My Story

My Story:

Sacrifice and Selfless Love make Marriage Perfect.

The secret to the law of sacrifice is that it ultimately leads us to our own self-actualization, salvation, glory, and eternal happiness.

Sacrifice and selfless love exemplifies Jesus Christ, and he has shown us with his own blood the way to eternal salvation and glory: “Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it” (Luke 17:33). Growing up as a Mormon, I was taught to emulate such qualities of the Christ. Because of such teachings, I was able to let go of my self-egos and material comforts in order to seek my eternal salvation and glory in my marriage.

On January 18, 1992, I got married to a nonreligious but a kind college classmate of mine. By the time we got married, my husband was working at a bank in San Diego. We bought a home near his work—Carlsbad, California, a paradisiacal city by the ocean. Our house was envied by many. It was on a hill-top of La Costa Golf Resort, and it had a pool in the backyard and an ocean view, a few steps from it. It was indeed in the heart of a scenic place which attracted travelers from all over the world for an idyllic vacation by the seashore.

We were also lucky to have purchased a foreclosing flower shop for pennies on the dollar from the bank which my husband was working for at the time. My husband quit his job to run the business with me. Working diligently, we turned the business around in a couple of years, and by its third year, we were the biggest and the most successful flower shop in town. In addition, my husband’s trading company was starting to reap huge profits. We bought a nice car, we hired a live-in help, and we frequently dined at some of the fanciest restaurants in town. Life was good, at least on the surface.

As picturesque as it may sound, however, I had never felt a day of genuine happiness in such a privileged surrounding. The house was spiritless, occupied by an apathetic soul (me) due to prolonged inactivity in the church after being married to a non-member, an agnostic soul (my husband) who was burning with worldly ambitions, and an indolent soul (my husband’s sister) who was unmotivated to engage in anything that was worthy of her pursuit, not even school.

Gradually, the spirit of the Lord—my once constant companion who I could always depend on for comfort, peace, and happiness—was departing from me. For the first time in my life, I felt what it was like to lose the gift of the Holy Ghost. I started to suffer pangs of hunger for the spirit of the Lord I once had. I could no longer wait. I had to go back to my Lord, for I was dying internally.

I started to talk to my husband about joining the church. But each time, he would turn hostile, causing the two of us to quarrel bitterly. He said that he, a Chinese man, would never consider joining an American church. To avoid further turmoil in our relationship, we agreed to absolute silence on the topic of religion in our marriage.

Since talking about it was forbidden, I employed a different method to soften my husband’s heart. I hired only the Mormons in our flower shop, hoping that he would see the light of Christ from the LDS employees. This worked to a certain extend. He was moved by their kindness, responsibility, and honesty, even by some of the teenaged employees.

Though deeply impressed by the noble qualities of the LDS employees, my husband rejected all spiritual invitations by them. In fact, by the eighth year of our marriage (1998), it was clear to me that unless I take drastic measures my husband would forever remain an agnostic, a worldly person resentful of all spiritual engagement. This also meant that for so long as I condone his current lifestyle, my soul will shrivel up along with his, since I had stopped attending the church in order to keep my marriage functional by mostly catering to my husband’s needs and desires.

One day, while I was yet struggling with such issues, my husband received a call from his senile grandmother from Taiwan. In a frail voice, she begged for my husband’s return to Taiwan. She said she was too old and too weak to take care of herself and her alcoholic son—my husband’s father whom he could not get along with. Grandma also questioned whether I would be willing to live in Taiwan to take care of them.

My husband hesitated; he could not give his grandmother an affirmative answer right there and then.  “Why now?” He thought. In his mind, things were great for us in America. He saw lots of potential not only with our flower shop but with his other business in China as well. Things were at its pinnacle.

While he was struggling within, I, on the other hand did not. I knew what my answer to his grandmother’s plea was. To me, his grandmother’s call was a heaven’s call from God, showing me a narrow path that I must take in order to convert my husband into the gospel. I figured that my husband would be more receptive to the gospel message if it was taught in his mother tongue in his native land, Taiwan.

However, my decision to put an end to my pseudo-Edenic life in Carlsbad was challenged by many, including my own husband. I had to reason, persuade, and even argue a few times to convince my husband to give up everything we had in America to go back to Taiwan. He was not the only one whom I had to defy: his mother, his mother’s best friend, his aunts, uncles, and a few friends of mine.

I was even contested by some of my husband’s female acquaintances I had met in Taipei. They were victims of adulterous Taiwanese husbands. Thus in good faith, they advised me to hold onto my marriage in America. “Don’t expose your young, handsome, capable husband in the wild, carnal city of Taipei,” they exhorted. However, no one could convince me to do otherwise.

At last, I was finally successful in willfully redirecting the trajectory of my life. My husband and I did indeed forego of all our luxuries in America. We did this by hastily selling everything we owned in the U.S., surrendering not only our prized materials at rock bottom prices (a beautiful home, a successful business, a nice car, etc.) but also leaving behind my lifelong friends and family in the States. All of these sacrifices were required on our part to take care of his senile grandma and his alcoholic father in Taiwan, both of whom none of his other siblings were willing nor able to care for at the time.

Yet, I did take advantage of my husband’s deep appreciation towards me right before I left the U.S. I demanded of him to become my Sunday escort to church every week for one hour as soon as we arrived in Taiwan. He was dumbfounded by this request and thus resisted by trying to bribe his way out of it. He offered me huge sums of money and diamonds but to no avail. Left with no options, he agreed to my request. I was exuberant, oblivious at the time of the harsh trials that awaited me in Taiwan.

It was 1998. Once we had moved to Taiwan, my husband—in order to abide by our agreement—started to go to a LDS church for “one hour” a week. Nevertheless, to my dismay, the life in Taiwan proved to be almost too good for my husband, to the point of him not returning home until the dusk of the night on a daily basis. Just as I was forewarned by the betrayed Taiwanese women, my husband indeed started to drink heavily and indulge in the night glitters of what the great city Taipei had to offer to its carnal and ambitious men.

However, my husband was motivated to and thus kept his part of the promise. The deal was that as long as he went to the church for an hour each week, I would grant him his complete freedom in all things in other days of the week, regardless of how much I may disapprove of what he was doing. He liked this deal, so he kept his part of the deal, but with the least amount of respect for the church itself.

He started out, therefore, as someone who cannot even be designated as an investigator, for he had absolutely no intention nor showed any signs of joining the church. Every Sunday, while my husband was fast asleep, my six-year-old daughter and I would walk to the church first. Then about a half hour later, my husband would show up, find us at the sacrament meeting, sit with us until the congregation started to sing the closing hymn, then leave hastily in order to avoid all solicitations by the missionaries and the ward members. Nonetheless, as long as he did this much every Sunday, I kept my cool with him. Although his night life which included his many male and female friends was emotionally insufferable, I never nagged nor restricted anything he engaged in for the duration of six years that I lived in Taiwan.

Worse yet, there were other external factors that exacerbated my situation in Taiwan. The weather: The sweltering humidity burned me in sweats during its extremely long summer months. The infrastructure: Neither the dilapidated building I resided in nor the haphazard city planning itself gratified me much. Nothing in Taiwan looked anything close to what I was accustomed to in the U.S. The bugs: I hated the mosquitos that would surreptitiously bit me in sleep and the humongous, flying cockroaches which at one time even landed on top of my hair. The transportation: I hated the crowded city buses, life-threatening taxis, and toxic-emitting motorcycles. The open market: I was sickened by the insanitary-looking open market. It was always crowded with shoppers and was located inside the filthiest alley right next to my home. I felt like I had no place of refuge or order in Taiwan.

Neither did I have any internal sanctuary. I was constantly weary. First, I was physically exhausted due to increased amount of housework. I was responsible of taking care of many people in the household: my alcoholic father-in-law and his many girlfriends who came to our home daily and ate with us; brother-in-law and his family, three of whom had joined us since the year of 1999; and my own nuclear family of four. Another brother-in-law and his family of five came every month and stayed with us for two-three days. I was never granted a day of privacy nor personal space. I felt totally exposed, out of control.

Second, I was emotionally shattered due to my flirtatious, worldly husband. Third, I was mentally beaten because I was busy picking up survival skills in a foreign land—Chinese language, memorizing names, recognizing streets, etc. Fourth, I was socially deprived because I was disconnected from my lifetime friends and family in America and the dismal number of friends I had at the time in Taiwan. Back then, online interactions were a novice idea, so emailing or online chatting was an unfathomable alternative. Fifth, I did not have any say in financial matters. Everything was either owned by my father-in-law or my husband. I simply had no rights, even though I was constantly busy doing things at home to make everyone else’s life happier and healthier.

Under such condition, it was virtually impossible for me to feel any sense of happiness living in Taiwan. I felt unfulfilled in every aspect of my life—my unprotected privacy, my indeterminate marriage, my deprived sociality, my abject finance. They were all incorrigible by me. The more I struggled to settle down in Taiwan, the more acutely felt I the sense of uprootedness, disrespect, and powerlessness in a patriarchal Taiwanese culture. The nights when my husband was out late, which usually lasted until the next day morning, what I did to console my broken heart and exhausted body was to quietly sing along the Korean songs being played on my CD player, feeling bitterly lonely and weeping stealthily in the Japanese Tatami situated in the darkest corner of our living room.

Eventually, my husband would succeed in sapping me of all levels of human emotions. Albeit I frequently saw my husband come home drunk in the morning, I no longer felt sadness. In fact, I was thrilled to not have him around, because his presence was nothing less than pure torture. Neither did my kids asked for their dad because they seldom felt loved by their father. In fact, on one occasion, my three-year-old son kicked him out of the bed when his father tried to embrace him. In due course, we, as a couple, stopped communicating with one another, other than for practical matters. While he was engrossed in having the “time-of-his-life,” I was deliberately practicing indifference towards him, in order to numb the pain, sorrow, and resentment I was intensely feeling inside. In time, however, many years of such practice turned into a real indifference. Indeed, I was cognitively existing but emotionally dead in Taiwan.

Not surprisingly, during the six years I lived in Taiwan, I spent more time with my in-laws than I did with my husband. Little by little, such existence of mine diminished even the self-worth of who I was as a human being. I did not have any friends, place to go, or a sense of belonging. Sadly, my identity as once a proud and capable woman in the U.S.—the very quality which my husband fell in love with—was no longer traceable in me. My cup was empty and I had no more to share with anyone. Home was hell; I no longer loved my husband; and I planned a divorce in the future. That is how I wrote it in my journal and confessed it to God in my prayers. I started to dream of fleeing to the U.S. Little did I know then that God had a plan to save me, lift me up high from my self-dug inferno in Taiwan.

My divine intervention occurred in June of 2003. A call from my mother in Los Angeles proved to be a life-turning point in my life. She, in tears, exhorted me to leave Taiwan. I was amazed at how mothers know best about their daughter’s situation. I sobbed for hours with her on the phone, thanking her. She sobbed even louder than me. I continued to sob for days, even fainting inside a public toilet on one occasion due to a sudden outflow of emotions rushing upward from my chest, leaving me gasping for air. On my knees and in tears, I thanked God profusely for releasing me from my heavy burden through my intuitive, loving mother.

I was all smiles and rejoiced in my soon-to-be-free-status in America once again. I had absolutely no more feelings left for neither my husband nor his family. I had paid my dues, and I was being released to a land of freedom, and I knew then that I would never come back to Taiwan again, since I was taking both of my kids with me to Los Angeles. I had no reason to come back, and I did not want to remember anything that had happened to me in Taiwan.

On June of 2003, I left Taiwan with my nine-year-old daughter and my three-year-old son to pursue my education and teaching career in the U.S. I knew that nothing could be worse than the six years I had spent in Taiwan, so I was not afraid of anything. I was determined to succeed, and it is suffice to say that “success” indeed was the perfect word for what God has allowed me to achieve in Los Angeles. Thanks to my supportive mom, dad, and my sister, I had won numerous scholarly honors, presented at numerous academic platforms, wrote copious amount of and have published a couple of scholarly articles, and taught at both college and high school levels.

My husband felt pressured as he realized that I had no intension of coming back to him. Summer of 2005, he came to the states to visit me and the kids. He was contrite in spirit, visibly brokenhearted in fear of losing me and the kids for good. I could see that he regretted all that he had done in the past and for what he was about to lose as a result—his children and his wife. He secretly cried non-stop every night as he watched the kids and I fast asleep in our beds (as told by him later).

Six months have passed since his visit. On December 25th, 2005, after being married to my husband for nearly fifteen years, I finally got to see him in his white baptismal robe. He indeed underwent baptism that day, washing away all his sins of the past in the sacred water. In his testimony afterwards, he admitted that the reason why he decided to be baptized was because of the sacrifice and example I had shown him and his family. “But most of all” he said, “I decided to accept and live the gospel because my wife fasted and prayed for me for the past two years. Her weekly fasting thoroughly moved me. I couldn’t deny that my wife loved me.”

Love? Is that why I fasted for him every week for two years since 2003, the year I left him? No, not exactly! How could I love a man who has hurt me so much? Although his baptism was a miraculous answer to my earnest fasting and prayers of two years, honestly, my heart had long been fossilized to feel any romantic feelings towards my husband. My love for my husband was more on a humanistic term: universal love for mankind, love for the Lord, and my love for the gospel. Needless to say, his baptism was one of the happiest days of my life. I did shed a lot of tears of joy, but as a devout Christian who had succeeded in finding a lost sheep, not as a wife.

Shocked by how hardened my heart was towards him, my husband started to do things that would eventually convince me of his sincerity in the gospel. Seeing how overwhelmed I was raising two kids on my own and going to school fulltime, he volunteered to raise the two kids on his own since the year 2005. I also allowed this to happen because the school district where my kids were bound to attend in Los Angeles was one of the worst in the nation.

Once he had the kids to himself in Taiwan, he started to build amazing bonds with the kids by living by the gospel standards. Gradually, my children started to love their father more than me. Above all, what really impressed me was the fact that he continued to stay active in the church without my influence, accepting and magnifying all his church callings by his own volition.

My husband’s complete makeover in the gospel not only impressed me, but everyone around him. People watched this man in bewilderment, including his own parents. But I did not feel any love for him as a husband yet. In fact, I was often approached by many intellectual men in my career, traits absent in my husband. Satan certainly attempted to stray me away from my husband, but he had no power over me because I was fasting and praying every week. I started to plead with God to bring back my old, affectionate feelings towards my husband, so I can think about going back to him.

Although it took us longer than we would have liked, our nightly prayers as a family to be whole again was answered on January 2006. We were sealed in the Taipei Temple as an eternal couple and a family with the kids. But it still took us another three years before we actually started to live together as a whole family due to contractual obligations I had with the school I was employed at.

On August 5th, 2009, I was finally able to come back to my husband and to my children. All those painful years are now behind me. It has been five years since my husband’s baptism. He has undergone a complete transformation of the heart, body, and mind. His heart now rejoices in the gospel; his body has been miraculously rejuvenated by keeping the word of wisdom; and his mind has been cleared of all spiritual free-radicals—all negative proclivities of his former self.

He now treats me like a queen. He tells me that he loves me every day and night. He spends quantity and quality time with the children. He works diligently and God has blessed him abundantly so that he can sufficiently provide for his family. He helps me out with housework. He takes me out every week to a nice restaurant. He is kind and generous to all the people around him. Most of all, he is faithful to God’s commandments and church callings. What more could I possibly want in a husband?

Christ has said: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear…He that feareth is not made perfect in love” (1 John 4:18). This verse assures me that the Lord is pleased with the fact that I did not “fear in love” when I chose to marry and love my husband. It also asserts me that it was all worth it—my fearless decision to give up material comforts in America in order to convert my husband into the gospel in Taiwan. Though I am far from being perfect, I have endeavored to practice “perfect love [that] casteth out fear.” As a result, my husband and I are now “made perfect in love.” In fact, I am so happy now that I find it almost surreal that bad things had actually happened in early years of my marriage.

Just as everyone else, there were plenty of seemingly insurmountable trials in my twenty years of marriage, but I now understand why we are given such challenges. The Lord wants us to be like him, and he has challenged us: “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect” (3 Nephi 12:48).” He sends us such invitation so that we, like Him, may gain the eternal glory just as he has gained his through his atoning sacrifice. The scriptures confirm of his glory in the latter days: “Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever” (D&C 76:108). Jesus Christ showed the way so that we can obtain our own individual glory in our own small ways in our everyday lives by learning to “sacrifice,” the fearless love that makes us perfect.

It is funny how what seemed back then a long-suffering, painful sacrifice now seems it was once-in-a-lifetime, special opportunity for me to invest in something eternally invaluable. How strange that our perspectives should change so drastically over time? As our perspectives change, our past experiences are modified in our memory cells: their meanings change. I now know that the trials of my past were God’s way of prodding me just a little so that I may be induced to reaching my full potential: my self-actualization through education; my salvation through fasting and prayers; and my eternal glory and happiness through temple marriage and sealing.

None of the adverse situations in my life was useless. It all, at the end, enriched my life and made me a happier person. I, therefore, shy away from framing my past experiences as something sacrificial. Rather, it was an investment on my part to transform even the most dehumanizing experience into something most glorious. I testify that the secret to the law of sacrifice is that it ultimately leads us to our own self-actualization, salvation, glory, and eternal happiness.

Why I Believe in a Living Prophet of this Generation

Thomas S. Monson

1. A living prophet is more vital to me personally in this day and age than a dead prophet in the Bible, because he lives in and understands this current generation.

2.  My current prophet, President Monson, may not necessarily be a renown figure, but I choose to follow him, because he was called by God and ordained by the proper priesthood authority.

3.  He is not limited by men’s reasoning and tells me what I need to know, not merely what I want to know.

Hugo’s ”Superconsumerism”

My Response to Hugo’s Superconsumerism: http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/publications/drafts/Nada8-Liu-Superconsumer.pdf

I want to share this with you because, after reading Hugo’s paper, I realized that I have personally went through the process of cultural perspectivism, in that I was first, to borrow Hugo’s words, the “naïve [cultural] consumer, frustrated and anxious.” But because “[my] spirit[could] not tolerate anxiety and meaninglessness for long,” I have reshaped the American culture that was once my “oppressor into tool” which I now wield it integratively with my other cultures for moment-to-moment, situational purposes. I can do this because I am in tandem the consumer and the owner of multiple cultures and have a diverse range of self-expressive sociolinguistic mediums; I can never be mainstreamed into only one culture; I thus believe that I have found what Hugo calls one’s “niche culture” composed of rich cultural languages and authority.

I think this is what Hugo means by a “superconsumer” a postmodernist of auto-culture, a person of credible (authoritative) culture amidst an “in-credible culture,” a concept and a reality that emerges in stages as one travels this journey of cultural transformations from being naïve to superconsumer (which I do not totally agree; I think some will get stuck in this journey, forever xenophobic if not, in Hugo’s term, an incorrigibly “passive consumer”).

If I may reiterate Hugo to make sure that I am understanding his continuum of cultural evolvement: 1) Strauss & Derrida’s (1966) two primal models: a “bricoleur,” a cultural hero, opportunist, and critic who uses one culture to undermine another and his/her antithetical counterpart, an “engineer,” a cultural fool who is one-dimensional and submissive to authority; then 2) Jameson’s (1991) “intertextualist,” a culturally unsettled, faint vestige of globalism who is unduly influenced by and thus desensitized to milliard cultural propagandas; and 3) Bhabha’s (1994) biculturalist who, rather than being desensitized, by negotiating and contesting the bipolar cultures of one’s motherland and the host country has carved out a transcendent space of beyond in a conjoining sense; and ultimately, which brings us back to 4) Hugo’s (2006) superconsumer, an emblem of self-constructed culture which one is not born into ethnically/geographically but willfully and optimistically self-fashioned by utilizing/reconfiguring contaminated (or dumbed down) original cultures in the age of hyperglobalisation.

Now, what I don’t understand is Hugo’s paradoxical concept of simultaneously submitting one’s self to a controller and yet controlling the controller. Help me with this, please. At the same time, I find Hugo’s “poetics of three critical experiences” simply exquisite! I agree 1000% and appreciate his graphic representations of his dense, potentially confusing theory.

Kant’s “Purposiveness without a Purpose”

It’s me again. Can you help me understand Kant?I’m stuck with his notion of “purposiveness without a purpose.” What significance does it hold for Kant’s claims about the human value of aesthetic judgment? I read this many times, but the more I read it, it confuses me more.

As far as I know, that’s Kant’s definition of the aesthetic. The aesthetic, to Kant, should be non-utilitarian (spelling). A knife is utilitarian-you use it to cut something with, but a poem is not utilitarian-you don’t use it to “do” something practical.

To put it differently, a work of art is not something that has a (utilitarian) function or “purpose.” But, that does not mean that the work of art does not have a purpose within its non-utilitarian realm.It has a purpose within the purpose-less (non-utilitarian) context. Take a beautiful tie for example. Its beauty lies, first, in the fact that it does not have a utilitarian purpose (I don’t have to wear a tie). But in the sense that the tie is carefully designed and produced, it has its purpose: it is meant to be beautiful, aesthetic.

Another example. Many students, English majors or non majors, ask me: What can literature do for me? They are thinking: how can literature help me get into a more profitable career? I tell them-if that’s what you are thinking, literature is useless. Can people live without the experience of music, painting or literature? The answer is: There are some people who live their lives without that experience.

The ancient Chinese philosopher Chuang Tze (or, Zhuang Tze) once said: “The great Tao appears useless” (da dao wu yong). That’s similar to what Kant tries to say.Art-or philosophy-appears useless if we look at it in the utilitarian sense.

"Hybridity" (an excerpt from my identity paper)

HYBRIDITY: Deep down inside, nonetheless, I feel that even this new title, “Asian American,” is too restricting for me, especially in light of the fact that I am an Angelino who inter-socializes with peoples of all cultures. As Cohen (1997) hypothesizes, as a postmodern cultural diaspora, I ultimately and inevitably have dubious political allegiances. That is, though I maintain certain sociopolitical ties with 1) my legal country U.S., 2) my mother land Korea, and 3) the host countries of Taiwan and China, by not completely assimilating to any of these national/cultural norms, I live in what Cohen (1997) calls “no-group lands” (p.189). In this no-group land, then, my existence is a composite of liminality, syncretism and ambiguity, ultimately rendering my identity geopolitically fluid and culturally amorphous. In tiny increments, I have gradually come to embrace myself as what Bhabha (1998) calls a “postcolonial cultural freak”—an indistinguishable, marginalized, and multi-cultural member in our society (pp. 1331-1344). Now, I accept and even thrive on the fact that my identity cannot be fixed to one national/cultural locale. It is in constant flux; it can never be compartmentalized into this or that category. Rather, my subjectivity is forever in the making. It is an unoccupied whirling void without a shape. It has immeasurable depth that can soak up any culture, selectively or wholeheartedly. It is thus fluid and amorphous. I simultaneously feel that I am Korean, Chinese, and American, and lately, an Angelino. Who knows what I will be tomorrow? Perhaps, a denizen of the entire world.

