and we thought Americans were helicopter parents?

hey beautiful people. just a small comment today building on yesterday's comment about the kid who brought his parent to a grad school fair. last month there was an article in the daily mail about chinese parents who sleep on the floor of the school gym to be close to their children as they begin university. this is not a new practice. for the past five years, universities in china have allowed the parents of new students to sleep on mats in the gym for the first week or so of classes in order to help them get acclimated. huh? crazy right?

i think that i'm often most critical of america for the things we do and the things we've done. but we literally have nothing on china in this case of extreme helicopter parenting. in one of my first posts, i talked about how the idea of different developmental stages changed over time and how some researchers posit that the newest is "young adulthood" a sort of in between stage. in this stage, young adults are still closely linked to their parents (both financially and emotionally) at at time when previous generations would've been married and on their own.

now, if in china parents think its okay to sleep on the university gym floor and in america parents are accompanying their children to thinks like graduate fairs, it begs the question: when do we need to just cut the cord? or do people not see much utility anymore in cutting the mythical cord?

can't even to begin

so a while ago, one of my girls brought a couple blog posts to my attention written by a young asian girl, Lillian Wu. one of them is affectionately entitled "how to get girls for asian guys" and the other "how to date an asian girl (for white guys)." where to begin, where to begin?

i don't think there is a sentence on either on of those posts that isn't highly problematic. it would be funny in its ridiculousness if it wasn't so frightening. in all honesty, i had to read through some other blog posts to make sure it wasn't some "tongue in cheek" commentary... it isn't. even worse, she seems to fashion herself as critically engaging with the idea of false stereotypes while replicating all the problems of stereotyping and essentializing a racial group. the fact that she does this to herself makes the entire project more disturbing.

i'm not even sure how to engage with her. or if i want to at all. what i will say is that it is a great example of self-hate, a lack of education about the history of people of color, and an extremely childish racist view of relatioships, power dynamics and cultural practice.

in her first post, aimed at helping asian men secure girlfriends her solution is to defy stereotypes in order to date women, this said while she simultaneously emasculates them and tells them the stereotypes are more often than not true. for some examples:

• she says that asian men need to try and emulate white men
• she refers to non-asian women as exotic
• "the rumor that Asian guys are bad in bed does not help. The negative stereotypes will continue to be an obstacle, especially the ones that carry truth"
• "The drastic difference between white guys and Asian guys is state of mind. White guys score dates because they act like men and take command."
• "Stop being the nice guy if you want to be the one who takes her home."
• "If she is straight, she will not be into a man who is more feminine than she is."

in her second post, aimed at white men who want to date asian women, she essentializes asian women as greedy, spoiled, manipulative and shallow. while acknowledging it's a stereotype, she says it's one that's quite true!

and while, i can go on and on about how messed up wu's view is. i think the bigger question i can pull out of this is how children have become so hateful. instead of brushing aside negative stereotypes, they embrace them. what is the best way to teach children to be more critical (of the themselves, their social and identity groups, and the world around them)? i know that i didn't concretely develop a critical conscious until i went to college and i was taught how to think. and it seems that this lack of critical thinking skills is due in large part to the emphasis on high stakes standardized testing where the correct answer isn't always the critical one.

for example, in middle school we often practiced responding to writing prompts for the standardized tests. two sides of a story were presented, and you had to pick the one you agreed with and argue your point. i distinctly remember my ILA (english) teacher telling us that we shouldn't weigh or consider both sides nor make concessions of any kind for the other side. when we wrote, we had to be 100% on one side, or we wouldn't score well on the test. similarly, students have become less politically active and less willing to challenge group norms in order to pursue "success" in school. pressure from all sides, raising rates of tuition (and debt), etc. create a climate that doesn't encourage critical engagement with material.

i think we need to have a complete reimaging of education, and with that which skills are valued. i strongly believe that if miss wu would have been taught to make critical assessments and to understand her role in either combating or perpetrating negativity and essentialism, the only way that would have been written would be as tongue in cheek commentary to someone else!

Book Review: The Answer is Always Yes, Monica Ferrell

Good Monday People:

Sorry about the lack of posting on Friday, feel terribly for letting you (and myself) down. Went to a black wall street networking event - not so much networking, but fun nonetheless. Then had some pretty banging fish from a Asian-French fusion(?!) spot.

Anyways, here is the inaugural post for my series about books that I've read. It begins with The Answer is Always Yes by Monica Ferrell. And, since I don't want to re-write a synopsis, here is the one from Publishers Weekly:

With a Stegner Fellowship and some big-name poetry publications under her belt, it's not surprising that Ferrell delivers a stylized and exuberantly written debut novel. Matthew Acciaccatura begins his freshman year at NYU determined to become cool. As it turns out, Matthew is the fixation of Hans Mannheim, an incarcerated German professor who annotates the novel with his increasingly creepy thoughts on Matthew's quest. Ferrell and Mannheim track Matthew's ascent up the ranks of New York hip, culminating in his transformation into Magic Matt, the promoter of über-hot club Cinema. As his last name suggests (acciaccatura is a note that creates dissonance within harmony), Matthew's new job takes some ugly turns; they are unexpected by Matthew and those close to him, but painfully anticipated by the reader. Ferrell is at her best when focusing on language and the explosive emotions that accompany jaded youth and idealism. Less successful, however, is Mannheim, whose most remarkable aspect is how caricatured he is. The writing is fabulous, but it's unfortunately in service of a lackluster plot and gimmicky structure.

