Just when we start to think that Taiwanese men have finally decided to join the rest of us in the 21st century, some knuckle-dragging throwback to the days of "Chung nan, ching nu" (
One such incident involves an internal memo circulated by the personnel department of the Chinese Industrial Development Bank (
As a Taiwanese female, I am used to the myriad ways in which men discriminate against women here, but the sexism in this memo was so blatant it demanded a response.
What possible reason could the bank have for ordering women not to wear pants? In Western nations, pants are the clothing of choice for working women simply because they are comfortable and convenient (something men have known for centuries). As any woman will tell you, skirts can be a nuisance: if they are too long, they get in the way when you walk, but if they are too short, you have to guard your modesty carefully every time you sit down.
In Taiwan, many women ride scooters to work, and skirts are a definite handicap. When driving, you have to be careful not to flash oncoming traffic, but at the same time, you have to hike your skirt up in order to place a leg on either side of the scooter for balance when you stop. The situation gets even worse if you have to ride as a passenger.
Remember when women used to ride sidesaddle on the backs of scooters? This was in fact the only way to ride while wearing a skirt because it allowed you to keep your legs together. It was also an extremely dangerous practice, and the government eventually banned sidesaddle "scootering."
Unfortunately, they were unable to stop companies from forcing their female employees to wear skirts, which means that every day thousands of women still have to struggle to preserve their dignity while commuting.
Given a choice, many women may well prefer to wear skirts, but the decision should be left to the individual. If pants are considered appropriate office attire for men, why not allow women to enjoy the same comfort and convenience?
Sadly, the simple logic of this argument has failed to sway many of the nation's bosses. Many companies with uniformed staff still provide females with tight, short skirts while the men wear pants. Even in companies without uniforms, women are "encouraged" to wear skirts in the belief that this is proper attire for females.
The China Industrial Development Bank stands out simply because its memo made explicit a widely followed but generally unwritten rule prohibiting women from wearing pants. The fact that the bank was bold enough to put this rule in writing indicates that the male management sees nothing wrong with this sexist attitude.
When pressed by reporters, senior staff at the bank stated that custom and etiquette require women to wear dresses. Well, I have a news flash for these fellows: if old customs never changed, we women would still be hobbling around on bound feet, while the men would be tripping over their queues.
These men will have to modernize their views on women in the workplace, and they had better do it sooner rather than later. If not, we will just have to send Vice President Annette Lu (
Bonnie Hsieh is a freelance writer based in Taipei.
[Editors note: The bank has reversed its policy. See story on page 2]
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS