A good dressing down
Chang Ming-jen’s letter (Letters, April 17, page 8) concerning the Wenzao Ursuline College dress code stands as a good example of the ubiquitous slut shaming and double standards that remain a central feature of Taiwanese culture.
First, why did Chang feel it necessary to mention the French professor’s experience? Was it perhaps to imply that Taiwanese students should feel lucky not to be beaten up for wearing “skimpy” clothing and if so, is this not a clear case of apologizing for the “she was asking for it” line of argument?
Second, why is it better to “dress up?” Does what a person wears affect their ability to use their intellect or study?
Third, aside from the blanket assumption that “students like to wear skimpy clothing,” why does Chang single out “girls wearing hot pants or revealing clothes on campus” as inappropriate?
Finally, Chang’s ideas for handling “the problem” are both laughable and betray a deep misogyny. Chang’s call for girls to mind the length of their skirts or shorts reminds me of a scene from the film Persepolis in which Iranian police stop a young woman as she is running to class. Their reason is that when she runs her bottom moves in an obscene way. To which the young student brilliantly retorts “then stop staring at it!”
The problem is not young female students and their clothing (I also wonder how Wenzao would cope with transsexuals and their dress codes) but the arcane chauvinism that classifies women as objects of desire and seeks to control their bodies and thoughts, both on and off campus, throughout their lives.
In Taiwan, girls are often forced to wear skirts to high school. Aside from the issue of the not-so-subtle sexual fetishization of a girl’s school uniform, if we accept the argument that skirts are cooler and more comfortable to wear in the summer than trousers, why are boys not allowed to wear skirts?
How a person answers that question can say a lot about how they define male and female, masculinity and femininity. The issue of dress codes is complex and rooted in social constructions of sexuality, gender and identity.
In principle, I have no problem with a dress code for students as long as it is fair, applied equally to all and consistent. The problem is how to introduce dress rules for campus.
If you claim it is “to help students in the outside world” as Wenzao administrators did, all you teach students is that with power comes the ability to be deeply patronizing and inconsistent. If you claim it is to establish a certain aesthetic value on campus, then you need to establish who this rule applies to and when it will go into force.
Since the dress code was not part of the university’s regulations when the students signed up, can they be contractually obliged to obey new rules retroactively? Is this new rule going to be published clearly in the university in all its promotional and marketing material so that prospective students include it as a criterion for judging whether this university is the best fit for them?
If the answers to those questions from the university are, respectively, yes and no, then I think the students have every right to just go ahead and ignore the rule.
Finally, if we are honest, the intent of this rule is as much about regulating sex and female sexual power on campus as it is building a better reputation for the university off campus.
Separate dorms for men and women on many Taiwanese campuses also sends the message that they can’t be trusted to be together. To the university, the students are still children who require it’s patronage, wisdom, tolerance and guidance if they are to become fully functioning adults in the “outside world.”
If Wenzao wants to implement a dress code, then I suggest the following: It should publish the code in all university prospectuses and marketing material at least two years before introducing the rule and it should also require students to read and agree to the dress code as part of a wider, formal legal contract they will sign to enroll as a student.
In addition, dress codes should be drawn up for both male and female students but with no restriction on individual choice of use, current students should be exempt from complying and finally, a dress code for all members of university staff should chosen by the students.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and