OK. So I understand that the big picture of our reading for next class is still focusing on discrimination, both based on race and based on sexual orientation. But there was a smaller subplot, intertwined with these themes, that jumped out at me. I’m not sure how to put it into words… I think that it had something to do with what it means to be a man, or a woman. But that’s not really it. It’s more specific then that.

Here’s what I’ll do. I’ll pose it as an essay question. It’ll be one of those ridiculous questions history classes thrive off of, one that begs for a thesis dripping in scholarly articulation and squirms at the slightest hint of writing that contains personality?

How are sexual scripts formed, acted out, and changed? How are these changes reacted to? Focus on how culturally acceptable social scripts are formed, how they are changed due to homosexuality, and how these changes are reacted to by the culture in question.

OK. So obviously I’ll never be an AP test essay question writer. But I think you get the idea.

Oh, AP test essays... I hate you.

http://www.cel.sfsu.edu/images/programs/ap/students-take-ap-test.jpg

Here’s what I gleaned from the essays in question.:

Multihued by Anthony R Luckett

Luckett didn’t focus on sexual scripts as much as the subsequent essays, but he did seem to hint that these scripts are learned from parents, says that his “father gave [him] the greatest lesson on what a black man should be by not being around for [him] to follow his bad example” (anthology, 861). This hints that, had his father been around, he would have learned what the social script for “man” was from him. But there is a racial dimension to this lesson he would have learned. Luckett, in describing what his father would have taught him, explains that he would have been educated on what the social script for “black man” was. With this assertion, Luckett insinuates that sexual scripts are different in divergent depending race and ethnicity, and the culture that comes from these races and ethnicities.

No, duh, you say. So did I. We’ve all seen how different cultures have different views of masculinity and femininity. For example, when Vincent Ng visited China the other children “[made] fun of [him[ because they thought [he] was a girl because of [his]] long hair” (anthology, 883), while in the US long hair on both men and women is acceptable. However, there is a deeper implication in this claim. If social scripts are learned only from parents, then you are doomed to learn and act out THEIR social script. In addition (an this is especially relevant in Luckett’s case) many times the social script for “man” draws from the social script for “woman” and vice versa. But when the social scripts don’t correspond, are not two halves of one whole “acceptable social conduct”, multiethnic and multiracial children seem to be somewhat left to their own devices. In addition, if one parents, or both, is missing, where are kids supposed to learn sexual scripts? You could day that they learn it from the parent figure in their lives, and for many this is probably true. But Luckett didn’t have ANYONE he viewed as a father figure seeing as he “never really felt at home” anywhere. I really think that part of the reason Luckett feels he needs his father for his “narrative to be complete” (anthology, 868) is that he doesn’t feel that he’s found a suitable example of a social script to follow.

If Johnny Depp went to China, they'd probably make fun of his hair too.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/long%20haried%20celebrity%20johnney%20depp/rollaa/-johnny-depp-.jpg

No Such Thing by Johnny Lee

Lee says that his father was “what could be described as the stereotypical Korean male,” who “came home from work everyday, popped himself in front of the television, turned on the sports channel, demanded his good, and was perfectly content for the rest of the night” (anthology, 873). However, because Lee was gay, he couldn’t just adopt the social script his culture and family had laid out for him, because, as his parents said, “there is no Korean gay” (anthology, 872), and therefore no acceptable social script for them. The way in which Lee finds his own definition of masculinity and sexuality despite the lack of support from his parents is important, as is the way in which his parents reacted to his new social script. They were, if you remember, furious, viscious, and in denial. But WHY was it that they reacted in this way? Personally, I think the cause of their reaction was two-fold, both personal and cultural. Culturally, their social script called for shunning of gay men. However, there was also the added dimension of embarrassment, I think, of not only having a gay son but ACCEPTING the fact that he was gay. For example, when Lee’s father says that “he [doesn’t] want the faggot,” Lee muses that he may have been doing it to “keep up appearances,”(anthology, 874) not because he actually felt that his son's gayness was wrong.

Farewell My Tung-Tew by Vincent Ng

When I was reading Ng’s story, though it had a bisexual dimension, I felt like he was bringing into perspective how a degree of separation from your parents social scripts can allow you to come up with your own definition of what it means to be male or female REGARDLESS of your sexual orientation. He kind of shows how you can try to take the best from a lot of different sources, saying that “college thus allowed [him] to come into [his] own… and break the molds that [his] Chinese father had set down.”

I think, to a certain degree, we’re all a little bit doomed to act out what we learned as children from our parents. But I also think that our generation, because technology and opportunity have exposed us to more points of view, has a better chance of breaking the mold then anyone before us.

http://www.chemind.com/no%20mold.gif