Stephen
Kershnar
Yellow Fever and Racism
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
June
8, 2017
Recently, students forcibly took
over Evergreen State College claiming that it was awash in racism. Students at
University of California at Berkeley, Middlebury College, and Claremont McKenna
College prevented public intellectuals Milo Yiannopoulis, Charles Murray, and
Heather Mac Donald from speaking because of their alleged racism. A couple of
years ago, Yale was torn by protests over racial and ethnic appropriation of
Halloween costumes and anti-racist protesters at the University of Missouri
pressured the chancellor and president into resigning. At Dartmouth, Black
Lives Matter protesters stormed the library and aggressively confronted white
students who were quietly studying.
Structuring the racial issues in
this country solely in terms of black and white misses subtle ways in which
responses to race are complex and, in some cases, rational. Once instance of
such a complex case it that of racial preferences in sex and dating. One
example of this is the purported preference some black men have for white
women.
Another
such case, and the one I focus on here, is yellow fever. This is the preference
among some men for sex, dating, and marriage for Asians, in particular for Asian
women. This preference gives Asian women a competitive advantage in dating and
marriage. It disadvantages competitors, especially, black and Hispanic women. This
advantage can be in a study by Cardiff University’s Michael Lewis that found
that Asian women are seen as more attractive than women of other races. The
preference is reinforced by the stereotype of Asians as having a strong work
ethic, being family-oriented, and valuing education. These preferences give
Asian women a competitive advantage.
The problem for the anti-racists is
that yellow fever appears to benefit one group over another and yet is
unobjectionable. In support of this claim, philosopher Raja Halwani argues that
there is nothing wrong (or bad) about normal heterosexual preferences (consider,
for example, preference for women who are thin, feminine, and of normal height)
and these preferences are arbitrary. Preference for Asian women is no different
than these other preferences. Hence, there is nothing wrong about preferring
Asian women.
Feminists reject the idea that it is
wrong (or bad) to have normal sexual preferences. They argue that preference of
thinness (as opposed to fatness) or femininity (as opposed masculinity) in
women oppresses them because it judges them on feminine beauty rather than
intellect and ability. Even if this were true, it is not clear that an
individual or even a population can control their sexual preferences and it is
not wrong to think a certain way if you can’t avoid it. This is especially true
if some preferences (for example, for femininity) are deeply embedded in the
culture or genetically linked. Also, it is unclear whether the preferences that
would replace those for thin and feminine women would make women better off. It
is unclear whether women would be better off if men preferred chubby women.
Yale University’s Robin Zheng argues
that unlike normal heterosexual preference for women who are thin, feminine,
and of normal height, preference for Asian women is objectionable because it harms
Asian women. It harms them, she argues, because they must spend time and energy
considering whether men like them for who they are or their exotic features. It
also reinforces racial stereotypes, specifically that Asian women are
hyper-sexual and submissive, and these stereotypes are problematic.
Zheng’s argument is odd. Normally,
people want to be preferred. Women go through great lengths to be sexy, in
shape, and educated in order to get an advantage in dating and marriage markets.
If it is a competitive advantage to be preferred because of one’s race, then it
is hard to see why the preference would be bad for the preferred group. By
analogy, thin women enjoy the significant advantage in dating that being thin
provides.
Also,
by analogy, if women in the Ivy League had Hebrew fever (preference for Jewish
men) and, as a result, Jewish men got more and better dates than they would otherwise
get, they would, and should, welcome this preference. Zheng doesn’t focus on
the degree to which yellow fever disadvantages Asian women’s competitors, especially
black and Hispanic women. This, if anything, is what is troubling about it.
Contrary to the widespread
perception, though, it is not clear that that yellow fever is widespread. A
study by Boston University’s Raymond Fisman and his colleagues found that Asian
women discriminate against black and Hispanic men, but did not discriminate between
Asian and white men. On his study, white men didn’t prefer Asian women. If this
study captures the more general pattern, and it is only one study, then it is
Asian women’s preferences that account for the frequency of white male and
Asian women couples.
The problem is that if preferences
in dating and marriage markets are neither wrong nor bad, it is hard to see why
the same is not true of the economic and friendship markets. That is, if people
prefer to be around some groups rather than others, whether at work or play, it
is hard to see why that’s wrong. Nor does it become wrong if it rests on a view
of who’s sexy or would make a good spouse.
In
particular, there is some reason to believe that women of every race prefer to
stick to their own kind (see Anita in West
Side Story) with the exception of Asian women. This sort of preference is
likely to have a noticeable effect on people’s lives. It shapes whom they are
friends with, date, marry, and work with. Women’s in-group preferences don’t
intuitively seem wrong or bad. This is a problem for the anti-racist crowd in
that it suggests that race-based preferences might be neutral, despite its
tendency to segregate people and produce racial disparities. This finding does
not fit cleanly into the mindless race-focused rage that is roaring through
campuses.
No comments:
Post a Comment