Note that in the brand new issue of Details they run a protest letter and then append an editors' note in which they don't really apologize but instead do one of those non-apology apologies where they say, in a nutshell, "sorry if you didn't get our humor."

Then they run a page called "Gay or Socialite's Husband?"

i hadn't taken a look at the actual details spread before, but holy fuck, that is offensive. it doesn't matter if you are asian, gay, or whatever, it is still a) downright insulting, and b) not even funny. and yes, it's possible to be funny and poke fun of stereotypes. they just fell far, far short, and really do owe a sincere apology to their readers.

They should do a piece on 'gay or caucasian?'
or 'gay or pissed magazine editor?'.

Anyway, Details is soooo the dark ages.

okay. let me break this down for you.

the problem with the details article had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it was jokingly comparing gay people and asian people. hell, in itself, that can be funny if done well (which it wasn't, but that's just due to a weak writer, not poor taste.)

the racist part was what details said about asian people independent of that supposed joke. stereotypes about "general-tso's chicken," "grasshopper," "sashimi-smooth chest," "plucking the koto," etc., etc., may seem absurd to you or me. but the fact-of-the-matter is that details audience is not asian-americans. it's not even necessarily caucasian-americans that live in nyc and see those stereotypes for what they are. details demographics include a huge number of "frat-boy" middle americans that want to be hip -- and here they are learning that those stereotypes are both hip, and for all they know, accurate.

that is precisely the problem. it's not about censorship. it's about being responsible in a position of power (which, sad to say, details magazine is in).

best,

-d

I respect and support Gothamist's (and its community's) right to post regarding whatever topics it likes. I respect and support the right of individuals to protest.

That said, I'm wondering how Gothamist decides what is acceptable and unacceptable stereotyping. A reading of its 4/7/04 post regarding "Queer Eye for the Straight Girl", for example, suggests that Gothamist believes that gay men (1) have a great sense of women's fashion and makeup; (2) give fantastic head; (3) know how to cook; (4) are insightful about relationships and (5) frustrate women who fall for them. Doesn't this reinforce the prevalent stereotype of gay men as sensitive, sexually skilled fashionistas? Or are the descriptions justified because the post was written as part of Gothamist's humorous commentary on pop culture (known, perhaps, as the Details defense)?

Futhermore, that post even promotes the use of the term "fag", a word which at least the Encarta dictionary defines as a taboo or offensive term for a homosexual. A word which might be acceptable among members of a community but is still used by those outside it as a taunt or in hate.

I'm curious, too, why Gothamist has chosen to highlight Asians' protest against the Details piece and not that of GLAAD or other gay rights groups.

As always, I regularly read and enjoy Gothamist for its timely coverage of the city and its often witty take on the trends of the day. I challenge it, though, to make its agenda and moralistic stance clear if they are part of that coverage.

Why isn't anybody protesting the negative stereotype image portrayal of American Idol star William Hung?

This is so silly, I might even take a walk down to 34th street today to see who I should never ever take seriously. lighten up.

This was topic was played out after the infamous Gay or European site, years ago (which used real candid photos of guys on the street, not art-directed stereotypes). That was funny to everyone - straight, gay, even european (love the short shorts!), this is:

A) not funny

B) offensive

C) Beating a horse that died in 1999

So please protest, although I think it's just a ploy for Details staffers to check out hot Asian...guys.

Ziegfeld-

I think a major difference in the gay stereotypes and asian stereotypes is that the asian ones are more hurtful/negative. The stereotype of the "superfag" that is all over the media right now is a huge step up from the murdering sexual predator/mindless sex addict image of gay men that came before it. Most hegemonic stereotypes are distructive, but I think that this has touched a nerve in the asian community because there are so few images of asians in the media. That gives more weight to the images that are produced.

That said, I think it is a valid point to question why gothamist has de-emphasized the gay community's reaction. If anything, the common thred here is that the perception of being gay is something to avoid, which is obviously homophobic. Gay men are used as the final punchline in these comparisons. And ironic, given how many trends start with gay men. I thought Details ran a funny comparison a few years back when it was gay style today/straight style in 5 years.

Jen- any response to that question?

I appreciate gothamist's editorial voice - it is compelling and the reason why gothamist is successful. I've always read gothamist as gay friendly, and the use of fag in the positive, reclaimed, pomo bent, btw.

"Are Asians some kind of special group that noone can ever crack a joke at the expense of? Gimme a fucking break."

No, those are Jews.

I'll joking aside...

I'm Asian and while I don't think the spread is funny, I wouldn't protest it. But, I also wouldn't simply say that the protesters should lighten or shut up. That would be pure hypocrisy. You can't say Details has a freedom of speech, but these Asian groups don't.

