Not long ago, there were media reports of disputes over pin jin (聘金), betrothal money presented to the family of a bride-to-be at the engagement ceremony.
I have also seen in real life and online how couples break up due to a different understanding of betrothal money or after failing to agree on the amount.
Even in this era of gender equality, the issue still affects wedding preparations.
Offering betrothal money is not exclusive to Taiwan. US anthropologist George Murdock in 1967 published a database on marriage in 1,167 preindustrial societies, showing that the custom existed in two-thirds of the societies.
The custom mainly originated from the payment given by the groom’s side to the bride’s side in exchange for her work and fertility in an agricultural society, including producing children, bringing offerings to gods and ancestors, and doing housework.
The amount was often a financial burden for families.
Taiwan used to be an agricultural society, in which betrothal money was a key part of a marriage proposal, but the social economy and gender awareness have changed.
Many people consider marriage a shared responsibility and expect the two parties to be treated equally. They no longer accept presenting betrothal money, which turns marriage into a business deal.
However, some people subconsciously adhere to traditional thinking and give gifts of money to the bride’s parents, as a thank you for how they raised their daughter and as a sign of their expectation that the bride fulfill her “obligations,” such as producing children and doing housework.
The Cabinet’s proposed bill on same-sex marriage — “the enforcement act of Judicial Yuan Constitutional Interpretation No. 748” (司法院釋字第748號解釋施行法) — is based on rules for heterosexual marriage in the Civil Code’s Family Chapter.
In refashioning the rules for same-sex couples, the bill downplays the traditional concept of marriage and its expectation of fixed roles.
Unlike husbands and wives in heterosexual marriages, whose roles have been scripted, same-sex couples could forge marriages with equal, flexible roles.
From the location of the couple’s residence to the selection of their children’s surname and given name to the distribution of housework and the worship of gods and ancestors, they can rely on equality and negotiation, as each tries to craft a win-win situation.
The draft act not only provides a legal basis for protecting the rights of same-sex unions, but also liberates husbands and wives who have been oppressed by societal expectations of their roles in the heterosexual marriage system.
Same-sex marriage can serve as an example, showing that each partner in a marriage does not need to play a fixed role, and that a marriage does not need to center on a specific gender.
All is beneficial when the parties living together reach an agreement through equal negotiation.
The realization of same-sex marriage and its example is likely to spark the imagination of heterosexual couples in terms of gender equality.
This will give husbands and wives a chance to free themselves of traditional gender roles and enjoy a more equal and comfortable married life. As such a win-win situation for society, why would anyone oppose it?
Wu Tsui-sung is a professor at National United University’s Institute of Hakka Language and Communication.
Translated by Eddy Chang
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS