you talking about here, Thu Ha?
Hehehehe. These were my favorite parts. ESPECially the 'What are you talking
about' bit. Hehehehe. EVERYone wants to know that Justine.
peterd
PS I guess on scv you are ALL Vietnames, eh Justine? No amerasian confessions
here! Hehehehehe.
Ira Smailer
: wbb...@u.washington.edu (William Bangs) writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: significant sample.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uhh, yeah, whatever. (If anybody needs an explanation for the sad state
of American education, it's right here.)
I could point out the total number of black women in this country and
that your "statistically significant sample" is something like 1E-20
of a % of the population, but I think that is too profound for you.
But I think you just hit the Ctrl X too soon. I'm sure you wanted to add
"I know what I'm talking about, because I also dated 2 (two) white
and 1 (one) Hispanic woman. And then I met <raptures> Ah-Ming, the
perrrrrfect Oh-leeeental goddess". Exeunt omnes.
Ira
Barbara Saunders
>
>My experience definitely supports this. I've gone out with four or five
>black women, and had an unpleasant experience every time. They were all
>really flaky, if not simply dishonest. Again, this isn't making a
>statement about ALL black women - but I do think it's a statistically
>significant sample.
*Five people is a "statistically significant sample"? *Five people
in the select group that you dated?
Barbara
the_obnoxious
>David Meredith (da...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) wrote:
>: William Bangs <wbb...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>: >Re-read Thu's original post, though, and you'll discover that there's
>: >much more (some intelligence and compassion, perhaps!). The problem
>: >Ben
>
>: Dude, there's much more you should know: "Thu" is a white guy named
>: Justine pretending to be both himself and his girlfriend posting from the
>: same account. Intelligence and compassion?.....
>Excuse me, Mr. Meredith but you don't need to try to slander me just
>because I didn't respond to your advances via e-mail. That incident goes
>to prove my point about white males' typical views of us asian women. Too
>bad, I deleted that e-letter--otherwise I post it up for the world to
>see.....
>Thu Ha Nguyen
James Pham
Uh, Peter? Two things:
a) No, it read the way T wanted it to read:"Amen, sis".
and
b) I'm sorry you actually READ through all of Thu Hoa's post to get to get
to my one line!
James
PS - Who the f**k are you? Mr.SCAA himself?
James Pham
James Hong
Lester D. K. Chow <ex...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, pet...@netcom.com (Peter F. DeMos) says:
>
>>jsi...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Sea Otter) writes:
>>
>>>My experience definitely supports this. I've gone out with four or five
>>>black women, and had an unpleasant experience every time. They were all
>>>really flaky, if not simply dishonest. Again, this isn't making a
>>>statement about ALL black women - but I do think it's a statistically
>>>significant sample.
>>
>
>families. Such women are morally inclined and often look after their
>mates. Then, too, Asian women or Chinese are Semitic (part-Hamite and
>part-Semitic) or White. Maybe that's why!
>
Oh my gawd! First off, your initial statement about the correlation between
beautiful women and wealth and/or discipline is just out of this world.
Second, do not confuse morality with cultural tendency. And I have no idea
what you're trying to say in your third sentence. Good lord!
Jim
--
Jim Hong All Standard Disclaimers Apply
jim...@merle.acns.nwu.edu "If everyone is thinking alike then somebody
Northwestern University isn't thinking."
-- George S. Patton, Jr.
Terminator
about ~Bananas~ is going to jump and give Ms. Shields whatfor because of
her naked attack on the old ways?
We have many "cultures" today practicing genital mutilation on their women
... have for years, part of the culture. It's a valued tradition.
After all, aren't old ways important to cultural identity?
Otherwise, well said Joan ...
TE
On 10 Feb 1995, Joan Shields wrote:
...
>
> Actually, in many respects Yumi is correct. In old Spain, for example,
> sexual pleasure was reserved for the mistress. If a wife started getting
> pleasure out of sex the husband immediately suspected infidelity. For many
> years women weren't expected to enjoy sex and if they did they were
> considered whores. Sex was one of those things a man "needed" and a woman
> put up with. To a large extent in many civilized cultures this was the
> case. >
...
> joan
>
>
>
Terminator
do. Growing up in the south, we always called folks from the east Damn
Yankees! Do you realise the damage you are doing to custom and tradition
with your infalammatory words! I mean, who in his right mind would pay
fifty bucks American to see a musical called "Damn Orientals"?
On the other hand I really liked the danceing commies number in Miss
Saigon, but I didn't have to buy the tickets either.
I hear the sex on the mind complaint too. But in all honesty I don't
think that's a fair knock on men; however if I ever hear a man say it
wasn't on his mind, I'd check for a pulse rickytic.
In my experience the problem with the "common man" is that, well, they
are so damn common! And the ones who babble about the "common man" are
elitist who never include themselves as `common'. Weeds are common,
hopefully smart folks strive to be more than weeds.
When I was younger I used to have that "1/2 in a dark room dream" too.
but it always involved a room full of nekkid Nordic Blonds and a 1/2
pound of butter ... but I'm older and more experienced in the ways of the
world, and my wife has convinced me my heart couldn't stand the strain,
cause she would put a bullet through it.
TE
On 10 Feb 1995, Luong Pham wrote:
The last time I looked "oriental" means "from the
> east".
> has complained that I "...have only sex in mind"! What else am I supposed
> to have when lying next to this INCREDIBLY sexy woman?
>
>
> You touch me here, Thu Ha. It's the "common man" inherent to all of us
> who is crying out for some recognition here.
>
Dennis Mai
: Western society, the dual image of women as either the "sexless" and
: subordinate housewife/mother figure or as the "sex-starved" whore is
: still prevalent. One era where this was readily accepted as a norm was
: the Victorian times. Basically, the reason why wives were considered
: sexless was because they represented the mother-figure....the nurturer.
I think you've been reading too much Freud.
Dennis
Peter F. DeMos
>a) No, it read the way T wanted it to read:"Amen, sis"
his panties, okay?
and....
>PS - Who the f**k are you? Mr.SCAA himself?
Noooooo, I'm an asfo machine. But I don't exist anymore, cuz I left the group
about 2 days ago to make a point. Any MORE dumb questions?
Tran is my Honey!!!
: Actually I think that there are two perceptions of Asian Women by non
: housewife figure whose sole purpose in life is to bolster the husband's
: really know exactly how these two images of AF have been perpetuated, but
: if we look at Western/European there is a parallel.
: Even to some extent today in
: Western society, the dual image of women as either the "sexless" and
: subordinate housewife/mother figure or as the "sex-starved" whore is
: still prevalent. One era where this was readily accepted as a norm was
: the Victorian times. Basically, the reason why wives were considered
: sexless was because they represented the mother-figure....the nurturer.
: Men equated mother-figures with their own mothers, and as a result the
: thought of the mother, and subsequently their mothers, having or wanting
: to have sex was very disconcerting. Naturally then, the duty of the wife
: was compartmentalized to procreation...and thus sex with the wife was
: only necessary for that purpose. Sex was not synonymous with the spouse,
: so the outlet for having sex just for the sake of sex was the mistress or
: concubine. Men could easily dissociate their guilts from
: "enjoying" the act of sex with mistresses and whores because procreation
: was not a consideration(linked to mother-figure). If we look at present
: day Western society we see remnants of this in the perpetuation of
: prostitution.
: Yumi
This is a very interesting conception. I also must agree to Yumi's
explaintation for how men see women. In terms of how Asain women are
portrayed/seen, this nevertheless holds true. In my opinion, because
non-asian women have pushed and struggled to rid themselves of these old
"stereotypes" of women, they have been able to improve upon the way they
are seen by a male dominated world. This may not hold true for the Asian
women. For they have been placed in a subserviant role for a much
greater length of time then the European woman and due to culture and
tradition, this remains to be true. So for the most part, Asian women
have not, shall we say, had the opportunity to rid themselves of this old
preception of women and so are the focal point for most/all men to use as
a recipent of male dominance. I may be wrong as to my opinions here but
heck...opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one.
Comment: By the way, whoever that smart ass before "peter" something...
You shut the fuck up you qasi-human shit head!!! If you have
nothing good to say then keep to your fucking self...I HATE ASSHOLES
LIKE YOU!!!
Horace
Leo Marihart
gwan...@u.washington.edu (just another theatre geek) generalized upon a
generalization (normally the American way):
> In article <3h95vf$6...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
> William Bangs <wbb...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >For the person responding to Thu Ha Nguyen's post and the response of a
> >white man who likes Asian women better than whites: we like them because
> >(in general, not always) they are simply more courtious to us, prettier
> >(in our eyes) and just plain nicer. For myself (responding to your
> >question of why black females, for instance, aren't in the same position)
> >I can only say that the black women I HAVE KNOWN have been much louder,
> >crasser and LESS FUN TO BE AROUND than Asian women. Does this mean I'm
> >an Orientalist looking for a Madam Butterfly? Not a bit of it!
>
> Au contraire; you fit the definition to a "T".
>
(To William) What's this WE, fellow pale face? As I've lived in Japan
for coming up on three years, I've been around Asian (BTW, I use the
Orenatal woid too, but not in malice...around my neighborhood, they
prefer it!!) Women (ie Japanese) CONTINUOUSLY for coming up on three
years. Let me tell you, neophyte, in the first year of contact, they
are as charming as can be...because you are a stranger, unfamiliar with
the cues, body language, and culture, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. Tell you
what (not to burst your bubble): I have found that Japanese women can
be just as crass (or brassy), st00pid (or funny), or bitchy (or
assertive). Any society in the WORLD can produce a pack of WENCHES.
OTOH, the same can produce kind, loving, intelligent, positive women,
who any guy would die to marry/date/insert your preference here. So
there.
Trust me. Last December, I took the Japanese Proficiency Test (1000
Chinese characters), and missed Pass/Fail by 2 (#$#$%%^^%^%$%$$)
percentage points. I read Manga in my sleep. AND I watched a Hong Kong
Movie (my addiction) with Chow Yun Fat (a REAL Asian dude) with JAPANESE
subtitles. So trust me on this one.
Those black women (of which I don't have a preference for,
unfortunately), are just as human, with personalities as varied as
yourself. Ditto for White women as well. You, mein freund, have been
sampling maladjusted PC third stringers.
My SO is Japanese. In Japan, we both follow the rules of her society
(flawed though it is about women), and she appreciates the latitude I
give her (OF COURSE to me it is nothing...) but it is TO HER. As a
male, I DON'T HAVE TO give her squat (and in fact, in some circles, I
get flak for it). However, I am American, and so that's why I can "get
away with it." As for the question that is cropping up in all of your
heads, has she been to America? The answer is, she is a world traveler.
She PREFERS Japan, and its (to me) balkanized, backward society. Does
she want to become an Amerikan? HELL NO (in so many words).
(Now to the geek) Boy, are you all-seeing or what? Probably "what."
The guy gave his honest opinion, and followed up by a (relatively)
innocent question. Care to elaborate on your pat little comment of less
than one line? Sheesh.
Sign me,
Grumpy (after finding out that Japan's Ministry of Education, that
hasn't been able to formulate (for time immemorial) a way to teach
Japanese students GOOD English Skills in 6 years, flunked my butt in the
equivalent level after 3 years....by 2 percent).
Have an interesting day (sm)
--
* Information Superhighway my left nut!
Willy and Goreboy made my Powerbook into a 63-key
* * QWERTY-Zapper! Change the friggin' channel!!!!-Me, I guess.
Leo Marihart -> e- (J/E): l...@gol.com
just another theatre geek
>gwan...@u.washington.edu (just another theatre geek) generalized upon a
>> William Bangs <wbb...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >For the person responding to Thu Ha Nguyen's post and the response of a
>> >white man who likes Asian women better than whites: we like them because
>> >(in general, not always) they are simply more courtious to us, prettier
>> >(in our eyes) and just plain nicer. For myself (responding to your
>> >question of why black females, for instance, aren't in the same position)
>> >I can only say that the black women I HAVE KNOWN have been much louder,
>> >crasser and LESS FUN TO BE AROUND than Asian women. Does this mean I'm
>> >an Orientalist looking for a Madam Butterfly? Not a bit of it!
>> Au contraire; you fit the definition to a "T".
Yup.
>The guy gave his honest opinion, and followed up by a (relatively)
>innocent question. Care to elaborate on your pat little comment of less
>than one line?
Nope. Neither it or he needs it.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Tim Gasser
>> Yumi <al...@oci.utoronto.ca> writes:
>>>Sex was not synonymous with the spouse,
>>>so the outlet for having sex just for the sake of sex was the mistress or
>>>concubine. Men could easily dissociate their guilts from
>>>"enjoying" the act of sex with mistresses and whores because procreation
>>>was not a consideration(linked to mother-figure).
>
>Actually, in many respects Yumi is correct. In old Spain, for example,
>sexual pleasure was reserved for the mistress. If a wife started getting
>pleasure out of sex the husband immediately suspected infidelity. For many
(most of an interesting and informative post deleted for brevity)
>
>While Tim may take offense at this, I'm sorry but you really can't change
>history and the way people are/were because it's uncomfortable to look at.
>You may not treat women this way and if so then that's great - but, there
>are plenty of men still doing this and a lot of women buying into it.
>
>
>joan
>
No offense taken Joan. In fact, you have done a nice job providing
specific points in support of Yumi's original post. I would only argue
that this kind of thinking, while having a strong historical basis, is no
longer considered the norm, at least in this country. It is not a question
of changing history, but noticing whether or not current society is
changing, and in which direction. As an example, up into the the 1960's
at least, it was considered justifiable homicide for a man to kill his
wife if he found her in bed with another man. (I don't know if the
reciprocal was true.) That law has since been removed from the books.
While it may still be a few years, or even generations, until nearly all
Texans quit thinking in those terms, a change has occurred, and a trend is
evident.
Tim Gasser
ROBERT ARRINGTON
is deserving of your speel and you should SQUASH IT. Perhaps if you
looked at women as the incredible creation that they are, and not as sex
toys for your personal pleasure, you would get a date more often. This
would preclude the need to post to a.s.f.o, wouldn't it? I've seen this
jerks posting on s.c.asian.a and s.c.african.a
I know you're just trying to be controversial, but come on now!!!
ROBERT ARRINGTON
Perhaps the problem is in your selection. Perhaps you need to evaluate
why you went out with five seemingly unpleasant women.
Incidentally, good job selecting this group. You would have been flamed
to a crispy coating if you would have posted this racist, stereotypical,
garbage on s.c.african.a.
get a clue, then use it to get a life!!
Never one to overreact,
I am
Robert
Brian K Wanerman
: [Note to all ng's: mail all e-mail responses to my b.f.'s e-mail address:
: jgr...@lnxland1.denver.colorado.edu]
: [Note to SCV: I am posting this article in English because I'm X-posting
: this other ng's and I hate wrinting all the accent marks in comp.
: Vietnamese :(. Plus, this post is somewhat prurient for this group but i
: think many readers might identify with what I have to say.]
[entire message deleted for the sake of brevity. If you've gotten to
this thread, I assume you've already read the full text]
Well, that was quite a post. I'll try to give intelligent answers to
some of the questions you've raised. But first: what does ASFO stand for?
Your comments about the Vietnam war were right on the money. I think
much of the stereotypes about Asian women in particular can be attributed
to the experiences of soldiers in Vietnam, Korea, and even W.W. II. When
you consider that most of the contacts they had with womem were either
with prostitutes or with women so desperate to escape the horrors of war
they'd do anything to get a soldier to marry them, its not surprising
that Asian women got stereotyped as slavish obedient sex kittens with
perpetually expanding libidos. Rent the movie "Casualties of War". It
very effectively portrays the contempt and hatred that many American
soldiers had for Asians, particularly women.
I believe that much of the attention many white men pay to Asian women, is
due to the fact that Asians have a higher percentage of new imigrants than
other groups. Many white men may feel that, for this reason, Asian
women are less likely to have been affected by the social and historical
factors that have torn the fabric of our society apart and ripped
male-female relationships to shreds. (This is particularly true on
college campuses, often hotbed incubators of political correctness that
implicitly defines all white men as useless cogs at best and dangerous
oppressors at worst.)
As for boomers' antipathy toward Xers and Asians, you must bear in mind that
boomers constitute by far the largest demographic segment of the
population. They hope to use their strength in numbers to impose the
idealistic values of their youth on the rest of society. They have
become disillusioned, however, because their children (Xers) do not, by
and large, share these values. (The generation gap is as old as time)
They also feel that "Asian values" are diametrically opposed to their
beliefs. They, therefore, unjustly blame both Xers and Asians for having
stolen their dream.
Hope this gives you some food for thought. Comments gladly accepted.
MARTIN
10. Thu admits to reading alt.society.generation-x
9. Justin is the "asfo terrorist"; Thu is the asfo sniper.
8. Thu describes herself going down on Justin while Justin describes
himself going up into Thu.
7. Thu flamed Justin over his Tet Festival post.
6. Thu says Justin has "a problem"; Justin says we do.
5. Justin thinks he knows everything about everybody while Thu laments
her GPA.
4. Justin expresses himself poorly in perfect English while Thu
expresses herself well in broken English.
3. Justin takes offense to being called "buttondick" while Thu takes
offense to the suggestion that she has a dick.
2. Thu refers to her Aunt as "my Aunt". Justin has other words for
her.
and the number one way to tell Thu and Justin apart is...
1. They change the header. Duh!
Martin
Le
References: <3h0ru8$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu>
Sender:Todd Le
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Hughes Space and Communications
Keywords:
Cc:
The original post brings up a few good points regarding race, sex, and gender, seen from
an AAF perspective. Who the writer really is is a matter of complete irrelevance to me.
Such a provocative subject is certainly guaranteed to generate fireworks. It's just a
shame that the subsequent discussion, which did include some thoughtful, civil responses,
has degenerated to name-calling, personal insults, and self-aggrandizement of sexual exploits,
which are just as corny and infantile as the fantasies spawned by the very ignorance and
prejudice that the post touches on.
Also, I don't buy all that generation stuff_ not in the context of race relations. Prejudice
cuts across age, sex, class, income... or any other similar divide. In terms of race
relations, generational conflict, no matter how valid, becomes absolutely meaningless. It's
like a guy on death row who complains that second-hand smoke is bad for his health.
Todd Le
/
Thu Ha Nguyen
: Top Ten Ways to Tell Thu and Justin Apart:
: 10. Thu admits to reading alt.society.generation-x
I'm a Xer and Damn PROUD OF IT!
: 9. Justin is the "asfo terrorist"; Thu is the asfo sniper.
Folks do say I'm quiet but deadly.....
: 8. Thu describes herself going down on Justin while Justin describes
: himself going up into Thu.
Going down, down, down,.......
: 7. Thu flamed Justin over his Tet Festival post.
He deserved it.....
: 6. Thu says Justin has "a problem"; Justin says we do.
He does, doesn't he?
[shrug]
: 5. Justin thinks he knows everything about everybody while Thu laments
: her GPA.
Modesty has never been justin's Strong suit.
: 4. Justin expresses himself poorly in perfect English while Thu
: expresses herself well in broken English.
My english is broken? I *didn't* know that! Thanx for telling me that...
: 3. Justin takes offense to being called "buttondick" while Thu takes
: offense to the suggestion that she has a dick.
Buddha gave me a vagina, not a peter. So logically, I should take offense....
: 2. Thu refers to her Aunt as "my Aunt". Justin has other words for
: her.
She has other words for him...
I refer to her (when I'm w/ friends) as the "Ice Bitch"
: and the number one way to tell Thu and Justin apart is...
: 1. They change the header. Duh!
Duh!!!!!!
--
Chao
David Meredith
>Even to some extent today in
>Western society, the dual image of women as either the "sexless" and
>subordinate housewife/mother figure or as the "sex-starved" whore is
>still prevalent. One era where this was readily accepted as a norm was
>only necessary for that purpose. Sex was not synonymous with the spouse,
>concubine. Men could easily dissociate their guilts from
>"enjoying" the act of sex with mistresses and whores because procreation
>day Western society we see remnants of this in the perpetuation of
>prostitution.
A provocative thesis supported, perhaps, by empirical data and a critical
reevaluation of original sources. But I was at a conference recently
where a paper was presented positing that prostitution is perpetuated by
horndoggers.
Joan Shields
>No offense taken Joan. In fact, you have done a nice job providing
>specific points in support of Yumi's original post. I would only argue
>that this kind of thinking, while having a strong historical basis, is no
>longer considered the norm, at least in this country. It is not a question
>of changing history, but noticing whether or not current society is
>changing, and in which direction.
Yes, a trend is evident, especially in this country (USA) however, it
still isn't what it should be, or how we'd like to believe. There are
still states which deny marital rape (NC was one, the law just barely
passed - opposition to it was that wives would use it against husbands as
a weapon, especially in divorce cases). There is still a lot of
dicrimination in schools and in the workplace. There is also a backlash
against what women gained in the 70s and 80s in the media and in the
"angry white male" movement. This is way it seems to go - there are
advances made then a backslide/lash then another movement then a slide
back again. 1848 - 1920s - late 1960-70s are all periods when women's
movements were on. Between those periods were/are times of some backward
movement. A good visual clue to these backlash trends are women's
fashions. It's a facinating study and a frightening one.
To tie this into the other newsgroups - it would be a good idea to look at
the way past movements have worked and see where mistakes were made and
look out for warning signs. There are a lot of groups who need to fight
for their rights - it's important to work together.
As for the "angry white male" movement - while I do not approve of anyone
being discriminated against because of their race or gender (having faced
it myself I should know) BUT to tell you the truth it might be a good way
for those used to being in a more powerful position to have a taste of
what it's like to be discriminated against simply because of gender and
race. Get angry but realize that what you may be starting to experience a
lot of us have been experiencing for years. Get a little empathy instead
of just lashing out.
joan
Tim Gasser
> (some deletion) There is still a lot of
>dicrimination in schools and in the workplace. There is also a backlash
>against what women gained in the 70s and 80s in the media and in the
>"angry white male" movement. This is way it seems to go - there are
>advances made then a backslide/lash then another movement then a slide
>back again. 1848 - 1920s - late 1960-70s are all periods when women's
>movements were on. Between those periods were/are times of some backward
>movement. A good visual clue to these backlash trends are women's
>fashions. It's a facinating study and a frightening one.
>
Joan, I'm not sure what this "backlash" is that you mention, nor the
discrimination that takes place against women in schools. If you are
referring to comments like "femi-Nazi's" in describing women who identify
themselves as members of the "feminist movement", well, I've always considered
that to be a case of using a little sarcastic humor. It is no more of a
backlash to point out the inconsistencies or misdirections of leading
persons in the feminist movement, than it is racist to point out the same
sort of behavior or action on the part of many black activist leaders.
When I want to improve my understanding of what opinions women hold on a
subject I'll look to my Mom, my sisters-in-law, my female friends,
professors, bosses (so far, both the best professor and best engineering
supervisor I've ever had have been women), co-workers and fellow students,
before I will consider what the president of NOW has to say. I personally
think that those who are most visible in the woman's movement are
dedicated more towards their personal agendas, then towards any goal that
is clearly identified as being universally held by women. Suggesting this
is not, in my opinion, a backlash, it's just an observation.
In regard to women and education, I hope you are not basing your position
on the "one" study that has gotten all the press. I have no doubt that a
researcher can find plenty of subjective material to support such a
position. What they can't find is objective statistical correlation to
support the conclusions they arrive at. The only place in education that
women are statistically underrepresented (as far as I know) is in
tenured professorships and science and engineering graduate degrees
awarded. The former has a lot to do with time frame. Take a look at when
most professors now holding tenure started. It takes time to develop an
experienced pool of candidates, and for the existing group to pass on so
that positions open up. In my department here at OGI, they have been
actively seeking a woman faculty member for at least three years. So far,
the problem has been a lack of qualified candidates. Those who are
qualified can usually pick from a number of offers. Eventually, this will
change. The Master's class I just graduated with was 50% female. Almost
half of the Ph.D students are women. Still, you are looking at a five to ten
year time period (from when they started grad school) before any of these
women start showing up statistically as college and university faculty
members.
Tim Gasser
j...@bates.mit.edu
>
>As for the "angry white male" movement - while I do not approve of anyone
>being discriminated against because of their race or gender (having faced
>it myself I should know) BUT to tell you the truth it might be a good way
>for those used to being in a more powerful position to have a taste of
>what it's like to be discriminated against simply because of gender and
>race. Get angry but realize that what you may be starting to experience a
>lot of us have been experiencing for years. Get a little empathy instead
>of just lashing out.
You know Joan, its sentiments like this that make us INTO angry
white males:
"Hey, we've been oppressed for years, now it's our turn
to dish some out to you!"
WHAT the FUCK?!
And you wonder why there's so much backlashing going around.
I *used* to like to call myself a feminist. But since the advent
of victim feminists, and the open hostility that some on the fringe
of the movement have expressed to my gender in particular (ala
Andrea Dworkin) AND the inability of today's women's movement to
entertain ANY dissention (ala Paglia) I have to say that I now have
to draw a distinction between myself and the so-called "mainstream".
Now don't get me wrong. I don't totally agree with Paglia anymore
than I totally agree with Steinem. BUT at least Paglia *might*
engage in a debate over what the movement should be today.
I am have serious qualms with some of the anti-harassment measures
being taken in the workplace. Here at M.I.T., you can be guilty
of harassment _even if the intent was not to harass_, that is,
harassment is based entirely on the perception of that person
who feels that harassment has taken place. Further, if they
then chose to complain, it is incumbent on the accused to _prove_
that it was not their intent to harass. You are guilty until
proven innocent.
Talk about creating a hostile working enviroment. I'm afraid to
even *look* at female coworkers or students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jed DeCobert - Electrical Engineer - High Pulse Power
*
If God is our Father (you thought), then Satan must be our Cousin.
Why didn't anyone else understand these important things? - Tool
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t. hirata
>In article <3htf12$1e...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu>, jo...@med.unc.edu
> (Joan Shields) really freaked me out when she wrote:
>>
>>As for the "angry white male" movement - while I do not approve of anyone
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>being discriminated against because of their race or gender (having faced
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>it myself I should know) BUT to tell you the truth it might be a good way
>>for those used to being in a more powerful position to have a taste of
>>what it's like to be discriminated against simply because of gender and
>>race. Get angry but realize that what you may be starting to experience a
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>>lot of us have been experiencing for years. Get a little empathy instead
>>of just lashing out.
> You know Joan, its sentiments like this that make us INTO angry
> white males:
> "Hey, we've been oppressed for years, now it's our turn
> to dish some out to you!"
> WHAT the FUCK?!
> And you wonder why there's so much backlashing going around.
[rest of spew deleted]
Geez, Jed, kinda touchy there? See where Joan said she didn't approve...
And Tim, here's your backlash, right here. Joan says it may be instructive,
so Jed takes that to mean that Joan's out for blood. Jed, whose women's
movement are you talking about that doesn't allow dissention? If your
twisting of Joan's remarks are typical of the kind of dissent you voice
i'm not surprised that people get pissed at you.
peace,
--Th.
Bob Andrews
One of these days you'll pass something
and NOT just miss making the grade by
two points, percents, whatever.
Thanks for letting us know that you're almost
as intelligent as your squeeze.
And that's my two cents worth. Almost a nickel!
.
.
Terminator
And all these years I thought it was because they are so pretty...
Guess that doesn't count for anything anymore
TE
Tim Gasser
>j...@BATES.MIT.EDU writes:
>
>> You know Joan, its sentiments like this that make us INTO angry
>> white males:
>
>> "Hey, we've been oppressed for years, now it's our turn
>> to dish some out to you!"
>
>> WHAT the FUCK?!
>
>> And you wonder why there's so much backlashing going around.
>
>[rest of spew deleted]
>
>Geez, Jed, kinda touchy there? See where Joan said she didn't approve...
>And Tim, here's your backlash, right here. Joan says it may be instructive,
>so Jed takes that to mean that Joan's out for blood. Jed, whose women's
>movement are you talking about that doesn't allow dissention? If your
>twisting of Joan's remarks are typical of the kind of dissent you voice
>i'm not surprised that people get pissed at you.
>
>peace,
>--Th.
I see your point. Of course, I pretty much ignored what Jed had to say
after I got to the point where he called himself a feminist. Fortunately,
I have a strong stomach and therefore was able to keep from puking all
over the keyboard.
On a somewhat related topic, did anyone read about how researchers have
just discovered that men and women use their brains differently? They had
the two groups read some sort of word rhyming (sp?) exercise while they
monitored their brains. They found that men used only tiny section on one
side of their brain, while the women used much larger portions of their
brains, on both sides. Any comments?
Tim Gasser
(I guess I don't have to worry now about all those brain cells I've killed
off.)
Tim Gasser
>
>Tim, you've made a number of assumptions about me and my views which I
>cannot see how I could have lead you to believe.
>Tim Gasser <tga...@ese.ogi.edu> wrote:
>>Joan, I'm not sure what this "backlash" is that you mention, nor the
>>discrimination that takes place against women in schools. If you are
Joan, no assumptions on my part. I had no idea (I almost said clue, but
then, that would make me one of those CWB's I'm always reading about here)
what you were basing your comments on. That's why the sentence started off
with IF.
>I never mentioned NOW, Tim. In fact, I'm not even sure who the president
>is.
I never claimed you did.
> Ok, let me take you through this a little slower.
Slow is always good when you're talking to an ex-torpedoman.
(I deleted the history lesson and stuff about women's fashion. The first
was too superficial, and I don't know a damn thing about the second.)
>Like I said, I haven't quoted anything from NOW - most of this has been
>from mine and other women's observations and experiences as well as taking
>a look at history and seeing what goes on today. I'm happy to hear you
>have female friends but ask them if they have ever experienced sexism and
>if they still do. They'll probably answer yes. Ask them if they
>sometimes feel they are expected to worry more about their appearance than
>their male counterparts (I'm not saying they haven't decided NOT to worry
>about those things, I don't, but know there are expectations that I do).
>Ask them if their competancy has ever been challenged because of their
>gender or current menstration cycle.
I am going to leave this alone for now. I don't want to make off the cuff
remarks on a serious subject. (except to say that I'm also happy I have female
friends.) I will say that it is my impression that men are becoming as
appearance conscious as women, particularly in the business environment.
>
>I have no idea what study you are refering to - a lot of what I said, as I
>mentioned in the above, comes from my own experiences and from what I've
>been told by a lot of other women. I work in a major university - there
>are a lot of women here very frustrated by the system of tenure (since
>women can get pregnant they are expected to eventually do so - this is
>expected to make them less able to put the long intense hours in which is
>sometimes a lot depending on the field you are in).
>
>When it comes to studies, there were a lot that came out in the early to
>mid-80s about how women who put off having children are less likely to be
>able to conceive and how women who wait to get married have a much more
>difficult time finding a spouse. These studies, and many more like them,
>were proved wrong based on their shoddy data and improper calculation of
>statistics. I wish I had my sources on me. I read an interesting story
>in one of my sources, a book called "Backlash" (very interesting book, not
>"femi-nazi" or propaganda - takes a close look at a lot of studies and
>history) - the man, he claimed to be a phD, who did the infertilty study
>was found not to have a phD at all and his study was found to have a lot
>problems with the data and interpretation. Can't rememeber if it was Time
>or Newsweek though that kept consulting him as an "expert" on women's
>issues and studies - this was after his own study was found to be so full
>of holes and so shoddy it sank faster than a rock.
