Talk:Rice queen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The inclusion of certain people in this category is disputed. Please see the relevant discussions on the talk pages of those individual articles. Consider rewording the inclusion criteria of this category if they are unclear. See also the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. (March 2008) |
-
-
-
-
- This template should only be used on category pages.
-
-
-
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-06. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Commenting
Someone put this comment "Actually, it seems like the rice queen should refer to the Asian male." in the actual article. It has been moved here. Fisheromen 00:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the notability of this entry is in question. It discusses a very widely-known concept within gay culture, and indeed, one that is fairly well-known by the general public. I'm not sure that this term is universally considered offensive or derogatory. Most people I know do not consider this term offensive at all, but rather simply a descriptive term to describe someone who only dates (or at least sleeps with) Asian males. It is used principally to describe Caucasian males, though. I believe part of the feeling of offensiveness this term connotes has to do with attitudes of race and racism. Some people feel that dating people exclusively of one race is racist, while others feel that it's simply a preference (such as being attracted only to tall people or only to red-heads). I'm not read-up on the research on this issue, but I can say without a doubt that most everyone I've spoken to in the gay community (in Toronto and in Vancouver) do not find this term offensive at all. Sometimes people find that rice queens are racist or offensive. That is, the person may be racist or offensive, but not the term. 137.82.40.33 03:09, 27 January 2007
- Please sign your comments when you leave them. Do not remove or change the content of the article unless you have research backing your claim that it is not offensive or derogatory. All social research that has gone into Asian racism along with gay identity in the Asian world have all come to some conclusion around the term "rice queen" being an offensive term. Reason being is that the term was invented internationally to oppress the white population. It was meant to dissuade intermixing of races. Research into racism in GLBT communities in general also find a similar pattern to other races. And let me say that Toronto and Vancouver do not speak for hundreds of other cities and thousands of other gay people. If you want to do a statistical analysis of 20 major cities internationally then please go ahead. In conclusion, the concept of rice queen is derogatory because it is meant to classify, label, box and in doing so oppress a mere preference. There are many things people share in common but no term has been invented to group them into a population. Additionally, the term "rice" itself is a racist assumption that asian people are all associated with rice when there are asian populations which frankly do not center around rice or grains as their principle carbohydrate. Which gives me an idea to include a mention of how "rice, bean, curry" are racist in themselves. Thank you anonymous commenter. Davumaya 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorry about the lack of signature in my first comment above, but my Wikipedia skills are lacking. Your comment about the global perception of the term rice queen is well taken, as my experiences have been limited to North America, and in fact, English-speaking Canada. I guess my confusion lies in understanding the exact source of the racism. Let me illustrate with an example. If I'm in a café somewhere and say to a friend, "My friend, John, is such a rice queen." would other people around me find that offensive? Would they find it equally offensive if I had said, "My friend, John, is so into only dating/sleeping with Asian males." would people around me be equally offended? That is, is it the term itself that's offensive or the concept (or both)? I'm not sure, now, based on the comments above. To take another example, if I hear someone refer to me as "gay", I'm not offended; however, if I hear someone refer to me as "a faggot" I take great offense. Here, it's not the concept, but specifically just the term that's derogatory. The comment above about using "rice" to refer to Asians is also well taken. The word "rice", of course, does appear in a number of derogatory and racist terms referring to Asians. Personally, I tend not to use the term rice queen because (as mentioned above) it labels and categorizes people, and at the end of the day, I don't really care who people date/sleep with. I will, however, keep my ears open to see what people's perceptions of the term are and ask my friends about it. Thank-you for your comments. Mike barrie 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- A minor additional point is that the term "rice queen" is not one that originated from the population it talks about. True, it does refer to an opposite race who likes that preference -- not asians themselves, but the fact a term was socially constructed to describe this, points to warning signs that it is likely derogatory to begin with. In another lens of sociology thought (and maybe classism), the term "rice queen" becomes socially inoffensive or acceptable because the originating population (this case, white people) are oblivious of the implications of the term (ie: rice). It doesn't affect white people because it's not about white people even though it talks about them, it's a term white people are using to stereotype other people. It's like people using the term "ghetto" to describe things as bad. This is similar to your example of "gay" and "faggot." For example heterosexual populations use the term "gay" to describe bad or silly things. Does this then make worth a mention in the Wikipedia article for gay that "gay" is frequently used in the derogatory? Or will gay/GLBT people take a stand and go "no this is not socially acceptable way to use the word gay, it is offensive, we are going to reclaim the use of gay and note in the article that this is a fact but it is socially wrong." We must all be careful about terms, just because we are not affected does not mean the term is somehow ok in society. Otherwise you are seizing the power over other populations and dictating what is ok for them. Yes, even one little word such as "rice queen" can have major implications. 75.72.168.220 05:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry this is me Davumaya 05:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'd like to support the view that the term is not strictly derogatory. Also, I'd like to see a source for the definition of "potatoe queen" as somebody who is attracted to wrinkled guys. I'd rather think that "potatoe" refers to the main food of Europeans just like rice is the main food for Asians, hence a "potatoe queen" would be a (non-european/-caucasian) admirer of Europeans or Caucasians. Either way, sources are needed. -- Repetition 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't think the offense is giving a nickname to people who prefer to date Asians solely, but rather using the word rice. It's a common stereotype that Asians live on rice (correct or not, it's still a stereotype) and nothing else, and this can be derogatory. It's like saying all Asians work in rice paddies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailorknightwing (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] removed text
I removed much of the text of this article, as it was basically crap. Part of it was incomprehensible, the other part was not accurate. --Xyzzyplugh 13:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
