If you think "Taiwanese men are beta-male pansies" is insightful or funny, it's time to retire

There's a writer who's well-known and seemingly well-liked among expats in Taiwan and in defense analysis circles -- or at least by other white men. And I don't doubt this is all true. He probably is quite friendly in real life.

He writes colorfully; he's even been called the "Hunter S. Thompson" of Taiwan policy analysis. That's all fine. As readers surely know, I have no goddamn problem at all with some strong language. He's published some books and written for Jane's, which show real expertise. All fine.

His main deal seems to be that Taiwan is not prepared in terms of national defense, and needs both a better security environment and a more committed attitude to defending itself against China. I actually agree with this: at heart I'm a peacenik, but you just don't get to decide when the other guy starts a war with you. Especially if the other guy is the CCP, which lies, breaks promises and chooses to be angry when it suits them.

You can't play dove with that. You have to defend yourself, and Taiwan seems unprepared. I get it. 

He might even be right that Taiwanese don't care enough about national defense, but I'm far less sure. That conjecture is based almost entirely on military recruitment, but people who are willing to fight if China invades aren't necessarily going to join the military as their job. They may desire other careers, or maybe the military just isn't a good career choice generally. That doesn't mean they won't fight, though -- polls consistently say most are willing to. The polls may be wrong, but that's a matter of opinion, not fact. 

In any case, my issue isn't his actual take on Taiwan's national defense or security. Even if I disagreed, it's not my area of expertise. 

Here is what I have a problem with. From this post:





I won't comment on him as a person -- again, I am sure he's quite affable, at least if you have sufficiently proven your chudliness -- but these ideas, which I am free to comment on? Fucking yikes.

Where I do talk about a certain type of expat (generally older, white, cisgender and straight, though I've met other types), I want to be clear: There are a lot of foreign dudes walking around with these opinions, and some even write about it. This isn't about one guy.

So let's talk about the article, and this attitude in general.

First, it's just mean. It's not a discussion of Taiwan or its security situation as a nation, or interpretation of poll results (because, again, the polls contradict his opinion). It's insulting Taiwanese as human beings, with broad-stroke pronouncements about what they are like as people. It isn't relevant to why the military may not be an attractive career, or what bureaucratic and governmental issues may be holding Taiwan back.

It's also wrong. It tries to be funny, but isn't. I'm fine with being mean if someone has earned it. But mocking the entire population of Taiwan, or even just the male population? Come on.

That meanness lays bare no deeper truths: all it does is make Taiwan look like a place not worth the international community's time, which can't get its own act together, and may as well be left to be ravaged and subjugated by China, the people -- sorry, pansies -- slaughtered. All because they won't stand up for themselves (even though, again, polls say they will -- and "but they like strawberry bubble tea!" isn't funny, it's just poor argumentation.) 

It's racist, because it calls into question the virility and courage of 12 million or so Asian men. This just clobbers readers with old-timey caricaturing of Asian men as effeminate or unmanly. It was racist back when some people thought it was funny, and it remains so.

There are multiple expats in Taiwan -- mostly white men -- who hold such opinions. Some even write similar drivel: it's not just him. Some of them defended this as "spot on". 

I wonder, have any of them participated in a decades-long but ultimately successful underground resistance, at risk of torture and execution, aimed at overthrowing a dictatorship and democratizing their country?  

Doubt it. 

So maybe sit the fuck down.

While some of them may have talked to Taiwanese men to say more than "another beer, please" or "再一瓶" if they've learned three words of Chinese -- I do wonder.

And here's how you can tell the whole logic of the piece is racist. Beyond the references to hentai and whatnot, there's a line in there (in a screenshot below) about how Ukrainians are tough, and Taiwanese aren't. The Taiwanese who, left without resources by the Qing, colonized over and over and given a pretty terrible hand historically, overthrew a dictatorship and built a modern nation? The ones who mounted rebellion after rebellion? I don't know that they "eat bark", but I don't see a "not tough" narrative there. 

The article dismisses all of this, saying there's no narrative to replace the (hole-ridden and dictator-driven) one, which is ultimately not particularly inspiring because the KMT lost. In fact, every "red in tooth and claw" story he says Taiwan lacks (the Alamo, the 300 Spartans) is a story of losing. That's supposed to be the kind of inspiring story Taiwan reaches for? Why? 

The article doesn't give any reasons for praising stories of losers and dismissing Taiwan's actual story other than...what? 7-11 has effeminate decorations? That's not a reason. It boils down to "because I don't like it and it doesn't make Taiwanese seem wimpy enough". 

As for Ukrainians, it's not as though they were all boar-hunting buff strongmen before the war. There's a lot of gender role crap in Ukraine, but I promise you, some of the bravest Ukrainians are willing to dance around in heels. Besides, Russia expected Ukraine to surrender quickly. As Zelenskyy put it, they were banking on cowardice. That doesn't sound like a story about how Ukrainians have always been Fighter Dudes to me. 

It's literally no more than Eastern European Men = Chads; Asian Men = Virgins. That's not analysis or even thoughtful opinion. It's a meme, and a half-assed one at that.

The article is also misogynist, because it codes all behavior considered female as 'bad'. It assumes that cute stores, or adorable cats is sufficient evidence that the people of Taiwan won't fight because...Hello Kitty, or something. Like you need to look a certain way to fight. Specifically, a male way. Specifically, a straight male chud way. 

As a middle-aged frizzy-haired chubby lady who Instagrams her cats, but would rather die than let China take Taiwan without a fight, I suggest anyone reading this who thinks "Taiwanese are pansies because the stuff they like is girly" not only sit down, but also go ahead and lick my salty buttcrack.


              

Who Instagrams her cute fuzzers and would fight for Taiwan? That's right.

In other words, I may not be effeminate but I am a woman (or are we feeeeemales? I always forget). I prefer non-violence but I will Molotov a fucker if they threaten my home.

And you can tell it's misogynist because it mocks President Tsai in her role as head of the country and its military, calling it "LARPing", when she's doing her fucking job.






I don't recall these guys jeering at Ma Ying-jeou when he was in charge of both the country and military. He might be called incompetent, but he wouldn't be mocked as though it were all an elaborate costume -- men in this position are taken seriously, even when undeserved.

This is even more galling as, however imperfect, she's done more for the military than Ma. I'm not even sure what "post-modern woke policies in the military" he's referring to, because that doesn't make any sense, and he gives no examples. It honestly feels like she's getting shit just because she's a woman, not because she's doing a worse job.

Anyway, all the chuds whining about Tsai -- because the writer here is not the only one -- are you guys the Commander in Chief of anything? No?

So again, maybe sit the fuck down and get right back in that ass for more crack-licking. We ain't done.

It's also misandrist. I mean, calling 12 million men "beta males" is just inherently anti-male, and pro-asshole.

It assumes that any person with a dick should behave in certain ways, coded as masculine, and anyone who strays from this awful binary is less-than. That's insulting to men too. Society needs all types, including swaggering pussy people and thoughtful dick people. It's part of what makes the world beautiful!

In coding insufficiently masculine behavior as "bad". It calls men "pansies" and makes jokes about Pride, as though being a more openminded society than its neighbors is a sign of weakness. Or as though gay people can't fight! 

    

The context given for this is that the men he knows didn't want to do mandatory military service. But frankly, the training they receive isn't very useful. Friends of mine say that you barely get time to practice shooting a gun, but you spend a lot of time cleaning. I'd be happy to do a program where I learned to shoot, but don't really want to clean toilets for no reason. Maybe they don't want to go because they know it's pointless, not because they're cowards?

While we're on the topic, why no screaming about the fact that national service is only for men? Women may be physically weaker on average (though not necessarily individually), but we can shoot, and do lots of other things, and we have a higher pain tolerance. I don't know that Taiwan needs national service at all, but if they do, it should be both useful and mandatory for every citizen. 

Regardless, all the jokes implying gay people can't fight are just inaccurate and sad. In a hint about a story for another time, if you'd like I can direct you to at least three (?) gay male strippers in Ximending who look like they could help take out a PLA soldier or twenty. Even if they don't want to fight, I cam promise any one of them could benchpress some of these expat beerguts.

In addition to mocking Pride, he also artlessly implies that Madame President Dr. Tsai Ing-wen is somehow inferior because she's a lesbian (you can see it in the "mysteriously never married" dogwhistle). She might be. I do not know, I do not care, and you shouldn't either.

Frankly, the whole passage clarifies how threatening a smart woman who doesn't need a man but can run a country is. How insecure it makes some men feel, and how cowardly that is.






Apparently, being (oh no!) a Possible Lesbian and A Woman is somehow worse qualification for running the country than shitting your pants because someone compared you to Winnie the Pooh? That sure sounds like Hysterical Male behavior to me. Christ, who wants a literal child in charge of the country, just because he has a squiggle-dick and a big baby temper? Not me. I'll take the (Oh No!) Possible Lesbian and A Woman who keeps her cool, thanks. 

If you prefer your opinions in meme format, well, would you rather have this woman in charge:






Or this Hysterical Male:

All this lays bare the deeper problem: this article would rather be a rant about post-modern gay woke beta whatever than actually make a real point, although it tries to be an opinion about defense. It claims to be "satire" in addition to "opinion", but satire should be funny.

What is it then? Chudswagger, as though Taiwan should be grateful to have guys like this around to tell them how much Taiwan sucks and they know better. Like the worst expat white guys at the worst bar you know, who seem friendly until they start ranting hysterically three beers in about WOKE SOY CUCK CULTURE COMING TO TAI-WAAAAN! 

I mean, maybe these guys are upset that Taiwan is no longer a place where they can act like Trump Uncles without getting the side-eye. Can't say I feel too bad about it, though.

This article flows the way of all hot garbage juice writing (this guy engaged in it too, and I wrote back) and ties all of it to Taiwan's declining birth rate. The Taipei Times guy linked above blamed it on insufficient slut punishment (not his words, but that's the gist). This post? Seems to think it's about being too feminine or gay or unable to fuck...or something.

Now, do I know if Taiwanese men can fuck? Well, I didn't date anyone seriously before Brendan moved here. But I know lots of people who have, and indeed they agree: Taiwanese men fuck. 

If you are one of these old white dudes, try not to faint from the shock that you might not be the hottest ticket in town. Honestly, it's better to just accept it.

So why is the birth rate declining? It's not "hentai" or a need to "ban porn" or gayness or an inability to fuck. As I wrote in the Taipei Times link above, most people want children. They aren't having them because most people also want some security before they do: an apartment they can call their own, enough money, time to spend with their offspring. This is true in Taiwan as everywhere else.

In other words, the problem is fundamentally economic. I do think it can be solved, though I'm not sure how. But, of course, some people think it's more fun to be insulting and hateful and say it's about something something beta male something porn something. 

I suppose writing like this is one's right. You can publish that if someone will give you a platform, or publish it yourself if they won't. You shouldn't go to jail for it. I have a blog and I say all sorts of things people don't like. It's fine.

But if you think mocking perceived gay or female behavior is insightful or funny, it's not -- and it's time to retire. 

If retirement is not desirable, then focus on your actual area of expertise, as colorfully as you like! Just leave out the anti-gay racist shit. Nobody needs it, nobody wants it, it's wholly unnecessary and it's not even amusing, let alone correct.

I love colorful writing. Colorful language is absolutely fine. 

But just shitting on people, calling them cowards by implying they're gay or "unmanly", and acting like that's amusing -- or trenchant and worthwhile -- analysis? 

Naw. This is old shit. This is like a comedian from the '90s who can't figure out why no one laughs at their schtick anymore. This is Trump Uncle at Thanksgiving who doesn't understand that he's the reason why nobody lingers over dessert. This is Grandpa who wonders why his grandkids never call. This is material for Conservative Stand-Up Night at Shady Pines.

I mean, it's just preposterous. I don't know what smegma-streaked helldream this version of Taiwan comes from, but it's not the Taiwan I live in. Gay men can fight. Women can fight. Lesbians can fight. People who like Hello Kitty can fight. People who like pornography and video games and strawberry bubble tea can fight. The country's internationally-famous black metal frontman posts cute cat videos, but I bet he can fight. I mean have you seen that man shirtless?

If not, here you are: 

Definitely hotter than you

Would you rather have this absolute beefcake fighting alongside you, or some white dudes who still think the Combat Zone is cool?

And if you're one of those people who makes themselves feel better about mocking any of these groups, as though you're such Big Swagger Dudes, well...I don't like to use the term "beta" because it's ridiculous, but that sure looks like beta behavior to me. So terrified of some girls & gays. Like insecure Trump Uncles who are afraid of a world they do not understand. It's sad, really. 

Maybe the Taiwanese won't win, and it's probably true that Taiwan needs to do more for its defense. But again, according to the polls, they say they are willing to fight. 

Even if you think they won't, that's just like, your opinion, man.

Another beer, please. 

Your periodic reminder that Forbes sucks just as hard as Reuters

Here I am again with yet another installment of "fuck this fucking nonsense", where I take some FUCKING NONSENSE and tell it to fuck off.

Here is today's fucking nonsense, courtesy of Forbes. For your consideration:

The title sets the scene for the whole thing, and it's a scene reminiscent of what happened that one time after I ate fish and chips two days in a row: 

China's Efforts To Increase Pressure On Old Foe Taiwan Are Backfiring

TAIWAN IS NOT CHINA'S "OLD FOE", MORON!

The Republic of China perhaps is, but "Taiwan" is not, and although Taiwan is (unfairly) governed by the (colonialist) Republic of China, anyone with any grasp of the nuances of the political realities of the region knows that there is a clear semantic difference between what we mean when we say "Taiwan" and what we mean when we say "the ROC". The ROC is a lost regime on life support that was foisted, uninvited, on the Taiwanese people. Taiwan is an island and a point of identification in terms of politics, culture, history and land. "Taiwan" (and the Taiwanese people) would like nothing more than to co-exist peacefully with China, enjoying warm relations and the benefits thereof, have its sovereignty respected and maybe not have a few thousand missiles pointed right up its ass THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Wanting to co-exist with your big fat jerk neighbor does not make you an "old foe". It makes them a bully and you a victim. Foes wish each other harm. Taiwan does not wish China harm (though China does wish Taiwan harm - so this whole fight is really quite one-sided, and the "foe" is not Taiwan).

And no, I don't know how to change the weird spacing on this part. 

China intentionally pulled back on group tourism to Taiwan last year by about 18%, resulting in a squeeze for those in the tour bus and hotel industry.


Okay first of all, this is the weirdest start to an article ever, it reads like something halfway through a paragaph? Whatever, it's got far worse problems than that.

No mention at all of why China pulled back on group tourism (to try to force Taiwan to make concessions relating to its sovereignty, i.e. to force them to accept the [fucking nonsense] 1992 consensus WHICH IS NOT A REAL THING). No mention of the general reaction to this in Taiwan which was positive, not negative. No mention that tourism overall has not suffered, really, as the drop in Chinese group tours was made up for - and then some, I think? - by tourists from other countries. No mention of the fact that these Chinese tour groups are not only not that profitable for Taiwanese businesses due to the low costs insisted upon by the China-based operators, but also that most of them aren't even really Taiwanese businesses at all, as many of the facilities in Taiwan are ultimately managed by tour operators from China, not Taiwan.

What does it say as well about China's tourism strategy in Taiwan that their cuts in group tours mainly affected tour companies in China, which have links to that same government? (Please tell me I don't have to answer that question for you).

Oh yeah, and tourism isn't a very big contributor to the Taiwanese economy. The effect, insofar as there was one at all, simply wasn't that big.

Basically, this is just hoisted from a skank tank of nonsense and plopped at your feet with none of the unpacking necessary to report the story accurately. Bad journalism, in effect.


Beijing probably thought the same about its easing off permits for students to study at Taiwan’s 152 tuition-thirsty universities. The number of non-degree students dropped from 34,114 last year to 32,648 now and some reports say enrollment in degree courses is about to fall. 

This is actually true as far as I'm aware, but the mention of it only glosses over - merely implies rather than explicitly reporting - that China is trying to force Taiwan to make policy in accordance with China's wishes rather than those of the people of Taiwan. Basically, to cede some amount of sovereignty, even in an abstract way.


These measures, combined with other more obvious pressure moves against Taiwan such as sending an aircraft carrier around the island, have hurt.


