During dinner with a professor from Stanford University and her husband, I was impressed with the husband's very profound understanding of sexual equality.
Upon inquiry, the first explanation he offered was "I have had two very exceptional feminists as wives ... they taught me a lot." In front of his current wife, he described his ex-wife as "talented, an attorney, a profes-sor, a writer ..." His present wife listened with a smile and then interrupted, "Don't forget she is also an artist." The couple talked frankly and comfortably about the "ex."
Such a scene is quite rare in Taiwan society. Usually, we see the ex-spouse as either a shadow from the the past to be avoided and forgotten, or an enemy or target of our relentless attacks.
Why do the two cultures treat separation and parting in such different ways? Perhaps we can begin with an understanding of the different divorce systems.
California has a "no-fault" system, under which, if either party wishes to end the marriage, he or she can file for divorce. The court usually gets involved only when it absolutely has to over matters such as division of community property, alimony payments and custody of children.
The grounds for the divorce itself are of no concern to the court. The emphasis of such a system is "free will." Since a pre-condition to love is mutual affection, if love no longer exists in a marriage built on love, then the will to maintain the marriage is naturally gone. Under the circumstances, there is no need to keep the marriage going against the parties' will.
Divorce in Taiwan can only take place under two circumstances -- "mutual voluntary divorce"(
Many people in Taiwan get a "mutual voluntary divorce" for rather impulsive reasons. For example, rage might have gotten the better of them after learning about their mates' infidelity. Of course, some might have agreed to the divorce in the face of threats, insults or other pressure. Without an equitable division of interests and rights, the couple sign the divorce paper quickly. After they regain their rationality, they often regret their hasty action -- but by then it is too late to do anything about it. The only thing left to do is to vent all the anger and hate on the divorced mate.
As for a court-ordered divorce, one party's refusal to consent to the divorce prevents the court from ordering one, unless the other side has violated one of the "10 commandments" provided in the Family Law. Individual desires are completely ignored. It is also extremely difficult to prove to the court that one's spouse has violated one of the "commandments." This kind of divorce is often a blade that cuts both ways.
The basis for ordering such a divorce is the view that "marriage is a moral responsibility." Unless your spouse has misbehaved in a serious way, this responsibility should not be easily removed. Under such harsh requirements, many couples have continued in unhappy marriages because they cannot get a divorce.
On the other hand, sometimes the "fault-free" side will deliberately refuse to consent to a divorce as a way of punishing the erring spouse. Of course, there are also those who would not agree to a divorce and continue to live with a shell of a marriage for the sake of the children and keeping the family intact.
This polarized system of divorce is actually the culprit for many sub-standard marriages and the breakdown of our culture. To improve the situation and respect an individual's free will, women's groups have proposed adopting legal amendments based on the spirit of California's "no-fault" divorce and a system of separation under which anyone who has been separated from his or her spouse for a period of five years or more may file for divorce.
A pre-condition to a "no-fault" divorce in Taiwan is adequate supplemental legal measures. Taiwan's law is still very incompatible with the principle of sexual equality in areas such as alimony and the division of marital property, although improvements have been made to the law governing the award of custody of children.
Although an amendment on the division of martial property has been submitted to the Legislative Yuan, unless the bill passed is the version endorsed by women's groups, many women will remain unwilling to support separation for fear of losing both their mates and money. The proposed bill provides for protection of one party when the other party sells off marital property.
With increasing social changes, a decreasing number of women are willing to be locked into sub-standard marriages. The solution to our problems, besides supporting the legislation proposed by the women's groups, is an re-evaluation of the meaning of marriage. How do we humanize the institution of marriage? This is perhaps the key to decreasing friction between the sexes.
Su Chien-ling is the chairperson of the Awakening Foundation.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
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.
RSS