Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Climbing the Hierarchy of Masculinity: Asian American Men’s Cross-Racial Competition for Intimacy with White Women

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies of masculinity have focused on the inequalities among different groups of men, yet they have failed to consider women’s roles in men’s engagement in various positions within hegemonic masculinity. Using life-history interviews with five interracial couples made up of Asian American men and white women, as well as five individuals who either were or had been involved in an Asian American man/white woman interracial couple, this article examines the cross-racial competition in which Asian American men employ multiple strategies to ascend the masculinity hierarchy by seeking white women’s validation of their manhood. Asian American men’s cross-racial competition utilizes four distinct processes: detesting white masculinities; approximating to white masculinities; eschewing white masculinities; and failing in the attempt to maneuver white masculinities. By analyzing these four processes, the author further addresses how the emerging Asian American masculinities that are constructed by Asian American men and white women in the context of intimate relationships challenge or reinforce the current orders of race, class, and gender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Demetriou writes that effeminate masculinity is subordinated to the hegemonic model of white heterosexual masculinity, “while others, such as working class or black masculinities, are simply ‘marginalized’” (2001:341–342). As to the difference between “subordinate” and “marginalized,” Connell and Demetriou do not discuss them as two rigidly separate categories, which either include gay men or men of color. According to Demetriou, “. . . while subordination refers to relations internal to the gender order, the concept of marginalization describes the relationships between the masculinities in dominant and subordinated classes or ethnic groups, that is, the relations that result from the interplay of gender with other structures, such as class and ethnicity” (2001:342).

  2. Demetriou [16, p. 341] writes, “Hegemonic masculinity, understood as external hegemony, is connected to the institutionalization of men’s dominance over women. . . . Hegemonic masculinity generates not only external but also internal hegemony, that is, hegemony over other masculinities . . .”

  3. Among several, two studies are of particular note: one on class-based masculinities played out as men's interpersonal power over women in marital relationships [44], and another on gay fraternity members' challenges to hegemonic masculinity and the reification of male dominance over women [55].

  4. Connell [12] argues that the notion of hegemonic femininity is inappropriate. Traits of femininity are globally constructed in relation to the dominance of masculinities; thus, femininities signify the subordination of women to men in which women's domination of men rarely occurs. However, Pyke and Johnson [45] suggest that the notion of hegemonic femininities critically addresses the hierarchy among women of different classes and races. They write, “However, this discounts how other axes of domination, such as race, class, sexuality, and age, mold a hegemonic femininity that is venerated and extolled in the dominant culture, and that emphasizes the superiority of some women over others, thereby privileging white upper-class women” (35).

  5. As I discussed in the method section, I interpreted his reference to “American” women instead of “white” women as his customary conflation common among a few Asian American ethnic groups.

References

  1. Benjamin, J. (1988). The bonds of love. New York, NY: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York, NY: World Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bird, S. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 10(2), 120–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2002). We Are All Americans!: The Latin Americanization of Racial Stratification in the USA. Race& Society, 5, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chancer, L. (1998). Reconcilable differences: Confronting beauty, pornography, and the future of feminism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chen, A. (1999). Lives at the center of the periphery, lives at the periphery of the center: Chinese American masculinities and bargaining with hegemony. Gender & Society, 13(5), 584–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chow, S. (2000). The significance of race in the private sphere: Asian Americans and spousal preferences. Sociological Inquiry, 70(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Collins, P. H. (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Coltrane, S. (1994). Theorizing masculinities in contemporary social science. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Connell, R. (1992). A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the dynamics of gender. American Sociological Review, 57(6), 735–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Constable, N. (2003). Romance on a global stage: Pen pals, virtual ethnography, and “mail order” marriages. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Davis, K. (1941). Intermarriage in caste societies. American Anthropologist, 43(3), 376–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Demetriou, D. (2001). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society, 30(3), 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Espiritu, Y. (1992). Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging institutions and identities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Espiritu, Y. (1996). Asian American women and men: Labor, laws, and love. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Espiritu, Y. (2001). “We don’t sleep around like white girls do”: Family, culture, and gender in Filipina American Lives. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 26(2), 415–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gardiner, J. K. (2005). Men, masculinities and feminist theory. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hartmann, H. (1981). The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: Towards a more progressive union. In L. Sargent (Ed.), Women and revolution: A discussion of the unhappy marriage of marxism and feminism. Boston, MA: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Holland, D., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., & Messner, M. (1994). Gender displays and men’s power: The ‘new man’ and the Mexican immigrant man. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hunter, M. (2002). ‘If you’re light you’re alright’: Light skin color as social capital for women of color. Gender & Society, 16(2), 175–193.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobs, J., & Labov, T. (2002). Gender differentials in intermarriage among sixteen race and ethnic groups. Sociological Forum, 17(4), 621–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kimmel, S. M. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kimmel, S. M. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kitano, H. L. H., Yeung, W.-T., Chai, L., & Hatanaka, H. (1984). Asian American interracial marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee, S. M., & Fernandez, M. (1998). Trends in Asian American racial/ethnic intermarriage: A comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data. Sociological Perspectives, 41(2), 323–342.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lee, S. M., & Yamanaka, K. (1990). Patterns of Asian intermarriage and marital assimilation. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21, 287–305.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Liang, Z., & Ito, N. (1999). Intermarriage of Asian Americans in the New York City region: Contemporary patterns and future prospects. International Migration Review, 33(4), 876–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. In M. Blaxall & B. Reagan (Eds.), Women and the workplace. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Marchetti, G. (1994). Romance and the “Yellow Peril”: Race, sex, and discursive strategies in Hollywood fiction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Martin, J. (2005). Is power sexy? American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 408–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Merton, R. (1941). Intermarriage and the social structure: Fact and theory. Psychiatry, 4, 361–374.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Messner, M. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Messner, M. (1993). ‘Changing men’ and feminist politics in the U.S. Theory & Society, 22(5), 723–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moore, H. (1994). A passion for difference: Essays in anthropology and gender. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nemoto, K. (2006). Intimacy, desire, and the construction of self in relationships between Asian American women and white American men. Journal of Asian American Studies, 9(1), 27–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Newton, J. (2002). Masculinity studies: The longed for profeminist movement for academic feminism. In J. K. Gardiner (Ed.), Masculinity studies and feminist theory. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Palumbo-Liu, D. (1999). Asian/American: Historical crossings of a racial frontier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pyke, K. (1996). Class-based masculinities: The interdependence of gender, class, and interpersonal power. Gender & Society, 10(5), 527–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pyke, K., & Johnson, D. (2003). Asian American women and racialized femininities: ‘Doing’ gender across cultural worlds. Gender & Society, 17(1), 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Qian, Z. (1997). Breaking the racial barriers: Variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and (1990). Demography, 34(2), 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Qian, Z., Blair, S. L., & Ruf, S. D. (2001). Asian American interracial and interethnic marriages: Differences by education and nativity. International Migration Review, 35(2), 557–586.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rosenfeld, M. (2005). A critique of mate selection theory. American Journal of Sociology, 110(5), 1284–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the ‘political economy’ of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rubin, L. (1983). Intimate strangers: Men and women together. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sedgwick, E. (1985). Between men: English literature and male homosocial desire. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Shinagawa, L. H., & Pang, Y. G. (1988). Intraethnic, interethnic, and interracial marriages among Asian Americans in California. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 33, 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shinagawa, L. H., & Pang, Y. G. (1996). Asian American panethnicity and intermarriage. Amerasia Journal, 22, 127–152.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tuan, M. (1998). Forever foreigner or honorary whites? The Asian ethnic experience today. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Yeung, K.-T., Stombler, M., & Wharton, R. (2006). Making men in gay fraternities: Resisting and reproducing multiple dimensions of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 20(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Yuh, J.-Y. (2002). Beyond the shadow of Camptown: Korean military brides in America. New York, NY: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Christine Williams, Jyoti Puri, Sharon Bird, and Rebecca Klatch for their suggestions on earlier drafts of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, USA

    Kumiko Nemoto

Authors
  1. Kumiko Nemoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kumiko Nemoto.

Appendix

Appendix

Asian American Men and White Women Interviewed

Name

Age

Marital Status

Ethnicity/Race

Education

Occupation

Kevin Cheung

20

Single

Chinese American

College Student

Student

Karen Smith

20

Single

White

College Student

Student

Keith Banzon

52

Married

Filipino American

College Graduate

Engineer

Debra Banzon

50

Married

White

College Graduate

Sales representative

Sothy Khim

45

Married

Cambodian American

College Graduate

Engineer

Emily Khim

38

Married

White

College Graduate

Teacher

Kenji Tanaka

29

Married

Japanese American

College Graduate

Musician/waiter

Tracey Tanaka

26

Married

White

College Graduate

Waitress

Tony Rhee

26

Married

Korean American

College Student

Student/part-time salesperson

Michelle Rhee

22

Married

White

College Graduate

Staff of local college

William Lin

35

Divorced

Chinese American

College Graduate

Media designer

Leslie Duong

25

Single

Vietnamese American

College Graduate

Assistant manager at Media company

Kenneth Miyake

50

Divorced

Japanese American

College Graduate

Engineer

Marie Wong

45

Married

White

College Graduate

None

Laura Martin

30

Single

White

College Graduate

Physical therapist

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nemoto, K. Climbing the Hierarchy of Masculinity: Asian American Men’s Cross-Racial Competition for Intimacy with White Women. Gend. Issues 25, 80–100 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-008-9053-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-008-9053-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation