Should Surrogacy be legalized in Taiwan

 yenlin ku  27/05/2024

The Ministry of Health and Welfare introduced a draft revision of the Assisted Reproduction Act last week, adding a new chapter to legalize surrogacy. It specified that "surrogacy should be an altruistic act, not a commercial endeavor for profit." Accordingly, the draft recognizes the surrogate neither as the biological or legal mother of the child nor as a paid laborer. It prohibits the use of her eggs in the conception; and she must surrender motherhood to the intended parents at the birth of the child. Yet she could receive no wage except a limited amount of compensation for nutrition or supplements, required counseling, medical care, transportation, insurance, and loss of work hours. However, she is obliged to perform motherly duties and adhere to the Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act, refraining from tobacco and alcohol. Moreover, on top of previous experience of pregnancy and childbirth, she must work non-stop for over nine months at the risk of her own life and health.

The Chinese Translation of the term "radical feminism"

       Yenlin Ku

         In the early 20^th century the English word “radical” was translated to ”激進” in Chinese and the term has been widely used ever since. As a result, “radical feminism” was translated to ”激進女性主義” in the 1970s. However, when it came to the 1990s, Fu Da-wei, a male history professor in Taiwan, argued that the translation should be switched to ”基進女性主義” , because the root of the English word “radical” is “root”. ”基” (meaning “basic” and ”fundamental”) in Chinese implies that change should come from the bottom. Many academics quickly replaced ”激進” with ”基進”. However, fundamentalism connotes a sense of strict adherence to the literal interpretation of scripture. In that case, ”基進” is poles apart from the critical and revolutionary nature of ”激進”.

 

      Furthermore, “基進”, a newly coined term, is unfamiliar to the majority of Chinese readers. Some consider it a purely academic usage. On the other hand, “激進” is popular and easy to understand. With its radical(部首) “water”, “激” pictures the splash and turbulence when fast flowing water runs into obstruction. The image of splashing and turbulent water reminds me of the vigorous and passionate struggle of the young feminists in the 1970s. Besides, “激進” also means complete and progressive changes.

從研究「婦女」到女性主義觀點研究：一探婦女研究在台灣的發展脈絡 From Studying "Women" to Feminist Studies-- Women's Studies in Taiwan

 台北女書店2021年11月13日線上研討會 On-line conference by fembooks in Taipei

顧燕翎

   1.    獨立新學門或整合入傳統學門（autonomous vs integrated）

  婦女運動一向有全球化性格，婦女研究則是20世紀中期婦運的產物，嚴格來說，源自美國大學校園，所以探討台灣的婦女研究不能只把眼光放在台灣，需要放在世界的脈絡中來看。

1970年代前後，年輕女性熱情投入婦運，卻發覺傳統學科沒法回答我們的問題，才感到需要開發女人自己的問題意識、理論和研究方法來開發屬於女人的知識。這是婦女研究的起點，也是婦研界的共識。但是差別在於如何達成目標：婦研應當發展成一個獨立的學術領域，有自己的機構、人事和預算；或者女性主義者應當加入固有的學術領域，從事女性主義觀點的研究，在各學科內部從事改造。這兩種立場也是1985年聯合國在Nirobi舉辦的第三屆世界婦女大會的重要論辯之一。

主張發展獨立的學術領域的人認為婦研需要自己的理論、方法論和方法，若加入傳統學術領域，婦女成為一個研究變項，將無法改變既有的理論、方法論和方法，一個常用的比喻是”add women and stir”，好像做蛋糕，多加一個配料，讓口味更豐富一點而已，無法產生深刻的改變，無法生產新的知識。

女性主義經典選讀 導言 顧燕翎

貓頭鷹出版社出版

　　二十世紀以前人類歷史主要由男人在發聲、在行動、在記錄；女人默默地被觀看、被占用，鮮有主體性思考，更難以流傳後世。女性主義創造了改變的契機，一代接一代，個別的或集體的女人嘗試撥開父權和資本主義陰霾，在陽光裡照見自己，發掘問題，尋找答案，書寫出自己和其他女人的需要和感覺，連結理論，發展行動，終於改變自己和世界。 　　

　　女性主義萌發於十八世紀後半的歐洲，少數女性受自由主義啟發，個人自主意識覺醒，開始以女人的身分發言，爭取自由、平等、獨立，被稱為自由主義女性主義；集結為團體時則傾向於推動體制內改革，史稱婦權運動或女權運動(women’s rights movement)。十九世紀末，社會主義興起，激發了社會主義女性以「合作的集體主義」取代「自私的個人主義」，試圖將女人從家務和個別的家庭生活中解放出來。二十世紀晚期，年輕知識女性反對階級、種族歧視，參與左派陣營，卻發現以民主和平等為號召的男性領導者歧視女性，乃脫離左派，開始深根性別議題、落實民主參與，自稱激進女性主義，或婦女解放運動（婦解，women’s liberation movement）。 

　　女性主義因女性自覺而生，首度從女性觀點看世界，既需要新創理論分析，尤重實踐和成效檢驗。以上三種基本女性主義站在不同立場互相批判、各自反省、也彼此影響，並與外在變動不居的政治、經濟、社會環境互動，發展出更多元、複雜的論點，從追求女性個人主體性、男女平等的出發點，延伸到探究公平正義的社會、政治、經濟結構，乃至人與萬物的關聯、地球生態的永續存活。論述之間有不同立場的對立衝突，也有融合修正；從早期對純粹理想的堅持，對父權規範的敵視，逐漸接受人群之間以及人與萬物互相依存的現實，朝向既重視自由、理性，也珍惜情感和歸屬需求，而願意協商修訂社會規範，當然協商的基礎必須建立在女性群體累積了足夠的政治、經濟、文化實力之上。

　　兩百年來女性主義者持續的努力已經創造了可見的改變，也留下了思辨的紀錄和行動的履痕，本書試圖從多面向重現女性主義者的心路歷程和重要論述。 全書共分八章：一、女性意識覺醒、二、性別角色反思、三、父權管轄的女體、四、女性情欲和同女發聲、五、婦運初心、六、女性主義新世界、七、理論檢驗與重構、八、策略選擇與行動。與舊版相比，本書在理論方面搜集得更完整，多篇譯文也經主編一再校訂，以求更精確傳達作者原意。新增第五章﹤婦運初心﹥，著重在婦女運動的策略和行動，收納了一百多年來從歐美到非洲的婦運宣言，包括個人的、團體的和全球性的（聯合國）。其中非洲婦女的自我反省值得本地女性主義者引為借鑒。新增的第六章﹤女性主義新世界﹥則添加了生態女性主義和女性主義經濟學對當前資本主義經濟模式的檢討。作者們擔心地球資源有限，無限擴展生產和消費、將勞工「家庭主婦化」的結果，不僅剥削南半球人民、拉大貧富差距，更將帶來人類和生態浩劫，因此設法規劃永續生存以及分享與互助的新生活型態。在氣候極端化和病毒肆虐全球的今日，義意特別重大。第七章有關理論部分，增加了對（曾經十分政治正確）的社運的無結構組織型態的反省，也加入了對近期受到矚目的「新自由主義女性主義」的剖析。整體而言，本書涵蓋了女性主義對父權和資本主義社會的分析、批判，婦運的軌跡、自省，也包括前瞻性的另類思考和方案。

《女性主義經典》更新版 即將由貓頭鷹出版社出版

出版緣起

顧燕翎

 　　本書與貓頭鷹出版社2020年再版的《女性主義理論與流變》都是專門為華文讀者編寫的女性主義基本讀物。《理論與流變》介紹女性主義的歷史淵源、理論架構和論述演變；《經典》則重在重現兩百年來重要代表性著作，為理論的枝幹添加繁花茂葉，讓讀者得以透過閱讀經典，一窺女性主義脈絡究竟。

 　　本書舊版曾於1999年出版，獲得當年度聯合報十大好書獎，與《女性主義理論與流變》的前身《女性主義理論與流派》在女書店並稱鎮店之寶。本次改版保留了近半經典之作，同時也增補了過去的遺珠和近二十年的重要論著，並更正舊版的諸多翻譯失誤。

 　　在各章主題下，文章按照最初發表時間的先後次序排列，方便讀者在深入論述之餘，也得以體察女性主義思想和婦運的歷史脈絡。每篇文章都附註出處，有心的讀者可以更進一步尋得全文或全書，深探究竟；各篇的作者介紹也比舊版更為完整詳細；書後附有名詞索引，方便讀者查索比對。種種努力不外乎期望幫助讀者更親近女性主義，獲得更深刻的感動，並且慢慢吸吮其中的養分。

