DRUM beats on Harold & Kumar

« Team Brown works for YOU! · Main · Gujarat massacre still unpunished »

August 13, 2004

Thus far I have managed to avoid controversy. This post may result in the creation of a new orifice on my body, but I felt like it was time to mix things up.

In an “Open Letter to the Asian American Community” members of NYC based DRUM (Desis Rising Up Moving) write:

Correction: DRUM is just a listserv which people post to in the NY area. The open letter below was written by the South Asian Sisters

We went to watch Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle because we genuinely wanted to support our Asian American brothers. After all, the media coverage told us that this movie was supposed to break stereotypes and be a positive step for Asian Americans. Asian websites raved about the film, and so we were all excited to rally around this film with the rest of the community. We entered the theater and immediately noticed that the audience was comprised of predominantly Asian Americans. We wondered if a movie based on the same premise featuring white boys would draw a bigger crowd. The movie started, and we sat back, waiting to be empowered.

Well, it’s the next day, and we’re still waiting. Harold and Kumar disappointed us. They represented Asian American men as being homophobic, spineless, sex-crazed misogynists. All Asian American men should be outraged! Asian American women? Well, there was one Asian woman, and she was the stereotypical Asian nerd. Queer Asians? There were none. How would they feel safe to come on screen when Harold and Kumar are making homophobic jokes all the time? Working class Asians? Perhaps there is one- the convenience store owner. He gets beat up by the racist hoodlums, and Harold and Kumar just walk away. Then there are the non-Asians. The African Americans include a crazed fast food employee and a guy in prison reading a book on civil disobedience. There is Maria, perhaps Latina, who strikes Harold’s fancy. She has very little to do other than look pretty. It still bewilders us why she would make out with him in the elevator after he has stank White Castle breath and can’t even carry on a decent conversation. Finally, the white women. They are overly sexualized and throwing themselves all over Harold and Kumar, who are only interested in “fucking” and getting some “pussy”. Harold and Kumar disrespect women in multiple ways throughout the movie. Women are either objectified and horny for them or asexual and undesirable. The most disturbing scene in this movie was when Kumar fantasizes about a giant bag of marijuana. The ganja is personified as a woman who has sex with him, brings him coffee, and becomes the recipient of domestic violence followed by his “loving” apology. Note that we’re discussing Harold and Kumar the characters, not John Cho and Kal Penn the actors. We recognize that actors are put in a compromising situation to succeed in a white-dominated entertainment industry. Therefore we encourage the community to support Asian American artists while putting pressure on the entertainment industry to represent us more fairly and accurately. We also ask the community to view the media critically and not blindly endorse any representation of a particular segment of the Asian community as being positive for all Asian Americans. We wish John Cho and Kal Penn luck in their careers and hope to see them in bigger and better roles. Sincerely, South Asian Sisters

Where to start. First off, I want these South Asian sisters in particular to relax.

Take the following:

They represented Asian American men as being homophobic, spineless, sex-crazed misogynists. All Asian American men should be outraged! Asian American women? Well, there was one Asian woman, and she was the stereotypical Asian nerd.

Even though you think I should be, I am not outraged. Even if the film was homophobic, how can two characters be expected to represent all of Asiankind? There are plenty of homophobic Asian men in the real world and plenty of them are misogynists. Isn’t that the type of stereotyping this movie was trying to fight in the first place? Second, they aren’t spineless. What movie were you watching? Third, I am glad they were sex-crazed. It’s about damn time that Asian men are portrayed as sex-crazed. I’m an Asian man and I am sex crazed (unless my parents are reading this in which case I am not sex-crazed). And finally, my personal favorite is the last point the above paragraph makes. When can you remember the last time that an Asian woman played a stereotypical Asian nerd in a movie? Huh ? Huh? They are usually cast as a bad ass or heroine (e.g. Lucy Lu from Kill Bill, Zhang Ziyi from Crouching Tiger, etc.). Its the Asian man that always plays the nerd (e.g. Office Space, Sixteen Candles, Goonies, etc.)

What this open letter is about is the author or authors desire to unfairly hold the Asian man up to a higher standard by stereotyping them. Ironically the angelic behavior they are demanding is often times the very reason that Asian women turn away from Asian men. You can’t have it both ways.

Arts and Entertainment

POSTED BY abhi @ 2:50 PM

74 comments

1 · A N N A on August 13, 2004 4:06 PM · Direct link

as the "only female in my crew", i think that i shall see this movie this weekend and report back with my take. my superficial read of this is that you are right, abhi...diversity means accepting all of us, as we are.

this week, i got slammed on my blog for being a sorority alumna-- what, b/c brown girls don't pledge? "we" are everything, including complete pot-heads (N from davis, what's up?). i'm thrilled that there's a movie where we are just NORMAL and very accessible, and not the sidekick, 7-11 owner, doctor or (your stereotype here). a movie where they are laughing with or b/c of us and not AT us? this is bad? we are not homogenous, and that's a strength not a weakness.

also, i applaud you on calling out hypocrisy. i know well-intentioned, conscious girls who will be as incensed as these sistas...and several of them will also be the first to date the kumar-esque brown boy over the innocent one in the corner who doesn't ever offend anyone. they are slightly inconsistent and that makes them consummately human, like the rest of us...like harold and kumar.

you are right, we can't have it both ways, and that goes for BOTH genders. but that's okay, b/c we are brown, and we contain multitudes.

2 · Kerim Friedman on August 13, 2004 6:40 PM · Direct link

Shashwati wrote about wrote a post about the sexual politics of Harold and Kumar, making an interesting comparison with Y Mama Tambien.

3 · Manish Vij on August 13, 2004 8:23 PM · Direct link

This film was hilarious, not offensive... I found The Guru far worse. YMMV.

Note that South Asian Sisters currently has a Vagina Monologues takeoff in even poorer taste:

YONI KI BAAT
What Bollywood song would your vagina sing?
What is your vagina's immigration status?
If your vagina could say two words, what would they be?

Seems like slack needs to be cut in all directions.

4 · gc on August 13, 2004 9:10 PM · Direct link

They represented Asian American men as being homophobic, spineless, sex-crazed misogynists. All Asian American men should be outraged! Asian American women? Well, there was one Asian woman, and she was the stereotypical Asian nerd. Queer Asians? There were none. How would they feel safe to come on screen when Harold and Kumar are making homophobic jokes all the time? Working class Asians?...

Jesus christ, they approach the movie as if it should have been a laundry list of angry leftism and tokenism. What about the disabled ones? The heavy, aka the gravitationally challenged? Where are the special ed Asians? And (of course) why is the model minority stereotype being promoted!

These guys wouldn't be happy unless it was some North Korea/USSR/PRC style socialist realist movie - some sort of glorification of South & East Asian class war against the supposed white oppressor.

5 · gc on August 13, 2004 9:27 PM · Direct link

by the way, i must also comment on this line:

It still bewilders us why she would make out with him in the elevator after he has stank White Castle breath and cant even carry on a decent conversation.

This is the reductio ad absurdum of identity politics. After inveighing for years - with some justification - about the emasculation/absence of S/E Asians in US cinema...these people now start complaining that having the East Asian guy get the girl was unrealistic!

6 · Ranjit on August 13, 2004 11:08 PM · Direct link

As someone who knew Kal in college and has kept up with him on a quasi-regular basis (like once a year), I guess it's my turn to throw in my 2 cents. While people complain about the way that Asian-Americans are portrayed in film, no one seemed to notice the 2 obvious things: 1) this is a stupid comedy, and 2) for once, the Asian characters didn't have heavy foreign accents. I spoke with Kal a few months ago, and he always seemed to be perturbed by the fact that all of his roles were done with an Indian accent. Obviously, it made for some higher comedy in "Van Wilder," but some of the other roles he played didn't really require it. I personally found the movie to be not very funny, but not because of the way that Asian-Americans are portrayed, but because of the poor writing. I hope that in the future, Asian-Americans can have starring roles in movies that are well-written, regardless of their "misogynistic" or "homophobic" roles. And in case some people forgot, THIS IS A MOVIE ABOUT POTHEADS! Perhaps my dimwittedness has led me to believe that this movie was not intended as a social commentary, but rather to be a dumb comedy. I don't remember hearing people complaining about the portrayal of white people in "Dude, Where's My Car?". And most importantly, some people need to stop taking themselves (and their race) so seriously. I miss the old days when you could make fun of yourself and others, and not be afraid of who you were going to offend. Sheesh.

7 · Ennis on August 14, 2004 9:08 AM · Direct link

He didn't have an indian accent as the "Afrocentric Hindu Homebody" from Passaic in American Desi, but that wasn't a mainstream film either. He also didn't have an accent in "My Love Don't Cost a Thing" but then his character was named Kenneth, and of indeterminate ethnic origin. These are actually the only two movies I've seen him in, and I saw them both within the last month, which is why I remember.

8 · MD on August 14, 2004 10:07 AM · Direct link

Well, if they don't like the way movies portray the desi lot why don't they write and film and finance one themselves? Aren't we (and I prefer the word I always) a wealthy little lot according to the demographics? Built a 15 million dollar Hindu temple in the suburbs of Chicago and everything.

Ok, being facetious. It's a stoner comedy, the first of it's type to have Asian americans in roles like that (in the sense that it is big budget) and this is how the party gets started. Keep moving forward inch by inch....

Good luck to Kal is all I say.

9 · brimful on August 14, 2004 10:39 PM · Direct link

I have my problems with Harold & Kumar, but this is not one of them. The frustrating part of films featuring minorities is the expectation of the community to encompass every facet of that minority's reality. It's unreasonable, not to mention, not good entertainment.

You can't cover everything in one film. As mentioned by other posters, this is a stoner comedy. I wouldn't expect a film of this genre to be particularly empowering for women of any color. There is more than one story that captures the Asian-American experience. But if we don't support Asian-Americans in lead roles, we'll never have a voice to address all of those other stories. That's why I find it particularly depressing that Harold & Kumar haven't managed to bring in the box office that would really make it a stand-out.

10 · gc on August 14, 2004 11:09 PM · Direct link

brimful -

I know what you mean, but regardless of H & K's success, AA films *are* becoming more popular. Better Luck Tomorrow and Bend it Like Beckham were both relative hits. So if H&K doesn't do that well, (and it looks like it'll only barely break even), then there will be other opportunities.

11 · Jagjit on August 15, 2004 11:28 PM · Direct link

Speaking of spineless, the "South Asian Sisters" epitomize such lack of courage by sending in an unsigned letter (even their organization's web site fails to give an actual person's name).

It's quite easy to cast stones when you're hidden from view.

12 · Anji on August 16, 2004 8:03 AM · Direct link

First on the lighten up crap-I know this is Harold and Kumar, dumbass stoner comedy which made most of us laugh and run to white castle and make love to our bag of weed or whatever, but it has a much deeper significance. Every movie is a product, a representation, and a perpetuator of culture. They enter into the dialogue and shape ideas in our head'; it is one of many ways in which we have a culture by which we can relate to one another.

That being said, as many have pointed out, H & K was momentous for how people understand Asian Americans as far more complex as they have been represented-traditionally as doctors and convenient store owners. Unfortunately, though only Asian American MEN.

So first on the sex-crazed point. Fine, all men are frickin horny motherfuckers (and many generally being respectful when the ladies around). And Asian men, like all men asserting their ego need for machismo, do talk about the bitches as pussy and take their bodies apart. These Asian brothers are no different from-yes-the objectifying misogynistic bullshit way in which most men in our society talks about women. Theres a way of finding woman sexually appealing and attractive by not reducing her down to sex. Reductive sexual bullshit.

I don't know who out there shares this critique of men talking about women this way-the conventional wisdom is probably around 96 percent approves of this shit. I mean turn on the radio glance at a the maxims on the news stands watch howard stern-ask the boys what they say about the girls when they are not around. Oh no, maybe not their "girls" because they are exempt from objectification, but the hoes on the street. It's something we live with. And something that though I seem bitter about I live with, laugh at, participate in culture etc, etc.

But what deeply saddens me about H & K is that it is a highly progressive and totally entertaining introduction of Asian men as real complex men. Who get pissed at shit. Who say fuck being a doctor and fuck the white boys who are on my ass at work. Who like women. Who smoke weed. Who ride cheetahs. etc etc It is the bomb for the boys.

But if we're going to take it to that level and make it real, why can't we-as an Asian American community- be as progressive as possible? Why can't we take it to another level and be like no women are not just hoes and bitches good for pussy. How does it detract for Kumar to tone that shit down and talk about a woman the way he would his sister? OK not his sister, but how a guy would want another guy to talk about his sister.

But this is an age old debate. More recently, in the 60s militant black sisters fought this issue with the brothers. Not to simplify, but for many race did trump gender. Oh the ladies they will come later. Is it our sexuality? Is it the belief that the ladies still can own a guy by whipping him so they don't need to be empowered? Or maybe that women dont need it because the only equality they need is in the kitchen. It's the boys that need to work.

back to the current issue, for all the problems that asian men face-emascualtion, nerdy dehumanizing assumptions, women face equally powerful issues. first, the exotic sexualization. if i have one more white boy after me with all his entitlted machismo so he can have fuck me and have some curry afterwards i will cut his balls off. if i have another coworker get wasted and engage in a conversation about the gita with me while inside his head he is bending me over and taking me, well fuck that. in the end all this goes to is not seeing people as people but as objects incapable of agency, confined by their race, their gender, their sexuality, etc.

All I'm saying is respect.

Courtesy of def poetery jams which i watched back to back last night.

13 · EOFIA on August 16, 2004 10:17 AM · Direct link

the preceeding diatribe is the single greatest reason NOT to watch def poetry jam, ever.

it's JUST a movie. why does everyone have to bitch about something? if we made a movie that "anji" and her drum-circling sistas approved of, it would make ZILCH b/c it would suck and movies that suck do not get seen.

movies are meant for entertainment, not indoctrination. fine, smoke less marlboros on celluloid, i can grasp the reasoning behind that...most movies *wouldn't* be totally different if you 86'd the ciggies...but if "H+K" had to articulate the reasons why women need agency and how oppression must be overthrown...it wouldn't even exist. the studio heads would take one look at the concept and utter a collective, "WTF?"

how realistic are your expectations, my patchouli-wearing friends?

it's not "harriet and kavita", it's "harold and kumar". it is unrealistic to expect that the uplifting of oppressed women would occur during such a flick.

mental spew like that which is above makes me cringe at the liberal left...specifically because brown women in the US have it better than a LOT of other women here. when we do choose to fight whatever struggle we wish, a stoner comedy isn't the vehicle with which to do it. stop expecting every single movie/song/tv show/book to be the saviour of an entire people. for fuck's sake, no one wants, desires or deserves that burden.

14 · gc on August 16, 2004 11:58 AM · Direct link

stop expecting every single movie/song/tv show/book to be the saviour of an entire people.

Brilliant. Should add - said people don't really need to be "saved". Also, if the worst thing that's happening to you is that too many guys are hitting on you, well, most women probably won't feel too sorry for you.

And I should also add, on a more substantive note - there have been more SA and especially EA women in the media than men. Anyone remember Bend it like Beckham, or the Joy Luck Club, or seemingly every other news anchor?

15 · anji on August 16, 2004 2:13 PM · Direct link

gc and efoia - you are both missing the point.

is it possible for cool asian guys to not act like stupid horny morons and insult women in the process?

dude stop with the stern and put on some def poetry and listen to people being real. at least ali g is an equal opportunity offender. h and k traded race for gender straight up. no need to save, but have one intelligent woman please.

movies are entertainment but they reflect who we are and what society is about. its called literary criticism.

finally as for too many guys, please, whatever. form over substance.

16 · Ennis on August 16, 2004 6:03 PM · Direct link

Anji said:

is it possible for cool asian guys to not act like stupid horny morons and insult women in the process?

The real question is -- is it funny if they act like morons? I think the answer is yes. If this was instructional TV, it would be demonstrated how you can be cool without being an idiot, but it's not. It's garden variety comedy, one with a semi-realistic portral of asian guys.

Feminists object when female characters are portrayed as ideal types, they insist (and rightly) that female characters should have the freedom to be whatever the story demands, as long as its not demeaning to them or completely unrealistic.

Why can't we expect the same freedom for male characters?

17 · v on August 16, 2004 8:15 PM · Direct link

can we all at least agree that maria was one fine piece of ass? H and K is a movie that i dont think wants or should want to emphasize 'deeper' pts...
peace...

18 · Abhi on August 16, 2004 8:46 PM · Direct link

V, I think Maria's ass is a great place to end this discussion.

19 · Anirvan on August 17, 2004 10:08 AM · Direct link

The statement in the post was authored by South Asian Sisters, a Bay Area-based group, not by DRUM.

The movie was widely pre-publicized in Asian American arts and activists circles (e.g. 1, 2). The message from the actors reads in part:

"By buying a ticket to 'Harold and Kumar go to White Castle', you aren't just gonna get to see a really funny movie with two dudes who look like you. Nope. You're also going to be saying to media outlets, 'I support accurate representation of Asian Americans and would like to see more.' You have the power to change things simply by buying a ticket to a film that we believe you'll have fun watching anyway!"

If you tell a bunch of Asian-Am activist types that your film is accurate and good for the community, it's reasonable to expect folks to check you on it if they disagree.

20 · Leena Kamat on August 18, 2004 2:05 AM · Direct link

Dear "Jagjit" and others,

I am a member of South Asian Sisters (full name and email address provided above; social security number and birth certificate also furnished upon request), and I thought I would add in a couple more points for your consideration. Let it be known that this message is solely a reflection of my opinions, whereas the Open Letter was from our collective (hence, the blanket signature).

First off, I think some of you are confused as to how you truly feel about this movie and what it accomplishes. On the one hand, you say it breaks stereotypes, and on the other, you insist that a movie is mere entertainment and cannot/should not bear the burden of being socially responsible.

Let's take a look at these conflicting notions. Why is it important for Asian men to have roles without accents, without being one-dimensional, and without getting dissed by "the girls"? If movies are just movies, then so what if the leads are always white dudes, and so what if they refer to accented, awkward South Asians as dotheads and sand niggers? Aren't we being a bunch of bitter little white-bashers by demanding that (heterosexual male) Asian Americans "have a voice" in Hollywood?

Maybe somewhere deep down you realize this thing called the media in fact does play a part in both shaping and reflecting the way we perceive race. What I fail to understand, then, is why you can't for a moment utilize your superior model minority brain cells to see how Harold and Kumar, in defying one form of oppression (race-based ridiculing and dehumanizing), are perpetuating another (gender/sexuality-based ridiculing and dehumanizing). Try to parallel your indignance over the representation of race to mine over the representation of gender. I don't find it acceptable or "good entertainment" for two guys to go around calling women "two filthy pussies aching to get banged by us." I don't find it amusing or attractive for men to go out of their way in being hypermasculine and dissing gay people. I don't find it cute for a guy to fantasize about a relationship with a bag of weed while normalizing domestic violence as a facet of that. I can't relate to Cindy Kim, nor can most other Asian American women I know.

Of course one movie cannot represent every type of Asian American. We weren't expecting it to do that. However, we were expecting that a movie rampantly advertised as being positive for the community would at least not go out of its way to disrespect some members of it.

Some of you seem to think this movie was good because it showed "realistic" men. The thing is, cabbies, 7-11 workers, nerds, doctors, and heavily accented people are realistic too. So obviously your glee over this particular representation goes beyond the realism; you must have felt somehow positively represented- dare I say even "empowered"- by economically privileged 2nd gen'ers asserting their stoned, party-hard coolness and getting a piece of "Maria's ass."

Realize that while Asian American heterosexual men may have some struggles to overcome, Asian American women and LGBTQQs have multiple layers of this crap, from white racism to the outright refusal of men of color to find parallels and intersections between race, gender, and sexual orientation.

And believe me, none of this has to do with being humorless, or not appreciating good stoner comedy. It's just that some of us Asian stoners are gay or female, and this movie doesn't speak to us.

Peace,
Leena

21 · gc on August 18, 2004 4:23 AM · Direct link

On the one hand, you say it breaks stereotypes, and on the other, you insist that a movie is mere entertainment and cannot/should not bear the burden of being socially responsible.

You don't get it. You posit a false dichotomy because you think being "socially responsible" means antagonizing most of society with holier-than-thou lectures on how whites/men/straights are oppressing people.

But as I've said to Manish: Vikram Seth, Yoga classes, Deepak Chopra, Indian food, and Silicon Valley have done a heck of a lot more for the Indian image in the US than angry ethnic activist leftists. You have it exactly backwards if you think lecturing people on their racism/sexism/heterosexuality is going to change their attitudes. It will just get their back up. Sell something to them, write a book, or start a class - and then you might have something.

That is the whole point. Angry leftism does not work. But a funny movie that shows successful, integrated, assimilated AA guys and *entertains* people without lecturing them - that does work.

So obviously your glee over this particular representation goes beyond the realism; you must have felt somehow positively represented- dare I say even "empowered"- by economically privileged 2nd gen'ers asserting their stoned, party-hard coolness and getting a piece of "Maria's ass."

Hellllllz yes. Why do these guys have to genuflect to every idol in the temple of leftism before you give them a pass? Like it or not, guys like to see their team win - and honestly, guys are guys the world round. No amount of lecturing is going to remove male Y chromosomes and the attendant testosterone related behavioral changes. (And btw, H & K weren't "economically privileged" in the sense you mean - they earned it.)

anyway, this is really beating a dead horse. but i should point out that there are plenty more AA women on TV and movies than men. Every other news anchor is an East Asian female. And Bend It Like Beckham - though it was about a UK Indian chick - was also higher profile.

It's AMs who weren't having any such representation. Whinging about the fact that there weren't any handicapped lesbians with 1600's in the movie misses the point.

22 · Maulie on August 18, 2004 11:15 AM · Direct link

Wow... Props to Leena for really dissecting this shit. You all need to realize that because we as POC are marginalized, we have a greater responsiblity than our white peers. We MUST step up and be representative of ourselves at least (because the white dominated media sure as hell isn't going to do it), otherwise we just keep digging the hole that was made for us in the first place. Don't you all understand that 'Harold and Kumar' PARTICIPATES IN THE CYCLE OF OPPRESSION??? We won't get anywhere unless, like Leena has said, we see that different forms of oppression come from the same demon.

People also need to realize that within the "open letter", there is no personal attack on Kal Penn or John Cho. So get over it already!

peace,
Maulie

PS: Manish Vij, you need to email either myself or South Asian Sisters so that way we can EDUCATE YOU on Yoni Ki Baat. Clearly you need some light in that department.

23 · sunita on August 18, 2004 12:38 PM · Direct link

dear "gc" and "jagjit," et al,
i'm pretty tired of y'all going on about us 'angry ethnic leftists.' the problem with the men in our community is that they just don't understand why women in our community are fuckin pissed. leena, myself, and many others work with women in our community who are abused in many, MANY ways, and when i go to H&K and see kumar beating up a bag of weed that is supposed to be his wife--can you understand why that would piss me off? because i've seen and worked with women who are treated like that, and are beaten up by people who look like kal. AND, these are the same people who think that their wives, partners, mothers, sisters, and girlfriends are just bitches to get some pussy from. when i see white boys acting like that, i get equally angry. so WHY SHOULD I LOWER MY STANDARDS JUST TO SUPPORT ASIAN AMERICAN MEN IN FILM?! i want to emphasize that seeing this sort of behavior in ANY FILM upsets me, because i just don't think that this sort of behavior is ever 'just a joke.' some things CAN be jokes. but this just isn't a joke to me. i don't support asian men being cast as just the stereotypical nerd, but i also don't support this other caricature.
i think we need to examine our obsession with wanting people who look like us to be in american film--are we SO DESPERATE to have harolds and kumars on screen that we think we should 'overlook' types of behavior that would offend some of us NO MATTER WHAT THE RACE OF THE ACTORS?!
i lived in the UK for two years, and let me tell you--south asians are far more successful over there in filmic representations of the community. in the UK there is not the same sort of desperation to prove the 'normality' of south asians/asian americans. they have different struggles, but a good number of british asians find south asian americans pretty funny in that they will only make movies that make fun of themselves, and don't produce anything that really makes you sit back and think. south asians are totally capable of producing balanced filmic representations of themselves, but as it stands, most of the work on our community has been pretty lopsided. are we willing to trade one caricature (the nerdy, obedient, asexual asian) for another (the pothead pussy-crazed dude)? why do we label that 'progress?'
again, i want to emphasize that i would have had issues with this movie even if there were white, black, hispanic, whatever in the lead roles. but to see kal penn beating up a bag of weed and talking about getting pussy and so on and so forth--it just makes it harder for me to watch because i know men and boys in our community who think like that, and many of us 'south asian sisters' have spent tons of time working with women (and girls our own age) who live through the consequences of these ways of thinking.
for those of you who will label me one more angry ethnic leftist, then i suggest you take a step back and think about where women like leena and i are coming from before you make any judgments. and, personally, i think it's really easy to label an opinionated woman an 'angry ethnic girl' to make it easier to delegitimize what she's saying--and make it easier to shut her out.
best,
sunita kaur

24 · Kumar on August 18, 2004 12:54 PM · Direct link

"....Manish Vij, you need to email either myself or South Asian Sisters so that way we can EDUCATE YOU on Yoni Ki Baat. Clearly you need some light in that department...."

'DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER'... Manish, nice knowin' ya ;)

Kumar

25 · MD on August 18, 2004 1:12 PM · Direct link

Ok, I'm sorry. I just have to step in here because we are talking apples and oranges.

First off: I am female, I am Asian-American, I am probably a few years older than most of you and I have been an abused woman. Not physically, but verbally (and let me tell you, verbal abuse is real. Really real. ) by an ex who was Asian and an alcoholic.

I am very impressed with the work you are doing in helping battered women, sunita, but please don't think that because you do this work you speak for all women who are abused. I do not give you that permission for me. Please understand, I have tremendous respect for you. Tremendous. I can only thank you and wish I had known someone like you when I needed help.

But what is the nature of art? Must art conform to any standard other than the artists? Does this movie lead to men battering or abusing women? I personally think it is a very complicated problem and I, for one, am sceptical that a light-hearted stoner comedy which offends equally is so bad. You have a right to your opinion. And these fine young men have a right to theirs.

26 · Kumar on August 18, 2004 1:55 PM · Direct link

MD,

I am sorry to hear about your abuse (for what little it's worth). But thank you for injecting some sanity with your note. I think you got it just right. I second your sceptisims that a "...light-hearted stoner comedy which offends equally is so bad."

Kumar

27 · Leena Kamat on August 18, 2004 2:38 PM · Direct link

Kumar, et al...

As someone who has been involved in media literacy projects (and anti-violence work) for the past 3+ years, and someone currently studying entertainment law, let me tell you that the entertainment industry is some massively complex, tediously strategic, and widely impacting shit.

The white guys who wrote this movie didn't just string together a bunch of funny scenes that incidentally had brown and yellow guys. They carefully crafted these characters to vindicate Asian men who are insecure about their "emasculation," such that the characters would be cool, tell off racists, AND have hot, happily-objectified white chicks all over them. And then New Line Cinema strategically hired Mahoot Media to publicize the film as being a revolutionary step for the Asian American community. Do you know how much money and effort is put into this type of research and marketing? Why would they bother if it's "just a movie" that stands solely on its ability to make people laugh?

Of course we can't be so naively simplistic as to say an artistic representation directly causes certain behavior. But if you honestly examine your own perceptions of gender and why you are so pleased when you see brown men aping the sexist masculinity traditionally embodied on screen by whitey, maybe some day you will begin to resist the conglomerate and demand true democratic access to the media. I'd recommend checking out some media literacy study guides on this site: http://www.mediaed.org

Best,
Leena

28 · MD on August 18, 2004 2:46 PM · Direct link

Leena,

I reject the notion that I (well, I am an et al, aren't I?) am illiterate, media-wise. I am not pleased or displeased by Harold and Kumar. It has no bearing on my life, my choices, or my work. I am completely and utterly myself. But thanks for the 'resist the conglomerate line.' Loved it.

Best of luck to you.

Madhu

29 · MD on August 18, 2004 3:00 PM · Direct link

OK. No more posting on this thread for me (I can stop anytime, really I can.) Oy. Me and procrastination. Anything to get out of finishing my talk.

Back. To. Work. :)

30 · Kumar on August 18, 2004 3:29 PM · Direct link

Ms. Kamat is "....someone currently studying entertainment law..." Hmmmmmmm...Wonder when Sistah Kamat will join Father "...[W]hitey['s].." church ?

But perhaps I'm wrong. And Ms. Kamat is studying entertainment law, not in the hopes of eventually joining "..whitey..", but to usher in world peace and banish hunger.

Patriarchally yours,
Kumar

31 · Leena Kamat on August 18, 2004 3:51 PM · Direct link

Kumar,

Ad hominem attacks appear to be your forte, which isn't saying much. FYI, some organizations where you might find entertainment lawyers:

http://www.calawyersforthearts.org/
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.creativecommons.org

But I'm sure that adds nothing new to your expansive knowledge of media & entertainment. :)

Love,
Leena

32 · A N N A on August 18, 2004 3:59 PM · Direct link

"You have a right to your opinion. And these fine young men have a right to theirs."

MD,

AND women. fine young men AND women. i commented on this, first. SM isn't *all* male. :)
.
.
.
my ex-bf split my lip open on NYE 1997.

i don't think it was because he saw too many stoner comedies. i don't think it's because he listened to music that made him violent (unless "The Smiths" are your idea of a band that inspires brutality). i don't think it's because he read something where women were hurt, and it was presented as "okay". in short, i know for a fact that it wasn't something "artistic" that made him rear back and punch me that night. i am not making a blanket statement about ALL abusers, i am just offering my experience because i think it is beyond relevant to this discussion. i think he hit me because he watched his father strike his mother whenever there was a fight. we do what we know. and he only knew violence.

i don't believe that blaming the "media" for a problem that has existed in our community for CENTURIES is accurate or useful. "harold and kumar" weren't influencing our grandparents to be violent back in india, and they probably won't inspire some brown boy to beat his gf here. that boy's FATHER, and the nature of his relationship with his mother, will have more to do with the potential for that reprehensible act to occur than any movie ever will.

i want to state very clearly that i don't feel that ANY woman should have to qualify their position on this issue with the admission of past abuse. i think the GREATEST thing we can do as a community is to drag sexual, physical and verbal abuse OUT OF THE SHADOWS and in to the light, where it can be reacted to and addressed. THAT is why i revealed what i did, about the worst new year's eve of my life. i broke up with him on the spot and i moved on.

it is my choice to vocalize this here and now. DV exists, it must stop. no one is disagreeing with your noble and necessary devotion to a cause that is, in many heart-breaking situations, a life-or-death matter.

i applaud the work you are doing, but that doesn't mean that i don't have the right to shudder at the notion that we all have to fit in these very rigid boxes...i.e "if you are consummately opposed to domestic violence, then you MUST be a "south asian sista" and dissect EVERYTHING with this liberal viewpoint". nothing is ever that simple, is it?

my ex-bf didn't think i was some "bitch" or "ho" to get "pussy" from. he wanted to marry me and he is aware that his actions on one regrettable, alcohol-soaked night destroyed any possibility of him ever giving me his last name. he made a grave, alarm-tripping sort of mistake but that action doesn't encompass his entire existence.

not all abusers are misogynistic monsters who want to murder the women they "love", though many are. some of them are our fathers, our brothers, our boyfriends...flawed men repeating the only pattern of gender interaction that they know. they are men we love, and that is why it is excruciating to recover from abuse and do what's safe and break free. again, i implore you all to remember that it's *never* simple. there are shades of grey. and i only speak for me.

i dated that ex- for 18 months before he hurt me for the first and last time. he loved me in his flawed and dysfunctional way and i saw that as an opportunity for grace; when he pleaded with me to stay in his life, i told him i would, as a friend, provided that he get help and understand that he was not his father, and that he must never treat women the way his mother was treated. do i advocate emotional vigilante-ism for all battered women? no. i am ONLY telling you MY TRUTH.

i am still in touch with him, because i know that nothing is ever as simple as black or white, asshole or saint, abuser or evolved male. by remaining on the periphery of his life, i am a constant reminder of what repeating a cycle cost him.

i dream of a day when comment threads on group blogs don't go down this painful road, because they don't have to, because we are enlightened and respectful to each other. because our community has stopped a horrific cycle of pain. i don't think this stoner movie is going to prevent my "dream". i also don't think that "H+K" is a conspiracy to drive put-upon, emasculated asian men to the box office. i read a blog post from someone who grew up w/the two men who wrote this (kumar is apparently inspired by the blogger's own brother) and they said that they noticed that there were no mainstream comedies that resembled their memories of growing up with diverse friends in NJ.

is that "spin" to counteract the evil conspiracy that is "H+K"? i don't think so. but i'm not liberal, i'm just a gullible human who tries to believe that sometimes, a tree is *just* a tree. i am sorry you feel that this silly movie will lead to more danger for women who never deserved it. i respect your right to your valid, hard-earned feelings. i hope that you, in turn respect my right to reiterate:

you don't speak for ALL of us, because you don't speak for me, either.

33 · MD on August 18, 2004 4:09 PM · Direct link

So much for my promises. Writer's block. Painful. Painful. Painful. Why is my head empty when I need to finish this talk and write-up by Monday?

Anna, dear, I apologize. Yes, fine young men AND women. Thank you for correcting me.

And I am so sorry. I hope you meet someone who will love and cherish and respect you. I wish that for everyone.

34 · Ennis on August 18, 2004 4:37 PM · Direct link

Point of clarification:

Sunita, you said:

"it just makes it harder for me to watch because i know men and boys in our community who think like that, and many of us 'south asian sisters' have spent tons of time working with women (and girls our own age) who live through the consequences of these ways of thinking."

It seems your objection to the movie isn't that it is unrepresentative, but rather that it is representative and you would rather have a movie where the characters catalyze positive change than one where they reflect current, but negative attitudes, right?

The reason I bring this up is that in previous comments there were complaints that H&K were unrepresentative, when actually the writers simply meant that the characters were negative. It looks like we're all in agreement that we know people like H&K, what we're disagreeing about is whether we want to see that up on the big screen.

It's easier to have a disagreement if we can figure out what we agree on and what we disagree on.

35 · Sameer on August 18, 2004 4:43 PM · Direct link

Hi,

First off: I am male, I am Indian (not Indian American). I'm currently in the US visiting my girlfriend. Here are my two bits.

I don't think either Sunita or Leena ever said they were speaking for ALL women. I also don't think they implied that ALL abusers are a creation of the media. Of course not. And of course things are grey.

But here is something which to my mind at least is not grey - media impacts attitudes. You can argue about how exactly it does, but it does. This is not some 'liberal' standpoint - it has even been recognized by the Canadian Supreme Court (e.g. in Butler). Certain images have a tendency to reinforce attitudes. What truly surprises me is that so many women on this list seem to be fine with an image such as Kumar beating up a bag of weed that is supposed to be his wife. Some trees are just trees. And some things can be funny. But there are some things which cross the line.

Of course we're all entitled to our views, but I personally am saddened when both men and women think this is just fine. As for the sex-craved men on this list, get a life.

Cheers,
Sameer.

36 · Sunita on August 18, 2004 5:05 PM · Direct link

hello all,
sameer, thanks for your post. you basically said what i was going to: that i didn't mean to speak for anyone or anything, and if you re-read my email, you'll see that. i think it's easy to attack someone instead of understanding their points is to assume that they speak for 'everyone' in a general category, and by no means did i ever say that in my email--i simply said that guys like harold and kumar disgust me, and I see a connection between that way of thinking about women, and the way that women are actually treated. nowhere did i argue, however, that such movies *encourage* this behavior.
however, i am glad that anna and MD felt comfortable sharing their experiences. as was stated, dialogue on this issue is always a good thing, and i'm glad that even though my email was taken the wrong way, it opened up a space for these hugely important stories. but i think that your opinions and experiences do not detract from the validity of other women (including myself) who have experienced similar violence, and who may differ from you in their response to this movie.

37 · Kumar on August 18, 2004 6:41 PM · Direct link

First, my sympathy to all of the women here (Anna, MD, Sunita)--pro and anti H&K--who have detailed their history of abuse at the hands of some of the men in their lives.

I don't look to any movies for guidance about dharma and adharma, let alone a (funny) cartoonish one like H&K. More substantively, my reading of the relevant literature leads me to believe that the evidence of media influencing behavior for good or ill to be rather weak--the Canadian Supreme Court notwithstanding.

And Ms. Kamat, funny you should think "...Ad hominem attacks appear to be [my] forte...", given the reference to "..whitey..." in your post. Clearly, Ms. Kamat, this sort of keen analysis shows you to be a worthy successor of Weber.

Pot...kettle...black, Ms. Kamat ? :)

Oh and about joining "...whitey...". Yes, Ms. Kamat, even the folks you admire are (gasp!) part of the system, part of "...whitey..."

Kumar

38 · sameer on August 18, 2004 6:51 PM · Direct link

kumar,

1. i don't think these women need your sympathy.

2. it would be great if you share what makes you think that media does not have ANY influence on behaviour.

3. i think the issue at hand goes beyond influencing behaviour. it degrades women. and if you think the evidence on that is also weak, then i guess there's not much one can say.

sameer.

39 · Kumar on August 18, 2004 7:23 PM · Direct link

Sameer:

I've been reading, and occasionally commenting, on this blog for a while. I did not offer my sympathies gratuituously, but out of genuine empathy with their experiences. It's curious that you took it upon yourself to speak for them. In any case, if any of them are offended, my apologies.

As for the rest of your post, you hardly quoted any evidence in your favor. And, no, the Supreme Court of Canada doesn't count: Argument from authority and all that.

Before posting, perhaps you should read what I actually wrote. My point was an epistemic one: The evidence is, I think, weak. I did not write that there is no evidence.

It may be that media is a hugely malign influence, but the evidence doesn't show that to be the case. The problem, quite simply, is the hoary one of teasing apart correlation from causation.

Your final 'point' that such movies "...degrade women..." is an assertion about the (im)morality of such movies. A perfectly legit. assertion, but providing 'evidence' won't make your case.

You will have to do the hard work, and make an argument that such cartoonish movies have morally deleterious effects on women. The burden of proof is on your side, in this particular case.

Kumar

40 · A N N A on August 18, 2004 7:28 PM · Direct link

actually, i graciously accept and welcome kumar's sympathy, without endorsing or refuting his views. it was not easy to put myself out there; part of me regretted it right after i posted. it feels good to be supported. :)

i really want to clarify one thing from my earlier post; when i said "sometimes, a tree is just a tree", i meant that in relation to the idea that "h+k" is part of some conspiracy to validate unhappy, under-sexed, underrepresented-in-film asian males.

i just don't think that the two writers of this film cynically sat around and said, "let's make a lot of money by catering to a disenfranchized group...but whom shall we address? by jove, we've got it! asian males! write scenes accordingly!".

understandably, i was quite emotional when i wrote my last comment, and my thoughts may not have been presented as clearly as i would have liked. i hope you can be forgiving of that.

as a one-time victim of DV, i do not condone violence against women at all, EVER. i'm not thrilled with what "Kumar" (NOT Kal, as another commenter has dangerously stated) does to his weed/woman. should we discuss this? sure. should we keep in mind that this is a MOVIE and that kal is an ACTOR PLAYING "KUMAR" and not "kumar" himself? even the original letter which inspired this post supported that.

but please don't tell me that preciously serious letters urging action against a film that didn't have enough queer-positive actors (for example)DON'T deserve some examination and sarcasm.

Q: how many people can you uplift with one stoner-comedy?

A: none, all of those who can "lift" are to busy sating their "munchies".

41 · Kumar on August 18, 2004 7:41 PM · Direct link

Anna:

Thank you for the comment. I was impressed by the strength of character you displayed after your ex-bf's violence.

Kumar

42 · gc on August 19, 2004 2:50 AM · Direct link

I think this is really the core of the point that I am making (and perhaps Kumar as well). You can't draw a straight line between Harold and Kumar and wife beating.

Several reasons for this...

1) wife beating in the SA community is most prevalent among Indian immigrants, not 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans. Indian immigrants aren't going to be watching this stuff.

2) where has there ever been a well controlled study of what causes domestic violence? Some people seem very willing to run with whatever Gloria Steinem has told them. But you know, sometimes science can be useful:

H. Soler and colleagues studied 54 men from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Each of the men had one primary female partner.
"A high percentage of participants reported some level of both verbal and physical aggression toward their partners," Soler et al. say. "Testosterone levels were significantly associated with levels of both verbal aggression and physical violence self-reported by the men." Overall, they say, testosterone levels, alcohol consump ption, and demographic characteristics were significant in predicting levels of abusive behavior.

The researchers conclude, "The high heritability of testosterone level and its association with violent behavior warrant the inclusion of this variable in studies of antisocial and criminal behavior including domestic violence."

You can read a comprehensive review here of factors - both genetic and social - that contribute to violence.

Social Learning Theories Violence is learned at home from watching parents and peers. Theorists have identified possible influences: 1) Violent toys 2) Violent media 3) Violent parents have violent children 4) Violent American culture 5) Access to guns 6) Poverty /discrimination
Biological Theories

Biological and social factors interact jointly to generate aggression. Also, human beings have evolved higher cortical centers that serve to suppress the emergence of aggression. The orbital prefrontal cortex plays a key role in inhibiting aggressive responses to threatening and provocative stimuli. As a rule, most adults never become violent.

The Serotonin System: This is the most extensively studied system in relation to impulsive aggression. Serotonin modulates activity of the inhibitory areas of the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex. What is happening at these receptors is quite complex and not totally understood as yet. The current hypothesis is that low serotonin activity
1) increases aggressive behavior by increasing the trait of impulsivity
2) increases dopamine transmission which increases vulnerability to impulsivity and noradrenergic function which, in turn, also interferes with cortical inhibition.

GABA: a primary inhibitory neurotransmitter, it may help dampen and prevent aggression. The balancing amino acid is glutamate, which is related to increased excitation and hostility.

Acethylcholine: Nicotinic receptors are linked to reduced predatory and affective aggression. Muscarinic receptors are linked to increases in aggression.

Catecholamines: Increased reactivity of the noradrenergic and dopaminergic system may facilitate aggressive behavior in humans possibly by increasing vulnerability to impulsivity and interfering with cortical inhibition. Once again, the picture is quite complicated.

Peptides: Vasopressin plays an important role in modulating memory and aggressive behavior. Males have higher levels. Opiate binding protein has been associated with aggression. Metenkephalin levels have been associated with self-injurious behavior. Reduced cholesterol has been associated with aggression and suicide.

Genetics: Heritability of aggressive behavior is estimated at 44 - 72% in humans. It is clear that there is not a single gene for aggression. Evidence for the interaction of heredity and environment is found in the MAO A and B variants.
These two variants are indistinguishable in children in stable homes, but in abusive homes, those without the MAOA gene are 3x as violent.

Much more at the link, including full cites.

My point is this: many of you "DRUM sistaz" are drawing a straight line arrow between Kal Penn jokingly smacking a bag of weed on film and a *real* incidence of domestic violence at home. This is the crux of your glib equivalence between a movie and patriarchal oppression & "violence against women". Why not examine whether there actually is causality first?

43 · jasbir on August 19, 2004 5:07 PM · Direct link

all right, i just have to step in here at this point. i am totally at a loss trying to understand why in the world people are up in arms to defend this movie. i can see where both 'sides' are coming from, but i think that people like GC are reading into sunita's and leena's points in unfair ways. sunita didn't try and argue that there is a 'straight line' between DV and harold and kumar! she was just trying to explain that her reaction to the movie, and to certain scenes, is because of her work and experiences. i don't think that is an unfair statement, and anna, i'm sorry, but i don't think she was trying to speak for you or anyone else. if your opinion and experiences should be respected, then so should hers and so should leena's.
i think you all should think about why you are so eager to defend this movie. why all the fuss? nobody is trying to attack the actors personally, so if you're friends of these two and feel a need to defend them, then just chill.
i see this situation more as an extreme reaction to what is perceived as the ethnic leftists and their general outlook and priorities. i just want to say, as a member of the sikh community, that no mainstream indians (deepak chopra, et al, that you quoted, GC) came to our aid when we were harrassed and attacked post-9/11. but the ethnic leftists that you condemn did. they at least made efforts to raise awareness. i think that if you condemn them, you yourself are making a huge generalization and reacting to a group that has done some vrey good things. personally, i don't give a shit if deepak chopra and indian restaurants have given indian community a good image. i would rather know and hear from people who actually care about striking down barriers and breaking stereotypes. and it seems here that, as someone said earlier, you all are just defending one stereotype in an attempt to distance yourself from another. to me, that don't make no sense. ask yourself why defending this movie is such a big priority for you.

44 · MD on August 20, 2004 5:58 AM · Direct link

Jasbir,

Free speech? (And yes, I know, criticising movies is free speech too. And criticising criticisms is free speech and on and on....). But I've seen so many instances when people are afraid to say or think a thing because it is somehow not 'right' or, dare I say it, politically correct. Colleges in particular are very egregious in this regard: look at campus speech codes.

45 · sameer on August 20, 2004 10:06 AM · Direct link

I think defending the movie on the grounds of free speech is problematic. The reason being that the critics are not saying ban the movie or some such thing. They're just criticizing the movie. So if you want to defend the movie you have to defend the substance - not just the free speech angle. I think Jasbir has made an interesting point - why are people so anxious and desperate to defend a movie which after all is just supposed to be a dumb comedy?

46 · MD on August 20, 2004 10:50 AM · Direct link

Read my comment again, Sameer. I said the climate this particular type of criticism creates has implications for free speech.

And why are people so anxious and desperate to condemn a movie that is after all just a dumb comedy?

47 · MD on August 20, 2004 10:51 AM · Direct link

And I think I should ask the fine young men and WOMEN of this blog to ban me from this thread cause I need to move on :)

(It certainly has touched a nerve, hasn't it?)

48 · sameer on August 20, 2004 1:02 PM · Direct link

this particular type of criticsm has implications for free speech? wow. whatever happened to all that evidence and causality.

49 · Leena Kamat on August 20, 2004 2:11 PM · Direct link

First off, I want to share my deepest support for Anna and MD having the courage to speak out against the violence they experienced. Indeed, that, along with men taking active steps to speak to each other and break the cycles of violence, will truly stir up some change. I ask that you keep an open mind about South Asian Sisters and check us out some time if you're in the Bay Area. There is no South Asian woman we wouldn't consider a sista, so please don't infer any hostility from my comments. Yoni Ki Baat is coming up in October, and its whole intention is to create a platform for speaking out.

gc, I wish you had taken the time to read and absorb Anna's entire comment before presenting your scientific evidence with such authority. It looks like virtually all women who have commented here have seen or experienced violence first-hand (including myself), and it doesn't seem that any of this violence has been at the hands of your stereotypical immigrant with twisted criminal genes. As Anna has suggested, abusers are often very normal men (at least usually/in the public eye) that have been socialized to think violence is OK. This needs to be changed with any and all tools of socialization that we have at our disposal.

Now, I hate to be redundant, but that's exactly what most of the remainder of this post is going to be.

My statements don't represent anyone's opinions but my own, especially when I explicitly use words like "I" or "me" (see first paragraph in my first comment).

I don't feel that the media *causes* violence, or anything for that matter (see my second post, third paragraph). But, the media is increasingly becoming a large component of *socialization*. Back in the day, all we had was family and community from whom to learn what was normal, acceptable, funny, ideal. Today, many kids spend more time in front of the TV and internet than with their parents and communities. We do have to pay attention when violence against women is rising, and when girls' body image is getting worse at a younger and younger age. Other women may have experienced otherwise, but I know that seeing skinny white girls on TV all the time has impacted by beauty ideal and patterns of consumerism in many ways.

Filmmaking is a business just like any other. Businesses market by demonstrating that they have a product that will benefit people. A pretty common and pretty effective tactic to convince people of such a benefit is by capitalizing on their insecurities. And if you look at the gist of the marketing done for this movie, as well as the comments defending it above (i.e. it's about time the Asian guys got some, about time they weren't nerds, etc.), it seems that the alleged benefit went beyond just providing laughs. This was a movie that pitched itself as being empowering for and representative of the Asian American community. This is not a farfetched conspiracy theory, but just a simple truth about marketing.

Once again, I truly wonder why people who think this was just a "dumb comedy" react by saying it was "about time" *anything* happened for Asian *men* in the media. I am not the one who thinks movies are just movies. Apparently, many people defending this movie are. So what benefit does it serve to have brown and yellow men portrayed differently than they were before, or portrayed at all?

I do not think this movie or any movie has a responsibility to portray the plight of every oppressed/underrepresented class (see my initial comment, paragraph 5). However, I do think that a movie that purports to be positive for one community should not blatantly diss on another, or worse, on a portion of that very community. Take this hypothetical: A movie is rampantly advertised as being positive for and breaking stereotypes of the gay community, and it does break stereotypes of them being flaming, etc., but it only has white gay people in the lead and is racist, portraying Asians as terrorists/nerds/[insert other 'negatives' here]. Would Asian Americans in that situation not be justified in taking offense to a movie that's supposed to be good for gay people and not only fails to include gay Asians (which I think would be OK), but *disses* the whole group (which is what I'm criticizing about this movie)?

Well I've taken enough of your space here. I'd be happy to respond to anyone who emails me, but I don't want to continue going around in circles on this blog.

Peace,
Leena

50 · A N N A on August 20, 2004 3:01 PM · Direct link

i just want to say, as a member of the sikh community, that no mainstream indians (deepak chopra, et al, that you quoted, GC) came to our aid when we were harrassed and attacked post-9/11. but the ethnic leftists that you condemn did. they at least made efforts to raise awareness. i think that if you condemn them, you yourself are making a huge generalization and reacting to a group that has done some vrey good things. personally, i don't give a shit if deepak chopra and indian restaurants have given indian community a good image. i would rather know and hear from people who actually care about striking down barriers and breaking stereotypes.

you want to know and hear from people who care? really? but are you sure you want to know and hear from *me*?

just months after 9/11, i worked my ASS off at a difficult, heart-shredding non-profit that had prioritized civil rights in the wake of the most horrific tragedy ever-- and the backlash we were all feeling because of it.

i spoke to members of congress, made speeches any and everywhere, wrote articles, trained interns and cooperated with/supported groups like SMART, who were trying to defend the Sikh community.

if "ethnic leftists" = "deepak chopra" in this continuously mutating discussion, and the former wins b/c they helped your cause, then i think i should speak up too. i am not now, nor have i ever been an "ethnic leftist". i am a reg'd independent who was originally a member of the republican party. you seem to be taking a side on this comment thread, and i am on the other, though by your requirements and or assumptions, i shouldn't be here.

i am not sikh. i am not famous, like chopra. i am far from perfect, and i just try and stand up for what my addled little mind thinks is right.

*but i showed up.*

if we're talking about striking down barriers and breaking stereotypes, let's start by doing some of that right here. the "ethnic leftists" weren't the only ones who helped you. some of us conservative/libertarian/independent humans did too.

51 · rp on August 20, 2004 4:06 PM · Direct link

hey all,
i've been reading this thread with some interest. i can see both/ all sides, but after thinking about the contradictions in all arguments,tend to sympathize more with those that think gender in this movie was problematic and worthy of taking a serious look.
anna, i connected a lot with what you said in that last comment. i dont identify with any "leftist" or "activist" label either and don't feel i fit in or want to fit in with that scene, but i still show up and do good things in the community. i give you big props for pointing that out.
one thing stuck out to me though- your previous work with smart. i have friends connected with the group, and they worry a lot about media stuff. even i would see some of stuff as nit-picky- http://www.sikhmediawatch.org/mediawatch/media.asp
if the question is of causation, then none of those things they're complaining about on that site cause anti-sikh sentiments either. but the argument goes that these things might "fuel" existing sentiments or make racism look cute or normal. after 9/11 it was a time when sikhs were especially under attack, but the stats say 1 in 4 women are raped, so i guess you could say we're always under attack. so what i'm saying is, if we wouldnt complain about a media watch for sikhs and defend the things they're offended by, i dont see why we should get worked up over someone doing a media watch on gender-related issues.
-rp

52 · Manish Vij on August 20, 2004 7:18 PM · Direct link

Leena, Maulie, Sunita, Anji, Jasbir: I respect your obviously heartfelt reactions to the movie, but you may be missing some pretty obvious shout-outs.

First, the bit about slapping a bag of weed is intended to make fun of Kumar and is anti-domestic violence. Kumar is in an undershirt in a slummy apartment, chest hair showing, drinking crummy coffee. It's enlightened society saying that Archie Bunker-like abusers are uncool troglodytes.

I grant that any DV reference could awaken painful memories. But the whole scene is so over the top, so clearly satire (a character with puffy white arms, like a giant M&M), that nobody, but nobody in the mainstream is going to misunderstand the message.

Second, the writers are making fun of homophobia. The Jewish characters, who are stand-ins for the two Jewish screenwriters, dis Harold and Kumar for acting gay. Then, with perfect comic timing, they take fellatio-like drags off a large, phallic bong.

Later in the movie, Harold and Kumar make fun of the extreme sports guys' 'gay' taste in music. But in under a minute, they're singing along to Wilson Phillips.

Third, the 'two filthy pussies' line is intended to show Harold's crassness. In terms of sexuality, the character is written to be like a frat boy. It's like Om Puri enduring the wog/Paki taunts in a nightclub in 'My Son the Fanatic:' offensive on the face of it, but that's precisely the point -- it's part of the character development.

The great irony is that your title, 'Yoni ki Baat,' relies on the same kind of synecdoche, using a part of something to refer humorously to the entire thing, that Kumar uses. Like calling a car 'wheels' or movies 'Hollywood,' albeit more offensive. What Bollywood song one's yoni would sing, standing up for one's yoni, it's all appropriating and reclaiming frat boy-speak for one's own purposes.

I stand by my opinion: it's a tasteless title. It's tasteless when Kumar uses it, it's tasteless in The Vagina Monologues, it's tasteless in Puppetry of the Penis. But hey, they're not your Victorian mores, they're mine.

And Maulie, 'EDUCATE YOU'?

All I'm saying is respect.

53 · rp on August 20, 2004 9:01 PM · Direct link

manish- i think i agree with what you're saying about the images of weed-beating and other things being shown facetiously. but i'm still wondering if you would go through the same trouble to cap on a letter written by sikh media watch and insist that its not a big deal, seeing as many portrayals of sikhs as terrorists, etc, are also meant to be facetious, maybe even ironic or something that the "enlightened mainstream" would never take seriously. i just want to make sure that if media is important, it's important across the board.
about the vagina monologues- i don't see that as being used in a "frat boy" sense. i think it's more a matter of reclaiming, like black people using the "n" word or women making a magazine called "bitch." i have seen the vagina monologues and eve ensler's newer play- based on that,definitely wouldnt compare it or the way the word is used to frat boys in any sense.
-rp

54 · Ennis on August 20, 2004 9:50 PM · Direct link

RP said:

i'm still wondering if you would go through the same trouble to cap on a letter written by sikh media watch and insist that its not a big deal, seeing as many portrayals of sikhs as terrorists, etc, are also meant to be facetious, maybe even ironic or something that the "enlightened mainstream" would never take seriously.

RP, you're missing the point.

In H&K the director and audience both know that DV is bad. If you look at that sequence, it's about Kumar doing something that he knows is *bad*. The movie no more endorses wifebeating than it endorses breaking in to police stations, operating on gunshot patients without any medical experience or riding on cheetahs. In the dream sequence Kumar hits his "spouse" and even the dream sequence Kumar knows it's the wrong thing. It's an example of the dream sequence Kumar doing something wrong b/c he's become an embittered loser.

If you can show me a situation where the director/writer/author knows the difference between Sikhs and A-Q terrorists, the audience does as well, and the point of the reference to Sikhs as terrorists is to make fun of racist idiots as lamebrains, I could agree with you. But none of the examples that SMART protested are anything of the sort. Instead, they were the types of media behavior that might have generated confusion, at a time when several Sikhs had been shot at in acts of racist violence.

I'm trying really hard to be civil here, but I don't know if I can get my point across. Here's what I suggest -- go to a small town in Idaho, show a movie there that refers to Sikhs as Bin Ladens, then tie a turban, grow a beard and drive around and see what happens.

55 · sharmeen on August 21, 2004 12:08 AM · Direct link

anna, the thing about your comments that i find quite offensive is that you take everything very personally. i appreciate your help post 9/11. i sympathize with your experiences of violence. but is there really a need to be so attacking when you write? it's funny to me that others on this list who have written much more mildly have been viciously attacked, while you have made your points in very personal attacking ways and nobody calls *you* out on how you put your points across! you demand respect for your experiences but you give very little to others, or take everything that is said too personally, and i was offended reading the posts that you have contributed. (props to leena for not writing back viciosly and personally when she was criticized in a personal manner!) it is also pretty sad to see you attack other *women* and also make fun of the 'south asian sisters' concept in a hostile manner. just because you don't identify with that label doesn't mean you have the right to ridicule or judge others who do.
sorry to single you out girl, but i just kinda flipped reading your last post! i also wanna add that i think our community hasnt progressed much not because of a lack of dialogue. i think it's more because of people not talking to each other in respectful wayz.

56 · sunita on August 21, 2004 12:20 AM · Direct link

manish,
i respectfully don't think you understand what others are trying to say. first off, many abusers are NOT the type of 'losers' that kumar is supposedly portrayed as being. they are not always these dudes in wife beaters sitting alone in their apartments. the fact that people associate wife beaters with that sterotype is the reason many wife beaters are not suspected or even properly punished--because they are the upstanding citizen, the doctor in te community, etc. obviously that's not ALWAYS the truth, but it is the truth more often than is assumed. so yes, i see what you're saying about it being obvious that kumar is a loser,etc, but i think that's a double edged and potentially dangerous assumption. this kind of "loserhood" takes many forms! :)
secondly, i have to repeat, yet again, that i was NOT drawing a line between wife beating and H/K. i was not trying to argue that watching kumar beat up a bag of weed is goign to make an audience member beat his partner. i was trying to explain why i reacted to that scene in the way i did, and why that reaction was based in a very sad reality in our community. i think you, along with many others, have read theses into my comments that i have simply NOT written. a distinction must be made between putting forth a argument like 'the kumar scene will influence an audience member' and a statement like 'i feel this way about the movie because of experience X and Y.' my initial comment (made on nobody else's behalf but my own) consisted solely of the latter.
best,
sunita

57 · gc on August 21, 2004 2:39 AM · Direct link

the "ethnic leftists" weren't the only ones who helped you. some of us conservative/libertarian/independent humans did too.

It should be needless to say, but this was GW:

We've seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers -- in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own. My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong...
Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico, and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens...

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated...

Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat. I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith. I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Point: "ethnic leftists" were not the only ones talking about not killing Muslims. That was the MAINSTREAM RIGHTIST LINE as well. However, I will note that most ethnic leftists were against retaliating against bin Laden. Personally, that makes them moral zeros in my book. It means they're more loyal to some bizarre brown racialist fiction than to the fellow citizens of their own nation.

I should also note that the # of actual hate crimes post 9/11 was far less frequent than one in a million - and that too if you bundle *all* incidents together, from "verbal harassment" to arson (go to Appendix A).

58 · gc on August 21, 2004 2:46 AM · Direct link

obviously that's not ALWAYS the truth, but it is the truth more often than is assumed.

Do you have any stats for this claim, any citations whatsoever of abuse frequency vs. social status? Or are you just making this up?

it is also pretty sad to see you attack other *women* and also make fun of the 'south asian sisters' concept in a hostile manner. just because you don't identify with that label doesn't mean you have the right to ridicule or judge others who do

Of course she does. The South Asian Leftist Sistaz spend their days judging and ridiculing, looking down their nose at anyone who spends their days working for a living rather than pursuing counterproductive angry leftist ethnic activism. They have been brainwashed to believe that they will get more with vinegar than with sugar, that commercial success is wrong, and that 60's style protest is the highest good. They have a bizarre inverted moral hierarchy where zero-sum, racially tinged demands of the public are good , but commercially successful aracial ventures are bad because they're selling out.

That kind of attitude needs to be identified and stigmatized.

59 · Abhi on August 21, 2004 8:59 AM · Direct link

As the original poster let me jump in here. This site was in part created to engender a discussion such as this. I am glad to see the endless stream of comments and have learned much reading them, about people's viewpoints. I understand that SAS's main concern and point (I hope I deciphered this correctly) was that Mahoot Media encouraged them to watch this film to uplift and support South Asians, yet they saw nothing personally uplifting in the movie. It was a bait and switch to them. Fine. I don't think any of us can argue against that, if that was the core motivation behind their letter. It was a personal reaction for them. As for most of the other points they make, I disagree with them, but I am glad they have engaged everyone in a discussion. I hope the South Asian Sisters see other stuff on this website that they might agree with, if not this one post. When creating this site I think some of us had in mind that it would be a way to uplift South Asians by creating a dialog and raising awareness of many issues.

Forums such as this are unfortunately a great place for "last wordism." I have now read several comments that seem to serve no pupose except to get in the last word, or show the "other side" who is smarter, at the expense of really saying anything new. How did we go from talking about Harold and Kumar to some of the latest comments, I have no idea? I hope this won't be a place to take your misplaced anger out on "ethnic leftists" or to illogically rage against "whitey." Thats what people in the rest of our society do, and why politics in our country is so bitterly divided. Given the political leanings of the six contributing writers to this site, readers are probably going to see a diversity of opinions. I am best pigenholed as an "angry ethnic leftist." Others are more moderate, and some I would consider conservative. I think this is great because it will keep us all on our toes.

If all goes as envisioned, there will be plenty of great discussions on this website. I urge you to please resist the temptation of "last-wordism." You can't change an entrenched mind. You can however learn from them to save an open mind.
And that's my last word. :)

60 · desinar on August 23, 2004 6:59 PM · Direct link

Gc, your post is full of Ignorance. SA Sisters work for their livings too. And who's looking down his/her nose when writing the following post? Obviously, gc is.

gc wrote:

The South Asian Leftist Sistaz spend their days judging and ridiculing, looking down their nose at anyone who spends their days working for a living rather than pursuing counterproductive angry leftist ethnic activism. They have been brainwashed to believe that they will get more with vinegar than with sugar, that commercial success is wrong, and that 60's style protest is the highest good. They have a bizarre inverted moral hierarchy where zero-sum, racially tinged demands of the public are good , but commercially successful aracial ventures are bad because they're selling out.

That kind of attitude needs to be identified and stigmatized.

61 · Kal Penn on August 31, 2004 9:45 AM · Direct link

To the South Asian Sisters:

I want to thank you for your open letter calling on people to encourage the community to support Asian American artists while putting pressure on the entertainment industry to represent more of us accurately. Your letter has sparked much-needed discussion on the images of Asian Americans in the media, as well as marginalization within the community. Id like to address a few points in your letter that will hopefully clarify specific parts of Harold and Kumar go to White Castle and discuss the state of affairs for Asian Americans in Hollywood.

While Harold and Kumar may not represent every part of the diverse API community, the film is groundbreaking in terms of smashing down the well-ingrained Hollywood stereotypes of Asian American men being one-dimensional buffoons who are the object of ridicule, scorn, and hatred (Sixteen Candles, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Short Circuit to name just a few). Whether we see Harold and Kumar as assimilated heterosexist pigs, or as liberating sexualized men of color, the fact remains that we have seen no multidimensional Asian American characters on screen, in title roles in a studio film before this. In that sense, the film is empowering.

In my preparation to play Kumar, I did not set out to represent all South Asian American men. I only intended to represent the character I was playing. Indeed, I approached the role as I would any other grounded in the basis of reality for who that character is. This is not to say I am oblivious to the fact that there is a void of Asian Americans on screen (on the contrary, I am proud to depict Kumar in an industry that too often systematically excludes people of color). I understand that it is precisely because we are so rarely depicted positively on screen that many people have arbitrarily attached ethnicity to Kumars independent character traits. Why does Kumar behave the way he does? Is it because he is Indian? The simple answer is, no.

It would have been a poor artistic decision (and one that would have made the film boring to watch) if either myself or the writers had allowed race or ethnicity to define Kumars personality. For example, Kumar smokes ganja because he likes to, not because he is Indian. He chases women because he is a 22 year old heterosexual male, not because he is Indian. And he talks about pussy and fucking because he is interested in strictly carnal, noncommittal consensual sexual relationships with women not because he is Indian. Kumar is flawed, as all human beings are. He does not treat women with the kind of respect we hope most men would. Kumar is, thankfully, not the model minority. Our intention was not to represent Asian American men as being homophobic, spineless, sex-crazed misogynists. Our intention was to represent Harold and Kumar as real, flawed human beings something I personally find to be a lot more refreshing than most of the one-dimensional roles out there.

With that said, it is because he is Indian that Kumar is treated like a third-class citizen by a police officer. Because he is Indian, he is harassed by skateboard punks who use racial stereotypes to dehumanize. Kumar actually fears physical violence by this gang of 5 racist punks who, in post-9/11 America, physically threaten him in a convenience store. Against better judgment, he leaves behind the South Asian store clerk and escapes. Once again we see that Kumar is flawed. He is human. He is not the model minority. [Later in the film, he and Harold get back at the skate punks by turning the racial slur Thank You Come Again against their oppressors.]

When Harold and Kumar are in the jail, they meet an African American college professor (who has two, positively depicted gay fathers) and was arrested simply for being black. We learn that the same cop who degraded Kumars ethnicity earlier, also violently attacked this man. The scene purposely uses race to comment on the complexities of racial profiling. It seems that some people may have missed that, so I wanted to make mention of the use of satire at this (among many other) points in the film. [Another example of race/gender being subverted is the Cindy Kim scene. Cindy may first seem to be nerdy and subdued, but that image is flipped on its head when we learn that she has both helped plan one of the most raging parties on campus, and refused to remain quiet in her drive to woo Harold.]

With regard to the relationship between Harold and Maria aside from the obvious conclusion (that Harold is inherently a young, privileged, realistically flawed heterosexual male character who happens to be Asian American), my interpretation is as follows: Maria is attracted to Harold for the very same reason Harold is attracted to Maria they find each other physically attractive, and enjoy each others unspoken and awkward company in the elevator each evening after work. Neither has the courage to talk to the other. For Asian American men who are almost always asexual or hypersexual in Hollywood cinema, this type of equal interchange is oddly groundbreaking. Marias ethnicity (both the character and actress are Latina) also shakes up the Asian-White paradigm in which most Asian-American male characters in Hollywood are based. The film is from the protagonists perspective (in this scene Harold), so we see it through his eyes, not Marias.

A final scene Id like to clarify is the Bag of Weed Dream Sequence, in which Kumar fantasizes about, falls in love with, and marries a giant bag of weed. In a bout of post-marital financial hardship and depression, Kumar slaps the weed, calls her a bitch, and then apologizes. I can understand how this scene may seem most disturbing to those not familiar with film in general. Let me explain: there were 2 things that went into the preparation of this scene. First, everyone should know that the scene is a parody of ( and shot almost exactly like) a very famous scene in the Robert DeNiro film, Raging Bull. Both the writers and director have inserted several throwbacks to films and television shows for various purposes and at differing levels throughout Harold and Kumar (ranging from Better Luck Tomorrow to The Simpsons and Karate Kid). This is one such parody. Second, my preparation as an actor was as follows: To me, the scene discussed and symbolized a critical problem surrounding Kumars future: drug dependence. In the dream sequence, Kumar goes from being a loving boyfriend in a monogamous relationship, to a husband who has been engulfed in drug addiction, financial crisis, and domestic violence. At the end of the sequence, the real Kumar reaches for the weed despite acknowledging the potential problems it could cause him in the future (the problems introduced in the dream).

I could continue to explain all of the subversive and subtle representations in the film for pages, but Im going to stop here because its not going to change anything. Those who have loved the film will continue to love it, and those who have decided to hate it, will continue to hate it. Please understand that every time you see a film or television program with no people of color its not because of a shortage of talented performers of color to fill those roles. Sadly, no amount of discussion however passionate will change the face of Hollywood without action. If we do not extend financial support (through ticket and record sales) to Asian American artists, if we do not write scripts, direct films, or produce theater, we should not expect things to change. I implore you to please write a script that is commercially viable enough for a major studio to buy, finance, shoot, and distribute despite the content or race, gender, sexuality, ability/disability, or economic status of its characters.

The writers of Harold and Kumar have tried to subversively include grounded characters and topics that deviate from social norms to create a commercially-viable, socially-relevant, funny film. My ultimate hope is that these conversations about Harold and Kumar will prompt more people to write. Thats really the only way well go from being buffoons and model minorities, to Superheros, romantic comedy leads, and three-dimensional, flawed, real human beings.

Kal Penn (Kalpen Modi)

62 · KXB on August 31, 2004 11:30 AM · Direct link

I stayed quiet while watching "Bhaji on the Beach" where two Indian men were portrayed as wife abusers, while the third was a wimp. I stayed quiet in Mississippi Masala, where the young Indian men were portrayed as socially awkward and cartoonishly accented - undesirable to all the female characters. In Fire - we had the young adulterous Indian husband, the old sexually distant Indian husband, and the masturbation-happy male Indian housekeeper. But the female directors of those movies had a certain vision for their characters, one which I disagreed with, but it was not my movie. I do not think it would encourage Indian women to hate Indian men. They don't need encouragement ;)

I saw Harold and Kumar opening weekend, and laughed my skinny ass off, as did the whole audience (mostly white). Kumar was like my id - someone I would never let out. But no one would Animal House encourages white men to objectify women and behave like buffoons. Why should there be double standards?

A question for Kal - is it true there is a rough-draft script called "Harold and Kumar Go to Amesterdam"? Hopefully the DVD sales will make up for the somewhat lower than expected screen grosses.

63 · Sluggo on September 1, 2004 8:59 PM · Direct link

KXB, what's your point? Don't all director's/writer's have a vision for their stories/movies? Are you angry because indian men were protrayed badly? Or that they are caricatures? Isn't that like every bollywood movie ever made? And "stayed quiet" how? Maybe I'm getting you wrong on this...

PS: Thanks to Kal Penn for the reply.

64 · KXB on September 2, 2004 9:03 AM · Direct link

Sluggo,

The three movies I listed were not Bollywood movies - they were English-language films for the festival cicruit, with no dance numbers. The point is that even though I may disagree with the portrayal of Indian men in these films, it would not be fruitful to demand that the directors and producers be more sensitive. I did not put up the money and invest the time in the project. All I can do is like or dislike the movie, and share my opinions about them. To urge some sort of collective action against the filmmakers is a bit much, as the "sisters" seem to be suggesting in their post.

65 · Sujay Roy on September 6, 2004 2:53 PM · Direct link

As an asian doctor, i too am in the position of seeing and dealing with the plight of domestic violence, and several studies have shown an unsurprising relationship to socio-economic status, education etc. However, as expected, DV extends beyond these stereotypes across all borders or religion/socio-economic status/etc. and of course race. I would just like to point out that this is a universal problem and not just one that should be targeted to asian men and equally might I add women (yes, men are victims to domestic violence too, now there's a thought to the sistas!) Although, no can dispute the point that any media will have some effect on the psyche and beahviour of certain individuals, it is naive to assume this is a major contributing factor. If anything, this film has successfully raised these issues and opened them to debate and should be applauded for that alone. Also the film about `Harold and Kumar' is just that... a film about two individuals and thus clearly not striving to be representative of an entire race etc.

66 · Chris Leopard Walker on September 6, 2004 6:49 PM · Direct link

I would just like to say that I like the way how Kal Penn is out there in the movie industry trying to open doors out there for other Asian-Americans and Native Americans. By what he's doing I would consider him a inspirational figure. He's an equal man with many talents. I would also like to say that I support anything he plans to do in the near future, whether it be another career or an another movie role. And since I am going to become an actor in the near future, I hope I get the chance to do a movie or two with him. I also hppe that when Kal gets some free time, I ask that he would read this article and respond back. That's because Kal is my favorite actor. Thank You!

67 · EOFIA on September 6, 2004 8:44 PM · Direct link

I like the way how Kal Penn is out there in the movie industry trying to open doors out there for other Asian-Americans and Native Americans

!!!

no, i haven't seen the movie, so forgive me if what i am about to say is inappropriate, but...methinks you have the wrong continent, mr. columbus. red dot, not feather and whatnot.

68 · s on September 7, 2004 12:33 AM · Direct link

dr. roy-

If anything, this film has successfully raised these issues and opened them to debate and should be applauded for that alone.

did anyone notice 'these issues' and think to remark on them other than sas, whose concerns most people are just blowing off anyway? just curious.

69 · Anonymous Girl on October 29, 2004 8:05 AM · Direct link

Both guys who played in Harrold and Kumar were HOT. Sure the movie was silly, but so are other movies like "Half Baked". Its a comedy and not meant to be taken seriously. Sure they had the guys running to trashy white whores, because in the medias eyes they feel asian men and all other men would run if they had the chance to bag some white girl (trashy girl or classy one)...which is stupid to assume and all but this is how dumb and ignorant the media is. This movie was for entertainment purposes only. Honestly, if this movie were such a reality then why are there so many intelligent, handsome and productive Asian men out there in this world? Who cares what the media portrays...they have been making fun of people for years there is nothing that can be really done about it. Just don't take it seriously. Everyone knows Asian men are the husbands, boyfriend and hottest Lovers *wink wink*

70 · jr on January 8, 2005 12:38 AM · Direct link

interesting- i don't think you would really want these ladies to participate in any action you take against the shock jock. just focus on the race angle, cuz bringing up gender issues gets you... this. you've given people shit for not having a sense of humor, so be prepared to get the same. my 2 cents.

71 · A N N A on January 8, 2005 9:29 AM · Direct link

oh, i was waiting for someone to try this very original "angle".

the power99 situation IS different from HK in my opinion. it wasn't a comedy-film involving voluntary actors. it was a prominent, influential, attention-getting, controversial, hypocritical DJ who attacked someone without provocation. That's a hell of a lot different from Kal Penn and his documented support of NARIKA.

this post/comment riot was about reading into things that some of us felt weren't there. Star calling an innocent woman and abusing her? we ALL *know* it was there.

Power99 is virulent hate. there's a difference between that and satire. this post is about defining satire. degrading a "rat-eating bitch" is not.

when total conservatives are sickened by the same thing that progressives are, that's a clue that it's not just..."humor".

72 · jr on January 9, 2005 3:19 AM · Direct link

when total conservatives are sickened by the same thing that progressives are, that's a clue that it's not just..."humor".

that's one way to look at it. another is that these conservatives are hypocrites. maybe they don't personally feel the sting of (arguably) sexist humor and therefore only care about racist humor that triggers their own experiences. you either support free speech and expression of
offensive humor absolutely, or you encourage real discussion of it and refrain from one-sided attacks. not ALL conservatives would be sickened, btw.

just because the actor supported narika doesn't mean the movie couldnt have had serious implications- the critique wasn't of the actor, as
was clarified about a dozen times.

what i see most of you saying in this thread is that the movie h&k NEEDED to offend some women in order to be funny. humor at the expense of females was inherent to this genre. and apparently women who do take offense and speak up about it deserve to be ganged up by men and other women from their own community. the audiences of these complaints are different- this h&k thing was written TO the desi community as an internal critique. moreover, if you notice, it did not ask people to boycott the movie, write letters, or anything of the sort. if anything, people would WANT to see the movie more after reading this. all it says is be critical. but even saying that is suggestion is not allowable, apparently.

shock jocks ARE offensive. racism (and sexism) are inherent to their jokes. yes, there was a real life incident here, but you still cannot draw a straight line between that and racial hate that takes place otherwise. your letter could have been directed solely at the particular incident of harassment, saying that it's fucked up to threaten someone. but instead your letter was about far wider implications, as if someone listening to this would go out and imitate what they heard. one could argue that this shock jock thing is satire in that people KNOW that shock jocks are totally disgusting, non-pc people. people know their humor is not something to emulate- JUST something to laugh at and brush off as crude, the same way the audience knows that harold and kumar are crude (i don't know about the latter anyway- the whole reason people were excited is because they were shown as "normal," not "crude"). something feels slightly disingenuous here.

btw, funny that in another thread people said howard stern was not as bad as this guy. that's not what i get from this. then again, this is about gender, and as a desi community it's not
the type of battle we would pick. :)

73 · Tej on January 10, 2005 12:11 PM · Direct link

interesting and confusing thread. i didn't think the movie was so terribly problematic as to warrant a letter, but i also don't think this letter is so terribly demanding as to warrant this type of response. why not let minorities within minorities express their views?

74 · jr on January 11, 2005 11:46 PM · Direct link

interesting. very interesting.

Comments closed.