Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100 DOI 10.1007/s12147-008-9053-9 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Climbing the Hierarchy of Masculinity: Asian American Men’s Cross-Racial Competition for Intimacy with White Women Kumiko Nemoto

Published online: 1 July 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract Studies of masculinity have focused on the inequalities among different groups of men, yet they have failed to consider women’s roles in men’s engagement in various positions within hegemonic masculinity. Using life-history interviews with five interracial couples made up of Asian American men and white women, as well as five individuals who either were or had been involved in an Asian American man/white woman interracial couple, this article examines the cross-racial competition in which Asian American men employ multiple strategies to ascend the masculinity hierarchy by seeking white women’s validation of their manhood. Asian American men’s cross-racial competition utilizes four distinct processes: detesting white masculinities; approximating to white masculinities; eschewing white masculinities; and failing in the attempt to maneuver white masculinities. By analyzing these four processes, the author further addresses how the emerging Asian American masculinities that are constructed by Asian American men and white women in the context of intimate relationships challenge or reinforce the current orders of race, class, and gender. Keywords Hegemonic masculinity
Asian American men
Interracial relationships
Intermarriage

Introduction Examining inequalities among different groups of men shaped by race, class, and sexuality has been a primary task in studies of masculinity. Scholars have often employed three typologies of manhood [12, 16]: hegemonic masculinity (demonstrated by white men with economic and political power), subordinate masculinity K. Nemoto (&) Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

81

(demonstrated by gay men), and marginalized masculinity (demonstrated by men of color).1 Each group of men faces unique challenges in acquiring positions of power and reaching the status of normativity that is granted only to those men, white heterosexuals with class privileges, who can be said to demonstrate hegemonic masculinity [12, 27]. In the meantime, two types of domination have been argued as inherent characteristics of hegemonic masculinity: the subordination of men of color and gay men (as an internal dimension of hegemony), and the subordination of women to men (as an external dimension of hegemony) [16].2 Studies focusing exclusively on the hierarchies within masculinity have been criticized, however, as these studies rarely include women, or, for that matter, the external dimension of men’s power over women [13, 20, 42]. Despite masculinity studies’ claims to building profeminist masculinities and cross-gender alliances between men and women, research on masculinity has either obscured women’s roles as social actors, or has excluded them entirely [42, p. 188]. In other words, not only is the research on men’s power over women insufficient [20, p. 14], but the present examinations of women’s roles in men’s various engagements in hegemonic masculinity are also inadequate [13, 42]. Recent studies have addressed the importance of a more integrative analysis of both the internal (male–male relations) and external (male–female relations) dimensions of masculinity [13].3 Yet, a dual analysis of power among men and between men and women is still rare, in particular in a cross-racial context. This paper works toward filling that gap by examining social relations and practices of Asian American men observed in their intimate relationships with white women. Popular culture normalizes white women and men while it portrays Asian American men as being asexual, feminine, or hyper-masculine. How do Asian American men perceive normalized white femininity and negotiate their marginal positions of masculinity in intimate relationships? The paper explores how their interracial relationships affect the ways in which the Asian American men in the study position themselves relative to white masculinities within the gender power structure. It also addresses the theoretical link between internal and external dimensions of hegemonic masculinity by looking at particular practices of some men who experience marginalization under the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity, and who utilize these practices in relation to white American women— 1

Demetriou writes that effeminate masculinity is subordinated to the hegemonic model of white heterosexual masculinity, ‘‘while others, such as working class or black masculinities, are simply ‘marginalized’’’ (2001:341–342). As to the difference between ‘‘subordinate’’ and ‘‘marginalized,’’ Connell and Demetriou do not discuss them as two rigidly separate categories, which either include gay men or men of color. According to Demetriou, ‘‘. . . while subordination refers to relations internal to the gender order, the concept of marginalization describes the relationships between the masculinities in dominant and subordinated classes or ethnic groups, that is, the relations that result from the interplay of gender with other structures, such as class and ethnicity’’ (2001:342).

2

Demetriou [16, p. 341] writes, ‘‘Hegemonic masculinity, understood as external hegemony, is connected to the institutionalization of men’s dominance over women. . . . Hegemonic masculinity generates not only external but also internal hegemony, that is, hegemony over other masculinities . . .’’

3

Among several, two studies are of particular note: one on class-based masculinities played out as men’s interpersonal power over women in marital relationships [44], and another on gay fraternity members’ challenges to hegemonic masculinity and the reification of male dominance over women [55].

123

82

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

practices which, in some cases, result in challenging or resisting hegemonic masculinity and, in other cases, becoming complicit with it. The data set used for this study contains individual life histories and couple interviews with Asian American men and white women with whom the men are or have been involved intimately. This helps us understand not only the men’s perspectives on their relationships with white women, but also how the men respond to the practices enacted and the evaluations offered by the white women, and how all this, in turn, affects the Asian American men’s symbolic and emotional positioning of themselves in the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity.

Cross-Racial Competition, Racialized Masculinity, and White Women The theoretical link between what Demetriou calls the external and internal dimensions of hegemonic masculinity has been a central concern in recent masculinity studies. Demetriou writes, ‘‘Hegemonic masculinity generates not only external but also internal hegemony, that is, hegemony over other masculinities’’ (2001, 341). As the mainstream culture has incorporated ‘‘a new, more feminized and blackened white masculinity’’ (2001, 348), Demetriou argues, subordinate or marginalized masculinity could ascend to become a part of hegemonic masculinity. Yet, Demetriou points out that this contestation of internal hegemony by subordinate or marginalized men does not end male domination of women, but instead sustains it. In other words, the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity is a means to the maintenance of the external dimension of men’s power. For example, the fact that gayness or blackness have been gradually incorporated into mainstream masculinity does not mean that women have attained equality with men. This study employs this framework in the context of Asian American men’s intimate relationships with white women, and asks how Asian American men and white women’s engagement in the external dimension of hegemony serves as a vehicle for these men to challenge the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity. For example, when a marginalized man tries to ascend the hierarchy by marrying or dating a white woman, how does his power over her, or lack thereof, affect his power within the internal dimension of the masculinity hierarchy? In the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity, men of color ‘‘jockey for position within this hierarchy of masculinities’’ to ‘‘enter the inner circle, often as ‘honorary’ elite White men’’ [9, p. 186]. While studies of masculinity, as well as feminist studies, have addressed both the idea that masculinity is a product of male competition with other males, and the notion that masculinity enhancement derives from men’s desire for women with symbolic capital, the psychological or emotional processes through which men of color compete or jockey for the hegemonic positions, in relation to white women, has been examined rarely. Feminist scholars [3, 6, 22, 34, 49, 51] have argued that men are influenced in their selection of women by other men’s approval and recognition. Kimmel [27] defines American manhood as a system of homosocial enactments in which ‘‘women become a kind of currency that men use to improve their ranking on the masculine social scale.’’ Chancer [6, p. 114] argues that masculinity achieved

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

83

through money and prestige translates into sexual access to attractive women. Indeed, other studies have found that attractiveness is only one component of ‘‘symbolic capital’’ [5]; capital is also realized through class, prestige, and popularity [6, 23]. These arguments confirm the idea of women as a source of power for ascending the ‘‘masculine social scale’’ [27, p. 129]. The concept of homosociality mainly denotes men’s objectification of women as well as men’s bond with other men to maintain power over women, and thus differs from the competition of men of color with representatives of white hegemonic masculinity, or these men’s marginalized experiences within the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity, which I discuss in this paper. Yet, this view of women as symbolic capital for masculine enhancement is useful for understanding sexual desires as linked to men’s symbolic display of power and masculine complacency. For example, in the context of interracial relationships, Chancer [6, p. 148] argues that men of color associate white women, as possessors of symbolic capital, with recognition, privileges, and attention that racial minorities have been denied. For my use of the concept of cross-racial competition, I am indebted to Anthony S. Chen, who, in his study of ‘‘hegemonic bargaining’’ (1999), observed nine Chinese American men’s ‘‘gender strategies.’’ These men traded their social, economic, and generational privileges, like athleticism, frat-boy-like behaviors, gender-egalitarian behaviors, and aggressiveness, for a less racially marginalized manhood. In Chen’s study of hegemonic bargaining, four Chinese American men are shown compensating, deflecting, denying, or repudiating their marginality. All four of these strategies address the marginalized men’s competition or bargaining with hegemonic masculinity. This article aims at deepening Chen’s findings by extending the scope of analysis to include white women’s views of Asian American masculinities. In other words, it expands Chen’s theoretical and empirical findings by addressing not only Asian American men’s strategies to ascend the hierarchy of masculinity, but also how those strategies were interrupted, undermined, or recast in the presence of white women.

Why Asian American Men and White Women? Demographic studies [29, 46] have reported unique patterns of intermarriage between Asian Americans and white Americans. For instance, intermarried Asian Americans tend to be highly educated and they tend to have similar education levels [47, pp. 579–580]. Among Asian Americans, Japanese and Filipino Americans have high rates of intermarriage with whites, followed by Korean and Chinese Americans, and then Asian Indians and Southeast Asian Americans [47]. A few studies [30, 31, 33, 52, 53] also report striking gender differences in Asian Americans’ intermarriage patterns: Asian American women are more likely to outmarry than are Asian American men. However, the ways in which racial and gender ideologies have influenced Asian Americans’ selection of white partners remain unexplored. A few researchers have addressed the inequalities in interracial relationships between Asian/Asian American women and white men [14, 41, 56], but little study has been done on Asian American men and white women. Perhaps

123

84

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

because of ‘‘the larger society’s taboos against Asian male—white female sexual union[s]’’ [18, p. 179], the social environment surrounding Asian American men’s relationships with white women, through which some Asian American men negotiate their manhood, has remained unexplored. Meanwhile, sociologists [15, 37] have argued that men of color with high socioeconomic status (SES) often marry white women with low socioeconomic status, thus contributing to the characterization of interracial marriages between minority men and white women as exchanges of high socioeconomic status for whiteness. For example, a black man marries a white woman to exchange his high SES for the woman’s racial status of whiteness [15, 37]. However, recent empirical studies [26, 48] refute this finding, arguing that ‘‘white females who marry minority group males are not educationally disadvantaged’’ [26, p. 640], and that ‘‘racially intermarried individuals and their partners have always had similar levels of status’’ [48, p. 1318]. These findings confirm previous interpretations of race as a symbolic dimension of power rather than as an actual ‘‘caste,’’ or SES [6, 23, 36]. Symbolic capital, such as attractiveness, is highly racialized in the marriage market; thus, ideological controls serve as power differences between racial minority men and white women such that (1) men of color have been historically excluded from access to white women, and (2) white women have long been viewed as the possessors of ideal femininity. The media has bombarded society with images in which white female beauty is associated with symbolic capital as a source of power and status. Thus, ‘‘the pervasiveness of racist ideologies that value whiteness and emulations of it’’ [25, p. 189] reinforces the symbolic image of the white woman as a ‘‘trophy’’ or ‘‘currency,’’ prohibited to men of color. As such, Asian American men’s selection or avoidance of white women as intimate partners needs to be analyzed in the context of a racialized sexual market in which white women have been seen as the ideal of femininity and, on the contrary, Asian American men have not been viewed as the ideal of masculinity.

Methodology I conducted life-history interviews with five interracial couples made up of Asian American men and white women, as well as with five individuals who either were or had been involved in an Asian American man/white woman interracial relationship in a major city in Texas. I conducted the interviews as part of a larger study of interracial marriage between Asian Americans and white Americans that included both women and men from the two different racial groups. Each interview lasted between 1 and 4 h, and most took place in the respondents’ homes or offices, although some were conducted in restaurants. I have used pseudonyms for all participants and changed their occupations if necessary to preserve confidentiality. Analyzing a small number of cases collected through life-history interviewing is not an atypical approach to empirical studies of masculinity. Connell’s study of gay masculinity [11] is based on his interviews with eight gay men in Australia, and Chen’s paper on Chinese American manhood (1999) consists of interviews with

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

85

nine men. Yet there are limitations to analyzing such small numbers of cases, especially when including information on sexual relationships. Connell [11, 738– 739] points out that condensation of findings and the difficulties of faithful representation of data are major constraints on the life-history method. Regarding this point, I note that this study can only offer plausible interpretations of interracial relationships between Asian American men and white women, and there certainly exist alternative explanations for my findings. Subjects ranged in age from their early twenties to their early fifties. Each Asian American man had lived in the United States for at least 10 years. The sample did not include any biracial, multiracial, or non-heterosexual Asian Americans. (For a complete breakdown of the interviewees by race, gender, and nationality, see the Appendix.) Consistent with previous studies [30], it was difficult to find couples composed of Asian American men and white women. Two Asian American men declined to be interviewed, though their white spouses participated. This paper assigns both ‘‘Asian’’ and ‘‘Asian American’’ to a single category for two reasons. First, regardless of background, most of the men I interviewed described themselves as ‘‘Asian,’’ and used this category in order to denote common experiences of racial marginality imposed by mainstream society, as well as membership in a pan-ethnic coalition with similar ethnic groups [17]. Second, the white women in my interviews used the categories of ‘‘Asian’’ and ‘‘Asian American,’’ rather than a more specific designation such as ‘‘third-generation Filipino American’’ or ‘‘second-generation Chinese American.’’ Asian American men in this study often used the term ‘‘American’’ to mean ‘‘white’’ American. This conflation is a common practice and is observed among Filipino Americans, Korean Americans, and Chinese and Japanese Americans [19, 32, 54]. However, when Asian Americans describe themselves as ‘‘American’’ instead of ‘‘Asian,’’ they may be implying that they ‘‘are assimilated to the white world and no longer ethnic’’ [45, p. 51]. Of the eight Asian American men I interviewed, four were either post-1965 immigrants or the offspring of post-1965 immigrants. Asian American immigrants who entered the United States after the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 often came seeking higher education or better economic opportunities. When they entered the United States, many were already skilled workers or middle-class professionals [43, p. 264]. Five of the eight men I interviewed were either second- or third-generation Americans. As was shown in a previous study [7], generational differences play a critical role in Asian American men’s adoption of various positions of masculinity, as indicators of assimilation on economic and cultural levels. Besides easing the attainment of professional or higher-class status, generational differences emerge as indicators of the men’s ability to speak without accents and to navigate different social scenes with a sensibility about gender (including racialized femininity and masculinity). In the interviews and below, generational multiplicities appear as inequalities that intersect with race and class status. Six of the eight men I interviewed were upper-middle class, and four of them were upper-middle-class professionals. Of the seven white women I interviewed, six were either middle- or upper-middle class, and one came from a working-class

123

86

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

background. The sample is too small for me to make generalizations, but respondents strongly confirmed educational homogamy [26, 48]. Considering class issues enables us to understand a further complexity of Asian American men’s negotiations of manhood in heterosexual relationships with white women. I contacted respondents through snowball sampling. I conducted two types of indepth interviews: one with each husband or wife individually, and the other with the husbands and wives together as couples. By conducting these two types of interviews, I was able to examine two aspects of an individual’s view of the relationship: one as an intersubjective self [40] and the other as a more reflexive self [21]. In one-on-one meetings, I conducted life-history interviews with all men and women that included both general questions (regarding education, current job, income, and number of children) and in-depth questions (regarding families of origin and current and past intimate relationships). I asked the same questions of both the men and the women. The order of the interviews (i.e., whether I interviewed the man or woman first) was determined by the availability of the individuals. In the interviews with couples, I asked about the history of the relationship, issues in the partnership, and the influence of racial differences. The couples’ narratives of their experiences of racism seemed carefully thought out, and they already seemed to have discussed their experiences many times. A few men were reluctant to talk about details and examples of racism and oversimplified them as ‘‘uncomfortable’’ incidents. While it was not clear whether their silence derived from the pain of verbalizing the incident or whether they were reluctant to show weakness, it was a difficult task to gather much information about the racism they had encountered. The aim of my analysis of the couples’ interviews is to explore inequality at the micro-level of interaction. Feminist scholars [1, 2, 50] have argued that gender inequalities may emerge in various forms: for example, domination, belittling, blame, compromise, silent acceptance, etc. The couples’ interviews enabled me to observe how Asian American men’s relationships with white women followed or diverged from these patterns of gender inequality. I found that gender played out concurrently with race in the couples’ interactions. Among the five couples I observed, in two, white women talked most of the time, while in another one, the Asian American man talked most of the time. In another couple, both partners talked about the same amount. The last couple only allowed me to conduct separate individual interviews. The sample is too small for me to make a thorough generalization, but it provides critical insights into how the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity operates in marginalized groups with regard to men’s relationships with white women, and how the white women view the positions of the Asian American men with whom they are or were involved.

Observed Masculinities of Asian American Men in Intimate Relationships with White Women In presenting my findings, I will address the recurring emotional strategies and processes found in Asian American men’s cross-racial competition with white

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

87

manhood. These strategies are: (1) detesting white masculinities, (2) approximating white masculinities, (3) eschewing white masculinities, and (4) failing to maneuver white masculinities. Masculinity studies emphasize ‘‘investigating men’s standpoints’’ through emotions such as fear and insecurity in order to understand the damaging effect of hegemonic ideologies on subordinate groups of men, and to enable ‘‘the examination of privileged sources of information’’ [10, p. 56]. Asian American men’s decisions to become involved with white women and the range of emotions they experience as a result of these relationships affect the strategies and actions the men subsequently take, which in turn influence how these men position themselves symbolically and emotionally within the broader gender order. ‘‘I Am Different’’: Detesting White Masculinities Kevin Cheung, a 20-year-old Chinese American student, spent his early childhood in England, Norway, and Hong Kong before moving to the United States at the age of seven. Kevin grew up with expectations that he would be ambitious and successful, and he always ‘‘tried [his] hardest’’ to make good grades in school. His past relationship partners included a few women who were white and women who were biracial. He described himself as ‘‘a bit shy’’ but as someone who ‘‘never got rejected by girls.’’ Kevin dressed his slim body in baggy hip-hop fashion. He had met Karen Smith, a 20-year-old, white English major, dressed when I met her in cateye glasses and a tight, long skirt, at a rave party—an activity that both described as being a ‘‘big part of [their] relationship.’’ In a college culture where traditional white upper-middle-class gender norms are dominant, an Asian American man dating a white woman is an anomaly. ‘‘They [Karen’s friends] all like frat boys. They only date white guys,’’ said Karen. However, Kevin was not interested in emulating white manhood and refused to abide by the norms imposed on him. In a tone of derision, Kevin spoke of the white hegemonic masculinity that was popular at campus as ‘‘one-dimensional’’ and ‘‘ignorant,’’ criticizing a lifestyle characterized by sex, alcohol, and sports. ‘‘White guys . . . they are just so the same . . . beer, girls, and football . . . that’s all they think of,’’ said Kevin. He admitted that his perception of white men mainly derived from the marginality and subordination he himself encountered as a Chinese American man every day. As a testimony to his attractive manhood, Kevin repeatedly quoted Karen’s praise of him. She thought I was different. She feels that I treat her better than other white guys . . . I listen to her, I cheer her, I treat as a person, I respect her, I like her family. I treat her so well. . . . She tells me that no one has ever been nice to her, like ever. She said she wouldn’t date another white guy again. Karen agreed, ardently praising Kevin’s non-hegemonic traits: He always wants to listen to me, listen to my side of the story. He’s not belligerent. He is not self-righteous. . . . He tries to give to me, or tries to comfort me or consult me. . . . He’s also very honest with me. It was usually Kevin who initiated communication with Karen to resolve their conflicts. ‘‘If I know something’s wrong, I keep asking and asking until she tells me.

123

88

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

Because I want her to talk about it no matter how bad it is.’’ Karen mentioned this had never happened in her past relationships, in which her boyfriends controlled the situations of conflict usually by ‘‘ignoring [her]’’ or ‘‘not talking to [her].’’ Kevin and Karen criticized what Karen labeled white hegemonic masculine characteristics, such as ‘‘self-righteousness’’ and ‘‘belligerence.’’ She explicitly contrasted her Asian American boyfriend with white men, asserting, ‘‘Actually, all of the white guys I dated were not sensitive.’’ Karen attributed the different approach to masculinity to the racial difference: ‘‘Most of the Asian guys I meet seem to be more respectful toward women. . . . [Here] there are lots of frat boys and they are all white. . . . I’ve seen so many drunk white guys yelling at girls and using girls. . . . I’ve had white guys yelling at me . . . never Asian people.’’ Karen emphasized Kevin’s non-domineering traits by inadvertently essentializing ‘‘Asian’’ men. ‘‘I don’t even pay attention to white guys. . . . I’ve really started liking Asian guys as opposed to white guys,’’ she said. Karen characterized Kevin as sensitive, emotionally vulnerable, and caring; these features were confirmed as positive traits of his Asian American masculinity. Yet, Karen’s portrayal of Kevin also seemed to derive from her stereotyping of ‘‘Asian’’ as a model minority. Because the popular myth of Asian/Asian American manhood as asexual and emasculated remains pervasive, Karen’s confirmation of Kevin’s attractive manhood seemed important. Kevin believed that the racist and sexist portrayal of Asian American men makes it difficult for them to receive attention from white women, who represent ‘‘hegemonic femininity’’ [45]:4 In Hollywood . . . we are kind of de-sexed because the role we’ve always played is a demeaning or a domestic kind of role. You can look at a Latin guy, very sexy. Black guy, very sexy. White guy, sexy. White girls don’t really see Asian men as sexy. . . . It’s just obnoxious! . . . I think that’s why white girls don’t think, ‘‘Oh, I like Asian males.’’ As Kevin points out, since Hollywood films reinforce Anglo-American, bourgeois, male hegemony [35], the absence of and disregard for Asian and Asian American men has not been an unfamiliar theme for these men in real life. ‘‘Some white girls don’t even look at me,’’ Kevin said. Furthermore, the hegemonic portrayal of white women as the property of or as partnered with white men proclaims their inaccessibility to most Asian/Asian American men. ‘‘I think a lot of Asian men don’t really hit on white girls [even though] they are interested in [them]. . . . None of my Asian friends date white women,’’ said Kevin. However, Kevin quickly distanced himself from those Asian/Asian American men who would ‘‘only

4

Connell [12] argues that the notion of hegemonic femininity is inappropriate. Traits of femininity are globally constructed in relation to the dominance of masculinities; thus, femininities signify the subordination of women to men in which women’s domination of men rarely occurs. However, Pyke and Johnson [45] suggest that the notion of hegemonic femininities critically addresses the hierarchy among women of different classes and races. They write, ‘‘However, this discounts how other axes of domination, such as race, class, sexuality, and age, mold a hegemonic femininity that is venerated and extolled in the dominant culture, and that emphasizes the superiority of some women over others, thereby privileging white upper-class women’’ (35).

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

89

want to date Asian girls. I’m different in that respect. I’m proud of that [dating Karen]. . . . I know I’m different.’’ While Karen emphasized Kevin’s non-hegemonic traits, she also valued his class status and ambition, characteristics associated with the traditional masculine provider role. Karen repeatedly mentioned that Kevin was ‘‘from a good family.’’ She described him as having a compulsion to work hard, another traditional ‘‘provider’’ trait and/or model minority stereotype. Karen also offered, with evident pleasure, examples of Kevin spending money on her as an indication of his chivalrous sensitivity and romantic masculinity. ‘‘Blonds Are More Attractive’’: Approximating White Masculinities Keith Banzon, a 52-year-old, third-generation Filipino American engineer, has been married to Debra, a 50-year-old white woman, for 18 years. Debra works for a publishing company. Keith grew up in a mostly white neighborhood on the East Coast and in the South. Growing up, he ‘‘wasn’t big on Asian cultural stuff.’’ He often felt ‘‘uncomfortable’’ about his racial difference and felt he ‘‘didn’t belong anywhere.’’ He was often mistaken for Chinese and encountered racial slurs such as ‘‘Chink.’’ ‘‘Asians . . . are not trusted. . . . the only thing they can base it on is how you look,’’ said Keith, adding irritably, ‘‘[My] first wife’s father did a whole background check on me.’’ A blonde white woman had always been Keith’s ideal of beauty, and ‘‘good looking’’ had a very particular meaning: I really thought that . . . Caucasians, especially blonds, were more attractive. . . . When I was an adolescent, in college, that was to me the image of beauty. Throughout his young adulthood, Keith always dated white women; all his male cousins were married to blonde white women. As an adult, Keith found that his racially different appearance was something ‘‘a lot of Caucasian women were interested in.’’ White women’s desire became part of Keith’s masculine strategy; as he put it, ‘‘I kind of played on those interests.’’ Keith said that his blond fetish had come from his desire for ‘‘acceptance’’ from mainstream society: ‘‘Being different, you can latch on to, you know, be part of the mainstream by marrying Caucasians.’’ As Debra joked that Keith liked to tell how he was popular among white women, it became apparent that the attention from white women bolstered his confidence. His preoccupation with having a ‘‘white’’ appearance also emerged in his references to his biracial offspring. He proudly repeated, ‘‘All my children are half-Filipino and half-Caucasian. Their features are very good looking.’’ But he mentioned that he was ‘‘uncomfortable’’ about a half-black granddaughter of his because ‘‘Americans just see them differently.’’ While Keith did not explicitly express competition with white manhood, his desire to approximate white manhood was revealed by his white fetish. If a white woman symbolizes white man’s property, then possessing her would elevate Keith’s status to that of a white man’s. To Keith, dating white women might have served as vital evidence of his assimilation and also might have appeared to reduce ‘‘distrust’’

123

90

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

and ‘‘suspicions’’ against him. Perhaps it also proved that he was different from the stereotypical portrayals of Asian and Asian Americans as perpetual or unassimilated foreigners. Assimilation is a process whereby minority men move up into the mainstream; in this case, cross-racial competition took the form of Keith obtaining symbolic capital in order to approximate white manhood. Keith had met Debra in the early 1980s when they both participated in a self-help program designed to develop ‘‘social awareness.’’ Since then, they have enjoyed traveling, sharing a ‘‘house project,’’ attending spiritual events, and having sometimes ‘‘heated discussions.’’ Debra described herself as ‘‘independent’’ and the couple as ‘‘progressive’’ and ‘‘multicultural.’’ She praised Keith’s ability to communicate with her emotionally: I can say anything to him. . . . He respects where I’m coming from. . . . I can just kind of share myself with [him] and, you know, let him know what’s going on at work and maybe challenges I have with our son or life or just part of being a parent. And we talk about it. That’s when we come to a meeting of the minds about how to handle something. Debra frequently used the term ‘‘a meeting of the minds’’ to refer to their mutual recognition and respect. Keith approximates the middle-class white husband with a liberal, multicultural, and independent white wife who praises his capacity to listen and share in their relationship. However, while they share most life events, it is still Debra who does a larger share of cooking and housework. Other couples I interviewed also revealed a link between the desire for white women and the desire for assimilation. Marie Wong, a 45-year-old white woman, said that her 45-year-old foreign-born Chinese American husband, James, often mentioned his racialized preference for white women over Chinese women. His friends used to tease him that ‘‘James wants to be an American guy, not a Chinese guy.’’ Sothy Kim, a 45-year-old foreign-born Cambodian American electrical engineer, also identified his white wife Emily as an effective aid to his success within white America. Emily maintains the traditional white middle-class home and often attends meetings of community organizations to which he belongs: ‘‘Emily helped me to assimilate better . . . [to learn] what white people say, [why] white people look the way they look, [how] white people do the way they do.’’ For minority men, having a white wife is a sign of ‘‘having made it in America’’ [43, p. 236], or a strategy to become ‘‘honorary’’ white men [9, p. 186]. For Keith, James, and Sothy, marriage to white women seems to have enabled them to achieve and display their class and gender privileges among middle-class white men. Significantly, professional, middle-class Asian American men tend to link the desire for white women with the desire for assimilation. Their socioeconomic status might make white middle-class masculinity a more attainable goal than it would be for lower-class immigrant men of color. ‘‘American Women Do Not Need a Man’’: Eschewing White Masculinities William Lin, a 35-year-old Chinese American graphic designer, grew up on the East Coast in a lower-middle-class, traditional Chinese family that emphasized different

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

91

roles for men and women. As a result, ‘‘unlike [his] mom and dad’s relationship,’’ William wanted a relationship with ‘‘someone who was equal, independent.’’ His parents treated William and his sister differently ‘‘because [he was] the boy.’’ They ‘‘expected him to be an engineer’’ and ‘‘wanted her to just marry a nice guy.’’ Ironically, his sister, who is ‘‘spunky and tough,’’ became an engineer, and William chose to be an artist. William was brought up in a white neighborhood; he was ‘‘the only Chinese kid in school,’’ and ‘‘kids used to tease [him]’’ for his mispronunciation of English, which he learned from his mother. William explained that he felt different from others, but that he ‘‘never associated that with being Chinese.’’ William displaced his racial difference onto differences in personality, saying, ‘‘I didn’t really think of myself as different in that I was Chinese. I thought I was different because I was always really shy.’’ As an adolescent, gaining masculine acceptance by being ‘‘social, popular, and cool’’ was his goal, but he never attained it. He was not able to participate in athletics because he ‘‘had to go home to study, which is [a] really Chinese thing.’’ William instead became an ‘‘overachiever.’’ Referring to his parents, William said, ‘‘they didn’t realize that it [playing sports] was really important for a guy . . . who is trying to prove himself or trying to get in with the crowd.’’ William felt he lost many chances to prove his masculinity to his peers in school, and he still bears resentment for these lost opportunities. William dated a few white and Hispanic women, but only one Chinese woman ‘‘because I hardly ever see [Chinese women].’’ He did not perceive racial difference to be an obstacle to forming and maintaining relationships with white women. ‘‘Race did not affect my relationships with white women at all because I was born in America and raised in America,’’ he said. ‘‘We are pretty much the same.’’ At the time of his participation in the study, however, William was for the most part dating Chinese women in China. William explained this preference, saying, ‘‘women in other countries are happier even though they don’t have much freedom. American women are not happy.’’ He went on: Here in America, [white] women are independent. They have more power. It is hard to ask [them out]. Women feel honored [to be asked out] in China. . . . In the U.S., women don’t need men. . . . You have to be good looking. You have to be really rich. . . . They can choose what they want and make the guy less powerful. William frames white American women as independent and assertive subjects who may emasculate and threaten his marginal manhood.5 William’s preference for Chinese women over American women appears to derive from his desire to avoid feeling powerless. His attraction to the ‘‘happiness’’ of women in other countries, who remain content regardless of economic, political, and social deprivation, seems related to a desire to enhance his own manhood by exercising his material and social privileges as an American over local Chinese women. While he claims he wants an ‘‘equal’’ partner, William wants women from China, women over whom he can 5

As I discussed in the method section, I interpreted his reference to ‘‘American’’ women instead of ‘‘white’’ women as his customary conflation common among a few Asian American ethnic groups.

123

92

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

exert his material and social privileges. By eschewing American women and avoiding cross-racial competition, William can deny his marginality within the hierarchy of hegemonic masculinity. ‘‘She Is Still Not Happy’’: Failing in the Attempt to Maneuver White Masculinities Kenji Tanaka, a 29-year-old Japanese musician, was married to Tracey, a 26-yearold white woman. The marriage ended when Tracey left Kenji. Kenji had grown up in Japan; when he finished college he left Japan to study music in the United States. ‘‘I never wanted to be a typical salary man in Tokyo!’’ he said. He worked two jobs to make ends meet while playing guitar for several bands. Partly because of the language barrier and partly because of cultural unfamiliarity, Kenji found it difficult to participate in the cross-racial competition for romantic partners, and next to impossible to attain hegemonic status or approval. ‘‘It is tough,’’ Kenji said, referring to the language barriers and how he has a hard time in maneuvering styles of gender display. Tracey irritably added, ‘‘He doesn’t talk. . . . because he gets very frustrated if he doesn’t understand people’s English.’’ Kenji only dated white women, simply because ‘‘[he] did not want to date Asian women in America.’’ He equated white women with the highest standards of beauty and power. He had two white girlfriends before he met Tracey, but the relationships ended when these women left him because ‘‘[he] was not romantic.’’ Soon after their marriage, Kenji and Tracey started fighting over household responsibilities and over their communication difficulties. While Tracey had expected more egalitarian attitudes and behavior from Kenji, Kenji said that he ‘‘had a hard time understanding the concept of equality’’ because he believed that he was ‘‘doing [the] right amount of work and she [was] still not happy.’’ Tracey was frustrated with what she perceived as Kenji’s expectation that she would be responsible for the upkeep of the household: I am the one responsible for the bills. I am responsible for the house. I am responsible for making sure the car gets taken care of. . . . It’s been really hard. . . . I’m an artist. I haven’t picked up my pen in a year and a half now. Tracey believed that Kenji’s lack of willingness to help take care of the household derived from the traditional gender beliefs that he had learned as a result of his Japanese upbringing, during which his mother ‘‘never worked outside the house’’ and ‘‘took care of everything for him.’’ Another white woman who participated in the study, Marie, described her Chinese husband, an engineer, as domineering, controlling, and unromantic. She, too, associated his dominant traits with his Asian background and the sense of entitlement he developed from having been raised as ‘‘a number one son’’ in his Chinese family. Communication and sensitivity were other areas of dissatisfaction for some white women in relationships with Asian American men. Tracey was frustrated with Kenji’s lack of interest in communication with her. She said that she missed the ‘‘deep talk’’ from her past relationships. ‘‘I think [white] American guys talk [a]

