Some thoughts on women and justice in Taiwan

A thought.

The news-storm brewing for months that surrounds the reopened case of Jiang Guoqing (also spelled Chiang Kuo-ching), who (for those not in Taiwan who haven't heard this already) was tortured to confess to, convicted of and quickly executed for rape in 1996, a conviction/execution now believed to have been wrongfully carried out does not just raise questions about the justice system, methods used to extract confessions or wrongful conviction for sex offenders. It also raises questions about women's rights.

As does this disturbing tale, published on The View from Taiwan, which sort of gelled it all together in my brain (mmm, gelled brain) last night.

If Taiwan, or any nation's justice system for that matter, lacks the basic competence to apprehend, try and convict the right person in a rape or sex offense case, that's bad for not just the families of those wrongfully convicted or for the victims of wrongful execution (although of course it is also tragic for them), but also bad for women and girls. Anyone who is the victim of a sex offense, or the family member of someone killed during one, deserves the assurance that the system will do everything possible to bring the right person to justice. If someone can commit a rape and then watch another person executed for it, and this can go un-investigated for over a decade, how can any woman know that justice is on her side if she is the victim of a sex crime? How can she or her family know that, rather than bowing to pressure to solve a case quickly and thus extracting a forced confession, the investigators will do everything in their power to apprehend not just anyone but the actual person who committed the crime?

It leaves the tragedy of the crime against the woman unaddressed as well as allows the actual rapists, murderers and sex offenders to go free (and if the case gets enough publicity, allows future criminals to feel as though the gamble that they won't get caught is worth it).

Michael's story is equally disturbing - other than picking the girl up in the science park and bringing her home, there is nothing in his story to suggest that the police will actually apprehend Mr. Wang Yo (although there is also no evidence that they are not trying). There's the fact that after committing such a heinous crime, he still felt he could call her family to "apologize" (in all likelihood a subtle threat to them know that he knows how to find them) without repercussions - clearly a man with no fear of the justice system.

The treatment of the girl at school after the incident is even worse - this is not how one handles such cases. All this does is marginalize females even more. This is exactly the sort of behavior that creates a demented anti-woman society. The teacher that publicly humiliated the girl deserves to be fired, thrown in jail and forced to pay compensation, as well...and (s)he probably won't be made to suffer any of that.

This is not to say that fearing getting caught is necessarily a deterrent to rapists and other sex offenders. If it were, we'd probably have fewer sex crimes around the world. Clearly there will be people who will commit the crime regardless of the possible consequences. I can't help but think, though, that more of this occurs in places where being caught and made to suffer the consequences is not as likely.

It also says a lot regarding the state of sex education and real-world discussions among Taiwanese mothers and their daughters. The girl in this incident quite likely was not educated in the very real dangers of this sort of activity (although it is possible that she was, and chose to ignore her mother's words).

Despite the fact that sex education seems to be more open in Taiwan than in many parts of the USA - I have seen sexual safety advertisements on the TVs in the MRT here! - I hear stories in Taiwan that terrify me regarding the state of girls' sex education. Everything from "your mother doesn't mind that your older sister lives with her boyfriend? So she won't mind if your sister gets pregnant?" to "But if I use a tampon, I can't pee because the hole will be blocked" to the alarming state of naivete of a fourteen year old girl. That said, she had her friends are only fourteen and will have some degree of naivete and immaturity. I do feel, though, that their education in these matters could have been better.

Finally, a comment on Michael's post disturbs me almost as much as the story itself - one commenter said the man was blameless - "if someone wants to jump off a bridge, who can blame the bridge?" - while probably an expat, the fact that this kind of mindset, that a sick pervert is just an inert pawn in some naive little girl's plot to be molested, is really, truly horrifying. This is an attitude that can't be wiped off the face of the Earth fast enough, for the good of not just women, but for everyone.

I do still believe that Taiwan is a safe place for women and our daughters. I do believe that I am far safer here than I ever was living in Washington, DC (or even my small hometown). I do believe that Taiwan's generally low crime rate and generally greater respect for women's rights compared to the rest of Asia is not to be taken lightly. I would not fear raising a daughter in Taiwan.

My Second Editorial

Had a letter published in the Taipei Times today...enjoy!

(Copied below - title is not mine)

Philosophical glove fits all

Albert Shihyi Chiu (邱師儀) gave an impassioned opinion on the spiritual and philosophical immaturity of the Taiwanese, citing qigong masters, temple rituals, doomsday prophets and other eclectic hustlers of heaven, hell and every ghost in between (“Breaking through Taiwan’s babble,” May 19, page 8).

I respectfully disagree with his opinion, not because it implicitly supports secularism — as an agnostic, I am also inclined toward secular philosophy — but because my impression from talking to Taiwanese has been that they are practical about their beliefs. While a few people still surround themselves with superstition, the vast majority are able to separate the possible from the ridiculous. Every opinion I have heard of Wang Chao-hung (王超弘), who “predicted” the nonexistent May 11 earthquake, has been wryly dismissive or humorous (“Are you sure I have to practice my presentation? Don’t you know the world is going to end tomorrow?”)

Furthermore, dealing in the ephemera of folk belief and spirituality is hardly unique to Taiwan. Why single out Taiwanese as philosophically immature when around the world, people are doing the same things with different names and aesthetic trappings? Why criticize Taiwanese when a good portion of the US believed that the world was going to end on Saturday, or when Westerners make, sell and buy “spell rings” and “magic crystals” on the Internet, pay for tarot readings and ascribe supernatural causes to everyday occurrences?

Taiwanese are also hardly alone in other spiritual beliefs: spirit mediums, firewalking and processionals also exist in India, and you’ll see similarities in saint’s day parades in Mexico. You can find an Evil Eye charm in any Mediterranean country for every ba gua mirror and amulet in Taiwan, and if you whittle yoga and taichi down to their spiritual core, you’ll find similarities there, too. For everyone in Taiwan who prays to Confucius or Wenchang (文昌帝君) for a good test score, there’s a kid in some other country begging their own chosen god for some literati luck.

I cannot say that people who believe in these things are intellectually inferior or use religion as an opiate. I believe they have a way of looking at the world that, while I might not agree with it, works for them. To criticize Taiwanese for this is to criticize most of the world. If Taiwanese are not philosophically mature, then nobody is.

In fact, I’d say that Taiwanese spirituality is a part of what I love about this country. I see these beliefs as a window into one culture’s traditions and world view and as artistic expression. Would Mr Chiu prefer that Taiwan become more like China, turning out the “old religion” in favor of ... what? Nothing at all? “Nothing at all” might be my philosophy, but I find learning about the myriad beliefs and traditions in Taiwan to be deeply enriching. Whether or not you burn ghost money or throw fortune blocks, these things do provide the open-minded with a chance to see life and philosophy from a fascinating perspective.

Oh, yeah, that? Oops. Uh...sorry. I guess.

US Clarifies Statements on 'One China'

From the article:

At a Washington press conference on Wednesday, Chen [Bingde] said: “During my office call on Secretary Clinton this morning, she told me — she reiterated the US policy; that is, there is only one China in the world and Taiwan is part of China.”

and

“The United States welcomes the recent improvement in cross-strait relations, opposes any unilateral actions by either side to alter the status quo, and believes that cross-strait issues should be resolved peacefully in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait,” the official added.

...

While the “clarification” seemed to go out of its way not to upset Chen, it also made clear — without directly saying it — that Clinton did not tell him that there was only “one China” in the world and that Taiwan was part of China.

OK...umm...

Does anyone else think that Chen was 100% clear on what Clinton said, and he made the first statement regardless? Does anyone else think that this is a not-so-subtle ploy by the PRC to start twisting around the language of what is said in meetings to more quickly get people to accept the idea that Taiwan is a part of China? Does anyone else believe that Chen knew exactly what he was doing and will get praise for it back home? I don't believe for a second that this was a misunderstanding or miscommunication - I honestly believe that Chen deliberately skewed Clinton's words to his and the PRC's advantage, betting on the "you can't unhear something" principle? Just as a witness whose testimony is stricken by a judge has still said what she said, and the jury can pretend to disregard it but really, they can't unhear what they've heard? Like that.

In related news:

"Air China" tourism pamphlets criticized

Saying that this was some sort of backdoor deal, and that Air China knew exactly what it was doing by creating confusion about what is a domestic and what is an international airline, sounds more conspiracy theorist, and I don't deal in conspiracy theories.

But still.

For as much criticism as this has garnered, you can't undo a first impression, and impressions like the are what drive many people abroad who are not cognizant of the Taiwan-China political situation to believe that they are one and the same. It creates an impression in the mind. It makes implications that can't be un-implied. While I don't deal in conspiracy theories, I have to ask - was this done on purpose?

The House Always Wins, and the House Seems to be China

You don't even want to know what work is like right now...not in a bad way - with our Turkey trip looming I'm happy to be rakin' in the sweet blue bills - but in a "I am so tired and life is so hectic, I don't even have time to go to the bank let alone write a real blog post" way. Maybe tomorrow. I'm off at six and intend to spend the evening doing sweet nothing. At Zabu. Eating good food and drinking expensive beer. Because I've earned it.

In the meantime, here are two links worth reading through, if you missed them:

US-Taiwan binds start to fray

and in today's Taipei Times: Ma's China Gamble

Go back to playing music, we'll run the country for you.

I have to just say: I really do not understand why, on a gut level, aboriginal groups in Taiwan continue to vote for the KMT. I mean, I get it from a historical perspective: the deep racial and cultural divide, history of mistreatment on the part of Taiwan's earlier Fujianese settlers (and later the Japanese) and and resulting mistrust runs far deeper between the Hoklo people and the aborigines than it does between those who came over in the 1940s and the political party generally identified with them (although you can't interchange the terms "KMT" and "waishengren" as so many people do.

As badly as the KMT treated aborigines (and almost everybody else, for that matter, including many who came over with them), those resentments don't seem to run nearly as deep as three hundred years of being forced off the best land in the country.

And yet, I have trouble understanding why the aborigines' preference for the KMT continues, as it's clear that the KMT has no interest in or empathy toward them and still views them through the lens of some mysterious 'other' (at best) or a cartoonish caricature (at worst).

Take this little gem, in which President Ma says that aborigines should be valued for their abilities in music and sports. My husband, possessed of a cutting wit, said of that: "Oh, like black people?"

(He was being facetious, of course, and said that with the utmost sarcasm).

It really is an offensive thing to say - just as the establishment back home does its best to negate the political power of minorities (a lot of it really sounds like "you have great music and you sure can chuck a basketball, but we know how to run the country. Let us take care of things. You can go back to you hip-hopping music now") this sounds like a blatant caricature, an admission that neither Ma nor the KMT really understand aboriginal affairs or culture, and don't really care to make an attempt to do so. It's like saying "you go back to your villages and tribes and make your music and play your sports - we'll run the country, don't worry".

And now this: KMT official suggests that aborigines should marry their own. Errr...yes, it's important to preserve cultural roots and traditions, but implying that people should only marry within their groups is not the way to do that. It's true that you can't force cultural preservation, but there are better policies with which to encourage it than implying that there should be no interracial/intercultural marriages. To quote the article:

Commenting on the issue, Sediq KMT Legislator Kung Wen-chi (孔文吉) said he was surprised anyone would still make such a suggestion, as marriage between Aborigines and non-Aborigines helped keep the different ethnicities at peace, adding that trying to stop inter-communal marriages hinted at repression, not progress. [Emphasis mine].

So...why? I can understand that many aborigines feel that the DPP or any of the other parties aren't any better and don't understand much better. I'd argue, however, that the DPP is slowly but surely trying to give up its old schtick in which it only stood for the views of the Hoklo people and attempting to be more inclusive (it's slow going, though, and many people I've talked to still feel they've not made enough of an attempt), and as such deserves more of a chance in aboriginal constituencies...

...because they certainly have not been well-served but certainly have been misunderstood by the KMT.

Willful Ignorance

Was reading this today:

US Expert Warns of Economic Trap

And my first reaction?

DUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Yes, that was my very first reaction. Imagine a curvaceous white lady with a half-eaten slice of Ginger Superman pizza in her hand at So Free leaning over a copy of the Taipei Times and shouting that, thereby startling the two high school girls sharing the rough-hewn bench with us.

But seriously.

Barry Watts, a senior fellow with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told a US congressional commission this week: “Why use military force if economic entanglement leading to economic capture is succeeding?”

DUHHHHHHH.

Except for the Art of War reference, which was a bit precious if you ask me. Precious as in it sounds like some Hollywood crap from a Gordon Gekko meets Jackie Chan flick.

I studied this stuff in college - which makes me about as qualified as some dork who read a few books and thinks she's an expert - basically meaning that I'm no expert - and I could have told you this.

In fact, I'm fairly sure I did tell you this. Maybe not you specifically, but someone, and possibly after I'd had a glass of wine or two.

And what's sad is that it's not hard to see how true it is, so Washington and the world's seeming naivete over what's going on can't possibly be true ignorance or failure to understand, because it's really not that complicated (but then neither is the concept that deep water drilling is a bad idea and alternative energy needs more investment, but they don't seem to get that either).

It's willful ignorance. It's pretending you don't understand. It's quite possibly strategic incompetence. It's turning away because recognizing the issue means you might have to do something about it, if only for show...and the US clearly doesn't want to do that.

Which means the US clearly doesn't care that much about Taiwan, or at least not enough to stop pretending they don't know what China's up to.

And that's sad, because it basically means were ****ed.

"The New Land of Smiles" is not a smaller version of China!

Thanks to The View from Taiwan, I went ahead and read this article: The New Land of Smiles.

The Land of Smiles is an old nickname given to Thailand based on the friendliness of its people - and while there are plenty of cheaters and scammers in Thailand, it is true that most Thai people are uncommonly friendly and welcoming. I mean, I believe that about 90% of people are good around the world, 9% are apathetic or indifferent and 1% are bad characters, and that the reason travelers run into so many of the 1% is simply that they're in the tourist sites where that 1% target their victims - makes it seem like there are many more bad sorts out there than good, but is fundamentally skewed.

While I wouldn't go as far as Michael and say it's the worst article written about traveling in Taiwan, I will say that it has some massive fundamental flaws.

That's a right shame, considering that this is one of the few articles where the writer actually leaves Taipei (most, like this one and a piece by the New York Times, just send someone to Taipei and call that "Taiwan") and attempts to find genuinely interesting and genuinely local things to do. It's the first non-guidebook travel piece that mentions places such as the arts center in Yilan, Nanyuan and Beipu. That is a step forward.

So what's so bad about it?

"Settled by talented, creative and industrious Chinese...in 1945"

(So there was nobody else here before that, and the Chinese who came over in '45 get all the complimentary adjectives while the people who had already been living here do not?)

"If you want to see all of China but don't have the time, Taiwan is a great alternative"

(So Taiwan is just an 'alternative' to China, and has no unique culture of its own? The reason to come here is that it's 'kind of like China'? Puh-LEASE.)

"So far off the beaten track is the remote Kinmen island that most Taiwanese have never visited it."

(That makes it sound like almost no Taiwanese go to Kinmen. While I am willing to believe that a small majority have never been, he makes it sound as though 95% of Taiwanese haven't. It's really not that remote.)

"The big surprise is that this tiny island is just a half kilometre off the mainland Chinese coast, so close that the two Chinas have fought several wars over control of its strategic location. In 1959 Mao’s forces bombarded Kinmen endlessly, forcing the fearful inhabitants to dig shelters and tunnels for survival. Today, with relationships between the two Chinas improving, several kilometres of tunnels have been opened as tourist attractions."

(Did he seriously just use the offensive phrase 'the two Chinas' twice in one paragraph? Really? Could he possibly sound more condescending towards Taiwanese identity? Could he make any bigger an assumption about Taiwan's cultural history and self-identity? How about treating Taiwan as it de facto is - its own country? Even if your editor tells you that have to call it an island, not a country, at least give it the respect of treating it individually and not just a floating appendage to China).

My main beef with the article - despite its presenting Taiwan in a generally positive light that may well attract tourists to this lovely country that is not China - is of course that the writer, while he differentiates Taiwan from China in some ways (which is why Brendan was not as irritated by the piece as I was), in most others he lumps them together as two parts of a whole that may be separate for now but are otherwise the same thing. That makes me a bit sick.

I posted this on Facebook to get some reactions and got two big ones: "it's condescending - he talks about 'most people don't know' a few times, like he's superior to his audience. That's bad writing" (I agree - it's not just condescending, it's cliche) and "this is just **** journalism, but then most travel writing is" (I agree there too - I'm no journalist but I've worked as a reporter and grown up around journalism, and I could have written a better piece).

I used to think that this sort of pandering tripe - the two Chinas indeed! - was politically motivated and even a bit sinister. I pictured hand-wringing editors afraid that if they post anything to upset the Chinese government that their site will be blocked in China, or worse, angry calls from the Chinese government to press outlets abroad (it is not outside the realm of possibility). That would be downright terrifying, because it would mean that the free press of the free world is starting to accept and adhere to Chinese-style censorship out of fear. I don't want to think about the kind of world that would lead to. We need to be stamping out Chinese censorship, not abiding by it.

Anyway - I used to think that, but now I'm not so sure. Now my conclusion is more along the lines of editors who feel that the piece will only be read if it's tied to something famous - Taiwan is not "famous" (many foreigners still believe that it's an industrial wasteland, like today's Shenzhen area, where all their cheap crap gets made, and not the gorgeous country that it is which hardly has a manufacturing base anymore, and what factories it does have are churning out wafer chips, not microwaves and plastic cups). The name "China" has travel cache, a place people want to visit, whereas they don't really consider Taiwan unless someone in the know suggests it.

This is what I think is really happening: not editors who feel they have to pander to China so their site will still be available there, or who truly are politically engaged in cross-strait relations or even East Asian affairs and genuinely believe in the Chinese party line of unification (let's face it, most Westerners who haven't been here - and I'd guess that most editors of these articles have not - do not hold very strong opinions on these issues). Rather, editors who figure the name "China" will bump readership in a way that the name "Taiwan" cannot.

I say this as someone who has not studied journalism but has worked in it (I've worked as a regional correspondent reporter and my mother has been a reporter or editor for most of my life. I very occasionally help out with copyediting at the publication that employs her) - I can very easily imagine an editor doing this. Yeah, write about Taiwan - that's sufficiently offbeat and unexpected, but make sure to pair it with China, because people have heard of China and think of it as a travel destination. More people will read it if you mention China.

And that's just sad, because Taiwan is not a part of China, and it deserves the respect of being treated as its own entity, taken on its own terms, and enjoyed for what it is - a Chinese-influenced, but not "Chinese", culture and nation.

.

Mother's Day, But Where Are the Mothers?

Happy Mother's Day!

Because I always have to go against the norm of posting happy thoughts about various holidays, here's an article that appeared in today's Taipei Times:

More Mothers Unhappy Than Not

This underscores a lot of what I said in my previous post on the issue - not only women and couples feeling it's just too expensive to try and raise kids in today's Taiwan (or world, because really the USA is no better), but also that women still have to deal with sexism and discrimination against women of childbearing age in the workplace - at least if they work for a smaller or local company - and that by and large they are also still expected to take care of more affairs at home, and to top it all off, childcare while they are working is prohibitively expensive for many.

...and that a few thousand kuai isn't going to fix this problem. It's sad to think that more mothers are unhappy than not, and that a vast majority of women in Taiwan don't want to have children (and I say this as someone who doesn't want to have children, so I do understand - but I don't want children for personal reasons, not economic ones).

And the way to fix it is to:

1.) Enact programs to combat discrimination against women of childbearing age and mothers in the workplace;

2.) Provide affordable childcare options for families;

3.) Enact campaigns to raise cultural awareness in terms of encouraging more equal partnerships among mothers and fathers in childrearing (and I do believe that a more involved father who takes an equal partnership in his family life, including cutting back work hours if necessary, will lead to fewer instances of extramarital affairs in this demographic);

4.) Take steps toward encouraging fairer wages (I do feel most Taiwanese white collar workers are underpaid for the time they devote to their jobs) and more reasonable housing prices so that young families can afford to live in the space they need to raise children;

5.) Enact campaigns to limit and lower excessive working hours and a work culture that values time spent at a desk over true productivity, and companies that pile excessive workloads on their employees because they can.

You want to raise the birthrate? That is how you do it.

Not that I think the birthrate needs to be raised - if anything Taiwan needs fewer people, not more.

City of Gluttons

Go read this:

Taipei is a City of Gluttony: It's a Compliment!

加油加油！

An article definitely worth reading:

Reveling in the Real Taiwan

Enjoy!

Links: Women in Taiwan

Two recent Taipei Times articles worth reading:

Exhibition focuses on the changing roles of women - I haven't seen this exhibit yet but I intend to, and will write about it when I do. I can only assume that there will be no English signage.

Empowering women in the world - an interesting editorial. Shame on the DPP politician who said what he did about women in power, but I still hold that the more progressive DPP is friendlier towards women's rights causes than the socially conservative KMT.

The Low Marriage Rate in Taiwan: Part II

There was an article recently in the China Post that I thought I'd address here, all about low marriage and birthrates in Taiwan.

I'll cover it in two sections - first revisiting the idea of marriage in Taiwan, and then I'll put up a new post above discussing the issue of the low birthrate. I'm very much anti short-form blogging (it has its uses but if you want to really get at the meat of something and consider every angle, it doesn't work and it promotes short attention spans) but it would probably behoove me to shorten my posts just an eensy bit!

I've already covered my thoughts on why Taiwanese women aren't marrying at anywhere near traditional rates but with the publication of this article, I thought it would be a good time to revisit the topic. I won't cover my reasoning and thoughts again - but I stand by what I said back then: the expectations of traditional gender roles in marriage and a rising consciousness and awareness that they don't have to stand for such treatment is probably what's keeping Taiwanese women from choosing to marry, along with feeling that Taiwanese men haven't kept up with the times and changing values brought about by modernity - the fact that hey, it's no shame to share an equal part in handling home, child and elder care duties and hey, it's OK if your wife out-earns or out-reputations you - yes, I made that nouny verb up - and hey, women ARE in fact equal to men. Different, but equal, and there is no shame in that so get over yourselves already.

To be fair, not all Taiwanese men feel that way. I am happy to be able to cite many men among my students whose wives are equally successful and of whom they are proud, not ashamed. I am happy that I can tell anecdotes of male students who, when asked what they did on the weekend, say things like "I took care of my baby" or "I visited my in-laws because my wife is on a business trip" or "I cleaned the house with my wife". Good for you. The world needs more of you.

To put it simply, encouraging the government to "instead of being pro-natalist, be pro-marriage" is just not good enough. The government, if it is to be pro-marriage, needs to do so in a modern, equality-minded way and maybe look into the reasons why women are choosing not to marry (again, covered in my last post, linked above). They need to take into account that marriage and children (mostly children) generally don't present a problem to men climbing the career ladder, but that they do present a problem to many women. They need to encourage men to accept more egalitarian household and child-rearing roles. Then we might see more marriages.

This story was linked to by Michael Turton, and I have to say that one comment on that post disturbed be a bit:

Dismissing marriage as simply a bad institution is a cop-out. There have been serious structural changes to Taiwanese society, economic in particular, that are not necessarily desirable. No, no marriage for marriage's sake, but we should think about what's changed rather than be so politically correctly dismissive. The decline of marriage, I think many will find, is a reflection of harsh realities for the generation coming of age and in its early adulthood. And the 1 year+ military draft on males just makes things worse (in a more traditional society, military draft didn't make as big of an impact, but today, that means women make more than men, at least early in their careers).

I would really, really like to know what "Anonymous" means by that. "there have been serious structural changes, economic in particular, that are not necessarily desireable...today, it means women make more than men, at least early in their careers."

Um...I can't help but read this to imply that the pro-female changes that have taken place in Taiwanese society are, according to Anonymous, "undesireable", and most undesireable of all is the idea that Taiwanese women often make more than men.

Really? Like, for serious? Why is this a problem, and while I admit that for some, it is a problem, why should it be? What is so bad about a wife out-earning her husband? Is this so shameful that it is causing women to choose not to marry, or that - even worse - it's causing Taiwanese men not to marry Taiwanese women (and if it is, why are we focusing on the women - the problem in that case is with the outdated attitudes of the men).

I did have a few problems with the article: namely, why is it that when we discuss marriage in Taiwan, we always focus on women? Why isn't any one discussing how men feel about this? If the marriage rate of women is down, wouldn't it also be so for men? There are two possible issues at play:

1.) That the marriage rate isn't really down for men, as many of them take foreign brides, something Taiwanese women don't often have as an option.

If anyone has a statistic that can prove or disprove this, I'd love to hear it. Yes, I am a lazy blogger who doesn't want to hunt for her own statistics, which is why I'm a blogger and not a journalist.

Yes, many more Taiwanese women marry Western men than Taiwanese men marrying Western women (though I can point to at least one real-life example of a Taiwanese man-Western woman marriage, so it definitely can happen). I'm not entirely sure why this is, but I think the answer is both obvious and multi-faceted. Taiwan is more progressive than other Asian countries, but I have found it to be absolutely true that there are still traditional gender role expectations among many (not all!) Taiwanese men that Western women just can't accept. If there's a language barrier, I've found that a Western woman is less likely to accept this in her relationship - here are two anecdotes that don't prove anything but do make a point:

When I first arrived in Taiwan, I posted on a popular travel forum that I was here and happy to meet up with anyone in town for drinks or a coffee (a fairly popular way for travelers to meet up in the age of the Internet). I ended up having lunch and tea with a Canadian in town for a week visiting friends, on her way to the Philippines to go diving. She told me about her last boyfriend, who was French Canadian - English was not his first language and she didn't speak French fluently. She clearly remembered a conversation they had in which she just couldn't make the nuances of her point clear to him in a way he understood. She said that she knew right there that that the relationship would not end in marriage - she couldn't be with someone that she couldn't express her thoughts to and couldn't communicate with fluidly in a common language.

After I'd been here for awhile, I changed jobs and had a coworker (who still kind of works for us, but in a limited capacity) - in order to make a point clear in a seminar we were co-teaching, he told the class about his wife, who is Taiwanese. He talked about how sometimes, she would try to say something and end up speaking pidgin, children's English because she knew what she wanted to express but just didn't have the words to get it out - so they ended up communicating in simplified language (there is a similar anecdote in the Amitav Ghosh book, In an Antique Land, which I thoroughly recommend, about his research into an individual who lived during the Indian Ocean trading decades in the 1100s. He was from somewhere in the Arab world, and his wife was south Indian - Ghosh surmised that they must have communicated in a type of pidgin language). He thought this was perfectly OK, but I remember thinking "Wow. Well, good for him, but I could never do that. I need someone I can have long, winding, tangled-up conversations with." I don't mean this as a slam against him - he's a great guy. Just...different strokes for different folks.

There's also the fact that, let's face it, there is still a prejudice towards couples where the man is bigger and the woman is smaller, and we Western women tend to be taller and curvier and so many Asian men are shorter and thinner. This is, once again, not always true, and I know many men in Taiwan who are taller and burlier than I am, but it probably is a factor. Is this fair? Well, no, but it's probably true to some degree.

And finally, there's the fact that Taiwanese men are - honestly - a bit more shy about asking women out and there is still a bias towards men asking women on dates (I've never felt that this should be an issue, but apparently it is).

2.) The more sexist reason - it's not seen as "important" or "an issue" if a man chooses to remain a bachelor, but heaven forfend that a woman might choose the same.

I would really like to think that this is not true. If it is, it's so deeply sexist that I don't even know where to begin. I mean, seriously [redacted] that [redacted]! (My in-laws read this thing - you can fill in the expletives).

Unfortunately, it probably is true, at least to some degree. Take these two paragraphs:

The largely single status of Taiwan's most popular female entertainers is also worth noting; if their chosen predicament is not a direct reflection of society, then it certainly serves as either affirmation or a consolation for the unhitched woman. Lin Chi-ling, top supermodel and considered one of the most beautiful women in Taiwan, turns 37 this year without an engagement announcement in sight. Pop Princess Jolin Tsai, despite her youthful appearance, is also pushing 30 and single. The same status goes for famed artists like A-mei (38), Vivian Hsu (36), Elva Hsiao (31) and many others.

On the other end of the public spectrum, both Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen and former vice president Annette Lu are single. Both women voiced their desire to run for 2012 presidential elections, although Lu publicly dropped out of the DPP primaries Tuesday, citing her concern for the environment outweighing her need to win in an election. Chen Chu, the incumbent mayor of Kaohsiung, is entering her 60s and has never married.

The first paragraph - "then it certainly serves as either affirmation or a consolation for the unhitched woman" - the writer makes it sound as though being an unhitched woman is some sort of disease that deserves neither consolation nor affirmation. Really? Seriously?

Then the writer goes on to name several high-profile single women - never once mentioning high-profile single men. Jay Chou is single - why not mention him? There must be a few unmarried male politicians and captains of industry in Taiwan, and I have met more than a few unmarried engineers working for Taiwan's major tech/IT firms.

So why is this only a problem vis-a-vis the women - particularly the successful women - of Taiwan? Why all the hullabaloo about the low marriage rate regarding women? Why this assumption that it's fine to be a single successful man, but worthy of a mention in the newspaper if you are a single successful woman?

Feeling generally annoyed with this double standard - that the low marriage rate is somehow a woman's problem and not a man's (AAAAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!111!!!!one! NOOOOOO!!!) - I've been asking Taiwanese men since I wrote my last post what their thoughts are on this issue.

I don't have a huge sample size, but I've gotten a few answers:

- Women aren't interested in traditional gender roles

- We (the men) who would have married in an earlier era are not doing so, because we work so hard that they have no time to date (notably, engineers)

- A lot of the women who would have married in an earlier era are not doing so because they also work so hard that they have no time to date (notably, accountants)

- Taiwanese women are more interested in studying or living abroad or advancing their careers (maybe in the cities, but the countryside? And even in the cities, I already addressed how most "office jobs" in Taiwan are so uninspiring and require putting up with difficult bosses and long hours that I can't imagine that that's why women aren't marrying - we aren't talking about a new generation of women who are passionate about their work)...and Taiwanese men want women who are more interested in family and children.

- We (the men) want women who are more traditional, and Taiwanese women aren't fulfilling that (if true - and I am not sure it is - that makes me really sad)

- Taiwanese women insist that any man she marries has sizeable savings and can afford to buy an apartment and a car (not sure how true this is, but someone did say that so it's worth mentioning)

- Taiwanese women are sick of putting up with the traditional expectations of in-laws and don't want to deal with the pressure to have a baby that they may not want, so they just have boyfriends, they don't marry

- We (the men) aren't changing our outlook fast enough and the women aren't going to tie themselves to someone who can't bring himself to do the dishes (this from one of my more progressive male students)

- We (the men) can get a foreign bride so we don't necessarily care why Taiwanese women don't want to marry

- We (the men) are so scared off by the white men that Taiwanese women date that we are too shy to ask the girls we like on dates (I smell BS on this one, personally).

And of course, the Internet, which is full of all sorts of horrible comments, has dredged up some other ideas, notably that Taiwanese women aren't keeping themselves as pretty as they used to - more body fat, less makeup, hair that's not done up - and so men are losing interest. I call BS on this one because I've met plenty of average-looking married Taiwanese women (and as an average-looking American woman I can say that not being "hot" is not much of an issue of you are looking to marry a man who isn't superficial).

In short, when looking at low marriage rates in Taiwan, why is everyone watching the women, and why isn't anyone looking at the men? Aren't they half the equation?

Showing in Shanghai as Taiwan, China

An interesting piece in the Taipei Times today:

Care to Join the Party?

...all about Taiwanese artists and how they deal with China's restrictions on their freedom of expression, or how they are labeled, when showing in China - as well as interviews with some Taiwanese artists who refuse to show in China.

What I found interesting about this piece was that so many artists seem apathetic about how they are labeled politically. How many 'don't think about' (or don't allow themselves to think about) whether they are billed as being from "Taiwan" or "Taipei, China", and what that means to their identity, their expression and their art.

I realize that the argument that art and politics shouldn't mix has some credence, and there is certainly a strong case to be made for separating the two in the name of...well of I don't know what, but something.

That said, I'm sorry but art is political. The only art that is not political in some way is found in hotels or in Painting Technique 101 classes. Maybe some civic sculpture put in place by extremely non-controversial town boards. (A good friend of mine once defined public art as "stuff so bad that nobody would pay for it except a committee of people with bad taste" - I wouldn't go that far, and I've seen public art that I've liked).

Even a basic landscape can be political; what is in that landscape, and what does it say about the place it purports to represent? Why did the artist choose this scene, and not that one, and how does that reflect on his feelings toward the place he's painting. Someone who chose to paint a traditional-style scroll of cliffs, waterfalls, cranes and bamboo must have a very different opinion on Taiwan than someone who paints a scene of downtown Sanchong.

A sculpture of a naked woman is political, as well. Why did the artist choose this model and this body, and what does his/her technique say about how he views that body? In turn, what does that say about how he/she perceives women and their place in society? How does that compare with the status of women in this artist's home country?

Art is all about expression - art that is merely about aesthetics and not about both aesthetics and expression is, in my humble opinion, less interesting art.

Some of this expression really is free from politics - ideas about universal things such as death and love, for example, although even those can be politicized. See: Guernica. That was bursting with death and yet was also deeply political. Any photograph of modern poverty is just as tied in with death and politics. Love is affected heavily by culture, and politics is also tied into that. So unless you are merely trying to convey emotions of death, love, frustration, boredom, excitement or what have you, and not trying to tie them to a greater cultural entity, even these have a political underpinning.

As such, a good artist has to be careful about things like political labels. It is very telling that some Taiwanese artists don't care how they are introduced in a show; it makes me wonder if they show the same apathy towards their work. Who you are affects how others see your work, so it is really of the utmost importance that you be as honest as you can about who you are. How can an artist do that, if said artist doesn't care how they are labeled?

Taiwan gets more media attention

...this time for a story in the New York Times on jitong, or "shamans" who become possessed by gods and spirits and can divine things, deal with illness or consult people on their troubles.

If you've read the past few entries in this blog, you'll remember that my friend and I saw a jitong a few weeks ago at the Qingshan Wang festival:


...but the sight was far scarier than the happy drinking monk who possesses Ms. Chang.

The article says that the practice still survives in China as well, but I'd never heard of it being done there, not in modern times anyway. It seems like the sort of thing that would have been quickly eradicated by the Cultural Revolution.

The New York Times takes notice of Taiwan

...except they have this bad habit of calling it "The Other China", or "another side of China" or some such, which annoys many of us to no end.

This article is particularly fun to read - all about food in Taipei and why it's, not to mince words, better than food in Beijing.

Which, of course, it is!

It's long so I'll just post a link: Feasting at the Table of the Other China

But hey, I bet some NY Times editor somewhere realized that it would be big trouble to write about Taiwan without implying a kinship to China (it might "seriously hurt the feelings of the Chinese people" or some other such bullcrap), so they have to put it in there somewhere.

Or maybe they figure "Taiwan" won't grab readers - and therefore sell ads - as a headline, but "China" will. I dunno.


This follows up on several other NY Times articles, including the good - but not fantastic - 36 Hours in Taipei where they have great suggestions but hit the tourist points mostly, leaving out some of my favorite spots. With limited print space I guess that's what one has to do, though.

Both of these articles use the adjective "Taiwanese" later on in the piece, but not after a top heavy spiel about China, its influence and its pull. Why not be neutral on the issue, or better yet, call it what it is - Taiwan? I realize I'm starting to sound like Johnny Neihu on a bender here, but there's no way to avoid that.

There is, of course, the extremely well-written but also very long "Last Days of Taipei" in their magazine a few months ago.

This last one is the only one that seems to really get to the heart of life in the quiet lanes that lie just off the busy thoroughfares of Taipei city. It's worth a read, or at least a skim.