Traditional Female Gender Role under Deconstruction

Why aren’t women making babies anymore? Are American women saying “No” to babies, but saying “Yes” to childless marriage or childless single existence?
As more and more women gain socio-economic independence, what was once considered her only legitimate space, “home,” is undergoing massive structural transformation. Only about 24% of the US family structure represents the traditional nuclear home—i.e., heterosexual parents with children.
Household Types, 1990-2000
1990
  • Total Households 91,947,410 (100%)
  • Married Couple 23,494,726 (55.15%)
  • With Children 23,494,726 (25.55%)

2000

Total Households 105,480,101 (100.00%)

  • Married Couple 54,493,232 (51. 66%)
  • With Children 24,835,505 (23.55%)

According to this statistics (Census Scope http://www.%20censusscope.org/), we as a society are headed towards a predominantly elderly populace, since less and less women are willing to produce babies. In fact, such is the trend for other countries with 1st world status.

Do you have any concerns with this trend?

Who are to be blamed for the modern women’s “anti-domestication” stance?

Question: Who are to be blamed for the modern women’s “anti-domestication” stance, as they overwhelmingly restrain their reproductive organs? Is it A, B, or C?


A) Men, who for centuries have underappreciated or exploited domestic wives’ human dignity in general, compelling women to seek psychological/intellectual validation outside her traditional enclave (home and her children).

B) Women, who innately having “Eve’s syndrome” to thwart “Adam’s God-ordained authority” over her, have ingeniously made some strategic political strides over the years, such as: the 20s suffrage act (1st wave feminism), the 60s civil rights’ movement (2nd wave feminism), and the 90s women-of-color consciousness and post-colonial transnationalism (3rd wave feminism).

C) Other: Your insights as to why.

An Image of an Ideal Woman Shaped by Men

Women, don’t allow men to
commodify & objectify you!
We are being manufactured by men’s desires and needs

An Image of an Ideal Patriotic Woman
during the World Wars
 
The notion that women were biologically unfit for hard physical labor faded due to wartime shortages in the workforce.

All of sudden, men (factory owners & politicians) preferred women of the following sizes:

  • Muscle – Big
  • Intelligence – Small
  • Money – N/A
  • Obedience – X-large

Women, don’t sing all the verses at the same time!

Women today are encouraged by the society to have it all—generally, all simultaneously: money, travel, marriage, motherhood, career, and etc. However, doing things sequentially—pursuing/fulfilling a career, education, or various roles one at a time—is the wisest way to do each thing well in its due time and seasons (p 18-19). If a woman work on her various tasks or dreams sequentially, then one day she will have it all.

So, all of you out there, don’t pressure your woman to sing all the verses of her milliard different songs at the same time because she will CRASH!!

Source: Faust, J. E. (1986). A message to my granddaughters: becoming great women. Ensign, Sep, 18-19. http://lds.org/

Why I Disagree with Both Leroi’s and Thomas’s Definition of “Race”

 Part I

         “The billion or so of the world’s people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants  in common that are collectively rare in everyone else; they are a race.  At a smaller scale, three million Basques do as well; so they are a race as well.  Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences.”

—Armand Leroi, The New York Times 3/14/05

I disagree with Armand Leroi’s above comment.  It is scientifically inconclusive to say that race is biologically based.  However, I do recognize that race can serve as an important indicator that allows us to gain a better understanding of differences that exist among the different groups of people, such as the prevalence of certain diseases in some races but not in others.  Yet, I find Leroi’s statement to be problematic for two reasons:  First, the premise of his study is inflated and not holistic, in that the range of genetic differential that he attempts to categorize as different racial types of humans cannot exceed .01%, since according to human genome film, Homo sapiens are 99.9% genetically identical.  Second, his theory of genetic racialization is based on an inconstant and fluctuating sample of human genes.  That is, his sample base of human genes are not stable enough to make a scientific claim, in that Homo sapiens always have been, is in the process of, and will continue to be subject to evolution which involve the following unpredictable and incalculable forces: (1) external/natural environment, like climate, gene flow, and genetic drift; (2) internal/biological environment, like mutations, endemics, and blood types; (3) cultural behavior, such as various breeding patterns, migrations, diet, and beliefs. 

Bluntly put, Leroi’s scientific claim about human variation at genetic level is not based on precision over the whole population.  For instance, though the discovery of DNA has revealed human diversity with greater precision, virtually no one genotype is exclusive to one race.  For example, according to Molnar, though African-Americans show a higher frequency of sickle-cell genes, other ethnic groups also display sickle-cell genes, and they are categorized into different geographical types as they are found in locations such as Senegal, Benin, Bantu, and Asia (Molnar 162).  Also, in England, within one race of blood type-A patients who are afflicted with stomach cancer, a study of the frequency of this disease “revealed a difference between regions:  The mortality rate was higher in the North than in the South,” depending on other elements of people’s blood type (Molnar 99).  In other words, in this case of stomach cancer in England, racial type was not an indicator of why some have cancer and why some don’t.  Race is but one element of infinite number of other factors that determine the susceptibility of certain biological difference at a genetic level.  In other words, to borrow Alan Goodman’s term in his essay “Two Questions About Race” (2005), Leroi, as a scientist, is making a grave error because his concept of “genes as an indicator of different race” is based on a “shifting concept” (Goodman 3).  Goodman further critiques that Leroi “tends to forget about the 94% of variation that race fails to statistically explain (Goodman 3).  Rather, Goodman says that “race is an inherently unstable and unreliable concept, [which may be] . . . fine for local realities but not so for a scientific concept” (Goodman 3).  If, within this .01% of biological variability, certain traits are more common in one group of people than others, Leroi exaggerates this variability and postulates this tendency out of context as being a significant indicator of race disparity. 