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

93

little more,’’ she said. ‘‘They talk to their girlfriends.’’ In noting that she wanted to go to couples counseling, Tracey again compared Kenji unfavorably to white men, saying, ‘‘I know a lot of [white] guys who went to counseling.’’ Kenji agreed that he was not good at expressing affection easily, but he attributed this to the fact that he did not follow the ‘‘American’’ norms of gender display in which, as he described it, the ‘‘man always had to say to [the] woman, ‘You are pretty, you are beautiful, . . . I love you.’’’ While complaints about a male partner’s inability to communicate and unwillingness to share housework also are commonly reported among white couples [50], white women often view these qualities in their Asian American partners as the result of their partners’ background and upbringing. They view their partner’s Asian culture as an ethnic patriarchy that is less egalitarian and more maledominated than ‘‘white’’ culture. In the face of expectations about romantic chivalry and egalitarian sensitivity— key elements of the new gender display of class-privileged white men [39]—Kenji in the interview expressed his sense of deficiency and incompetence as he could not meet the standard of manhood that his wife desired. For him, participating in the cross-racial competition seems to have meant beginning to realize his inability to take command of ‘‘American’’ gender sensibilities, or to refashion himself in order to bolster his manhood. Besides language barriers and cultural unfamiliarity, class status plays a role in how much room Asian American men have in negotiating masculinity in relationships with white women. Tracey eventually left Kenji. But Marie, the woman with the domineering foreign-born Chinese American husband, felt powerless to leave her marriage, despite her hopelessness about the gender inequality she suffered, because her husband had sole financial control over her and her children. Marie’s situation demonstrates that, although a white female partner may judge Asian American masculinity as lacking in important modern masculine qualities, the judgment has little or no power when the woman has little power in the relationship.

White Women, Cross-Racial Competition, and Multiplicity Within Marginalized Masculinity This paper argues that Asian American men’s relationships with white women serve as a vehicle for either the men’s challenge of or ascension within the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity. I have discussed four men who have attempted to compete with different aspects of white hegemonic manhood. Their psychological and emotional engagement with white manhood exemplifies crossracial competition because these men persistently expressed desires for social recognition, attention, and acceptance of their manhood by comparing themselves with particular aspects of white hegemonic masculinity. In the context of romantic relationships, they competed with images of white masculinity by projecting their desires onto white women and by seeking white women’s validation of their manhood. White women participated in these men’s challenges to the internal

123

94

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

hegemony by mediating their competition with white manhood or by being witnesses, and by providing testimonies regarding whether Asian or Asian American manhood is comparable to or competitive with white manhood. Among the Asian American men I interviewed, white women were often constructed as the ultimate standard of beauty and of traditional femininity, and as the property of white men; they also were endowed with traits such as egalitarianism, strength, independence, and, on the negative side, peevishness. These characteristics that Asian American men found in white women reflect the idea of ‘‘hegemonic femininity,’’ which reinforces the notion that white women are superior to other groups of women [45]. By dating or marrying white women, the Asian American men believed they were consolidating their manhood as a privilege marking unique and/or assimilated masculinity. Different from Asian American femininity, which is often stereotyped as hyper-feminine in American society, white femininity emerged as a possessor of racialized and gendered power, including Eurocentric/white normativity. Chow [8, p. 19] reports in her study of Asian Americans’ spousal preferences that ‘‘white spouses were viewed as being more exciting, more glamorous, less sexually inhibited, more fun, and for some, more ‘aesthetically pleasing.’’’ White femininity denotes not traditionally feminine characteristics such as submissiveness and docility, but rather a racialized and gendered position of power that can enhance or threaten Asian American manhood. Furthermore, as seen in Karen’s positive account of Kevin and Tracey’s negative account of Kenji, white women explained their partners’ masculinities as being tied to their race and ethnicity rather than as being individual character traits. White women partnered with white men may be far less likely to racialize their partners’ behaviors. Interestingly, white men were also racialized in Karen and Tracey’s comments. Thus, it could be argued that white men are racialized only in the course of describing racial minority men whose masculinities are often tied to their race. The next question is: Is there any link between men’s challenge to the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity and their power over women in the external dimension of hegemony? Are Asian American men’s relationships with white women characterized by any deviations from traditional gender dynamics? With his command of good fashion and the combination of his cosmopolitan upbringing, class status, and drive for success, Kevin displayed a confident brand of masculinity, positioning himself outside of both white hegemonic masculinity and stereotypical Asian American masculinity. However, his display of ‘‘softness,’’ ‘‘sensitivity,’’ and ‘‘egalitarianism’’ needs a cautious analysis; some men use these qualities, within the guise of the ‘‘New Man,’’ as signs of class privilege and, from this position, project aggression, domination, and misogyny onto subordinate groups [24, p. 215]. Thus, Kevin’s ‘‘New Man’’ strategy, exemplified by his ‘‘nice’’ treatment of Karen, is not necessarily a departure from a position of hegemony. Also, Kevin and Karen were neither married nor living together, and thus the operation of the external dimension of hegemonic masculinity was less visible in their relationship without the necessity of dividing housework or parenting tasks. For Keith, who grew up with racial alienation, the desire to overcome ‘‘difference,’’ or to assimilate into the white mainstream, was crucial. When he proudly referred to the beauty of his biracial children, his desire to blend into white

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

95

society sounded like a wish for more than just acquiring an equal status with white men or overcoming anti-Asian stereotypes. As with Kevin, Keith’s ‘‘New Man’’ image was emphasized by this couple. But Keith also described factors related to the external dimension of hegemonic masculinity, such as his high income, good occupation, and leadership roles in community organizations. While the couple emphasized their progressive, liberal, and multicultural attitudes, it was not clear from the interviews to what extent his interest in social change was linked to a willingness to engage in profeminist or democratic masculinity. In the cases of both Kevin and Keith, the evidence of non-hegemonic manhood is insufficient for reaching a conclusion that the two couples are engaging in profeminist gender work. Finally, since previous studies have demonstrated that men act differently depending on social settings [3, 36], it is not clear that, if a man relates to his intimate partner in a manner that runs contrary to hegemonic imperatives of masculinity, he will relate to all other women in the same manner. Another interview subject, William, failed to attain popular masculinity and resented his parents’ strict discipline, which he understood as a major obstacle to his participation in sports in which he could have proved himself. He expressed the belief that his shyness was not a result of cross-racial competition, but in fact he lacked the confidence to be competitive, unique, successful, and wealthy, essential components of hegemonic masculinity. William wanted to benefit from the external dimension of hegemonic masculinity, not by exerting power over white women but through his relationships with Chinese women in China, whom he could impress with his wealth and cultural capital as an ‘‘American man.’’ Whereas much of Kenji’s life was about working low-paying jobs, paying bills, and learning different cultural norms, he aimed to become a successful musician in America. When he immigrated with the goal of becoming a musician, his social status descended from that of a college student with the potential of a successful future in Japan to that of a blue-collar worker barely making ends meet in the United States. While he dated white women and even married one, he could not ascend the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity, nor did he have any adroit strategies for transforming or benefiting from the external dimension of hegemonic masculinity. Tracey described Kenji as non-egalitarian, by contrasting him, in terms of this characteristic, with white men. The study shows that Asian American men are often framed by Asian American women as non-egalitarian and domineering, and that these characteristics are seen as the reason why Asian American women often avoid dating co-ethnic men [8]. But Karen also racialized young white man as sexist and non-egalitarian, in contrast with Asian American men. What do these seemingly contrasting racialized images of manhood and male dominance in intimate contexts (as exhibited by white men and by Asian American men) reveal? It appears that racialization might serve as a strategy for criticizing partners’ gender display and performance. As I have shown, the external dimension of hegemony was weakened or undermined when (1) Asian American men explicitly rebelled against hegemonic or domineering qualities of manhood such as the objectification of women or emotional detachment, or (2) white women rejected them. The external dimension remained when Asian American men used it as a strategy to ascend the internal

123

96

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

dimension of hegemonic masculinity. James and Sothy emulated hegemonic white masculinity by having traditional white wives, through which they ascended within the internal dimension. This is a case of ‘‘hegemonic bargaining’’ [7], in which men trade on class status, white wives, and breadwinner roles to achieve hegemonic masculinity. However, Asian and Asian American men benefited least from the external dimension of hegemony when the Asian American man and the white woman in a relationship both detested and wanted to change it. The class status of Asian American men seemed to be a critical factor in gauging their interest in and willingness to practice gender equity, whether through the display of a particular masculine style or through intentional engagement with a partner. William and Kenji did not have upper-class privileges, and they each felt that they had inadequate bargaining power in their relationships with white women. Kevin and Keith would have faced more difficulties in acquiring white women’s affirmation of their non-hegemonic masculinities without their class privilege, which is, of course, also a critical component of hegemonic white masculinity. As seen in the contrast between Kevin and Kenji, generational difference is a distinct marker of status that provides wider social and cultural capital for the Asian American men’s positioning of themselves. In addition to their ability to speak English without accents and to maneuver gender display with fashion and chivalry, American-born and/or -raised Asian Americans are more likely to understand the demands and desires of white women. Foreign-born Asian American men lack these cultural resources and often find themselves further toward the bottom of marginalized masculinity. In Kevin and Karen’s case, Karen spoke highly of ‘‘Asian’’ men by essentializing them as having qualities which Kevin manifested. However, her ‘‘racial lumping,’’ common among white Americans (while positive and well-intended in her case), obliterates the socioeconomic and cultural inequalities among Asian American men. It is very possible that Karen might not be attracted to foreign-born Asian American men. The different responses of Karen and Tracey regarding their partners’ ability to communicate seem to relate to each man’s generational status. Another consideration is the subtle tendency of Asian American men to conflate ‘‘American’’ and ‘‘white’’ manhood. For example, William mentioned the difficulty of attracting ‘‘American’’ women instead of ‘‘white’’ women, and Sothy and Kenji often used American to mean ‘‘white’’ American. It is likely that these Asian American men meant that hegemonic masculinity is transracial rather than being solely white, and thus attainable. Similarly, while the ‘‘New Man’’ is defined as ‘‘white’’ [24], incorporation of this ideal by Asian American men shows that the production of hegemonic masculinity is actually cross-racial or transracial.

Conclusion This article contributes theoretically, methodologically, and empirically to the further understanding of the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Theoretically, it demonstrates the operation of hegemonic masculinity in the context of the interracial romances of marginalized men. Integrative analysis demonstrates that

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

97

Asian American men’s adoption of various positions of masculinity is complicated not only by such factors as heterosexual desire and socioeconomic status, but also by white women’s desire for and approval of Asian American manhood. Building on Demetriou’s discussion of the internal and external dimensions of hegemonic masculinity, the article addresses how men’s positioning of themselves in the external dimension of hegemonic masculinity serves as a means to the men’s challenge of or ascension within the internal dimension of hegemonic masculinity. The integrative analysis links to the methodological approach of the study—that is, simultaneous interviews with individuals and with couples. This helps shed light on the current concern within masculinity studies regarding the incorporation of women and integrative analysis. Exploring masculinities as the product of an ‘‘intersubjective’’ project furthers our understanding of how hegemonic masculinities and non-hegemonic masculinities can be generated, sustained, or undermined in interpersonal space, sometimes beyond an individual man’s ‘‘reflexive’’ project. Major empirical significance lies in the finding of multiple strategies to attain hegemonic masculinity. As seen in the cases of Kevin and Keith, many successful Asian American men might deploy a ‘‘New Man’’ complicit masculinity, which also reifies the model minority myth, to challenge traditional images of white masculinity. In a much broader context in which increasing interracial marriage (with whites) promotes Asians and Asian Americans to the status of ‘‘honorary whites’’ [4], Asian Americans’ ascension to and claim of a hegemonic position through complicity with hegemony or ‘‘racial crossover’’ [45] might become an even more prevalent phenomenon in the future. However, this strategy will not be effective in helping other Asian American men who lack class privilege, such as William and Kenji, to overcome the threats or insecurities they experience in relation to white women. Furthermore, many factors—the importance of class status, the view of white women as ‘‘symbolic capital,’’ the pervasive stereotypes of Asian American men (including the images of the model minority and the perpetual foreigner), and the reification of one hegemony over another—appear to be huge obstacles to the future possibility of a cross-racial and cross-gender alliance between Asian Americans and white Americans. White women’s affirmation of uppermiddle-class, Asian American men as subversive ‘‘feminine’’ men may in part feed the model minority stereotype and maintain the racial division between Asian Americans and white Americans. Due to the limited sample examined in this qualitative study, results cannot be extended to the experiences of other Asian American men who have been partnered with white women. Further large-scale studies on the relations between Asian American men and white women will be necessary. Also, more research will be necessary on how these Asian American men’s socialization process, including their upbringing with various ideologies regarding race/ethnicity and gender, influences their approach to their current relationships. A few important questions remain to be answered. First, it seems that marginalized men’s critical perspectives on white hegemonic masculinity offer ways in which men can recast the terms of white hegemonic masculinity in order to construct positive Asian American masculinities. Yet there is still further theoretical and empirical work to be done in order to understand how racialized masculinities

123

98

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

actually function as profeminist or democratic [28]. Future theoretical and empirical studies will need to address questions such as: How can Asian American men empower themselves without co-opting racism and sexism? What types of counterhegemonic acts are effective? Most importantly, how do cross-racial relationships— among family, among friends, and at work—allow us, as individuals and as members of groups, to explore answers to these questions? Acknowledgments I thank Christine Williams, Jyoti Puri, Sharon Bird, and Rebecca Klatch for their suggestions on earlier drafts of this article.

Appendix Asian American Men and White Women Interviewed Name

Age

Marital Status

Ethnicity/Race

Education

Occupation

Kevin Cheung

20

Single

Chinese American

College Student

Student

Karen Smith

20

Single

White

College Student

Student

Keith Banzon

52

Married

Filipino American

College Graduate

Engineer

Debra Banzon

50

Married

White

College Graduate

Sales representative

Sothy Khim

45

Married

Cambodian American

College Graduate

Engineer

Emily Khim

38

Married

White

College Graduate

Teacher

Kenji Tanaka

29

Married

Japanese American

College Graduate

Musician/waiter

Tracey Tanaka

26

Married

White

College Graduate

Waitress

Tony Rhee

26

Married

Korean American

College Student

Student/part-time salesperson

Michelle Rhee

22

Married

White

College Graduate

Staff of local college

William Lin

35

Divorced

Chinese American

College Graduate

Media designer

Leslie Duong

25

Single

Vietnamese American

College Graduate

Assistant manager at Media company

Kenneth Miyake

50

Divorced

Japanese American

College Graduate

Engineer

Marie Wong

45

Married

White

College Graduate

None

Laura Martin

30

Single

White

College Graduate

Physical therapist

References 1. Benjamin, J. (1988). The bonds of love. New York, NY: Pantheon. 2. Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York, NY: World Pub. 3. Bird, S. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 10(2), 120–132. 4. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2002). We Are All Americans!: The Latin Americanization of Racial Stratification in the USA. Race& Society, 5, 3–16. 5. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge University Press. 6. Chancer, L. (1998). Reconcilable differences: Confronting beauty, pornography, and the future of feminism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

123

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

99

7. Chen, A. (1999). Lives at the center of the periphery, lives at the periphery of the center: Chinese American masculinities and bargaining with hegemony. Gender & Society, 13(5), 584–607. 8. Chow, S. (2000). The significance of race in the private sphere: Asian Americans and spousal preferences. Sociological Inquiry, 70(1), 1–29. 9. Collins, P. H. (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. New York, NY: Routledge. 10. Coltrane, S. (1994). Theorizing masculinities in contemporary social science. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 11. Connell, R. (1992). A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the dynamics of gender. American Sociological Review, 57(6), 735–751. 12. Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 13. Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. 14. Constable, N. (2003). Romance on a global stage: Pen pals, virtual ethnography, and ‘‘mail order’’ marriages. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 15. Davis, K. (1941). Intermarriage in caste societies. American Anthropologist, 43(3), 376–395. 16. Demetriou, D. (2001). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society, 30(3), 337–361. 17. Espiritu, Y. (1992). Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging institutions and identities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 18. Espiritu, Y. (1996). Asian American women and men: Labor, laws, and love. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 19. Espiritu, Y. (2001). ‘‘We don’t sleep around like white girls do’’: Family, culture, and gender in Filipina American Lives. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 26(2), 415–440. 20. Gardiner, J. K. (2005). Men, masculinities and feminist theory. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 21. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 22. Hartmann, H. (1981). The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: Towards a more progressive union. In L. Sargent (Ed.), Women and revolution: A discussion of the unhappy marriage of marxism and feminism. Boston, MA: South End Press. 23. Holland, D., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 24. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., & Messner, M. (1994). Gender displays and men’s power: The ‘new man’ and the Mexican immigrant man. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 25. Hunter, M. (2002). ‘If you’re light you’re alright’: Light skin color as social capital for women of color. Gender & Society, 16(2), 175–193. 26. Jacobs, J., & Labov, T. (2002). Gender differentials in intermarriage among sixteen race and ethnic groups. Sociological Forum, 17(4), 621–646. 27. Kimmel, S. M. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 28. Kimmel, S. M. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York, NY: Free Press. 29. Kitano, H. L. H., Yeung, W.-T., Chai, L., & Hatanaka, H. (1984). Asian American interracial marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 179–190. 30. Lee, S. M., & Fernandez, M. (1998). Trends in Asian American racial/ethnic intermarriage: A comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data. Sociological Perspectives, 41(2), 323–342. 31. Lee, S. M., & Yamanaka, K. (1990). Patterns of Asian intermarriage and marital assimilation. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21, 287–305. 32. Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the ‘‘model minority’’ stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 33. Liang, Z., & Ito, N. (1999). Intermarriage of Asian Americans in the New York City region: Contemporary patterns and future prospects. International Migration Review, 33(4), 876–900. 34. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. In M. Blaxall & B. Reagan (Eds.), Women and the workplace. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

123

100

Gend. Issues (2008) 25:80–100

35. Marchetti, G. (1994). Romance and the ‘‘Yellow Peril’’: Race, sex, and discursive strategies in Hollywood fiction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 36. Martin, J. (2005). Is power sexy? American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 408–446. 37. Merton, R. (1941). Intermarriage and the social structure: Fact and theory. Psychiatry, 4, 361–374. 38. Messner, M. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon. 39. Messner, M. (1993). ‘Changing men’ and feminist politics in the U.S. Theory & Society, 22(5), 723–737. 40. Moore, H. (1994). A passion for difference: Essays in anthropology and gender. Oxford, UK: Polity Press. 41. Nemoto, K. (2006). Intimacy, desire, and the construction of self in relationships between Asian American women and white American men. Journal of Asian American Studies, 9(1), 27–54. 42. Newton, J. (2002). Masculinity studies: The longed for profeminist movement for academic feminism. In J. K. Gardiner (Ed.), Masculinity studies and feminist theory. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 43. Palumbo-Liu, D. (1999). Asian/American: Historical crossings of a racial frontier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 44. Pyke, K. (1996). Class-based masculinities: The interdependence of gender, class, and interpersonal power. Gender & Society, 10(5), 527–549. 45. Pyke, K., & Johnson, D. (2003). Asian American women and racialized femininities: ‘Doing’ gender across cultural worlds. Gender & Society, 17(1), 33–53. 46. Qian, Z. (1997). Breaking the racial barriers: Variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and (1990). Demography, 34(2), 263–276. 47. Qian, Z., Blair, S. L., & Ruf, S. D. (2001). Asian American interracial and interethnic marriages: Differences by education and nativity. International Migration Review, 35(2), 557–586. 48. Rosenfeld, M. (2005). A critique of mate selection theory. American Journal of Sociology, 110(5), 1284–1325. 49. Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the ‘political economy’ of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. 50. Rubin, L. (1983). Intimate strangers: Men and women together. New York, NY: Harper & Row. 51. Sedgwick, E. (1985). Between men: English literature and male homosocial desire. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 52. Shinagawa, L. H., & Pang, Y. G. (1988). Intraethnic, interethnic, and interracial marriages among Asian Americans in California. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 33, 95–114. 53. Shinagawa, L. H., & Pang, Y. G. (1996). Asian American panethnicity and intermarriage. Amerasia Journal, 22, 127–152. 54. Tuan, M. (1998). Forever foreigner or honorary whites? The Asian ethnic experience today. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 55. Yeung, K.-T., Stombler, M., & Wharton, R. (2006). Making men in gay fraternities: Resisting and reproducing multiple dimensions of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 20(1), 5–31. 56. Yuh, J.-Y. (2002). Beyond the shadow of Camptown: Korean military brides in America. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Author Biography Kumiko Nemoto is an assistant professor of sociology at Western Kentucky University. Her current research topics include Asian American interracial intimacy in the United States, and marriage and work in Japan. She has published articles in Journal of Asian American Studies and Gender & Society. She is working on a book manuscript, Mixed Emotions: Race, Romance, and Power in Asian American/White Couples.

123