There is always bad news for women, but rarely so bad as in the past few weeks. If you ever dreamed that in the modern world you could avail yourself of freedoms unknown to women in previous generations, the warnings are now being posted on every door. You meddle with nature at your peril, girl.
What, did you think that you could go play with the boys and not get hurt? Recent research has shown that women who drink are far more vulnerable to assault and rape than you would imagine. More than one in three young women say that they have been sexually assaulted after getting drunk.
In a report on the research, Robin Touquet, a consultant in accident and emergency medicine, said: "Women must not put themselves in vulnerable positions."
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Or did you think you could be like the men in another way, beavering away in an office instead of concentrating on your ovaries? Recent research has shown that women in their 30s are being overconfident about their fertility, so dooming themselves to probable disappointment. The authors of that report, Melanie Davies and Susan Bewley, said that women were "defying nature and risking heartbreak."
And if you have managed to get pregnant, did you think you could be like the child's father, and still keep a foothold in the workplace? New research purports to show that mothers who leave their babies to go out to work are doing their children a disservice. Co-author Penelope Leach said that if children are cared for by people other than their mothers, their development is "definitely less good."
Listening to these voices of doom, women may feel that despite all the attempts at changing society made by women, we have now come up against the biological imperatives that will always lock us out of the freedom and equality we desire. We cannot just wish away women's vulnerability to attack by men, women's shorter fertility span or the neediness of young children.
"The more woman aims for personal identity and autonomy ... the fiercer will be her struggle with free! For your body does not belong to you." So spoke Camille Paglia 15 years ago, so speak all the media now. More and more, when feminists talk about change, the voices of the backlash talk about the impossibility of going against nature.
Biology, in the Western world, acts almost like the Koran in the Eastern world -- it is the ultimate excuse for why things for women cannot and will not change. In a secular world you are told that inequality rests on nature; and in a religious world you are told that it rests on God's word.
I'm not saying that these researchers have dark intentions toward women. But if we were not living in such a fatalistic age, their studies would never have been reported and received as they have been. In the reception given to all of them there has been a marked interest in the punishment of women -- they will be raped, they will be infertile, they must give up the pursuit of autonomy -- and a marked lack of interest in how those situations could be changed.
Because whatever kernel of biological truth lies at the heart of these findings, the truth is that biology is not some immutable reality for women or for men. We live in complicated societies in which women need not succumb to the darkest rhythms of nature. Take the finding that women are assaulted more than men when they get drunk. As well as saying that young women should take account of male violence, and curtail their own lives because of the danger around them, we must go on demanding that men take responsibility for this violent society.
Earlier feminists made this point repeatedly, but recently the impetus has gone out of this demand (despite a laudable campaign started by Glamour magazine). Those real, concrete reforms that women have for decades been asking for, such as specially trained prosecutors in rape cases, are still being ignored. Is it really time to give up and impress upon young women only the risks that they are taking? Or should we say that it is really time for men to take responsibility for the violence that they commit?
In the debate about child-bearing and child-rearing a similar deafening silence on the role of men is being observed. If women are facing miserable disappointment because they do not take the time out of work early enough in their lives to have children, the reason does not just lie with their own misguided attempts to defy nature.
There are real reasons why young, middle-class women are holding back from child-bearing -- and one is that they know that having children penalizes them in the workplace far more than it penalizes men.
This debate is not, then, just about the cruelty of nature, but about the cruel expectations of workplaces that are built around the working practices of men who sidestep their family responsibilities.
When you are seen as slacking because you're not available to the boss 18 hours a day, how can you find the time to listen to your ovaries rather than to your BlackBerry?
This deafening silence on the responsibilities of men is all the more true for the final piece of bludgeoning research that women have had to deal with in the past few weeks. No one yet knows how accurate or compelling the Families, Children and Childcare study really is, since all that we have to go on are the remarks of Penelope Leach to journalists and conference-goers.
When I managed to talk to one of her coauthors, Alan Stein, he said that it was still an "ongoing analysis" and that the "results have not yet been published."
Yet this unpublished, ongoing study has already been seized on as conclusive evidence for the biological truth that children need their mothers. Absolutely no account has been taken of the possibility that fathers could and should fill the parenting role just as well as mothers, and that children looked after equally by both parents would develop just as well as, if not better than, children who rely only on their hard-pressed mother for attention.
It's time to move beyond these neanderthal posturings that pass for debate on the battle of the sexes.
Or do we really want women to feel that they have no choice but to live a circumscribed life decided by red-toothed nature, while men are free to roam, and rule, the world?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with