Op-Ed: Breaking Down Racism and Sexism
The recent targeted shootings in Atlanta brought to light the objectification of Asian women, which is a seldomly discussed topic that cuts at the heart of AAPI women both personally and professionally. While public coverage of the #MeToo movement focused on high-profile celebrities, the objectification and the abuse that AAPI women face is all too familiar an experience for many.
Like many stereotypes that aren’t true, it’s difficult to trace their origins. In this op-ed, we attempt to trace the history behind why AAPI women have become hypersexualized and objectified.
Since 500 BC, the philosophical teachings of Confucius have been deeply imbedded in Asia, shaping the social, cultural, and political norms and way of life. It is institutionalized through conformity and reinforced as it passes from one generation to the next. Depending on the class or gender that you were born into, your place in this patriarchal society was predetermined with a set of expectations essential to ensure harmony within the society. Women were kept subservient to men, restricted to family obligations, seen from a young age as property to be sold or married off into a life of perpetual servitude, forced to conform to beauty standards attained through painful methods, such as foot binding, and viewed as replaceable by concubines. Maybe the most enduring part of these teaching is found today in widespread preference for boys in order to maintain the family legacy. This is exemplified by China’s One Child policy, which during its implementation radically tipped the country’s demographics in favor of men. It is very difficult to overcome the discrimination that AAPIs face, when systemic inequality comes not only from within our own Confucian ideals of civility and traditions, but also from stereotypes that were born out of and exist in the dominant Western cultures.
In addition to the overall oppression of AAPI women, a more specific hypersexualization and objectification of AAPI women as exotic sexual beings finds its historical foundation, in large part, in America. In 1834, the first recorded Chinese woman arrived in New York. Seen as oriental and exotic, she was put on display like a circus act to curious onlookers. Unfortunately, such treatment was only a sign of things to come. In the 1850s, the Chinese men and women alike saw the California Gold Rush as their opportunity to escape drought and political instability, make their fortunes, and return home. However, as gold supplies dwindled, they looked for other means to survive. The absence of women in
mining or other manual labor-oriented environments, created a market for prostitution, proliferated by the luring, kidnapping, or purchasing and shipping of young Chinese girls to San Francisco to become indentured slaves. Those that succumbed to sexually transmitted diseases were quarantined and left to starve or die by suicide. America looked the other way as it was profitable.
To stem the spread of sexually transmitted diseases to white men by Chinese women whom had been forced into prostitution, America responded with the passage of the Page Act in 1875, which banned the immigration of East Asian women. It was the first restrictive immigration law based on race and gender, and it was based only on a perception that Asian women were hypersexual in nature. Although this perceived hypersexuality was originally attributed to Chinese women, the words “easy” and “cheap” are still used in reference to all AAPI women to this day. This harmful stereotype has resulted in the solidification of a warped social lens, through which victims are viewed as having tempted the perpetrators that took advantage of the victim’s vulnerable situation.
Although women have come a long way in the fight against gender inequality in post-industrial revolution America, AAPI women in the workforce are often placed in administrative support positions, either perceived as a submissive team players or the efficient “tiger mom.” The seemingly complimentary view of AAPI women as hardworking employees, however in many cases may lead to the reinforcement of the “bamboo ceiling.” Often back-handed compliments, such as references to the AAPI community as “the model minority,” feed into the stereotype of AAPIs as “worker bees,” with any form of denial explained as lacking the communication and leadership skills necessary for advancement to supervisorial and executive positions. The lack of Asians, especially women, in executive-level positions reduces the opportunities for junior employees to seek mentorship from role models that have overcome personal and professional challenges that they may be facing.
We also must remember that not all Asians are “crazy rich” or successfully educated doctors or lawyers. Oftentimes, the most vulnerable that get targeted are those that face language barriers, fear of retaliation, and unfamiliarity with their legal rights. They need our help.
Let us educate ourselves and others about the dangers and disadvantages of the perpetuation of historical view of Asian women – ones which are not outdated but were never founded in truth to begin with. It’s a known fact that expectations influence performance. If we are expected to be docile, insecure in our opinions, fearful to speak-up, and prone to keeping our heads down, when we dare to be ambitious and pursue leadership opportunities, we risk being seen as aggressive as having not stayed in our lane. When society sees us as a group of submissive “orientals,” it creates an environment where we are targeted for those qualities instead of being valued as individuals. If we let the next generation grow up in an environment like this, they’ll continue to be the stereotype that held AAPI women back in the first place. We need to be vigilant in calling out misconceptions and discriminations against us and break the cycle that for centuries had stifled our voices and limited our potential.
