***Disclaimer: This segment’s blog posts
and discussions will be a little more difficult for me because I am not well
versed in queer theory so I may not be able to effectively communicate my
ideas. The readings I’ve done so far are shorter but far denser, complex, and
theoretical than I am used to so forgive and correct me if I understand
something incorrectly.
I honestly can’t
feel anything but hatred for some of the comments made by the parents of
Chinese adoptees in Sara Dorow’s article. I’m more of a positive person and I
usually try to assume the best intentions of people but I can’t help but feel
anger towards these people. When it comes to transracial adoption, I personally
feel that the best intention is the White savior/rescue discourse (p. 363) because
though it is built through racialized institutions its end goal minus all the
other factors is promoting good. But Dorow makes it clear that the promotion of
good is based upon the whitening of Asian subjects in comparison to Black
Americans. One parent in particular described her reason as choosing a Chinese
adoption was that it was “clean, pure.” It is so quick in someone’s mind to
associate white with purity, making the ability for domestic adoption to be
‘black’ because of the ability for mothers to reclaim a baby (p. 368).
It also disgusts
me that the babies are a fad, even called fitting a ‘taste’ as the baby was
compared to decorations by one mother (p. 370). Another parent thought that,
“having Asian children made her and her husband more interesting people, in
comparison to bland white culture.” As we saw in the readings last week, there
is always a fine line that parents should figure out when it comes to how much
of the ethnic culture should be encouraged in the child, but using the child’s
ethnicity as the basis of encouraging interest in oneself is a completely
different issue! Children should not be considered accessories! (I’m having
difficulties not reposting the ‘my emotions!’ GIF right now).
The article did
bring up an interesting point that I would love to further investigate should I
be offered any opportunity… Dorow briefly mentioned George who is
fourth-generation Chinese American. I’d really be interested in knowing more
about transnational adoption but within the same ethnicity, but even more in
ethnicities who have been in countries where they do not ethnically originate.
What if a non-white adoptive parent who did not associate with their ethnicity
adopted from the country of their ethnicity? How would those children grow up? Would
they feel like something was missing from their lives, such as the case of the
Korean adoptees? *This does not mean that I think that George does not identify
with Chinese culture.
I
wanted to briefly discuss Gopinath’s article about sexuality in Asia and how
they create a space in which they can be acknowledged as citizens of a nation.
Gopinath makes two great points that reinforce something I learned in another
class. Gopinath states, “Fire then,
like Funny Boy, refuses to subscribe
to the notion that the proper manifestation of same-sex eroticism is within a
“politics of visibility” in the public sphere.” I believe Gopinath is trying to
say that unlike Euramerican lesbian portrayals in film, these two films
demonstrate that sexuality does not have to appear in the public sphere in
order to be political. (I think… Maybe…?) Gopinath continues with, “…the film
makes explicit ways in which not all female same-sex desire culminates in an
autonomous “lesbianism,” and not all “lesbianism” is at odds with domestic
marital arrangements. I think by this Gopinath is trying to say that lesbianism
is not as clearly defined and secured in the films, and it does not always try
to be in opposition to the heteronormative couple. (Again... I’m a little
unclear). But what I’m trying to get to is an article I read that described that
there are women-only spas that women in India go to for erotic experiences (I
use this word lightly because I don’t want it to come off as something they try
once; it is a lifestyle? Ugh words are so tricky). The women who go asking for
a massage are going there for a sexual experience with women. I find this
interesting because I think that the closed off spa is an extension of the
private space in which women are able to fulfill their same-sex desires, but
are able to return to the domestic sphere with their husbands. (Another * is
necessary to acknowledge that some women actually are struggling with their
sexuality and they feel confined in a homophobic country)
No comments:
Post a Comment