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
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