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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US