Unlike Leroi, Molnar, on the other hand, believes that “study of biology forces us to reject perceptions of superficial differences, many of which are due to factors of nutrition, child growth, and climate” (Molnar 2).  In terms of nutrition and child growth as factors, I have personally noticed a change in appearance of Koreans brought up in US versus my other relatives who have never left Korea.  Korean immigrants in US more or less adopt American diet.  Consequently, unlike their relatives in Korea, Korean immigrants of US drink more milk and eat more pizza like the mainstream Americans.  This change in environmental and behavioral factors, in turn, affect genetic expression of the growth hormones in Korean immigrants’ children: Higher intake of dairy products causes their children to grow taller and stronger than their relatives in Korea.  As I am not a scientist, though I cannot validate my aforementioned hypothesis—that higher intake of dairy products produce taller people—Molnar cites cases in which diet seems to be a significant element in genetic makeup:  First, according to Molnar, Cross-culturally, and particularly in Asia, Africa, and in many European countries, more adults, opposed to infants, are classified as mal-absorbers of milk, because adults drink less or no milk compared to infants (Molnar 129).  However, a large percentage of adults in North America and pastoral tribes in East Africa are classified as absorbers due to their more exposure to dairy products (Molnar 129).  Thus, Molnar says that “milk-using experience . . .contribute[s] to high frequency of the gene for adult lactase persistence in some peoples of the world” (Molnar 129). 

Not only culturally specific “diet” affects human genome, but culturally particular “belief/behavior” also plays a role in genetic frequency.  For instance, albinism  type II, tyrosinase positive, is most frequently seen in Africans and Native Americans (Molnar 126).  One explanation for this phenomenon in one group—at least in the Native Americans—can be traced back to their cultural proclivity to the spread of Albinism:  In their culture, Albino males are treated well, doing lighter domestic jobs with women at home, which increase their prospect of mating and thus the chance of procreating more albinos (Miller, lecture).  In terms of both lactose tolerance and albinism, then, culturally particular human behavior—such as diet and sexuality—affect human diversity at a biological level.

 According to Molnar, climate is another indicator of human diversity.  For example, one type of protein called Haptoglobins (Hp1) which “have the capacity to combine with the oxygen-carrying pigment, hemoglobin” has the highest frequency in tropical locations (Molnar 120).  Molnar says that this is probably due to the fact that “this Haptoglobin (Hp1) type would be an advantage in populations where hemolytic anemia is very high”: the tropical areas (Molnar 121).  Another example of climate as an indicator of human diversity is that, though there are numerous exceptions, in general, “taller people [are] farther from the equator (as in northwestern European) and shorter people nearer [to] the equator” (Molnar 181).  Likewise, people are fatter and lighter in the northern cold regions versus their thinner darker counterparts in the warm humid areas (Molnar 186).  Even the various head sizes of human show correlation with the climate: In colder climates, the people on the average have “rounder heads than peoples in the tropics,” as “surface area and volume is a critical factor in heat radiation to regulate body temperature” (Molnar 188, 9).  Also, in terms of heat radiation/heat conservation, Homo sapiens’ other body parts like arms, legs, facial features, teeth, and hair are affected by climate, ultimately increasing the multiplicity and individuality of Homo sapiens, though within the .01% of human variation.  Most crucially, however, these milliard differences in human are merely correlations between climate and human variation; they are tendencies, not facts. Thus, any observation and assumptions about the phenotypical variation in humans—however genetically detailed the data may be—still do not stand as facts.  Ultimately, then, the very idea, such as that of Leroi’s—that humans are divisible into few racial types by observing their genes—is problematic, as many precursors to genetic difference, like climate cannot be measured by scientific methods.

Molnar explains that in any given population, studying its gene pool and frequencies are affected and shaped by other immeasurable factors such as “mutation,” “natural selection,” “genetic drift,” and “gene flow” (Molnar 56).  Mutation not only causes change in genetic codes but introduces a new variety of allele, increasing the number of different genotypes/phenotypes within a population (Molnar 59).  It is often driven by humans’ natural biological tendency to adapt, known as “natural selection” (Molnar 60).  For instance, polymorphism shown in human blood types is often a result of natural selection.  An allele such as Hbs, which is advantageous under harsh slavery conditions, for example, “appears more in several populations in Africa,” theoretically due to natural selection (Molnar 146).   Although its high frequency in several parts of India is hard to explain, at least in eastern Nigeria, it seems that this Hbs gene frequency was “spread by population migration and interpopulation contact, . . . because of its selective advantage” (Molnar 148).  The effect of natural selection is also seen in malarial cases—a widespread disease in mostly tropical areas.  For example, abnormal hemoglobin SCT are less able to support malarial parasite growth, and thus natural selection favors individuals with SCT, in that they are less likely to die from falciparum malaria than persons with all normal hemoglobin (Molnar 150).  The point is, how in the world Leroi can scientifically factor these natural phenomena into his truth claim—the genetic human variation?  Human variation, though parts of its aspects may be recognizable at genetic level, its holistic picture is impossible to neatly grasp, because human genes will be different tomorrow than what they are today; they are inconstant; they mutate. 

Gene flow and genetic drift are other random human social phenomena which forestall any human attempts to categorize genes into few racial types.  According to Molnar, “gene flow refers to exchanges between different population gene pools so that the next generation is a result of admixture” (Molnar 63).  Over the human history, Molnar says that invaders, colonists, travelers, and traders have all collectively contributed to this gene flow phenomenon (Molnar 63).  Thus, throughout the human history, this high rate of admixture, the phenomenon that is accelerating in our contemporary world, has been an important factor which prevents the development of unique gene combinations.  Evidence of diversification of genes due to gene flow can be seen in the case of sickle-cell traits in black populations.  According to Molnar, African-Americans in the US have, on average, less than one-fourth to one-half of the Hbs found among West African populations today (5-10 percent versus 20 percent)” (Molnar 160).  He says that “this reduction, occurring over the three-and-a-half centuries of their occupation in the New World. . . may be accounted for either by admixture with Euro-Americans or by an elimination of the selective advantage of the carrier of the sickle-cell trait.” (161).  On the other hand, Molnar states that Genetic Drift indirectly influences the course and intensity of natural selection, in that when a breeding population is too small, there is a possibility that not all gene combinations will be represented in the next generation—so called a “sampling error” (Molnar 64).  In short, smaller the population sample, higher the rate of gene frequency change between the generations (Molnar 65).  Thus, population size is another unmanageable, irregular factor which scientists like Leroi cannot accurately assess in analyzing human variation. 

   In conclusion, according to  Molnar, “the record of DNA markers tell us little about how we gained certain of these complex traits—how we acquire a certain size and appearance, a skin color, or rates of growth” (Molnar 179).  Molnar has also warned against scientists like Leroi, in that he says that “no matter how we may define or classify clusters of populations today, their composition will undoubtedly change over future generations, as a result of major alterations in evolutionary forces through human adaptation and because of continuing migrations and interbreeding,” which, I might add, has increased rapidly in our contemporary world (Molnar 2).  Likewise, Alan Goodman in his essay “Two Questions About Race” (2005) says that “we just don’t know” enough about human genes to make such a conclusive scientific claim.  Rather, human diversity is better explained in terms of “evolution and history” (Goodman 3).  Because Homo sapiens consist of enormous range of physical variability, any scheme to divide humanity into a few racial types is bound to be fallacious and misleading (Miller, lectures).  Thus, when Armand Leroi claims that race is genotypically distinguishable, he is—according to the human genome film—arguing and exaggerating the difference he sees within the narrow zone of .01% variability among different peoples, since cross-racially, humans are 99.9% genetically identical.

Part II

“Instead of obsessing about race, we could try to build a race-blind society.  Instead of feeding      the fires of neuroticism, we could start teaching people to forget about race, to move on.  But to   do that, first we must sideline the entire race relations industry—whose only function, it seems, is    to make us all deeply anxious about ‘race’—a concept they simultaneously believe has no objective reality.  “

 —Sean Thomas, Sunday Telegraph (London) 3/13/05

I also disagree with Sean Thomas’s above comment.  I find the idea behind it to be, well, wishful thinking at best.  To be “race-blind” means what?: that we forget the history of racial oppression which is so embedded in the collective unconscious?; that we do not recognize the multicultural reality of the United States?;  that we adhere to one set of ideas about American culture?;  if so, whose?  The phrase, “move on” is a phrase that Ralph Ellison has mocked in his Invisible Man.  There are people who actually fear remembrance of history and a culturally pluralistic society.  I suspect that this is what is behind Thomas’s message.

For one, the effects of imperialist colonialism of the past still linger among us.  Take India, for example, Eurocentric colonial nation building left ethnic strife among the colonized.  According to Kottak, “over a million Hindus and Muslims were killed in the violence that accompanied the division of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan” (Kottak 82).  Similarly, “problems between Arabs and Jews in Palestine began during the British mandate period” (Kottak 82).  Moreover, during WW II, both Canada and US ordered expulsion of Japanese from their mainstream centers (Japanese internment).  In the history of a young nation of merely 200 some years, US has enforced numerous discriminatory immigration and property laws against those other than “white”—e.g., Chinese exclusionary Act, to name just one.  Thus, contrary to what Thomas suggests, race is not something that can be “[taught to] to forget. . . [and] move on,” because it has, it does, and it continues to affect the people of color in enormous and powerful ways.

The effect of racism is inscripted in both collective consciousness and in real life of colored people.  For instance, not only in US, but world-wide, people with darker pigmentation are the poorest (Miller, professor).  In US alone, more people of color, particularly, blacks and Latinos, are disproportionately incarcerated.  They are paid the least.  They live in and their children go to worst schools.  They are thus the least likely to succeed physically, intellectually, economically, and politically.  Their sociopolitical odds, then, are enormous.  In short, it affects every aspect of a colored person’s life: wealth, education, career, health, and the list can go on. 

Now, I would like to discuss about my personal observation/experience with racism in higher education.  Because the nature of my discussion is somewhat theoretical and subtle, before I immerse into my argument against intellectual racism within the canonical circle of Western countries, US in particular, I would like to first reiterate Kottak’s definition of racism:  According to Kottak, “when an ethnic group is assumed to have a biological basis, it is called a race.  Discrimination against such a group is called racism” (Kottak 67, emphasis added).  Well, what I have observed is that this racism against ethnic group exists even in the intellectual community, namely, among the canonizers—those who compile textbooks of higher educations.  For the purpose of this essay, I call this a “canonical racism”—the racism of anthologizers against works of ethnic writers. 

Until recently, the inclusion into or the exclusion from the Western canon was dependent upon the work’s “familiarity” and/or “durability” within the dominant culture.  Although canon debates by their very exclusionary nature can never please all sides, traditionally, they have systematically marginalized literary works of ethnic writers.  Perhaps, Samuel Johnson’s observation still holds true today: that “the reverence due to writings that have long subsisted arise…not from any credulous confidence in the superior wisdom of past ages,…but is the consequence of acknowledged and indubitable positions, that what has been longest known has been most considered, and what is most considered is best understood” (230, emphasis added).  What Johnson’s theory is implying is that what survives as “revered” (the canonized) literature owes to its “indubitable positions” (the positions of white males) within the literary circles.

For example, a decade ago, in 1995, an Asian Diaspora who was raised in America since the age of three wrote a novel claiming numerous awards, to name just one from the long list is the Hemingway Foundation/Pen Award.  Most memorably, for his novel Native Speaker, he was selected by the New Yorker as one of the twenty best “American writers” under forty.  This “American,” or should I say “Korean-American,” is Chang Rae Lee.  However, his book, Native Speaker, though he won “the twenty best American writers under forty” award, was automatically labeled under the “minor literature” in a separate American canon, because according to Deleuze and Guattari, Lee’s Native Speaker fits the definition of “minor literature”: work of a minority writer in a major language (English).  The value of this incidence for my argument is that it illustrates what I mean by canonical racism in intellectual community in US. Frankly, I believe that none of this labeling business should be espoused in the process of anthology.  If a writer is an American, then, s/he is singularly American, and his/her work is singularly an American literature.  No prefixes such as “Afro,” “Asian,” “Latino,” nor qualifiers such as “minor” or “ethnic” is needed, unless the canon is willing to equally dissect the entire culturally hybrid, transnational writers of America. 

Pertinent to canonical racism is an essay called “The More Things Change: Paradigm Shifts in Asian American Studies” written by Sumida Stephen.  Stephen, in his essay, informs that “for about a decade the critique of Asian American ‘dual identity’ empowered Asian American studies with the contravening idea that it is the concept of ‘America’ that needs to be changed so that it is understood that Asian Americans are singularly American” (Sumida 1).  In the past, if silent submissive Asian Americans can be effortlessly alienated (e.g., Japanese internment and Chinese exclusionary Act) on the basis of “phenotypically/culturally being more foreign than others”—thus requiring qualifiers and prefixes describing what type of American they are—now, such systemized alienation are no longer feasible.  With the coming-of-age of children of the Asian Diasporas, who may be the future writers/scholars, who have grown up in America, and who are mentally, culturally, and legally “Americans,” need to be dealt with.  Surely, it is inevitable that the canon debates in the U.S., in the very near future, will have to re-examine the concept of “American” in categorizing the works written by Asian Americans, and by extension, other prefixed half-Americans. 

John Guillory in “The Canon as Cultural capital,” says that much of the canonical debates stem from racist nationalism.  In his essay, Guillory states that “the ‘West’ was always the creation of nationalism,” and critiques that Western universities are involved in the discriminatory “project of constituting a national culture” largely through the process of canonization (222).  According to Guillory, the method of sustaining what he calls the West’s “imaginary cultural continuities” begins with the assumed Eurocentric superiority, weighing what is culturally “Western” more principally into the canon, while subordinating or excluding literature that represents the “other.”  Thus, in this nationalistic milieu of the Western canon, ethnographic works are often pushed out as “not [representing] our culture” (222).  However, Guillory warns that “the very distinctness of cultures, Western or non-Western, canonical or noncanonical, points to a certain insistent error…in the supposed transmission of culture” through literature (223), because the very idea of “cultural homogeneity” is an illusion—a “fiction” (221). 

Similarly, the chief spokesperson of subaltern studies, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, in her essay, “Imperialism and Sexual Difference,” requests accurate, not distorted, representation of women of color in Eurocentric literature.  For example, in many literatures written by Western writers, women of color are portrayed as physically, intellectually, and culturally inferior—e.g., they are usually a slave, maid, prostitute, or mentally insane (like Rochester’s wife from Jamaica in Jane Eyre).  She challenges Western academia to stop misrepresenting the women of the third world by first deconstructing the tropological truth-claim made by the imperial masculists, meaning that this cultural violation stems from the fact that Western academia insists “the white race as a norm for universal humanity” (340).  Particularly, what troubles Spivak the most is that this cultural violation—committed by the Western male and female elitists—perpetuates through cultural ignorance of the teachers to their students, which she describes it as the “sanctioned ignorance” (345).  In order to avoid sanctioned ignorance, then, their misrepresented history written by the Eurocentric writers must be re-represented/revised; however this cannot happen without the “equal access” in the canon (347).

Like Spivak, critics like Bhabha also demands equal representation of the postcolonial cultural hybridity written by diasporas and other ethnic minorities.  He says, “The Western metropole must confront its postcolonial history, told by its influx of postwar migrants and refugees, as an indigenous or native narrative internal to its national identity” (1335, emphasis added).  He proposes that “the centre of …[our] study would [no longer] be the “sovereignty” of national cultures, nor the universalism of human cultures, but a focus on those ‘freaks’ of social and cultural displacements,”’ meaning minorities (1340).  He asks the Western canon to endow equal access into their literary circles those who in the past have been perceived as “freaks” by the dominant culture.

In conclusion, just as my personal observation of canonical racism illustrates, even though race makes little sense on the genetic level, this does not mean that it is not real in a social sense.  Thus, Tomas’s notion of a “race-blind” society is naive.  Other than teaching people to treat others as individuals and not collectively as a race or group, how do you create a “race-blind” society?  It is just not possible.  Perhaps I’m pessimistic, but it’s a utopian ideal that is not realistic.  Moreover, what does he mean by the “race relations” industry? It seems to me that the only people who obsess about race as an issue and are anxious about it are those who feel the need to overlook race.  As I have mentioned in my introduction of my first essay, race can be an important indicator and an important measurement to gain a greater understanding of other groups of individuals, not only biologically to cure diseases, but to improve our social conditions.  However, to create this race-blind society is to argue that there are no differences among us.  It is only through open dialogue (e.g., in intellectual community) not by pretending that all of us could be “race-blind,” that we can “move on” towards racial equality (Thomas 2005). 

Works Cited

Bhabba, Homi. “Locations of Culture.” The Critical Tradition. Richter, David H. Boston:

       Bedford Books, 1989.

Gilles, Deleuze, and Guattari, Felix. “What Is a Minor Literature?” Falling into Theory. Richter,

        David H. Boston:

Goodman, Alan. “Two Questions About Race” 20 April 2005

        <http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman&gt;

Guillory, John. “The Canon as Cultural Capital.” Falling into Theory. Richter, David H. Boston:

        Bedford Books, 2000

Johnson, Samuel. “Preface to Shakespeare.” The Critical Tradition. Richter, David H.

         Boston: Bedford Books, 1989.

Kottak, Conrad Phillip. On Being Different. 2 Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003.

Lee, Chang Rae. Native Speaker. New York: Riverhead Books, 1995.

Molnar, Stephen. Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups. 5 New Jersey: Prentice Hall,

          2002.

Spivak, Gayatri. “Imperialism and Sexual Difference.” Falling into Theory. Richter, David H.

         Boston: Bedford Books, 2000.

Sumida, Stephen H. “The More Things Change: Paradigm Shifts in Asian American Studies.”

         American Studies International 38 (2000): 97-114.

.