When my parents were married, probably only a very small portion of adult Taiwanese were unmarried or had no children.
However, by 2010, after deducting the population under the age of 18, the ratio of unmarried to married people was close to or perhaps even surpassed 1:1. That is, the claim that the family structure of one man, one woman; one husband, one wife; together with their biological children — which is frequently repeated by the Alliance of Taiwan Religious Groups for the Protection of the Family (護家盟) — is the mainstream family structure in Taiwan, is no longer true, or at the very least is rapidly disappearing.
The structure of families in Taiwan is very diverse. It can consist of a single man or woman; grandparents raising children; married couples without children; divorcees; widows or widowers; adoptive parents; gay or lesbian parents; cohabiting families and so on. Upholding the form and value of traditional families is tantamount to using marriage and family values of a patriarchal age to hurt and belittle those who do not fit the system.
A friend of mine grew up in a single-parent family. She said that she had a happy childhood and that the self-righteous sympathy with which people from traditional families treated her caused her unhappiness.
Society also judges single people, married couples without children, grandparents raising children, divorced couples, adoptive parents, cohabiting families and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Happiness should never be defined by society. It is created by ourselves, but the people who uphold traditional one husband, one wife family values are forcing others, who are clearly as many as 50 percent of the population, to accept their definition of what constitutes a family or a happy family. They are forcing people living in non-traditional family structures to accept a categorization as less than perfect, not normal and not deserving of happiness.
It is difficult to understand why so many people who do not fit the “traditional” mold are not upset by this. Why should they accept the domination, bullying and definitions of these so-called protectors of “traditional” family culture? They are leading their lives, but are defined as being unhappy and less than perfect by society and culture, and silently accept being looked down upon.
We hear these calls for a return to traditional family values and see how the patriarchal societal values attempt to turn cultural diversity back toward a single dominating culture, but the importance of cultural diversity is that it protects different kinds of people and different kinds of family compositions, enabling them to live without discrimination.
The campaign to promote marriage equality does not only work to defend LGBT rights, but also to protect a diversity of values, people, and families against discrimination. A return to the “traditional” patriarchal family value system would only exaggerate the arrogance and self-righteousness of those promoting conventional family values.
This is a cultural war. All those who have been oppressed by “traditional” family values should stand up against discrimination. Everyone has to define their own wellbeing and should not let it be defined by others.
When we assume that something is irrelevant, the environment that takes shape has a direct influence on each of us. The campaign to support marriage equality is a cultural campaign in defense of non-traditional families, as they protect themselves as well as others who need protection.
Wang Wei-ching is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
RSS