 　　時空橫亙兩百年，寫作格式有差異，同一作者的相關作品在時間上跨越數十年也有所修正，且因涉及眾多作者和出版社，版權複雜，本書的文章有的直接翻譯原典，有些文章以摘譯、改寫、介紹或評論的方  式呈現；也有的央請中文作者親自濃縮改寫論文。感謝許多作者、譯者、出版社不計代價，鼎力相助，感謝《女性人》、《婦女新知》、《婦女研究論叢》介紹西方經典作品的努力，也感謝貓頭鷹出版社再接再厲，努力出版好書。

 　　希望所有的成果與讀們共享。

Roe vs Wade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

女性主義理論與流變第二版問世 Feminisms 2nd edition

Editor's Note

顧燕翎  Yenlin Ku

  

　　人類社會在二十世紀發生了許多重大變化，前後兩波婦女運動雖不若兩次世界大戰般驚天動地，卻緩慢而深遠地改變個人、家庭、社會、文化、政治…。半世紀以來台灣受到全球婦運洗禮，也不斷調整腳步，在法律和制度上產生了諸多變革，例如民法親屬編的修訂、性別工作平等法、性別平等教育法、性侵害犯罪防治法的通過、公務人必須接受性別平等教育等等。感謝貓頭鷹出版社願意慎重看待這場逆勢向上的性別革命，在譯介了西蒙波娃的巨著第二性以後，再規劃出版女性主義理論、經典和婦女運動系列，讓身處於歷史浪潮中的讀者得以從理念和行動兩個角度，一窺社會變遷的來龍去脈，了解女性先覺者們如何分析問題、尋找答案，以及曾經的行動和掙扎。期望讀者們在知識的基礎上可以更清楚透視歷史和自己當下的處境，參與女性主義對話，共同想像和建構美好的未來。

　　第二版的女性主義理論與流變封面顏色變得略呈金色，在內容上沒有很大變動，僅就排版失誤、錯別字部分和少數誤失加以修正，英文部分的標點符號從全書一貫的中式全形改為英文通用的半形；為了讀者便於查閱，註解也從每一章的後面移到每一頁的下方。

　　

　　和貓頭鷹編輯張瑞芳合作了一年多，很感受到貓頭鷹出版社的專業水準和敬業態度，在出版業普遍低迷的今日，仍願意堅守崗位，努力提供心智養分，盼望讀者們能從中獲益，並且給與鼓勵支持。

顧燕翎著台灣婦女運動──爭取性別平等的漫漫長路 新增及勘誤 The Women's Movement in Taiwan ---- Additions and Errata

新增

自序  

顧燕翎

　　我前後花了很長時間來寫台灣婦女運動，中間曾因各種原因停擺，包括接任婦女新知董事長、進入台北市政府工作…。最後堅持下來，最重要的原因是不想放棄以女性的身分發聲，想從女人的角度寫歷史，尤其是眼見當今台灣「性別運動」即將（或已經）取代婦女運動之際。本書的副標題：爭取性別平等的漫漫長路，便意在取回「性別平等」的定義權，避免女性改造父權尚未竟功便遭擠壓出局，回到無聲無息的起點。

Melinda Gates

Melinda Gates, Feminist of the 21^st Century (English Summary)

Yenlin Ku 

September 13, 2019

    Melinda Gates is the daughter that liberal feminists have dreamed of and strived for since the 19^th century.

Women Mobilized against Sexual Harassment

http://www.seniorwomen.com/news/index.php/kavanaugh-confirmation-led-by-the-center-for-popular-democracy-and-mobilized-by-different-groups-protestors-were-overwhelmingly-female-mostly-middle-aged

To Shulie: With Whom It All Began

Shulamith Firestone died last month. http://nplusonemag.com/     

Jo Freeman
http://www.jofreeman.com/
　

I met Shulie at the National Conference for New Politics, held in Chicago over the Labor Day weekend in 1967. It was an unsuccessful attempt to unite the organized Left behind a presidential ticket that would campaign against the war in Viet Nam. A couple women who were not themselves part of the Left had persuaded the conference organizers to give them some space for a women’s caucus. Black caucuses at such meetings were common and accepted, but one for women was by itself radical.

Shulie was one of about four dozen women who met daily to hammer out a resolution that called attention to women’s issues – equal pay, childcare, abortion on demand and other things that today don’t seem very radical. She didn’t say much, but what she did say stuck in my mind. I would now characterize her views as radical feminism uncontaminated by left-wing rhetoric – something that one didn’t often encounter in those days.

The 2010 Election: What Does it Mean for Women?

  Jo Freeman

The American people are angry.  They have shown it by voting against the party in power three elections in a row.  In 2006 and 2008 they voted against the Republicans.  In 2010 they voted against the Democrats and did so overwhelmingly.  This switch resulted in one of the largest midterm loss of seats in the House in US history.

Why Men Shouldn't Vote

a satire
Jo Freeman


It's time for a new Constitutional Amendment. We should modify the 19th Amendment to allow states to limit the franchise to women. Too many times men have shown that they lack the emotional balance to cast a reasoned vote for candidates for public office. When at least one of those candidates is a woman, their hormones take over.

Women against Sarah Palin

Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters,


We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farceon the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidatethat has a real possibility of becoming fact.

Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet.


We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and all together devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so demonstrably benefited from.


First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly.


Therefore, we invite you to reply here with a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in this country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command for our nation.


Please include your name (last initial is fine), age, and place of residence.


We will post your responses on a blog called "Women Against Sarah Palin," which we intend to publicize as widely as possible. Please send us your reply at your earliest conveniencethe greater the volume of responses we receive, the stronger our message will be.


Thank you for your time and action.


VIVA!


Sincerely,


Quinn Latimer and Lyra Kilston
New York, NY
womensaynopalin@gmail.com


...
Robin Kline, MS, RD, CCP
Savvy Food Communications
Box 41485
Des Moines, IA 50311
515-255-6376
Fax 515-277-3506
robinlkline@msn.com
(Note "L" between Robin and Kline)

Sarah Palin: A Risky Move and A Gift to the Women's Movement

Jo Freeman


Thank you, John McCain!

Never thought I would say those words, but McCain's selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin was a godsend to the women's movement.

With Hillary out of the picture, there was a serious possibility that women and women's issues would be ignored in the 2008 election. After all, there are so many other concerns fighting for air time from the candidates. Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, housing, climate change, budget deficits ....the list goes on and on. The Bush Presidency has left us holding so many problems that "women" could well have dropped to the bottom of the list.

Not now.

Women have been roughly 60 percent of the Democratic base since 1980. Since anyone who looks at the platforms of the two parties knows that women's interests (well ... the feminist view of women's interests) are best served by the Democrats, the Party has tended to take the women's vote for granted.

There's been a lot of talk in the last few years about how the Democrats need to appeal to men more, because white men are more likely to vote Republican. McCain's selection of a woman as a running-mate puts the women's vote into play.

His choice for VP indicates that he thinks he can shave off a piece of that population who are still unhappy with how Hillary was treated. It's a small piece, but a small piece of a large population is still a lot of votes. It was a bold choice. A brilliant choice. A risky choice.

It's also a sign of desperation. Politicians don't make bold, risky choices, unless they think they have a lot to gain, or a lot to lose.

The first rule in choosing a vice presidential candidate is do no harm. Don't pick anyone who might turn off a portion of the electorate. When McGovern's first choice for running-mate in 1972 turned out to have been treated for depression, he was quickly replaced. In 1972, any history of mental illness was a turn-off (though we now know that many Presidents have suffered from depression, especially one of our greatest — Abraham Lincoln).

That's one of many reasons why Obama couldn't choose Hillary Clinton. Hillary hold-outs won't face the fact that there is a strata of the voting population who thoroughly dislike her, in addition to those who feel the same way about Bill. Those voters didn't count for much in the Democratic primaries, but they will in November.

Obama didn't need the Clinton baggage. This is a Democratic year. Because the election is his to loose, he needed to chose someone safe to run with. Senator Joe Biden was a very traditional, safe choice. Sarah Palin isn't.

Besides her gender, she has the additional virtue (from a Republican perspective) of being very conservative on all the issues which appeal to the Republican base — the voters Republicans are afraid will stay home on election day because McCain doesn't agree with them on absolutely every thing. The McCain campaign clearly hopes that having Palin on the ticket will encourage Democratic base voters to stay home (or even vote for McCain in order to vote for a woman) and Republican base voters to come out in droves.

Is this likely to happen?

Walter Mondale made an equally risky choice when he chose Geraldine Ferraro as the first woman to run for Vice President on a major party ticket in 1984. It was a bold, risky choice in a Republican year. Ferraro was attacked viciously by Republicans, who particularly went after her husband's finances.

Like Hillary's 2008 run for President, Ferraro's 1984 run for the second spot brought all sorts of sexism out of the closet. It was an eye-opener for everyone. In the end, this bold, risky choice didn't seem to affect the outcome. The exit polls showed that having a woman on the ticket was a prime concern for only a few. These voters about equally divided between those who told pollsters that they voted for a woman and those who said they voted against one.

Ferraro's candidacy had a bigger effect on those who answered the annual polling question (in a different poll): Would you vote for “a well-qualified woman of your own party for President”? After Ferraro a party gap appeared. Republicans were 50 percent more likely than Democrats to answer "No." Republicans have continued to say they would not vote for a well-qualified (but unnamed) woman for President at a much higher rate than Democrats.

Wonder what they will tell the pollsters this year?

A new beginnning? My thoughts at the finale of the Democratic convention

Jo Freeman

On July 15, 1960, my mother took me to the L.A. Coloseum to hear John F. Kennedy accept the Democratic Party's nomination for President. She had been an ardent support of Adlai Stevenson and was disappointed that he didn't get a third bite at the apple, but she knew that this was an historic occasion. She wanted her 14-year-old daughter to see it, in person, and not on a TV screen.

I thought about that day many times as I sat in Denver's Invesco Center waiting for Barack Obama to accept the Democratic Party's nomination. This too was an historic occasion, and I wanted to be there.

Like their counterparts in 1960, Party planners chose the largest arena available for their candidate to accept the Democratic Party's nomination for President so ordinary members of the public could see history being made in person.

Like his predecessor, Barack Obama spoke eloquently, and told the world that it was a time for change. He didn't coin a new phrase as Kennedy did, but he did inspire new hope.

It was in his acceptance speech that Kennedy gave his Presidency its label -- the New Frontier. He said “We stand today on the edge of a new frontier — the frontier of the 1960s -- a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils -- a frontier of unfilled hopes and unfilled threats.”

JFK was a better prophet than anyone knew at the time, but the New Frontier was not where he thought it was.

The new frontier of the 1960s was in the movements for civil rights and civil liberties that were just beginning. It was the youth of the 1960s who were providing the "new invention, innovation and imagination" that Kennedy called for.

They did it with their bodies.

On February 1, 1960 four black college students occupied the white-only seats of a five-and-dime lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. This was the start of the sit-ins which would shape so much of the sixties civil rights movement. Although the movement had started earlier, the idea of sitting in caught the imagination of American youth and inspired sit-ins all over the country.

One of those youth was John Lewis of Troy, Alabama. The sit-ins led to the formation of the Student Non-Violent Co-ordinating Committee (SNCC). On August 28, 1963, Lewis, as the new chairman of SNCC, was one of the main speakers at the March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made his famous "I had a dream" speech.

Exactly forty-five years later, I watched Cong. Lewis of Georgia tell the assembled multitudes in the Invesco Center (and the world watching on TV) about that day, while on a large screen above the Center, photos flashed of Dr. King and other scenes from the civil rights movement. His talk was followed by that of two of King's children.

The 1963 March on Washington was controversial at the time. President Kennedy had tried to keep it from happening.
Now it was being celebrated as the Democratic Party nominated a black man for President -- one whose very conception (black father, white mother) was a felony in many states when JFK was President.

The dream of which Dr. King spoke is not yet fulfilled, Cong. Lewis told the Democrats, but it "still burns in the hearts of every American." He called the nomination of Barack Obama "a major down payment on the fulfillment of that dream."

However, there is another dream that was part of the New Frontier of the 1960s that is threatened with forclosure. That is the dream of every American to speak, write and think freely, and to conduct their lives without government surveilliance.

The Cold War put a major crimp on civil liberties, as government agencies were allowed to persecute ordinary Americans under the banner of ferreting out subversives.

In May of 1960 hundreds of Bay Area college students protested outside hearings held by the House Un-American Activities Committee, meeting in San Francisc's City Hall. They were washed down the steps with firehouses and 67 were arrested, but HUAC never came back to the Bay Area.

This event marked the beginning of the movement to regain the civil liberties lost in the Cold War security fever. It took 40 years of struggle to restore civil liberties and rein in government intelligence gatherers.

After September 11, 2001, in the name of security, government once again is nibbling away at American civil liberties. Only now they do it in the name of uncovering terrorists.

The Democrats ignored that parallel in the speeches and the imagery of the last night of the convention.

I hope they won't ignore it when they take back the federal government.