When my parents were married, probably only a very small portion of adult Taiwanese were unmarried or had no children.
However, by 2010, after deducting the population under the age of 18, the ratio of unmarried to married people was close to or perhaps even surpassed 1:1. That is, the claim that the family structure of one man, one woman; one husband, one wife; together with their biological children — which is frequently repeated by the Alliance of Taiwan Religious Groups for the Protection of the Family (護家盟) — is the mainstream family structure in Taiwan, is no longer true, or at the very least is rapidly disappearing.
The structure of families in Taiwan is very diverse. It can consist of a single man or woman; grandparents raising children; married couples without children; divorcees; widows or widowers; adoptive parents; gay or lesbian parents; cohabiting families and so on. Upholding the form and value of traditional families is tantamount to using marriage and family values of a patriarchal age to hurt and belittle those who do not fit the system.
A friend of mine grew up in a single-parent family. She said that she had a happy childhood and that the self-righteous sympathy with which people from traditional families treated her caused her unhappiness.
Society also judges single people, married couples without children, grandparents raising children, divorced couples, adoptive parents, cohabiting families and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Happiness should never be defined by society. It is created by ourselves, but the people who uphold traditional one husband, one wife family values are forcing others, who are clearly as many as 50 percent of the population, to accept their definition of what constitutes a family or a happy family. They are forcing people living in non-traditional family structures to accept a categorization as less than perfect, not normal and not deserving of happiness.
It is difficult to understand why so many people who do not fit the “traditional” mold are not upset by this. Why should they accept the domination, bullying and definitions of these so-called protectors of “traditional” family culture? They are leading their lives, but are defined as being unhappy and less than perfect by society and culture, and silently accept being looked down upon.
We hear these calls for a return to traditional family values and see how the patriarchal societal values attempt to turn cultural diversity back toward a single dominating culture, but the importance of cultural diversity is that it protects different kinds of people and different kinds of family compositions, enabling them to live without discrimination.
The campaign to promote marriage equality does not only work to defend LGBT rights, but also to protect a diversity of values, people, and families against discrimination. A return to the “traditional” patriarchal family value system would only exaggerate the arrogance and self-righteousness of those promoting conventional family values.
This is a cultural war. All those who have been oppressed by “traditional” family values should stand up against discrimination. Everyone has to define their own wellbeing and should not let it be defined by others.
When we assume that something is irrelevant, the environment that takes shape has a direct influence on each of us. The campaign to support marriage equality is a cultural campaign in defense of non-traditional families, as they protect themselves as well as others who need protection.
Wang Wei-ching is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS