#NotYourAsianSidekick

Sometime earlier today, writer/artist/organizer Suey Park started a trending topic on Twitter using the hashtag #NotYourAsianSidekick. As I understand it, the phrase originated in a discussion specific to the issues surrounding Asian/Asian-American women's lack of a voice in mainstream feminism; as the hashtag took off, the online conversation has expanded to general issues of oppression, misrepresentation, and microaggressions experienced by AAPIs (Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders). It's not an easy topic to discuss with any nuance in 140-character blocks, but it's provided an incredible opportunity for an ad-hoc community to form and, if nothing else, air shared grievances and receive support for them in the form of retweets and favorites. (The less Twitter-literate might not appreciate the significance of this, but suffice it to say that it's a lot like sharing an opinion and have someone nod along vigorously, or like getting a high-five from a friendly stranger.)

For 10+ hours now, it's been an affirming space for some of us -- and here, I'm claiming my membership in the community -- to feel that we aren't alone in facing any form of oppression based on the color of our skin, the size of our eyes, our ability or lack thereof to do math, etc. There are a lot of experiences that I now take for granted, among them being pressed for where I'm really from (is New Jersey not real enough?), being asked if a horrible mispronunciation of my last name is "good enough" (no, it's not, but you'll move on anyway), being complimented on my amaaazing tan (thanks; I was born with it). By seeing those aspects of my experience as an Asian-American woman reflected back at me from utter strangers on Twitter, I've been reminded, jarringly, that they're really not okay at all. To be reminded of your oppression isn't a pleasurable experience in the least, but the solidarity is cathartic.

Of course, as soon as people of color start having any semblance of fun or dare to feel comfortable, someone has to step in and ruin the party. Today's White Savior came in the form of a "Neo-Libertarian" with a fancy college degree who happens to know a LOT more about oppression than I do, and he didn't hesitate to tell me all about it. I shouldn't have responded, but I'm a sucker for a good argument with someone who needs to lose.

The header for the Storify doesn't appear here, but it should read: "The hashtag #NotYourAsianSidekick has been trending on Twitter for hours. It's mostly filled with expressions of everyday oppression/discrimination/misrepresentation experienced by Asians/Asian-Americans and corresponding messages of support -- and some jerks. This is what happened when I responded."

If anyone wants to use this as a case study in derailment and the willful blindness conferred by overwhelming privilege, please do. Make sure to note his condescending tone, his flaunting of questionable academic credentials (and implied assumption that I have none of my own that might equal or surpass his), and his refusal to respect my desire to end the conversation civilly. Note that he continued to tweet at me, at one point telling me to "Hahaha Go to school, before you rant about topics too sophisticated for you" -- like my own life, I guess? Good thing Twitter reinstated the block function, because what a gross white guy.

(Incidentally, if this is still not clear to any acquaintances/complete strangers reading this who don't know me well enough to give me the benefit of the doubt, I understand that there are non-gross white guys. I salute them.)

More than this kind of all-too-common ignorance, though, I want to highlight the positive responses that have come out of this. I've compiled some of my favorite responses here, with mine included -- not because they're the "best," but because they're mine and it seems only appropriate to share them here.

[Suggested listening: "Concrete Wall," or any other song, really, by Zee Avi, an incredible Malaysian singer-songwriter more people should know about because...just listen to her.]

Male and female brains wired differently, according to scientists who should be fired.

According to an article in The Guardian based on a recently published study in PNAS entitled Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain, "scientists have drawn on nearly 1,000 brain scans to confirm what many had surely concluded long ago: that stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains." As a woman having read just the eight-word headline ("Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal"), my knee-jerk reaction is that this must be wrong, cannot possibly be good science; as a former cognitive psychology student having read the entire news article and as much of the journal article itself as are available to me, my more rational, analytic response is still that this is wrong, and is not good science.

But which is the lady brain? Neither is pink...
National Academy of Sciences

This is blatant intellectual dishonesty, and both this writer and the researchers themselves should be ashamed. As unthinkable as it is that an entire team of Princeton researchers could draw such wildly inappropriate conclusions from their research, it is even more disheartening to consider the reasons why they might have done so. They argue that patterns of neural connectivity divide along gender lines, where "men's brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women's for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking." For any Neuro/Psych students who are thinking, "Hang on, that's the opposite of everything we've learned about the development of the human brain, which is primarily influenced by its environment," you're right! This write-up and even the study's own abstract are bullshit. Here's the tip-off:

"Male and female brains showed few differences in connectivity up to the age of 13, but became more differentiated in 14- to 17-year-olds."

That is to say that pre-adolescent brains proved, in fact, to be more similar than different until a certain cultural/developmental turning point, which implies that differences in neural connectivity are a product of environmental influence, not based on any biological gendered difference. To be clear: that is exactly the opposite conclusion that this writer, and the researchers themselves are touting. They gloss over the obvious implications -- that these so-called "hard-wired" differences between men and women are the product of gendered roles being forced upon them and that, in turn, shapes their brain functioning --  and the difference between cause and effect in interpreting these results in order to serve lukewarm stereotypes that men are more X and women are more Y because they were made that way. This is not only an incorrect application of these kinds of research methods; it's irresponsible, incorrect, and absolutely disgraceful.

The science correspondent's bias is obvious in his lazy introduction about scientists confirming what the common-sense population "had surely concluded long ago" about women and men's inherently different ways of thinking -- nice universal generalization of your own opinions to society at large, way to go. Even more troubling is how readily one of the contributing researchers summarizes her findings in such complacently sexist terms:

"If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there's a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better," Verma said. "Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more."

Even the official news release from UPenn piles on the hackneyed stereotypes:

"For instance, on average, men are more likely better at learning and performing a single task at hand, like cycling or navigating directions, whereas women have superior memory and social cognition skills, making them more equipped for multitasking and creating solutions that work for a group. They have a mentalistic approach, so to speak."

Women are more intuitive and better listeners, of course! Of course, of course. They are also better equipped to cook and clean because their brains are smaller in size, and thus cannot handle the cognitive load required for higher-order tasks like running a business, leading meetings, or being ordained into the Catholic Church. Men are better at learning -- all types of learning, all the time, no matter what. That's why they're so much smarter.

I had assumed this kind of thinking went out of fashion along with phrenology, but sometimes I can be wrong, too. I eagerly await follow-up brain scan studies confirming that white men are more likely to succeed in leadership positions, black women don't feel pain, and Asians are better than everyone else at math.