Before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rescinded the nomination of presidential candidate Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), there had been much discussion about two women running for the nation’s top office — and about female politicians in Taiwan.
However, while reserved quotas for female candidates might have served to boost women’s rise in politics, the stereotypes against them seem to require further action.
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) is not the first male politician to have suggested that single women know less about family values than their married counterparts. In calling for a “clean” election without mudslinging that might hurt one’s family members, Chu said: “Even though [Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate] Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is single, she should understand [the potential damage] too.”
The People First Party (PFP), before Hung was replaced, posted a message on Facebook — which it later retracted and apologized for after a cascade of criticism — questioning Hung’s and Tsai’s abilities to come up with good policies given their lack of knowledge about the needs of a family.
PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) apologized to “the nation’s women” for the post, but then weeks later championed the return of the tradition of three generations living under one roof as part of his long-term care policy.
Chu knows that Tsai has relatives, but everyone understood what he was referring to when he insinuated that Tsai’s celibacy might compromise her understanding of family love: Tsai is not a wife, and more importantly, not a mother.
Soong’s long-term care policy is no better than his Facebook blunder. Leaving caretaking duties to families not only presupposes marriage and childbearing, but it also ignores the fact that traditional caretakers in the family are usually females, who are also expected by society to accept the task.
The DPP have also made stereotypical remarks against women, with former presidential adviser Koo Kwang-ming (辜寬敏) having once said, when running against Tsai for the DPP chairmanship in 2008, that the future of the party “should not be entrusted to an unmarried girl.” He later apologized.
It is not singleness that has worried these people, but rather the idea of “single women.”
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who has become known for making such gaffes, said the fact that 30 percent of Taiwan’s women over 30 are unmarried was a “national security crisis.”
It is good news that the remarks have at least been publicly panned. However, what needs to be asked is if such faux pas are so unacceptable, why is there no sign of them abating?
It is not known whether people who make such remarks have ever pondered on the phenomenon of female politicians or professionals being single and asked: “Is it really a coincidence that many prominent female political figures are single? Or is there a systematic barrier to Taiwanese women, in the form of stereotypes and traditions, for them to ‘lean in’?”
Even Hung and Tsai being catapulted to the top of their parties cannot be seen as an indication of true gender equality.
An academic has pointed out that both took over the reins when their parties were in a mess, a phenomenon echoed in a study by US political scientist Diana O’Brien, which found that women are most likely to come to power in parties that are in a predicament, and are — as the replacement of Hung attests — also more likely (than similarly situated men) to leave their leadership posts when the parties are losing votes.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers