Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, SanSan Kwan jette un regard critique sur les formes qu'a prises le corps des femmes asiatiques rendu exotique.Kwan met en question son propre malaise envers le soi-disant attrait sexuel des femmes asiatiques.En analysant une parodie de diverses representations, elle observe la sexualite comme un echange plut6t qu'un simple instrument, mettant en scene la femme asiatique comme objet de desir, al'interieur de cette structure d'echange.In March of 1997, the New York Press published a highly controversial cover piece entitled, "Cook Fetish."Written by columnist Melissa de la Cruz, the article concerns itself with the phenomenon of certain white men who lust after Asian women.De la Cruz lashes out at these white guys with fetishes for Asian women while, in the same breath, she celebrates with unswerving conviction and pride the desirability of the Asian female body.As is her style, de la Cruz sardonically mocks people on all sides of the issue: white guys with Asian fetishes, the Asian women who date them, the Asian women who won't, the Asian guys who get left in the lurch.By the end of the article de la Cruz has parodied everybody so bitingly that I am left confused as to where she stands or what her point is.Should Asian women flaunt their desirability or be offended by its implications?De la Cruz's ambivalence makes me recognize my own uneasiness in the face of these questions.As an Asian woman, I, too, feel conflicted about the whole Asian fetish issue.At the same time that the "Cook Fetish" article came out I was performing in a dance-theater piece called Lotus Blossom Itch.Through the piece we (a troupe of Asian American, mixed race, and Caucasian men and women) explored similar issues of exoticism and eroticism, as well as questions around transaction and sexual exchange.Like "Cook Fetish," the performance reveals an equally uncomfortable position towards the sexual desirability of Asian women.How does our fetishization by others influence the way we see ourselves as sexual beings?To what extent are we implicated in our own er/xoticization?How do we, can we, respond to it?Should we downplay our desirability?Relish in it?Most importantly, how can we maintain our sense of ourselves as sexual beings without succumbing to fetishization?The notion of the fetish historically carries with it a number of different connotations ranging from t~~sexual to the racial to the economic."Cook fetish," a popular culture term re\erring to white men's desires for Orientallovelies, encompasses all of these understandings at once.The fetishized Asian woman, as a raced and gendered body, is endowed with both erotic charge and racial
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".