You must have sped up Joan. I'm not sure if I understand the point you are
trying to make in this paragraph.
>This is what I have seen and experienced with my own eyes. I'm 30 years
>old and in the sciences (biology) and I work at a major university. I've
>spoken to women in biotech companies (in the Research Triangle Park) and
>various university departmentss ie: Public Health, Anesthesiology,
>Biochemistry, Biology, Medical School, etc. I know women who sing for a
>living, librarians, psychologists, counsolers, airline stewardesses,
>writers, editors, painters, farmers, teachers, accountants, real estate
>agents, and on and on and on. I really do have a clue as to what I'm
>talking about - I have my own thoughts and opinions.
>
Joan, I've never questioned the fact that you knew what you were talking
about, I just asked what your comments were based on. I too have my own
thoughts and opinions. That doesn't rule out the fact that they can be (and
are) influenced by what I see, hear, read and experience every day. You
almost sound as if you took what I wrote as a personal attack. Don't.
Except for your soliloquies on Steve Wei, I consider your posts as having
some of the better content in this group.
Tim Gasser
Leo Marihart
Terminator <term...@access4.digex.net> wrote:
> HollyWood always makes the newbees the bad guys, until the newbees beging
> to make the movies, (vanishing son?) then the next newbees get to be the
> bad guys.
> TE
>
Yes, but also remember that we are talking about HOLLYWOOD. Choose your
media wisely....
sign me,
Leo
Who is stuck in Japan, wants to see "The Crow" --and is addicted to Hong
Kong movies with Japanese subtitles....(Last one seen: (J) Wolf: The
Dirge of Men III<Okami: Otoko-tachi no Banka III> -- A Chow Yun Fat
movie HK title: The Killer)
--
* Information Superhighway my left nut!
Willy and Goreboy made my Powerbook into a 63-key
* * QWERTY-Zapper! Change the friggin' channel!!!!
Brian K Wanerman
: joan
I can not agree with your "angry white male" thesis. There is indeed an
AWM backlash. It comes, not from male chauvanist pigs who want to turn
back the clock, but from WM's (and other M's) who supported the feminist
movement, but have become disillusioned after so many tarrings with the
broad brush of generalized accusations currently wielded by feminist
gurus of political correctness.
Brian K Wanerman
: I am have serious qualms with some of the anti-harassment measures
: being taken in the workplace. Here at M.I.T., you can be guilty
: of harassment _even if the intent was not to harass_, that is,
: harassment is based entirely on the perception of that person
: who feels that harassment has taken place. Further, if they
: then chose to complain, it is incumbent on the accused to _prove_
: that it was not their intent to harass. You are guilty until
: proven innocent.
: Talk about creating a hostile working enviroment. I'm afraid to
: even *look* at female coworkers or students.
It has been my understanding for many years now that, in the current
climate of political correctness, a man is implicitly guilty of sexual
harassment if any women accuses him of it. The determination has
absolutely nothing to do with what he, himself did or did not do.
Po-Han Lin
:: offense to the suggestion that she has a dick.
:Buddha gave me a vagina, not a peter. So logically, I should take offense....
peter... PeterD.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
--
ΙΛΛΛΛΛΡΡΡΡΡΡ»ΙΛΈΪΒΔ·ΥΝΈ άώωϊ ϊωώά ΥΝΈΦΔΒΏΥΛ»ΙΡΡΡΡΡΡΛΛΛΛΛ»
ΜΞΉΗΧ¶ΖΨµΓΕ΄ΘΌΊΓΩ³ΦΠ΄ΐΩΫ²±°±²Ϋήέ PHL ήέΫ²±°±²ΫΐΩΓΠ·³ΐ΄ΊΘΌΓΕ΄ΖΨµΗΧ¶ΜΞΉ
ΜΞΉΗΧ¶ΖΨµΓΕ΄Ι»ΊΓΏ³Σ΄ΪΏΫ²±°±²Ϋήέ ήέΫ²±°±²ΫΪΏΓ½³Ϊ΄ΊΙ»ΓΕ΄ΖΨµΗΧ¶ΜΞΉ
ΘΚΚΚΚΚΟΟΟΟΟΟΌΘΚΎΐΑΔ½ΤΝΎ ίώ.ϊ ϊ.ώί ΤΝΎΣΔΑΩΤΚΌΘΟΟΟΟΟΟΚΚΚΚΚΌ
Kim Nguyen
va?i, 2 qua^`n ddu`i, 2 a'o may-o^ 3 lo^~ (kho^ng co' tay). Nhu+ng thu+.c ra
ca'c vi. no'i tre^n co' dde^'n na<m ba?y bo^. a'o qua^`n loa.i cu+.c sang,
ddu+o+.c may ddo theo tie^u chua^?n dde^? ddi du+. dda.i ho^.i dda?ng, ddi ho.p
o+? nu+o+'c ngoa`i, tie^'p kha'ch quo^'c te^'...nha<`m giu+~ the^? die^.n
quo^'c gia; ro^`i a'o qua^`n da., qua^n phu.c do qua^n ddo^.i bie^'u, ta<.ng,
ha`ng may ma<.t do qua` ta<.ng cu?a Lie^n-xo^ va` Trung quo^'c; tu+` ha`ng
vie^.n tro+. cu?a ca'c dda?ng anh em, v.v...Rie^ng khoa?ng ma<.c, ta^`ng lo+'p
nomenclatura dda~ co' tu? qua^`n a'o, a'o khoa'c, a'o mu+a, qua^`n a'o da.
ho^.i...ddu+o+.c cung ca^'p va` bie^'u ta<.ng co' gia' tri. ga^'p tra<m la^`n
mo^.t ca'n bo^. trung so+ ca^'p (chi? co' tra^`n xi` 4 m va?i tho^).
Co`n bie^'t bao tie^u chua^?n kha'c, mang ra so sa'nh mo+'i tha^'y ta^'t ca?
su+. ba^'t co^ng phi ly' cu?a mo^.t che^' ddo^. tu+. nha^.n la` da^n chu?, la`
mang tinh tha^`n ca'ch ma.ng, la` bi`nh dda<?ng xa~ ho^.i.
Ba'o chi' ha<`ng nga`y, ha`ng tua^`n, ta.p chi' ha`ng tha'ng, ca'n bo^. trung
ca^'p pha?i bo? tie^`n tu'i ra mua dde^? ddo.c, hoa<.c ddo.c nho+` o+? co+
quan, co`n ca'c vi. trong ta^`ng lo+'p dda<.c quye^`n dda<.c lo+.i thi`
ddu+o+.c cung ca^'p kho^ng, ca? gia di`nh ddo.c kho^ng he^'t. Theo gia' hie^.n
nay, so^' tie^`n a^'y pha?i to+'i 300, 400 nga`n ddo^`ng mo^.t tha'ng. DDo'
la` ba'o cung ca^'p, ba'o bie^'u, ti'nh va`o tie^`n cu?a co+ quan.
Sa'ch chi'nh tri., sa'ch Ma'c-Le^, sa'ch kinh ddie^?n, sa'ch va<n ho.c nghe^.
thua^.t, ta^`ng lo+'p na`y cu~ng ddu+o+.c bie^'u ca?. "DDe^? xin ca'c ddo^`ng
chi' cho y' kie^'n !" Ti'nh tha`nh tie`n kho^ng the^? bie^'t la` bao.
Va^~n chu+a he^'t. Ca'c vi. tai to ma<.t lo+'n va` toa`n gia co`n ddu+o+.c
cung ca^'p ve' xem bie^?u die^~n nghe^. thua^.t : ca?i lu+o+ng, ki.ch, xie^'c,
ca ha't mu'a, xem trie^?n la~m, xem chie^'u bo'ng kho^ng ma^'t tie^`n nu+~a.
Mo^.t na<m tha`nh bao nhie^u tie^`n ? Va` o+? tru. so+? trung u+o+ng, o+? khu
ta^.p the^?, ca'n bo^. trung u+o+ng co`n co' ca'c pho`ng chie^'u phim va`
bie^?u die^~n nghe^. thua^.t cho ca'c quan chu+'c va` gia ddi`nh kho^ng ma^'t
tie^`n...
Nhu+ va^.y la` trong nga^n sa'ch gia ddi`nh, ngu+o+`i da^n thu+o+`ng, ngu+o+`i
lao ddo^.ng bi`nh thu+o+`ng, cho dde^'n ca'n bo^. trung so+ ca^'p, co' bao
nhie^u khoa?ng chi, thi` le^n dde^'n ca'n bo^. cao ca^'p, le^n dde^'n ca'c quan
chu+'c tai to ma<.t lo+'n, ca'c khoa?ng chi a^'y dde^`u la^'y tu+` quy~ co^ng
ra ca?. Ho. la` ta^`ng lo+'p kho^ng bie^'t tie^u tie^`n, kho^ng ca^`n mo'c
tu'i rie^ng, ma` co' ddu~ dde^'n ha`ng tha~i ddu? mo.i thu+'. Ho. la`m sao
hie^?u ddu+o+.c ca?nh na<m co.c ba ddo^`ng, ca?nh cho+` tie^`n lu+o+ng cuo^'i
tha'ng, ca?nh tu+` 3 gio+` sa'ng ddi xe^'p ha`ng mua ga.o khi mu+a khi gio' to
lo+'n, ca?nh pha?i ma<.c qua^`n a'o so+`n va' cu?a ngu+o+`i da^n, cu?a anh chi.
em tri' thu+'c, gia'o vie^n, cu?a ca? si~ quan ca^'p trung ta' o+? ca'c co+
quan quo^'c pho`ng...
A<n ma<.c dda~ va^.y, co`n ddi la.i thi` su+. kha'c bie^.t cu~ng cu+.c lo+'n
kho^ng ke'm. Anh co^ng nha^n, ca'n bo^. so+ ca^'p lo.c co.c ca'i xe dda.p ca`
ta`ng. Ngu+o+`i ta thu+o+`ng tha^'y gia'o su+ Tra^`n DDu+'c Tha?o, mo^.t
trie^'t gia no^?i tie^'ng tre^n dda^'t Pha'p tho+`i xu+a, ga^`n dda^y va^~n
(note : Bu`i Ti'n vie^'t ba`i na`y va`o na<m 1993) thu+o+`ng dda.p xe con vi.t
(xe dda.p Lie^n-xo^ la`m cho thie^'u nhi) tu+` khu ta^.p the^? Kim Lie^n, no+i
gia'o su+ o+?. Co`n ca'n bo^. ca^'p cao cu?a dda?ng thi` dda~ co' xe o^-to^
rie^ng, ta`i xe^' rie^ng, hoa<.c la` com-ma<ng-ca Lie^n-xo^, hoa<.c la` xe
Pobe'da, xe Lada Nga, hoa<.c cao ho+n la` xe Volga dden, va` ga^`n dda^y la` xe
Toyota, Mazda Nha^.t Ba?n, cho dde^'n xe Merce'des cu?a Ta^y DDu+'c, xe Ford
cu?a Hoa Ky`.
(co`n tie^'p)
Kim Nguyen
Qua'n mo^.t trong nhu+~ng co^.t tru. cu?a nho'm Nha^n Va<n Giai Pha^?m dda~ qua
ddo+`i vi` bi.nh ung thu+ gan, ta.i Ha` No^.i lu'c 4 gio+` 20 chie^`u Chu?
Nha^.t, 22/1//95 vu+`a qua, ta.i bi.nh vie^.n Saint Paul. Nguo^`n tin cho
bie^'t o^ng va`o bi.nh vie^.n chi? 2 nga`y sau thi` ma^'t. Thu+' Ba 24/1, se~
cu+? ha`nh tang le^~, ta.i mo^.t nghi~a trang Ha` No^.i.
Phu`ng Qua'n cha<?ng nhu+~ng la` mo^.t khuo^n ma<.t lo+'n trong giai ddo.an
va<n ho.c tha^.t nga<'n ngu?i ma` nho'm Nha^n Va<n dda~ gio'ng le^n, o^ng co`n
la` mo^.t kie^.n tu+o+'ng kho^ng me^.t mo?i trong vie^.c gi`n giu+~ nha^n ca'ch
cu?a ngu+o+`i ca^`m bu't trong mo^.t the^? che^' chi'nh tri. ma` o+? ddo'
ngu+o+`i ca^`m bu't chi? la` mo^.t co^ng cu. kho^ng ho+n kho^ng ke'm cho che^'
ddo^.. O^ng no^?i danh vo+'i ba`i tho+ "Lo+`i Me. Da<.n" dda<ng trong Nha^n
Va<n Giai Pha^?m Mu`a Thu Ta^.p 11 tha'ng 10-1956. DDa^y la` mo^.t ba`i tho+
kho^ng chi? pha?n a?nh ta^m tra.ng cu?a chi'nh Phu`ng Qua'n, ma` ha^`u nhu+
cu?a nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i la`m va<n nghe^. va` kho^ng a<n lu+o+ng cu?a che^' ddo^..
Ba`i tho+ ke^'t thu'c ba<`ng tha'i ddo^. hie^n ngang cu?a ngu+o+`i ca^`m bu't
ddi'ch thu+.c :
"...Bu't gia^'y to^i ai cu+o+'p gia^.t ddi
To^i se~ du`ng dao vie^'t va<n tre^n dda'"
Tho+ cu?a Tra^`n Da^`n, Phu`ng Qua'n, Hoa`ng Ca^`m, Hu+~u Loan...co^.ng vo+'i
va<n cu?a Phan Kho^i, ly' lua^.n cu?a Nguye^~n Ma.nh Tu+o+`ng, trie^'t ho.c
cu?a Tra^`n DDu+'c Tha?o...trong va`i so^' Nha^n Va<n dda~ la`m rung rinh che^'
ddo^. CS va` a?nh hu+o+?ng cu?a vu. a'n dde^'n ba^y gio+` chu+a hoa`n toa`n tan
bie^'n.
Sau khi nho'm Nha^n Va<n Giai Pha^?m bi. To^' Hu+~u tru` dda^.p va` dda`n a'p,
Phu`ng Qua'n bi. dduo^?i kho?i Ho^.i Nha` Va<n Vie^.t Nam, ma^'t nguo^`n lo+.i
tu+'c duy nha^'t cu?a gia ddi`nh o^ng. Sau ddo', Phu`ng Qua'n pha?i la`m ddu?
ca'c nghe^` tay cha^n dde^? so^'ng. Co' khi o^ng ddi ca^u ca' chui, vi` kho^ng
ddo'ng tie^`n le^. phi' cho chi'nh quye^`n Ha` No^.i. O^ng cu~ng vie^'t sa'ch
nhi ddo^`ng va` di.ch sa'ch tu+` tie^'ng Pha'p nhu+ng du`ng nhie^`u te^n gia?
hoa<.c cho ngu+o+`i kha'c ky' te^n. Phu nha^n nha` tho+ Phu`ng Qua'n, ba`
Bo^.i Tra^m, la` mo^.t co^ gia'o dda~ tu+`ng da.y o+? tru+o+`ng Chu Va<n An,
Ha` No^.i. Vi` va^.y gia ddi`nh o^ng co' mo^.t ca<n nha` o+? trong khuo^n
vie^n tru+o+`ng Bu+o+?i cu~, tro^ng ra Ho^` Ta^y.
Ma^'y na<m ga^`n dda^y CS no+'i lo?ng su+. dda`n a'p ne^n Phu`ng Qua'n dda~
ddu+o+.c tro+? la.i Ho^.i Nha` Va<n. Cuo^'n sa'ch cu?a o^ng ddu+o+.c xua^'t
ba?n o+? Ha` No^.i la` bo^. "Tuo^?i Tho+ Du+~ Do^.i" vie^'t ve^` lo+'p thie^'u
nie^n o+? Hue^' trong nhu+~ng nga`y kha'ng chie^'n bu`ng no^? na<m 1945-1947.
Nhu+ng ta^.p tho+ Hoa`ng Cung chi? ddu+o+.c xua^'t ba?n o+? California, Hoa Ky`.
Phu`ng Qua'n co`n no^?i danh vo+'i mo^.t ta'c pha^?m kha'c la` "Vu+o+.t Co^n
DDa?o". Ta'c pha^?m mo+'i nha^'t cu?a o^ng, "Tra<ng Hoa`ng Cung" ddu+o+.c nha`
Thanh Va<n xua^'t ba?n na<m 1994 ta.i Hoa Ky` la` mo^.t ta^.p tho+ va` va<n
xuo^i. O^ng hie^.n ddang thu+.c hie^.n mo^.t so^' ba`i vie^'t lie^n quan
dde^'n ca'c ngu+o+`i la`m va<n nghe^. trong nu+o+'c, ma` mo+'i dda^y ta.p chi'
Va<n Ho.c dda~ dda<ng ta?i ba`i vie^'t cu?a o^ng ve^` nha` tho+ DDoa`n Phu'
Thu+', ta'c gia? ba`i tho+ "Ma`u Tho+`i Gian", mo^.t ba`i tho+ no^?i danh dda~
ddu+o+.c nhie^`u ngu+o+`i ye^u tho+ sao che'p la.i.
Tu+o+?ng cu~ng ne^n nha<'c la.i Phu`ng Qua'n bi. ba.o bi.nh kha' la^u, o^ng
la` ngu+o+`i co' ba?n ti'nh qua^.t cu+o+`ng, ba^'t khua^'t ne^n kho^ng muo^'n
to? lo^. nhu+~ng ddau ddo+'n the^? xa'c. Trong thu+ vie^'t go+?i mo^.t nha`
va<n o+? ha?i ngoa.i, o^ng vie^t :
"...Khoa?ng 20 nga`y nay xa?y ra su+. co^' la` pha't bi.nh so+ gan co^?
tru+o+'ng va` co' da^'u hie^.u cu?a K (cancer). Ke^'t qua? kha'm nghie^.m chi?
so+ gan tho^i. Bu.ng mi`nh to nhu+ bu.ng M ro^`i, nhu+ng ma` to vi` nhie^`u
nu+o+'c. Tuy nhie^n trong che^'t, ngu+o+`i va^~n cu+o+`i nga.o nghe^~..."
Cu`ng trong la' tho+ go+?i ra ngoa`i na`y, o^ng cho tha^'y nhie^`u da^'u
hie^.u nhu+ nhu+~ng lo+`i tro^'i tra<n, o^ng to? y' muo^'n ddu+o+.c che^'t
trong mu`i tho+m cu?a tho^ng Ngu+. Bi`nh, o^ng u?y tha'c cho mo^.t nha` va<n
nhu+~ng gi` o^ng dda~ vie^'t trong tho+`i gian ga^`n dda^y.
Nha` va<n Mai Kim Ngo.c khi ddu+o+.c tin o^ng ddau dda~ co^' ga<'ng lie^n la.c
ddie^.n thoa.i vo+'i Phu`ng Qua'n. O^ng va^~n no'i cu+o+`i sang sa?ng va` co'
ve? bi`nh ti~nh tru+o+'c co+n ba.o bi.nh o^ng mang trong ngu+o+`i. DDu+o+.c
ho?i ve^` ca'i che^'t cu?a Phu`ng Qua'n, ba'c si~ Nguye^~n Ma.nh cho bie^'t
bi.nh so+ gan se~ la`m cho bi.nh nha^n ddau ddo+'n khu?ng khie^'p, ne^'u nhu+
Phu`ng Qua'n vu+o+'ng va`o bi.nh na`y, ba'c si~ Nguye^~n Ma.nh mong ra<`ng o^ng
kho^ng pha?i mo`n mo?i chi.u ddu+.ng la^u. Ba'c si~ Vu~ DDi`nh Minh va` cu~ng
la` nha` va<n Mai Kim Ngo.c cho bie^'t :"Phu`ng Qua'n la` mo^.t khuo^n ma<.t
lo+'n trong la`ng va<n ho.c VN. Ca'i che^'t cu?a o^ng dde^? la.i cho chu'ng ta
mo^.t lo^~ ho^?ng lo+'n. To^i ra^'t buo^`n bo+?i vi` Phu`ng Qua'n la` mo^.t
trong nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i ca^`m bu't co' tu+ ca'ch lo+'n, ta`i na<ng lo+'n, tra^`m
ti~nh cu?a mo^.t tho+`i khoa?ng va<n ho.c dda<.c bie^.t. O+? dda^y chu'ng ta
ne^n la`m mo^.t sinh hoa.t va<n ho.c cho Phu`ng Qua'n. Mo^.t dde^m tho+, mo^.t
buo^?i tu+o+?ng nie^.m, mo^.t buo^?i no'i chuye^.n hay mo^.t so^' ba'o dda<.c
bie^.t ve^` Phu`ng Qua'n.
Va`o na<m 1957, mo^.t thanh nie^n nghe`o, 25 tuo^?i, te^n Phu`ng Qua'n dda~
tu+`ng ddu+o+.c gio+'i thie^.u ve^` tru+o+`ng Du+. Bi. DDa.i Ho.c, va`o bo^.
ddo^.i va` tie^'p tu.c co^ng ta'c va<n nghe^. o+? ddo'. Phu`ng Qua'n vie^'t
va<n theo lo^'i hie^.n thu+.c xa~ ho^.i va` ddu+o+.c go.i la` "Trie^.u Tu+?
Long" trong nho'm ddo^'i la^.p. Tho+ cu?a o^ng ddu+o+.c coi la` nhu+~ng tra'i
"bom nguye^n tu+?" no^? trong lo`ng che^' ddo^. CS. Phu`ng Qua'n kho^ng ddo`i
ho?i gi` ho+n la` die^.t tru+` nhu+~ng ca'i xa^'u trong xa~ ho^.i, ye^u ca^`u
nha` va<n pha?i trung tha`nh vo+'i ta^m ho^`n va` ddu+`ng vie^'t nhu+~ng gi`
mi`nh tha^'y kho^ng ddu'ng. DDo' la` y' tu+' ma` o^ng go+?i ga^'m trong ta'c
pha^?m "Lo+`i Me. Da<.n" (ye^u ai cu+' ba?o la` ye^u; ghe't ai cu+' ba?o la`
ghe't). Che^' ddo^. CS kho^ng muo^'n co' nhu+~ng nha` va<n loa.i na`y va` ho.
da~ khu?ng bo^' o^ng. O^ng bi. lo^i ddi chi?nh hua^'n va` pha?i vie^'t ba`i
thu' to^.i. Trong ba?n thu' to^.i ddo', nha` va<n tre? tuo^?i na`y dda~ vie^'t
la` sau khi nho'm Nha^n Va<n Giai Pha^?m bi. gia?i ta'n thi` suo^'t nga`y o^ng
chi? cho+i vo+'i mo^.t con bu' du`. DDu+o+.c ho?i ta.i sao, o^ng tra? lo+`i
:"Cho+i vo+'i ngu+o+`i cha'n la<'m ro^`i, tha`nh pha?i cho+i vo+'i bu' du`".
DDo' la` ta^m tra.ng cu?a mo^.t nha` va<n so^'ng trong xa~ ho^.i CS mie^`n
Ba<'c.
Nhu+ dda~ bie^'t, nha` tho+ Phu`ng Qua'n no^?i tie^'ng qua ba`i tho+ "Lo+`i
Me. Da<.n" cu?a o^ng. Ba`i tho+ na`y dda~ no'i le^n pha^`n na`o ta^m tra.ng
tru+o+'c ca'ch so^'ng gia? do^'i vi` bi. DDa?ng chi pho^'i khi pha?i so^'ng
du+o+'i che^' ddo^. CS mie^`n Ba<'c. Kho^ng chi? Phu`ng Qua'n da'm no'i le^n
lo^'i so^'ng ddo' ma` tru+o+'c kia nha` va<n no^?i tie^'ng cu?a Lie^n-xo^,
Boris Pasternak, cu~ng dda~ tu+`ng mo^ ta? no' trong cuo^'n "Ba'c si~ Zhivago"
qua mo^.t ca^u nhu+ sau :"Muo^'n chie^`u CS thi` de^~ la<'m. Cu+' no'i la`
ye^u ca'i mi`nh ghe't, va` cu+' no'i la` ghe't ca'i mi`nh ye^u." Ca'c ba.n
na`o dda~ tu+`ng so^'ng du+o+'i che^' ddo^. na`y thi` mo+'i tha^'m thi'a ve^`
ba`i tho+ cu?a Phu`ng Qua'n.
Lo+`i Me. Da<.n
To^i mo^` co^i cha na<m hai tuo^?i
Me. to^i thu+o+ng con kho^ng la^'y cho^`ng
Tro^`ng da^u, nuo^i ta<`m, de^.t va?i
Nuo^i to^i dde^'n nga`y lo+'n kho^n.
Hai mu+o+i na<m qua to^i va^~n nho+'
Nga`y a^'y to^i mo+'i le^n na<m
Co' la^`n to^i no'i do^'i me.
Ho^m sau tu+o+?ng pha?i a<n ddo`n.
Nhu+ng kho^ng, me. to^i chi? buo^`n
O^m to^i ho^n le^n ma'i to'c
-- Con o+i --
tru+o+'c khi nha<'m ma<'t
Cha con da<.n con suo^'t ddo+`i
Pha?i la`m mo^.t ngu+o+`i cha^n tha^.t
Tha^'y vui muo^'n cu+o+`i cu+' cu+o+`i
Tha^'y buo^`n muo^'n kho'c la` kho'c
Ye^u ai cu+' ba?o la` ye^u
Ghe't ai cu+' ba?o la` ghe't
Du` ai ngon ngo.t nuo^ng chie^`u
Cu~ng kho^ng no'i ye^u tha`nh ghe't.
Du` ai ca^`m dao do.a gie^'t
Cu~ng kho^ng no'i ghe't tha`nh ye^u.
Tu+` dda^'y ngu+o+`i lo+'n ho?i to^i :
-- Be' o+i, Be' ye^u ai nha^'t ?
Nho+' lo+`i me. to^i tra? lo+`i :
-- Be' ye^u nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i cha^n tha^.t.
Ngu+o+`i lo+'n nhi`n to^i kho^ng tin
Cho to^i la` con ve.t nho?
Nhu+ng kho^ng ! Nhu+~ng lo+`i da<.n ddo'
In va`o tri' o'c cu?a to^i
Nhu+ trang gia^'y tra<'ng tuye^.t vo+`i
In le^n ve^'t son ddo? cho'i.
Na<m nay to^i hai mu+o+i la<m tuo^?i
DDu+'a be' mo^` co^i tha`nh nha` va<n
Nhu+ng lo+`i me. da<.n thuo+? le^n na<m
Va^~n nguye^n ve.n ma`u son cho'i ddo?.
Ngu+o+`i la`m xie^'c ddi da^y ra^'t kho'
Nhu+ng chu+a kho' ba<`ng la`m nha` va<n
DDi tro.n ddo+`i tre^n con ddu+o+`ng cha^n tha^.t.
Ye^u ai cu+' ba?o la` ye^u
Ghe't ai cu+' ba?o la` ghe't
Du` ai ngon ngo.t nuo^ng chie^`u
Cu~ng kho^ng no'i ye^u tha`nh ghe't
Du` ai ca^`m dao do.a gie^'t
Cu~ng kho^ng no'i ghe't tha`nh ye^u
To^i muo^'n la`m nha` va<n cha^n tha^.t
cha^n tha^.t tro.n ddo+`i
DDu+o+`ng ma^.t co^ng danh kho^ng la`m ngo.t
ddu+o+.c lu+o+~i to^i
Se't no^? tre^n dda^`u kho^ng xo^ to^i nga~
Bu't gia^'y to^i ai cu+o+'p gia^.t ddi
To^i se~ du`ng dao vie^'t va<n tre^n dda'
Phu`ng Qua'n, 1957
Ta`i lie^.u tham kha?o :
- Tho+`i Ba'o 2/2/1995.
- Tra<m Hoa DDua No+? Tre^n DDa^'t Ba<'c cu?a Hoa`ng Va<n Chi'; Sudasie,
4/1983.
Tim Gasser
>Tim Gasser <tga...@ese.ogi.edu> wrote:
>>(I deleted the history lesson and stuff about women's fashion. The first
>>was too superficial, and I don't know a damn thing about the second.)
>
>women's movements in the US would be considered superficial. I would have
>liked to have gone into more depth but I didn't have the time nor did I
>think it necessary. It might, therefore be a better idea if I just
>suggest you go to your local library and read up on women's history. That
>way you will have the necessary background regarding the history of the
>various women's movements to discuss them.
Sorry to have ruffled your feathers Joan. My response was based on my
experience that you cannot just lift events or issues out of the context they
occurred within and hope to understand them. I am fairly sure that you
know this at least as well as I. Neither did I expect a long discourse on
the history of the woman's movement. My response only indicated that
your comments in that paragraph brushed upon a far too broad array of
topics and issues in a such a brief manner.
>
>Well, Tim, it's like this - I've had my share and then some of people
>judging me solely on my gender and ignoring my qualifications. It still
>happens today. Just because you have women friends, it doesn't mean you
>are an expert on women's issues and the history of the women's movement.
>The history of women's movements may not mean much to you - and that's
>fine, I'm not downgrading you for that - but don't minimize it, ok, to
>some of us it is important.
>
>I'm not saying you are sexist and you know, it really really irritates me
>when some men look at every cry of sexism (and racism) as a personal
>attack. It exists, like it or not - it's getting better but it's still
>there and it's still strong.
>
>
In regard to your past experiences with being judged, I'll refer to a
saying I heard repeated over and over in the Navy; Sounds like a personal
problem. This does not mean that I don't believe such things happen, or
that I think it's okay when they do happen. It just means that I do not
act in such a manner and don't like getting tarred with that broad brush.
You say that your cry against sexism is not personal and yet you make it
sound as if I've claimed to be some sort of expert on women's issues.
Nothing that I've posted comes close to doing so. While it may not be your
intent, the perception I have is that you view me as the enemy. The
history of the women's movement is not all that important to me. If I
choose to downplay it when someone brings it up, so what? I know that
women have had it tough in the past, and still do. But then, so have a lot
of groups. For me, it is more important that I behave honorably and
fairly, and pass such a mode of behavior on, then it is to commiserate
about the wrongs that have occurred in the past.
Tim Gasser
Joan Shields
>Except for your soliloquies on Steve Wei, I consider your posts as having
>some of the better content in this group.
I decided to comment on this last bit separately. I happen to like my
soliloquies on Steve Wei. In all honesty and seriousness I think Steve is
a hell of a good guy who has a great deal of compassion for his fellow
human beings, a very strong character, and a solid sense of what's right
and wrong. This is from having talked to him over e-mail as well as face
to face. I'm sorry you aren't enjoying the levity my soliloquies on Steve
Wei bring and I'm sorry that you don't understand the underlying theme in
those soliloquies.
As to the content of my posts, thank you for your comment.
joan
t...@ecst.csuchico.edu
Tran is my Honey!!! <hkc...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Yumi (al...@oci.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: Actually I think that there are two perceptions of Asian Women by non
>: Asian people, men especially. We are the demure, subservient, good
>: housewife figure whose sole purpose in life is to bolster the husband's
>: fragile ego...or we are the sex-driven, "exotic" Dragon Lady. I don't
This is a misconception. Asian females have more power in
Asia then white women in the States.
Asian women push Asian men to work hard until they
drop. Because their status is proportional to their husbands
status. On the other hand, white women rather have their
husband work less and spend more time at home with her and
the family, even if it means making less money.
In Korea, my dad and his buddies worked 12 hours a
day 6 days a week, to be payed about $700 dollars a month.
And the idea of *not* paying for his kids education is
out of the question, no matter what, the tutors, and
educational institutes got payed.
The family work ethics of Asian males go *way* beyond
the black or white male work ethics.
I can't sight this, but %40 percent of white women
raise their kids alone, and %65 percent of black women
raise their kids alone, with the help of welfare program.
Then the father comes by to pickup his share of the kid's
welfare money. But in Asian families, most kids have
both mother and a father where father works.
This maybe male dominated world, but females dominate men.
No matter how powerful a man is, when a women he loves tell
him to do something, he does it. Look at Julius and
Ethel Rosenberg, and Benedict Arnold, who do you think
made them do what they did, their wife.
A beautiful women with some brains can make the most
powerful man do anything she wants. And in Asia, when
a women gets old, they actually get respect, unlike here,
where they are considered to be an ugly old hag. That's
why there are so many 'barbiturate Comma housewife' going to
get therapy, here .
All the stuff in the movie "Joy luck club" are true, just
like all the stuff in the movie "Roots" is also true.
But that does not mean all American men rape their slave
children, then sell the baby for profit.
In order to sell movies, you have to bring out the most
extreme cases.
I am new to this news group, so forgive me if
I am rehashing an old thread, but I am so sick of
Asian female bitching about their status and how
they are treated. Then again, I am sick of Asians
in general bitching about racism against us
in US. We have it easy, and if there is discrimination,
it's because we have such inbread personality generated
by our traditional angst.
BTW the term "Oriental" is not offensive to me, who
came up with the idea that it is? The PC liberals?
The term "Orri" is a Latin term for "Rise". Oriental
means, people who comes from land where sun rises.
You heard the term, "Lets get oriented here", it means
find East, where sun rises.
Occidental means fall, like sun falls at west.
So there is nothing wrong with calling white
person an Occidental.
Terminator
TE
Terminator
TE
Joan Shields
>(I deleted the history lesson and stuff about women's fashion. The first
>was too superficial, and I don't know a damn thing about the second.)
Gee thanks Tim, didn't realize that a brief outline of some of the major
women's movements in the US would be considered superficial. I would have
liked to have gone into more depth but I didn't have the time nor did I
think it necessary. It might, therefore be a better idea if I just
suggest you go to your local library and read up on women's history. That
way you will have the necessary background regarding the history of the
various women's movements to discuss them.
>>I have no idea what study you are refering to - a lot of what I said, as I
>>mentioned in the above, comes from my own experiences and from what I've
>>been told by a lot of other women. I work in a major university - there
>>are a lot of women here very frustrated by the system of tenure (since
>>women can get pregnant they are expected to eventually do so - this is
>>expected to make them less able to put the long intense hours in which is
>>sometimes a lot depending on the field you are in).
>>When it comes to studies, there were a lot that came out in the early to
[Deleted my description of a number of studies]
>You must have sped up Joan. I'm not sure if I understand the point you are
>trying to make in this paragraph.
Ok, again, I'll take it slowly for you. You mentioned that if I was
refering to a specific study (of women in tenure track positions in
universities) then I was mistaken as that study (apparently) was flawed,
according to you. Then I said that I had no idea what study you were
refering to and then mentioned a few studies that I had known about that
fueled the backlash against the women's movement. Like I said, I wish I
had my source on me (well, one of my sources) and I could give you more
specific information. If you are interested in consulting one of my
sources directly then I suggest you pick up a book called "Backlash" in
your local library (while you are there catching up on some background
about women's movements).
>Joan, I've never questioned the fact that you knew what you were talking
>about, I just asked what your comments were based on. I too have my own
>thoughts and opinions. That doesn't rule out the fact that they can be (and
>are) influenced by what I see, hear, read and experience every day. You
>almost sound as if you took what I wrote as a personal attack. Don't.
>Except for your soliloquies on Steve Wei, I consider your posts as having
>some of the better content in this group.
Well, Tim, it's like this - I've had my share and then some of people
judging me solely on my gender and ignoring my qualifications. It still
happens today. Just because you have women friends, it doesn't mean you
are an expert on women's issues and the history of the women's movement.
The history of women's movements may not mean much to you - and that's
fine, I'm not downgrading you for that - but don't minimize it, ok, to
some of us it is important.
I'm not saying you are sexist and you know, it really really irritates me
when some men look at every cry of sexism (and racism) as a personal
attack. It exists, like it or not - it's getting better but it's still
there and it's still strong.
joan
Tim O'Connor
of attraction. I do find in general asian women attractive, because they
seem to have greater poise and grace than the white women I have known.
This is in no way an absolute. I have seen beautiful asian women and
beautiful white women and I have seen beautiful black women. I do however
in general find black women less attractive. This is not in any way a
form of racism merely again a preference.
t. hirata
>I can not agree with your "angry white male" thesis. There is indeed an
>AWM backlash. It comes, not from male chauvanist pigs who want to turn
>back the clock, but from WM's (and other M's) who supported the feminist
>movement, but have become disillusioned after so many tarrings with the
>broad brush of generalized accusations currently wielded by feminist
>gurus of political correctness.
uh huh. speaking of broad brushes of generalized accusations...
why don't we simply label these people "extremist feminists" or merely
"extremists", and proudly wear the moniker "feminist"? even though
there are religious extremists, plenty of people call themselves
religious. Tim, are you taking notes about the backlash?
--Th.
Terminator
same ring. I must admit Occidental is not as much of a problem since
I've given up tequlia...
As to `roots' a nice story, but ficiton, even A. Haley
admitted he made it up... still an interesting story.
TE
Christine Braunger
file. No offense, but if I can't read it, I call it spam. Thank you for
playing, and have a nice day.
--Christine Braunger
Rick B Shrum (rsh...@isc.sjsu.edu) wrote:
> Kim Nguyen (kng...@emr1.emr.ca) wrote:
> : Ve^` tie^u chua^?n ma<.c, mo^~i ngu+o+`i da^n mo^.t na<m ddu+o+.c mua 4 m
> : va?i, 2 qua^`n ddu`i, 2 a'o may-o^ 3 lo^~ (kho^ng co' tay). Nhu+ng thu+.c ra
> : ca'c vi. no'i tre^n co' dde^'n na<m ba?y bo^. a'o qua^`n loa.i cu+.c sang,
> : ddu+o+.c may ddo theo tie^u chua^?n dde^? ddi du+. dda.i ho^.i dda?ng, ddi ho.p
> Sao em dep, qua vay
> Rick
> : kng...@emr.ca
Joan Shields
>You say that your cry against sexism is not personal and yet you make it
>sound as if I've claimed to be some sort of expert on women's issues.
>Nothing that I've posted comes close to doing so. While it may not be your
>intent, the perception I have is that you view me as the enemy. The
>history of the women's movement is not all that important to me. If I
>choose to downplay it when someone brings it up, so what? I know that
>women have had it tough in the past, and still do. But then, so have a lot
>of groups. For me, it is more important that I behave honorably and
>fairly, and pass such a mode of behavior on, then it is to commiserate
>about the wrongs that have occurred in the past.
What I don't get is if the women's movement is so unimportant to you then
why are you involved in a thread about it? It's important to me because
I'm a woman who has benifited from it and has also gotten hit by the
backlash. For me it's a very personal thing as it affects just about
every aspect of my life. I'm sorry if that's something you don't believe
in but I believe in it. I try not to come off as vindictive but it can
get very difficult when some people look at me, just because I call myself
a feminist, and assume that I'm being vindictive and accusatory.
I think what irritates me the most is that you come off like an expert in
a field you know little about and really don't care to know much about. I
realize this is a silly thing to be irritated about but hey, call me
crazy.
From: b...@uhunix4.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Brian K Wanerman)
>It has been my understanding for many years now that, in the current
>climate of political correctness, a man is implicitly guilty of sexual
>harassment if any women accuses him of it. The determination has
>absolutely nothing to do with what he, himself did or did not do.
This may be unfortunately true in some places but it is hardly the rule,
even these days. There are still a lot of places where women are sexually
harrassed and there ain't much they can do about it without risking their
job and a long expensive lawsuit.
When anyone makes a false claim of harrassment it hurts most those who
have legitimate complaints. If I knew that a woman was making a false
claim I wouldn't hesitate to speak out - no matter what I'd get labeled
as. There are a lot of women like me around - I'm not unique in this
sense.
All most of us are asking for is to compete on a level playing field - to
be given the same chances and opportunities everyone else gets. I want to
be judged on my character and qualifications rather than on my gender or
breast size (yup, for scientific positions I have been judged on both the
latter).
joan
I've removed soc.culture.vietnamese and alt.sex.fetish.orientals from the
x-postings. It ought to also leave soc.culture.asian.american but since
that's where I saw the original posts I've kept it on this particular post
(which will probably be my last given nobody seems to really want to
discuss the issue - see above).
Kevin Kwock Jung Chang
On 19 Feb 1995, Joan Shields wrote:
> From: tga...@ese.ogi.edu (Tim Gasser)
> >You say that your cry against sexism is not personal and yet you make it
> >sound as if I've claimed to be some sort of expert on women's issues.
> >Nothing that I've posted comes close to doing so. While it may not be your
> >intent, the perception I have is that you view me as the enemy. The
> >history of the women's movement is not all that important to me. If I
> >choose to downplay it when someone brings it up, so what? I know that
> >women have had it tough in the past, and still do. But then, so have a lot
> >of groups. For me, it is more important that I behave honorably and
> >fairly, and pass such a mode of behavior on, then it is to commiserate
> >about the wrongs that have occurred in the past.
>
> What I don't get is if the women's movement is so unimportant to you then
> why are you involved in a thread about it? It's important to me because
> I'm a woman who has benifited from it and has also gotten hit by the
> backlash. For me it's a very personal thing as it affects just about
> every aspect of my life. I'm sorry if that's something you don't believe
> in but I believe in it. I try not to come off as vindictive but it can
> get very difficult when some people look at me, just because I call myself
> a feminist, and assume that I'm being vindictive and accusatory.
Stop being a vindictive accusatory. As far as feminism goes there are
feminist who wanted to be treated equally and feminist who want t be
treated like men. Or they want to be like men.
I often question this because why in the hell would a women want to be
become like a man.
Feminism...I am not an expert on. However I understand their addressing
the issue of sexism. As I try to do so myself. I am a sexist. And I try
to overcome these things by treating women just as I do men since at
times it seems that this what they want. So I am equally abusive.
Sometimes I have to say however that there is something about a women
that brings me to another level. That is they calm me down.
We forget where we came from. We came from our mothers. We grew inside
our mothers. Someone has to create a balance and gets some caring out
into this world. Women are not respected for their contributions and exactly
what they have to offer as a WOMAN is often denied. Women are the healers
and the keepers of the family. They keep community around...the world is
lacking this more and more everyday. There are positive
feminists whom I have high respect for and angry feminists who often
either don't know what they are talking about or are plain angry and act
exactly like a man might in the MAN'S AGGRESSIVE WORLD.
Many (in my eyes) feminists complain and instead become angry people
then they act like men. As long as I run into these kind of people on the
basis of equality I will treat them as so...like I do men. I will knock
their heads off. It is funny how little tears can sway me nowadays.
It is interesting to see how women themselves buy into the idea of womens
rights (i.e. human rights). When we label human rights we give them a
certain priority or inferiority for that matter. It is also interesting
to see how feminism and women's rights are seen differently in other
countries. In a world wherever everyone wants to get their owns at the
expense of the well being of the rest of society there must be a balance.
We must learn to give and take. There is a balance somewhere...we need to
find it.
So tell me about your gender and breast size.
just me kc
>
Brian K Wanerman
: --Th.
Two points:
1) My name is not "Tim". Please note carefully the author of the thread
to which you are responding.
2) You have a point that I, myself, used perhaps too broad a brush by
infering that all feminists partake of the activity I described. For the
record, I have known feminists, both women and men, who were truly
interested in bringing about equality between the sexes. However, it has
been my experience that the majority of people (mostly women, but also
some men) whom label themselves "feminists" only seek to claim the mantle
of victimhood and use it as a justification for their own brand of
discrimination.
I do not agree with your (implied) premise that these "extremist
feminists" consititute a tiny minority. On the contrary, they make up
the great majority of those who cling to moniker "feminist", which
explains why so many of them have come to be labeled "Femi-Nazis".
t. hirata
>t. hirata (hir...@girtab.usc.edu) wrote:
>: b...@uhunix4.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Brian K Wanerman) writes:
>: >I can not agree with your "angry white male" thesis. There is indeed an
>: >AWM backlash. It comes, not from male chauvanist pigs who want to turn
>: >back the clock, but from WM's (and other M's) who supported the feminist
>: >movement, but have become disillusioned after so many tarrings with the
>: >broad brush of generalized accusations currently wielded by feminist
>: >gurus of political correctness.
>: uh huh. speaking of broad brushes of generalized accusations...
>: why don't we simply label these people "extremist feminists" or merely
>: "extremists", and proudly wear the moniker "feminist"? even though
>: there are religious extremists, plenty of people call themselves
>: religious. Tim, are you taking notes about the backlash?
>: --Th.
>Two points:
>1) My name is not "Tim". Please note carefully the author of the thread
>to which you are responding.
oooh! my 'Net NG knowledge nugget for today! I know you are Brian K.
Wanerman. That is why "Brian K. Wanerman" is clearly written above
the words that Brian K. Wanerman wrote. "Tim" is Tim Gasser, who
is also "in" on this thread. It is an admittedly unclear aside to him.
>2) You have a point that I, myself, used perhaps too broad a brush by
>infering that all feminists partake of the activity I described. For the
>record, I have known feminists, both women and men, who were truly
>interested in bringing about equality between the sexes. However, it has
>been my experience that the majority of people (mostly women, but also
>some men) whom label themselves "feminists" only seek to claim the mantle
>of victimhood and use it as a justification for their own brand of
>discrimination.
well, i've got my acquaintances, and you've got yours.
>I do not agree with your (implied) premise that these "extremist
>feminists" consititute a tiny minority. On the contrary, they make up
>the great majority of those who cling to moniker "feminist", which
>explains why so many of them have come to be labeled "Femi-Nazis".
so if you agree with the goals of one or another sort of feminism,
(e.g., if you agree that sexism exists) why don't you simply "take back"
the label. the "extremist" feminists are extreme. whether they are
a minority or not is another issue. somehow, people don't seem to
accord the same "minority" argument to, say, Muslims.
--Th.
T. D. Vu
So can I have the names and phone #s of your white female friends? Just
the good looking ones.
The Joker.
Leo Marihart
> So? What's your point?
> TE
>
The POINT is that you are attaching too much importance to, as you write
it, "HollyWood." There's more out there.
--
* Leo Marihart -> e- (J/E): l...@gol.com
* * Snail me if you dare: 1-25-17 Bunkyo-cho #103
Maebashi, Gunma, JAPAN 371
Jennifer Basil
from asg-x,
Jenny
Peter Payne
> This is a misconception. Asian females have more power in
> Asia then white women in the States.
> Asian women push Asian men to work hard until they
> drop. Because their status is proportional to their husbands
> status. On the other hand, white women rather have their
> husband work less and spend more time at home with her and
> the family, even if it means making less money.
> In Korea, my dad and his buddies worked 12 hours a
> day 6 days a week, to be payed about $700 dollars a month.
> And the idea of *not* paying for his kids education is
> out of the question, no matter what, the tutors, and
> educational institutes got payed.
Er, are you an Asian female?
--
Peter Payne
Terminator
I'm so sorry leosan, you've confused me with someone who gives a shit
what you think.
TE
har...@hepnsf.csudh.edu
>Very well put!
>So can I have the names and phone #s of your white female friends? Just
>the good looking ones.
T. Vu?!? TOM VU?!? The realestate baron who advertises all those infomercials
on his yacht, surrounded by bevies of buxom blonde babes? Damn, this place
is getting full of famous people...
Plenty Mad
white (let's not make them any more important just because of their
color and power in this country)) because they ARE beautiful.
Ah, so are AsAm (awesome) males, but there are no external reinforce-
ments of that intrinsic fact. Too bad the concept of attractiveness,
et al, is an ephemeral thing...
Peace!
--Sung H. Kim
Repo Man
: Asian and AsAm (awesome) females are liked by men (and not just
TRUE! TRUE! You stupi.... Oh wait. This isn't inflammatory. Sorry. Gunshy.
You are absolutely correct.
-terry
Peou Tim
>--
> Peter Payne
So what if the author is Asian female. What's your point?
Leo Marihart
> Jesus bubba, get a grip. An expert! In Japan, wow way cool.
<SQUEEZE>
> I'm so sorry leosan, you've confused me with someone who gives a shit
<Geo. Carlin has empirically proved that giving shit can be painful.
You LEAVE it, Germy.>
> what you think.
> TE
>
Even cooler. Another whinerboy who solicits an opinion for no reason,
if he didn't even give a whiff in the first place.
And that's MR. Leo-SAMA to you, grasshoppah(p).
Don't hit your head on the screen trying to dash off a reply, newbie.
*PLONK* (a "Terminator" is, by definition, a thing....)
Have an interesting day (sm),
--
* Leo Marihart -> |"The question of ass-kisser and brown
e- (J/E): l...@gol.com | noser is merely one of depth perception."
* * (still in Nihon) | - The Bodhi Thom (across the Pacific)
Albert Ramirez Jr.
: For the person responding to Thu Ha Nguyen's post and the response of a
: white man who likes Asian women better than whites: we like them because
: (in general, not always) they are simply more courtious to us, prettier
: (in our eyes) and just plain nicer. For myself (responding to your
: question of why black females, for instance, aren't in the same position)
: I can only say that the black women I HAVE KNOWN have been much louder,
: crasser and LESS FUN TO BE AROUND than Asian women. Does this mean I'm
: an Orientalist looking for a Madam Butterfly? Not a bit of it! Beauty
: is, and always has been, in the eye of the beholder, and when we start
: attacking people for their tastes we're really finished as a
: civilization. Like it or not, there IS something about Asian women.
: Re-read Thu's original post, though, and you'll discover that there's
: much more (some intelligence and compassion, perhaps!). The problem
: comes in when we AUTOMATICALLY think that because a woman is Asian,
: she'll AUTOMATICALLY be nicer, quieter...And as to that quiet business:
: let's debunk that myth right now! Asian women who are overly quiet and
: shy?) are as boring to me as women of this type from any other race.
: Just because I'm a white man who likes Asian women doesn't mean I like
: them because they just say "yes" to anything I say. Far from it: most
: Asian women I know have been gentle and loving, but also quite firm and
: self-assertive not-to-be-messed-with types. It's just that they START
: with the idea that a relationship is something to be worked on FROM BOTH
: ENDS, instead of just by the man.
: Regards,
: Ben
I disagree Ben. For me, Asian women are attractive becuase they tend to
have more of the physical features that I like, namely a nice butt. They
also have nice eyes etc. Your statement about black women is absolutely
wrong. I have only dated 2 black women in my life, but both were very
nice, not loud, and were very intelligent and easy to get along with.
______________________________________________________________
"If the weakness of the apprentice system was to produce advocates
without scholarship, the weakness of the law school system is to turn out
scholars with no skill at advocacy." (Robert H. Jackson, Training the
Trial Lawyer: A Neglected Area of Legal Education, 3 Stanford L. Rev. 48,
57 (1950)).
________________________________________________________________
Loren Joseph MacGregor
(Albert Ramirez Jr.) wrote as follows:
>
> I disagree Ben. For me, Asian women are attractive becuase they tend to
> have more of the physical features that I like, namely a nice butt. They
> also have nice eyes etc. Your statement about black women is absolutely
> wrong. I have only dated 2 black women in my life, but both were very
> nice, not loud, and were very intelligent and easy to get along with.
What Ben said was neither right nor wrong, but simply his opinion -- as
he so stated, by limiting his comments to the black women he knew
personally.
I wish we could get away from these damn generalizations. Every
characteristic you like in a woman is available in any number of women,
irrespective of their race. The same is true of men. I do it myself --
I fantasize about a certain set of characteristics, and attach them to a
man or woman of a particular race. Perhaps it is the reverse of what
seems to be a universal xenophobia, this xenophila that we indulge in.
What we can make into the "other" becomes not only the thing we hate and
fear but that which attracts us as well.
j...@bates.mit.edu
<lmac...@amazing.cinenet.net> writes:
{snip!}
Hey, Loren, where ya been dude?
I wondered if where you had gotten lost to, or don't you
lurk around asfo anymore?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jed DeCobert - Electrical Engineer - High Pulse Power
*
If God is our Father (you thought), then Satan must be our Cousin.
Why didn't anyone else understand these important things? - Tool
------------------------------------------------------------------------------