It's rice!!! It's who pissed in my rice and egg rolls!!!

While I appreciate Gothamist's views, I can't help but wonder how this site can call Details racist at the same it does happy little jumping jacks that Kill Bill, Vol. 2 is coming out. I'm an Asian-American woman who is NOT offended by the movie or the article, but isn't Kill Bill chock full o'racist stereotypes of beautiful dragon lady, lotus-blossom killers and white-bearded kung foo masters who teach their grasshopper students to murder with the greatest of sly Asian ease? What makes these two portrayals of Asians different, Gothamist? Is it because Gothamist didn't find the Details article entertaining, and your lack of chuckles damned it to the "Unfunny Ethnic Humor = Racist" file? Are the Kill Bill movies not racist because they're "cool"? Why doesn't Gothamist organize protests or show alarm whenever a Lucy Liu movie comes out? 'Cause if anyone is blatantly cashing in on and exploiting HUGE Asian stereotypes, it's her.

Simply said, I'd like to challenge Gothamist to define what it considers to be racist. Because from what I've gathered from this Details magazine issue (and the "Everyone loves an asian girl" issue from a few weeks back), your site seems to condemn things as racist or offensive if it's not witty or cool. But BLATANT Asian stereotypes in the media seem to get a pass if it's all the buzz in your local coffee house.

For the future, I suggest that before you start calling things/people/articles/movies out as RACIST, you should define WHY. Doing so will allow you to EDUCATE the population (or at least level the playing field so everyone knows what you're making a stink about), rather than just putting something out there to show how culturally aware you are.

doshin-

I would argue in all seriousness, that yes, the details spread does indicate that american culture is racist. That's the whole point - that people accept those stereotypes as truthes. American Studies 101...

Yes, you can read this content as ironic, but are most of the people buying the magazine? I think that's a copout justification to make the details ppl. producing it feel less guilty.

Pilot, what's the difference between stock characters and stereotypes? To me, there isn't much of one. The stock characters are just the images ignorant people conjur up in their heads as they stereotype an ethnicity.

Like I said, I'm not offended by the movie and I'm not knocking it either. I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that Kill Bill's images of Asians are just as sterotypical, and possibly just as hurtful, as Detail magazine's image of the "Gay or Asian" man. Sure, one has derivations in cinematic history and the other is taken off the street, but a stereotype is a stereotype is a stereotype. And all of these stock characters or stereotypes or archetypes or caricatures have shaped and continue to shape people's perception of the Asian culture.

As an Asian woman, I can't tell you how many times I've been fetishized by some ignorant non-Asian guy telling me he likes me b/c of my exotic features, my long black hair, my narrow eyes. I can't count how many times I've been asked if I know kung foo. Or if I wear a kimono when I'm home. It's ridiculous how often I get told, "Wow, you're really outspoken for an Asian girl...aren't you supposed to be all quiet and subservient?" Now, do you think those ignorant men who spit ignorant pick up lines at me got those ideas from nowhere? I don't think so. I'll bet about 85% of their "knowledge" of the Asian culture comes from movies (perhaps Shaw Brother movies?) where stock characters DO know kung-foo and where the women are kimono wearing, silent set-decorations.

So, Pilot, the derivation of the stock characters in Kill Bill really doesn't matter. It should be readily apparent that the repeatedly stereotyped depictions of my culture offend and hurt an inumerable population.

Hey, my grandfather did have pretty big (not giant) white eyebrows and he lived 94 years to earn them. So there!

I'm not stepping on anyone's toes in regards to cinematic appreciation or homage. Hell, I LIKED Kill Bill Vol. 1...or at least the few here and there minutes I caught when my brother got the DVD. I'll probably even see Vol. 2 this weekend...

All I was trying to do was draw a parallel between the stereotypical images of Asians in Kill Bill and the stereotypical image of Asians in Details. That's it, man. No bigger agenda here. I'm not trying to protest the movie or get people to call it racist or take away the artistry of the movie or anything.

My point, really, was to get Gothamist to explain to me how it could find Details magazine more offensive than Kill Bill. Simply said, it's undeniable that there are stereotypical images of Asians in both, what makes one offensive and the other not? As a person who IS NOT offended by either, what's the qualifier of racism that I'm not seeing or that separates the two?

So, Pilot, I'm not trying to take away your right to love and appreciate Kill Bill or Bruce Lee movies or any of the samurai movies they show on IFC. I was just trying to draw a simple parallel between stereotypical images in two readily available examples in the media...Kill Bill was just the first movie I thought of that had an Asian theme...I could've used "The Last Dragon," but it didn't occur to me at the time....

So chill, have a good weekend, and enjoy Kill Bill Vol. 2.

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US...