Who was hurt?

China has claimed Taiwan as part of its turf since the Chinese civil war of the 1940s. It insists the two sides eventually reunify.


"Reunify"? The People's Republic has never owned Taiwan. You cannot "reunify" what was never unified to begin with. You cannot even "unify" when one side is not interested in unification. You can only annex.

Use the correct word. We won't stop making fun of you until you do. It is misleading and inaccurate.

It lost momentum toward that goal in May 2016, when Tsai Ing-wen took office as Taiwan president without agreeing to Beijing’s dialogue condition that both sides belong to a single entity known as China.

It is debatable whether it had that momentum to begin with, but let's not even get into the question of whether support for Ma Ying-jiu's "economic but not political ties/no independence, no unification" was a concrete step toward what China wants, or whether it was a large group of voters being intentionally misled by Ma's campaign promises toward a goal they had never actually agreed with.

That aside, no, what momentum that may have existed was lost in March 2014 when the country woke up to what a lying sack of turds Ma Ying-jiu and his cronies were.

This has been going on a lot longer than Tsai's inauguration. There is no investigation here of the true roots of post-2014 political discourse in Taiwan, not even a one-sentence summary of why, exactly, Tsai was elected in the first place and why, exactly, she could not give in on this 1992 Consensus nonsense. 


Formal talks went on hold.


IF YOU USE THE PASSIVE VOICE IT MEANS YOU ARE AVOIDING SAYING WHO PUT THE TALKS ON HOLD and maybe you think you can trick us into assuming Taiwan put them on hold, but YOU CAN'T because guess what, WE'RE NOT STUPID.

Who put the talks on hold, Ralphie? WHO?

Just say it.

For fuck's sake, say it. Say China's name. SAY IT.


And Beijing got mad.

So what?

And if it matters [it doesn't], why'd they get mad? Why can't you just say "they got mad that Taiwan, which is a fully self-ruled liberal democracy, didn't like its big fat jerk neighbor telling it what to do"? Or something more polite for your readers, whatever, but something? Why is it automatically a big problem when China "gets mad" (oooHHHHOooHHHhoohhhh) but not a problem when a democratic country's sovereignty is openly and repeatedly threatened?

Like...really?

As I've said before, China wants to be not only a global leader, but the preeminent global leader. China also doesn't care about the sovereignty of fully functioning nations, and cares little for human rights, international law, democracy or freedom of any kind.

How is this totally okay, and even something to be concerned about when they get mad, instead of being called out for what it actually is, which is fucking terrifying?
How is this okay to not even question?China’s economic sanctions have rattled tour operators to the point of street protests in September.


This happened, sure, but you are not a very good journalist, let alone much of an investigative journalist if you don't ask yourself why, exactly, they were protesting when tourism has not dropped. What other motives could there be, considering that many tour operators are China-owned rather than Taiwan-owned and that many of the China-owned operators have ties to the Chinese government, and the services provided were often negotiated at such low rates that any Taiwanese businesses involved didn't make much money?

Considering all that, why, exactly, were they protesting again?

Even if we assume the protestors were sincere (which I do not - I think the motivations are far shadier than that), at some point, certain decisions that are good for the whole are going to have some effects on tiny slivers of industry or society that some people might not be happy about. So? The tour operators had a right to protest (sincere or not, and I think I've been clear that I don't think they were), but that doesn't mean it's a problem if the government doesn't necessarily make any changes.

I hate saying that, because I hate it when my side protests and nothing changes, but realistically, it's just got to be this way, even if sometimes that affects my side badly.

Officials in Beijing probably imagine that if Taiwanese feel a pinch as China withdraws tourists, students and other elements of its $11.2 trillion economy from Taiwan’s much smaller market...


Again, the tourist withdrawal didn't actually affect the Taiwanese economy much, if at all. There were enough tourists from elsewhere to make up the shortfall. I have my theories as to why that is not generally reported. The statement, as is, is not accurate. 


...the public will push Tsai to restart dialogue. Or voters will replace Tsai’s party with one that favors a stronger political relationship with China.


How can Tsai "restart dialogue" when Tsai wasn't the one who shut it down to begin with? Why not say "the public will push Tsai to give in to China's demands so that China will re-start dialogue"? That would be the accurate way of reporting this. Why be misleading when you could be accurate?

Oh, right...

Anyway.

Are you so afraid of saying "the public will push Tsai to concede to the 1992 Consensus to a degree acceptable to China, which would preclude any chance of Taiwanese de jure independence?" Because you know that's what that means.Some people are pressuring their president, and non-government surveys show an erosion of public confidence in her leadership. “If [Tsai] cannot back up her stance one step or two steps, things will get even worse,” says Liu Yih-jiun, public affairs professor at Fo Guang University in Taiwan. “I think President Tsai is in deep trouble.”

Fo Guang University? Okaaay.

Anyway, this implies that public confidence may be eroding because Tsai needs to be nicer to China. I would argue the opposite is true: that public confidence is eroding because she's not stepping up and making tough but important decisions as a leader. She comes across as wishy-washy, and that's the problem. Backing up even more (where would she back up to, even? What does this mean? Why is it taken at face value?) would make her appear even weaker. Why is Jennings reporting this douchelord's opinion as indicative of public opinion generally by putting his blather next to poll results when one is not necessarily the belief that drives the other?

And can I just say how ridiculous it is to constantly imply that Taiwan is the one that needs to cede more to China, when China is the aggressor, and Taiwan has a lot more to lose - and that no matter what Taiwan offers, China will always, always want more?

Why, again, is this not investigated, questioned, discussed, critiqued or even reported accurately?

And who, besides this, err, guy and some KMT blowhards who never really cared about Taiwan to begin with, is pressuring Tsai to be nicer to China?

Seriously - who cares what this Foguangshan guy thinks? I'm not even interested in remembering his name, that's how irrelevant his opinion is. Why include it, unless you want to inaccurately portray Taiwanese public opinion?

Still, there is some good to be found in this article, such as this paragraph which I cannot find fault with:


Still, Taiwan shows resiliency. Last year’s $528 billion GDP should grow at least 1.7% this year, the International Monetary Fund says. A rise of around 2% would be roughly consistent with growth over the past three years. The island’s all-important semiconductor industry is expected to grow 3.5% this year, the Taipei-based Marketing Intelligence & Consulting Institute forecasts, and its PC sector is expanding because of contract orders. As travelers from China hang back, arrivals from Southeast Asia, South Asia, Australia and New Zealand went up about 29% over the half year ending in March. University enrollment from around the world went up 4.6% from October through March as numbers from China tapered.


But then it's bookended with this:


Taiwan’s next telltale elections – a slew of local ones – are set for 2018. It’s hard to know now whether voters will show discontent then toward their president. 


Seems okay, but you'll note that above, Jennings implied heavily that that discontent was driven by a desire for Tsai to soften on China, when that is not necessarily the case (and I'd argue the opposite could well be true: a lot of her supporters, or at least people who voted for her, are unhappy because she is not taking a stronger stand on China). Such an implication, then, is inaccurate and misleading. 

I'll leave you with this:

“What seems unarguable is that blame for whatever pain people in Taiwan feel as a result of all of these roadblocks imposed by Beijing is importantly being directed toward the mainland,” says Alan Romberg, director of the East Asia program at U.S. think tank The Stimson Center.

Here is the problem. I don't know if the journalists did it to the think-tankers or the think-tankers did it to the journalists or we all got butt-reamed by pro-China views in academia and government that trickled down like slime down a neglected gutter, but senior people, respected experts, people whose opinions shape policy and, to some extent, reporting, still refer to China as "the mainland", rather than by its actual name: China. 

As long as we continue to act as though China is some sort of "mainland" to Taiwan, which implicitly links the two through language choices meant to imply a connection where there isn't one, we cede ground to China.

If experts are still calling it "the mainland", we're already losing ground, and people who don't know better (like, say, the writer of this article) will get pulled under and report inaccurately. Readers will be misinformed, and China will gain another inch.

I don't really care about Alan Whoozits, director of the East Asia blah blah blah, because he doesn't appear to be very good at his job. But when we let this go unquestioned, this is what we are allowing to happen. 

Five Reasons Why Ralph Jennings Is The Absolute Worst Journalist

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.