Monday, May 6, 2013


During my reading of the article on Hmong LGBT, my initial reaction is that the scholar is not dissecting any issues and just quoting the participants. I feel that the author wasn’t really doing his/her job; instead the participants did all of the analysis.  I guess one reason for this is because the topic is so new that the people who experienced it themselves are the ones who are guiding and doing the research. In addition to this article, I want to add gender roles and adulthood into Hmong LGBT issues. In the Hmong culture, masculinity and femininity are tied to marriage. You are not masculine if you do not marry a woman and have kids; and you are not feminine if you don’t have children. Furthermore, you are only considered an adult when you are married with kids. If anyone, whether gay, lesbian, or trans, break these additional lines, they will be ostracized.
A pattern I see with the Hmong and Vietnamese article is the structure of family and community. Because both culture revolve around immediate and extended family structures so much, it becomes an additional social control to keep people in check. They are not only afraid of the consequences given to them, but of the stigma that falls on their immediate and extended family members. Also, the ethnic community is tightly knitted meaning that one’s coming out has far reaching ramifications for all of one’s family and oneself. Lastly, I find interesting that the Vietnamese created a new term to describe the new identity. Its historical evolution is very insightful. The Hmong language does not have a uniquely native term for such identification. My question is, how does foreign language evolve within the USA to address 21st century issues? Do they create new words and if they do, how? Or do they just adopt American terminology?

No comments:

Post a Comment