The prose of The Answer is Always Yes is for the most part beautifully written and really acts to propel the book forward. Ferrell lingers where appropriate and paints a scene of 90s New York, complete with the requisite set of characters, which the protagonist himself groups into characatures of themselves. Magic Matt is complex, a friendless nerd coming to college to reinvent himself as a cool kid. His constant pursuit of coolness and his repression of the "nerdy" thoughts and activities he used to enjoy. College is the one time where many suburban kids can create a new identity, though they might be better off realizing that the torment and teasing of middle school doesn't necessarily occur in college. Matt's research and intial attempts at coolness seems sophomoric to both reader and his fellow students alike.

A lot of his insecurities come from his working class background, his Mom works at the local supermarket and his dad was never around. Coming into circles of wealth at NYU and then subsequently getting paid and going to the most exclusive parts of New York act in funny ways to Matt. As he changes and begins to look down on people not interested in the club scene, his only friend and his girlfriend begin to pull away from him. What I found most interesting and compellingly written was Matt's interaction with his mother and the disconnect between his working class life and sensability and the glamorous world of the NY club scene during the 1990s. He finds his relationship with his mother complicated because of her inability to understand his life or to even seem to care about the things that he's doing. Her class aspirations are projected upon Matt is a ghettoized way.

I thought culture was supposed to be around some backlash or political something or other

And, there, in one fell swoop went my promise to myself to write once a day, but my promise has evolved into a resolution. Which, in my head, means that I will try my damnedest to write each weekday but if I don't I will not feel that Catholic guilt but will just carry forward with the plan. That being said, I have an excellent excuse.

Oh, haha, excuses and whining. Well, anyways, I came down with a short, intense case of the flu. Not yet being on health insurance (but, thanks Obama for making sure I can stay under moms for a little while longer) I was sorta pissed that I would have zero access to anti-virals. But, after 2 intense days of fevers, chills, sore throat, body aches that made me cry from pain, etc. etc. it subsided to mild versions of the sore throat, body aches, lack of energy, etc. etc. Speaking of Obama, I spent the weekend getting intimately acquainted with my bedroom - for the first time since I've moved here unfortunately - and finally got around to listening to Dreams from my Father. A great listen, and something to mull over though I am disappointed that my President bears less resemblance to his younger self than I would like.

One of my critiques of my generation and of myself is the lack of politics. Instead we all feel girdled with the enormous pressure of political correctness and status quo. Instead of coming together around shared politics and beliefs, we come together around... what? It's like hipster culture - okay, yes, I live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn - but I can point out people and laugh about how they are a charactature of the a hipster. But, do hipsters have any unified beliefs or values? What is the commonality except for posturing? It seems odd how we construct these identities based on a sense of irony that often comes off as immature, music tastes that are somehow above others and a style of dress that's not really that original, but nothing of substance. Now, our parents generation - the hippie generation - maybe they didn't seem much better but in addition to the free love, free drug attitude, they protesting the war, they rebelled against the 50s white picket craziness. Our generation, if we assume the hipster culture is a culture not only is not protesting but they are also definitely not rebelling. It just wouldn't be in their best interest to rebel against their sponsors.

Anyways, to bring this full circle, the young Obama was political. He was critical of the structural racism that the country was built on and his white family's complicity in it. He was a thoughtful brother, ya know? He was angry and tried to organize people for change. Now, it seems like all that anger has been beaten out of him instead of being channeled into productive decisions. By choosing to be bi-partisan  ("why all the democrats acting like fuckin republicans?") he essentially chooses to not do anything. When we take the smart, middle ground instead of being radical, the results are always limited. So, it's a shame that unlike the rightful critique of my generation as not political enough, he was but has turned into a people pleaser.

Though as a final thought: I still love me some Obama and really he can do nothing wrong in my eyes. No matter what, he will always be 100000003484534339834 billion times better than Bush.

why you so obsessed with me?

It seems like every time I navigate to the NYT, there is some article on how "20-somethings" have no direction or live at home or are in some sort of limbo because they are too irresponsible and self-indulgent to be an adult. But, the narrative leaves out a specific subset: the sort of people who aren't married with children and a 9-5 but who aren't living with their parents and working at the local video store. What about all the 20-somethings who are independent, responsible, and pursuing things they actually enjoy? What about me, and all most of my friends?

The latest article is entitled "What Is It About 20-Somethings?"  written by Robin Marantz Henig, which explores the "emerging" stage of life called "emerging adulthood" -- a term coined because it was cooler and catchier than "youth." ... (blank stare) ...

As mentioned, the article creates a dichotomy between the "traditional cycle" of "orderly progression" - "finish school, grow up, start careers, make a family and on and on" - and the cycle gone awry - "remain(ing) untethered to romantic partners or to permanent homes, going back to school for lack of better options, traveling, avoiding commitments, competing ferociously for unpaid internships or temporary (and often grueling) Teach for America jobs, forestalling the beginning of adult life." And, while, I do not profess to co-sign to those who live an extended childhood by living off their parents, I think that my generation is being demonized for not following the trajectory of the previous generation - a trajectory that many do not wish to follow. This either/or dichotomy ignores a huge subset of people in their 20s: those living independently but non-traditionally.

much, much more after the jump...