Participants: Vina Peter Robert Wilson
See: The Culture of the Market
My position is, ‘yes and no’. I would say ‘yes’ for young people and the answer ‘no’ is maybe for older people. Because I would say the young people want to have more power to control their economic, and also young people are very active in the society, so the culture of the market will have the more influence to this young people. However, for older people, I would say, since the older people have their living style, and they trust they want to do something, and trust they want to own something, so the culture of the market doesn’t have much affection to the older people. So, in short, my answer, yes for young people, it will break the relationship between the young people. it’s not really to the older people, so this is effect is no.
I have a question first, could you give us a brief description concerning the culture of the market. What the main characteristics are? Because I’ve been thinking for awhile, and I couldn’t define what is the culture of the market exactly.
I remember last week, the same question to raise, and I interpret is as, it’s like an evolution for the marketing, or stuffs happened in the market, so it includes the promotion campaign, it includes the economic activities, that’s my interpretation. Last week I also asked this question, why use the ‘culture’.
For my definition, something like the media, they let you to think about the way you perceiving the world, like, how to say, so the market means the, you learn from the marked, from the media, you told you what you should think , how you see the world, is influence by them.
Well, it’s not yet defined in my mind, that’s why I wanted to talk to you guys about this. When I think about it, what comes up for me is this. I was a child in the 70s, and Milwaukee was in an economic slump, and it seemed that, like in terms of clothes, it was like if you had a really pretty skirt on, you were dressed up. But when we got to the 80s, it was like, you had to have an ‘outfit’. Your shoes and earrngs had to match, all the pieces had to go together, but nothing was individually very valuable. You couldn’t just wear a pretty skirt anymore, it wasn’t enough. Before, clothes were very expensive, it’s one reason my mom was making ours, and we learned to sew. But in the 80s, clothes got cheap, you know? And everyone had to be in an outfit, and start following the styles in magazines very closely. But you know, maybe it was the difference between being a kid and being a teenager? I don’t know. The other thing I think about, was soup. We always had soup on Sunday, sometimes homemade, sometimes out of a can. But in the 80s, we started having soups from packets, individual servings of soup. That’s like, you know, so manufactured, so marketed. It was like my mom getting seduced by convenience.
I don’t know, I was young then, so I can only talk about clothes and soup, but I’m trying to express that I felt a difference in the pace and texture of life.
In my experience, it was 1990s to the 2000s. Because I graduated from my masters degree in 1991, and began to work, and it was like a big jump from the 90’s to the 2000s. I remember in the late 90s we used a cell phone, but before then, we didn’t. After we used cell phones our connection way was totally different. And now for 2000, cell phone, everyone has one, and they use msn, they don’t use a cell phone. They hook on the internet to use instant message all the time. So if you want to connect with them, you have to use msn. So the marketing is changed, and the human relationship is also changed.
They recorded some movie, called Wall-E, and they talk about the future, and the technology development in the movie is everyone talks to each other through screens, but with no microphones. You just sit next to me and we talk, no need to type. But without really seeing people and touching people, because it’s too convenient, but its just a screen. So this is like the technology development affects people, its like close, but really distance. Now we have skype, connect those distant. Now we don’t live in the neighborhood, and so skype is very convenient, but we get used to that kind of interaction, instead of real interaction, we talk with each other, but we don’t spend time really be with somebody. So yes, our relationship is really broken. I also notice mainland China is really serious problems in this. Because most of china don’t really share culture. Because of the Cultural Revolution. So they don’t have anything in common except capitalism and money. the only thing they trust is money, so they don’t really trust each other, and those relationships are so called created, not natural relationships. Natural, is your born as my friend, in my neighborhood, not my workmate. It’s that I needed this relationship, so I created this relationship.
So your position is ‘yes’. My position is I think still quite uncertain. I would rewrite the question like this. I think the market is reshaping our relationships with each other, is continuing to reshape. But not broken. If you think of traditional relationships, they would be broken, but the the style is changing.
You’re saying the old style is broken.
The relationship is still there, just the way is different.
Too complicated!
But I think indeed, that many traditional values are no more that important for many people. So many people see this as a problem.
Of course everyone notice the recent problem with mainland china and milk. This is a surprise but not a surprise. Because the culture there is ‘didn’t care about others’. I think the market of the culture in mainland china is really different from what we thought, and that’s why I so surprised that they can do these things in the food. And I, so, I just want to ask you about, what do you thinks about this kind of market cultures in china. How do you define?
So what’s your real question, how do they define?
How do you feel about the—
I think the poison in the milk really change the mutual trust between the consumer and the vendor. And it’s a difference, it seems global, has been globalized. Because the major, the stockholder of the San Lu milk factory company is new Zealand, it occupy over 40%. So the supply chain is very complicated.
Not only ‘made in china’ problem.
So many raw material, semi product, finished product, the transaction process very complicated. It caused the problem, many parents in Taiwan don’t know which brand is reliable. Even in Taiwan we have some—
Made in Taiwan, but—
—the dead body of the pig, the pork, but I think the market, maybe I foresee in the future, is a good opportunity for our gvt to promote every mother to feed your baby with breast milk.
Oh, don’t get me started on the unethical marketing of breast milk! It’s why I’ll have nothing to do with Nestle in any form. You know they pay actresses in poor countries to go into hospitals dressed as nurses and tell poor women that milk powder is better for their babies than breast milk? I think that’s really evil!
But it’s a food safety issue.
But it’s a marketing issue, is my point.
But you can see that this kind of situation make us feel others more! Like your question, because we can’t really trust those who provide things for us. We know that we feel more about them.
I have another opinion, to the same topic. As Peter said, maybe it’s a problem for the globalization, because the supply chain include a lot of countries, involved in different groups around the world. So, as Vina says, how do we trust another countries, or you feel other country, for example you don’t trust the goods from mainland china.
Not just countries. You don’t really trust the market. The market is not really trustable.
So if you don’t trust it, why do you want to buy?
No, at first you trust, so you buy things, but now we find it’s not worthy of trust. Now we find everything has the connection. So now we have the milk scandal. So you think nothing to do with me, I don’t drink milk.
But you don’t drink milk tea?
Right, now you realize, you drink milk tea, and then you eat bread, and red bean cake, and I give chocolate cookies to my children, from Japan, but now, it’s in everything! So I’m so scared. Before I check the place who made it, but now it’s no use. I don’t know where the raw material’s from. We should have the right to know what we eat, but we don’t have that right, because from that scandal, there’s too many things we need to know.
But we are the end customer, we don’t have to think to much, we trust the brand.
But her point is we cannot.
I know it’s hard, but if you don’t trust, what can you do?
You stop buying things, and then the economy goes to the shitter.
But you do need some things, how can you make them yourself?
But right now, you feel it’s nothing, it’s not affect your life, but what if it’s your kids in the hospital and dying? My professor in Jiautong university, he’s the first one in Taiwan to have the Crohn’s disease. He’s the first one in Taiwan, he’s a professor. It traced back, it’s a rare situation in Taiwan. Now he’s already died. The reason is a few years ago, when he was abroad for the doctor degree in the US, he ate something contaminated.
So the only way we can do is to establish the monitory system?
Do you trust the gvt to monitor well?
We have to trust them to do this, and other monitoring organizations to do this kind of work. It’s the only way we can do.
But I think the sense, the culture, for instance in Japan there’s some scandal, but in general we will trust them.
But in Japan, there’s tons of these scandals, it’s just that people are whistle blowing, it’s too expensive for them.
It’s that they built up the system, so they follow the system for inspecting the food and manufactured goods. So the develop country, the most of the important thing is they establish how to establish the system and how to perform the system well, not related to citizen quality or citizen education. I mean the developed country have the experience to build up the situation. They have.
But the citizens do matter! Look at the wall street meltdown, not enough oversight? They just didn’t implement!
But look at after 911, the US did an oversight system, but only for US, not everyone else. So for the international affair, it’s difficult. For the WTO, do you think they can solve the globalization problem? I don’t think. It’s a platform to improve int’l trading, but it’s not guarantee equality or efficiency, it’s not that capability. They just establish a platform for communication. Back to Taiwan, for the tainted milk. It’s a local problem, it’s a Taiwan problem, not a US problem.
But if they sourced cheap milk powder from china, then it is a problem.
I know they care about the toys, the lead in the paint.
People already raise the lead paint issue, and Americans already feel bad about china, because of losing jobs to them, and so it was marketed pretty much everywhere.. But it’s also about children, that’s the one issue people will get strongly worked up over. But the problem is, once the problem is too widespread, people use it as an excuse to forget about it. “It’s in everything! How can I keep track? I’m not going to bother, I’ll just trust the brands.”
So for organic produce, there’s a labeling system, now.
But you still have to trust the people.
Yeah, you can switch the labels.
So you have to trust that you know they’re not going to hurt you, they’re like you or whatever.
So that’s maybe why you brought up countries, if they’re people like you, not some strange foreigner—?
But you have to trust people.
But the point is the supply chain is too long, you have to trust everybody along that chain. So it’s like when we discussed before, what is the true cost of something. Because every product is keen for the cut costs, and we pursue for the best price. So I think the whole system create the market for fake things.
Exactly.
I was thinking why the milk poison instance damaged our mutual trust, I think it’s because the information is not very transparent. I think the key issue, no matter is our gvt our manufacture, should expose the necessary information, and it’s also to educate people. Because some misunderstanding, is due to we don’t have enough information. For example. Even the famous company, they don’t know how many, how safe their products. Because the larger the company, the more risk they will provide the product to consumer.
So the problem caused by the milk, I think is why is so attractive everybody’s attention is happen in a well-known milk powder suppler, market share is number one in china. Before, the black hearted food producer is small, illegal company. But why is so serious, is that it’s well known, big, we can even call it an international company.
Some brands are even the ‘sole provider for the Olympic games’.
So its economic benefit is the best is the priority for the gvt. Because of Olympic, production activity, human right is lower priority. Even milk, I heard the report, has already been found 6 months ago, but hidden intentionally because of the Olympics. So what the gvt should do is to provide the transparent information. Not any protection, any company or something. To educate how dangerous concentration for a child or an adult, intake every day. So according to the information I receive, the milk—
Melamine. The problem is melamine. It’s a plastic, used to make durable dishware. If you add it to food, it increases the testable protein count. Since they’re only testing for protein, not for melamine, you get away with it. You can only test for things you think are there. So melamine went under the radar for a long time. But it’s not just milk. Melamine is why the rash of pets dying in the US became the news a few years ago. It was added to wheat gluten, again to raise the protein. It’s why I basically try to avoid anything in a can these days. Especially anything with a protein content listed. I’m worried there’s melamine in.
So what happens?
You develop stones in your kidneys. I think your body is like trying to isolate the poison from you. I think adults don’t die of it, but you could get sick. But babies can’t handle kidney stones, their kidnesy are too small. And dogs and cats store more things in their livers and kidneys than we do, they can’t metabolize it out, so they’re very vulnerable to dying from it.
But yesterday, I was talking about Costco, the way the do everything, they have the name list of who buy the things. So they say some food or something have problems, always happen, so the most important thing is to handle it. So they notice when there is some problems, so they have the whole list of who buy this kind of things, and when. Since they have member cards and who buy things from Costco, so when they have some problem with products,
So they have some purchase record, they notify them?
I not say they’re perfect, but they don’t force people to have evidence and return it. They even call the member, they say you used to buy this, do you want to return it? I don’t know if they're really a good company, but if somebody can do something like this, we can more rely on them. Because if information is more transparent, we will notice that. Because not everyone will trace everything is okay to eat. We still have to rely on some, not only manufactories’, the chain stores, the gvt. So there’s not just one checking point. Of course we want to trust—
So, you're saying we can’t just rely on one checkpoint, we have to have many checkpoints.
But don’t you think that if people who sold things actually cared about the people bought it, then this shit wouldn't happen.
But the chains are so long. Some people probably don’t really know it’s really poison. They didn’t know it would—
But it’s to cheat. The original point was to cheat.
So how to solve the problem?
Source everything locally.
Yeah my husband wants that, because it also solves pollution problem.
But we have to have trust.
Local sourcing helps with that!
Luckily I have two children who are allergic to dairy products. So we rarely consume milk.
Someone told me not to buy the milk in RT mart, but I said, I want to drink it, so I’ll buy it. If you don’t want to eat bread, what will you eat? But I want to eat milk. I want to eat bread.
But I want this issue to raise the social responsibility of this company. Those chain stores don’t have any social responsibility.
Everyone’s pursuing economic advantage in whatever form, so that turns other people into obstacles and objects.
So Angela raised a question a while ago, if you had the option to pay more money for it, would you? It’s really the same question.
Yes, it really is.
So if you feel it is worth to pay more money for it, and you want to buy it at that price, so another related question is, the brand name means the price you need to pay.
I don’t mean the brand name. I mean the real cost. You use so many unhealthy products to make the real cost so low.
I remember the question is, how do you evaluate the real cost? So it’s how do you look at these things. For example, there’s luxury cars and cheaper cars.
But if the way of they doing things really so, the real cost means include some hidden costs, like—
Pollution for instance.
—like some company they have the social responsibly, they will put many people to check the resource—
Indirect course.
—yes and I think the issue is not luxury or not, I think the real cost, if we talk about the price of brand is worth it, I think the issue is the real price. Because everyone is keen for the lowest price, is not healthy for the whole market.
Like I had this supplier the other day, she was explaining to me why Kimberly Clark paper is more expensive, it’s because they go to great lengths to have sourced paper from sustainable forests, and that it takes 7 years of investment, so they have to be more expensive than those logging old-growth forests.
But copier paper really matters, it has to be good, or your machine jams.
Well, I’m talking about toilet paper, it’s a different kind of copier jam.
[Laughter]
Well the other time Kevin gave us an example, if this cup cost 10 dollars, and I sell to you for 11 dollars, and one dollar I donate to third world country, do you want to pay 11 for this cup. If 15, will you?
A lot of people do, in the US.
So it’s another kind of marketing.
So you just say the real cost is 10 dollars, then the extra I will use to support poor people, will you pay the money through me?
I think the best is what I just mentioned. If I know your cost is only 10, I won’t pay 15, because 15, you have 50% profit—but normally most customer don’t know your real cost.
But 11 is acceptable.
But think if I want to buy this cup, I will compare your cup with other, with other level, compare. The issue is not the maker, okay, how much donated to third party. I think it’s how do they make the customer feel it’s a good deal, it’s a fair deal exchange behavior.
I guess you never buy things from those handicap people selling on the street. Of course you know you can buy pens and tissues a lot cheaper, but you want to help them. Of course you’re buying something expensive, but it’s worthy of trust.
So the main issue is still price, low price is always right.
Well—
Not really—
Well, that’s more or less what Peter argued.
But I don’t think the cheaper the better is the best way for normal product. I still think it’s based on mutual trust between the maker and the customer. For example in many convenience store, they have those boxes for receipt donation.
For collecting receipts.
Oh really? I didn’t know.
They use the receipt, and choose the receipt of larger amount, and claim the deal is cancelled, so they can save some tax on the turnover.
What an evil world.
So I think all of us are influenced in the advertising promotion media. That’s why I feel people have to be educated by what is true and false, and what is a better deal.
And our schools do not do that.
But it’s hard to educate people for right or wrong.
But not impossible! It’s just easier to test people if they memorized 100 things! Our schools are also about the cheapest fastest bottom line of high grades.
Yeah, they find that exam scores are not really a good measure. So it’s the whole system, the value system is quite important. What is the things they value most.
So our school is not about teaching how to live well, its about teaching to live in our current economic system. So if we agree that our system is fucked, why are we educating our children for it.
So, Peter, what’s your position, now.
Mine is almost the same as Robert. Honestly, I’m not—I don’t agree the wording, about broken. Maybe—
Reshaped? Reform?
In some way it really influence, the change, it depends on what kind of, just like Wilson said, the cell phone, the PC, is the another key technical product to influence your living. But before the 80s, the PC is not so popular for private user. We usually only see it for job requirement, or information processing. Also the 90s, the network
It was still academic base.
[discussion about origins of internet]
But did you know that letters in 19th cent delivered 4 times a day? Technology changes, but the need for lots of communications are the same.
Hsinchu Discussion Transcript: Culture of the Market
Participants: Jason, Robert, Wilson, Vina, Yehrung, Angela
See: The Culture of the Market
May I ask a question, if your children asked you, they want to try a little drugs, I want to experience the feeling, what do you do?
Depends, how old are they?
15 to 20 years old.
I think I may tell them there are a lot of things we want to try, specially we think it’s exciting, we’ve never done it before. But we cannot always doing the things we want to. For example, you watch superman jump out of the window and fly in the sky, you think that’s exciting, and you want to try once, but that action may cause some danger to your life. If this happened will you try it? Drugs are the same thing, they’re dangerous for your life, you might die. So in this situation, I think I would asking, in this kind of situation, do you really want to try it? I don’t know, that’s what I thought of when you asked this question. Because I think you tell them, you cannot do this, you cannot do that, they won’t listen, you have to make them think.
But in the end, since it’s not a matter of life or death, I would like to try, so would you respect me?
No!
So you’re just laughing at me.
Well, you’re not a children.
Because when they are very young, I will tell them what should do, what should not do, because it’s easy to except. For example when they’re in first grade, and one day he told me, mom, why can’t I have freedom to watch TV? So I said to him, well since you’re talking about freedom, so let’s talk about responsibility. So every morning we talk about who is responsible for what. So he says he has to go to school, and practice piano and do homework, and then he’s free. But when he grow up, so then it’s easier for him to understand what is right and wrong. Because teenager always just want to be different. If they want to go in opposite from you, it’s difficult to debate with them. So it’s easier if you help them accept things when they are young. Just like when we grow up. Maybe its not really democratic, but when we grew up, we were taught this is right or wrong, so when I grew up I didn’t have difficulty accepting things. But now that society is so individual, its harder, they always doubt and challenge, so I don’t have any best way to stop the challenge.
I agree, we have to do this when they are really young, you have to told them what’s right and wrong. My wife and I usually, when there’s bad news on TV, we tell our children, what caused the result, and let them learn from the real experience of others. And tell them
Scare them!
Yes, …. Well, anyway.
How about you.
Well, in my opinion, I think you as a parent are not doing too bad if you child would lie to ask you before if they should try. I think I would try to share some real examples. If he or she is already up to that age for independence, I will leave the decision to him or her.
[crosstalk]
Not quite so, I was thinking the relationship matters most to parents and children. I think if they want to talk to you, there’s always a chance.
Mmm!
Yes!
What about you?
I think the answer is very easy. If your children are between 15 to 21, so the motivation why they ask this question to you, it’s simple, they just want to know what’s your attitude. Because they are old enough. So the answer is very simple. I don’t think it is worth to try. And I will say because., blah blah blah. And then I would turn back the question to them. If you want to try, and you know it’s not to worth do to it, but if you want to try, let me know. Because you add the condition, they are above 15 years old, and they are not kid, they have their ideas. They just want to know what do you think about it. I don’t think they want to follow your rules for the thing. So just tell them your attitude, it’s enough. If they want to try it, a lot of bad thing will happen. So if you try it, tell me, it’s very important.
How about you?
I have a very interesting experience. My oldest son and 10 years ago, one day, he told me, he’s really impressed by smoking, he feels it’s really cool. And I thought: “okay”. I give him money, to go to buy cigarettes and bring it home. And my oldest son sat by my side, and I smoked with him together . One, two, maybe the third cigarette. So I asked him, how do you feel? Not good! Not sweet, not good smell. I said yeah, this is a cigarette. So he never touch it. So one day he grow up, he’s 17, he tell me, I really want to try the drugs. I ask him, where can you buy the drugs? He said, he don't know, but he can try to buy it. I asked him, where, tell me where. He said he don’t know, but if I want, he can try. So I tell him, maybe your friend, maybe you can get the drugs, but it’s not reasonable. He said, hey when I was 10 years old, you smoked with me. But I said, but cigarettes you can buy anywhere. But drugs, it’s not reasonable. I was very serious with him. My son said, don’t worry, I won’t touch it. I said, I really really worry about this! He never talked with me about it again.
Yes, I think drugs and cigarette is different. Especially the source of it.
Yeah, the social structure for getting you hooked is like Amway. It’s limited, you can only get it through certain people, and well, unlike Amway, it’s ‘forbidden’ and therefore ‘cool’, and there’s like this cachet about it. But the main point, like Amway, you buy it through your social connections. And the sellers have an interest in making you a long-term customer, so they invent reasons to have contact with you—like Amway!—and they’re also people you would normally hang out with, so once you buy, it’s really hard to not keep buying, especially if there’s social pressure. You can hang out with drug users, and not be a user, but once you start using, then it’s really hard to stop, because of the social structure of the thing.
Paragraph 9 said young people want to get recognition from other people even thought they don’t have the money, don’t have the power to control the living style, or to decide how they want to do, so they want the recognition from other people. If the kids is only 10 years old, he want to get the, maybe some recognition from his parents. But young people after age 18, they just want recognition from his or her friends. So it’s important for, it’s related to this article. If the young people they have enough money to support this living style, they also want to use money to maintain the relationship with his friends, so my question is, do you think our young people really face this kind of problem? In Taiwan its serious or not? As Vina said, you saw the Commonwealth article saying the drug problem is very common in our high schools. So the problem is, if this problem is very common in Taiwan, what’s the real issue to cause this problem to be serious. Our young people can't get enough money?
I used to discuss this with my husband, but the topic was different. We were talking about campus violence. When I say, my idea is that if I found there is a campus violence, I will transfer my kids out of the school, just try to get away from, just to protect children from—
So you say the kids face campus violence, so you would put them in a different school?
Yes, because I don’t want them to have them surrounded by this. But my husband grew up in Shalu in Taichung county, so there’s a lot of violence there, and he’s a male, so as boys grew up, he had a lot of chance to face this issue. So he said the best thing is to teach him how to protect themselves—and run fast. You can tell who is good for you, and how to avoid, so you know this kind of thing. So that maybe the situation will be the same. The mother’s point of view is to protect the children from those kind of exposure, but maybe the way of facing is much important than getting away from, since we can’t protect them all the time. But we keep arguing, since we haven’t faced the situation yet. So there’s different ways of dealing.
For my kid’s example, when my kid was in 6th grade, his classmate suicided, because they said they watch the TV use the knife to cut their hands. So it’s a kind of, they want to try it. Because one of their classmate want to do suicide. But that is a real case in my school. So the schoolteachers notify—
High school or elementary?
Elementary.
Really!
—so the teacher want to cooperate and want to teach the kids and explain why they cant try it. But for the real suicide kid, it’s a different way to maybe, to help him to resist that suicide behavior. But for normal kids, you just need to let them know why it is not a good behavior, even you want to mimic it. So that’s a real case for Hsinchu. It’s a kind of media effect. They watch the television. We cannot protect them well. We need to teach them case by case. When one problem happen, we need to face what cause it.
See: The Culture of the Market
May I ask a question, if your children asked you, they want to try a little drugs, I want to experience the feeling, what do you do?
Depends, how old are they?
15 to 20 years old.
I think I may tell them there are a lot of things we want to try, specially we think it’s exciting, we’ve never done it before. But we cannot always doing the things we want to. For example, you watch superman jump out of the window and fly in the sky, you think that’s exciting, and you want to try once, but that action may cause some danger to your life. If this happened will you try it? Drugs are the same thing, they’re dangerous for your life, you might die. So in this situation, I think I would asking, in this kind of situation, do you really want to try it? I don’t know, that’s what I thought of when you asked this question. Because I think you tell them, you cannot do this, you cannot do that, they won’t listen, you have to make them think.
But in the end, since it’s not a matter of life or death, I would like to try, so would you respect me?
No!
So you’re just laughing at me.
Well, you’re not a children.
Because when they are very young, I will tell them what should do, what should not do, because it’s easy to except. For example when they’re in first grade, and one day he told me, mom, why can’t I have freedom to watch TV? So I said to him, well since you’re talking about freedom, so let’s talk about responsibility. So every morning we talk about who is responsible for what. So he says he has to go to school, and practice piano and do homework, and then he’s free. But when he grow up, so then it’s easier for him to understand what is right and wrong. Because teenager always just want to be different. If they want to go in opposite from you, it’s difficult to debate with them. So it’s easier if you help them accept things when they are young. Just like when we grow up. Maybe its not really democratic, but when we grew up, we were taught this is right or wrong, so when I grew up I didn’t have difficulty accepting things. But now that society is so individual, its harder, they always doubt and challenge, so I don’t have any best way to stop the challenge.
I agree, we have to do this when they are really young, you have to told them what’s right and wrong. My wife and I usually, when there’s bad news on TV, we tell our children, what caused the result, and let them learn from the real experience of others. And tell them
Scare them!
Yes, …. Well, anyway.
How about you.
Well, in my opinion, I think you as a parent are not doing too bad if you child would lie to ask you before if they should try. I think I would try to share some real examples. If he or she is already up to that age for independence, I will leave the decision to him or her.
[crosstalk]
Not quite so, I was thinking the relationship matters most to parents and children. I think if they want to talk to you, there’s always a chance.
Mmm!
Yes!
What about you?
I think the answer is very easy. If your children are between 15 to 21, so the motivation why they ask this question to you, it’s simple, they just want to know what’s your attitude. Because they are old enough. So the answer is very simple. I don’t think it is worth to try. And I will say because., blah blah blah. And then I would turn back the question to them. If you want to try, and you know it’s not to worth do to it, but if you want to try, let me know. Because you add the condition, they are above 15 years old, and they are not kid, they have their ideas. They just want to know what do you think about it. I don’t think they want to follow your rules for the thing. So just tell them your attitude, it’s enough. If they want to try it, a lot of bad thing will happen. So if you try it, tell me, it’s very important.
How about you?
I have a very interesting experience. My oldest son and 10 years ago, one day, he told me, he’s really impressed by smoking, he feels it’s really cool. And I thought: “okay”. I give him money, to go to buy cigarettes and bring it home. And my oldest son sat by my side, and I smoked with him together . One, two, maybe the third cigarette. So I asked him, how do you feel? Not good! Not sweet, not good smell. I said yeah, this is a cigarette. So he never touch it. So one day he grow up, he’s 17, he tell me, I really want to try the drugs. I ask him, where can you buy the drugs? He said, he don't know, but he can try to buy it. I asked him, where, tell me where. He said he don’t know, but if I want, he can try. So I tell him, maybe your friend, maybe you can get the drugs, but it’s not reasonable. He said, hey when I was 10 years old, you smoked with me. But I said, but cigarettes you can buy anywhere. But drugs, it’s not reasonable. I was very serious with him. My son said, don’t worry, I won’t touch it. I said, I really really worry about this! He never talked with me about it again.
Yes, I think drugs and cigarette is different. Especially the source of it.
Yeah, the social structure for getting you hooked is like Amway. It’s limited, you can only get it through certain people, and well, unlike Amway, it’s ‘forbidden’ and therefore ‘cool’, and there’s like this cachet about it. But the main point, like Amway, you buy it through your social connections. And the sellers have an interest in making you a long-term customer, so they invent reasons to have contact with you—like Amway!—and they’re also people you would normally hang out with, so once you buy, it’s really hard to not keep buying, especially if there’s social pressure. You can hang out with drug users, and not be a user, but once you start using, then it’s really hard to stop, because of the social structure of the thing.
Paragraph 9 said young people want to get recognition from other people even thought they don’t have the money, don’t have the power to control the living style, or to decide how they want to do, so they want the recognition from other people. If the kids is only 10 years old, he want to get the, maybe some recognition from his parents. But young people after age 18, they just want recognition from his or her friends. So it’s important for, it’s related to this article. If the young people they have enough money to support this living style, they also want to use money to maintain the relationship with his friends, so my question is, do you think our young people really face this kind of problem? In Taiwan its serious or not? As Vina said, you saw the Commonwealth article saying the drug problem is very common in our high schools. So the problem is, if this problem is very common in Taiwan, what’s the real issue to cause this problem to be serious. Our young people can't get enough money?
I used to discuss this with my husband, but the topic was different. We were talking about campus violence. When I say, my idea is that if I found there is a campus violence, I will transfer my kids out of the school, just try to get away from, just to protect children from—
So you say the kids face campus violence, so you would put them in a different school?
Yes, because I don’t want them to have them surrounded by this. But my husband grew up in Shalu in Taichung county, so there’s a lot of violence there, and he’s a male, so as boys grew up, he had a lot of chance to face this issue. So he said the best thing is to teach him how to protect themselves—and run fast. You can tell who is good for you, and how to avoid, so you know this kind of thing. So that maybe the situation will be the same. The mother’s point of view is to protect the children from those kind of exposure, but maybe the way of facing is much important than getting away from, since we can’t protect them all the time. But we keep arguing, since we haven’t faced the situation yet. So there’s different ways of dealing.
For my kid’s example, when my kid was in 6th grade, his classmate suicided, because they said they watch the TV use the knife to cut their hands. So it’s a kind of, they want to try it. Because one of their classmate want to do suicide. But that is a real case in my school. So the schoolteachers notify—
High school or elementary?
Elementary.
Really!
—so the teacher want to cooperate and want to teach the kids and explain why they cant try it. But for the real suicide kid, it’s a different way to maybe, to help him to resist that suicide behavior. But for normal kids, you just need to let them know why it is not a good behavior, even you want to mimic it. So that’s a real case for Hsinchu. It’s a kind of media effect. They watch the television. We cannot protect them well. We need to teach them case by case. When one problem happen, we need to face what cause it.
Hsinchu Discussion Transcript: Grandmothers, part II
Participants: Robert Wilson Vina Jason Angela
Old women in US, they say the older, the more invisible. You have to work really hard to be noticed.
In my shorthand version of Western history, I think of it like this: In pre-christian times women were the healers and the one who knew how to use the herbs. The Catholic church was uneasy with women having so much power, and so in the 13th century there was a massive campaign to demonize them as witches. And later the church even forbid its priests to marry, and became a male-only organization. And the shadow of the Catholic church, of all the Christian churches, over western culture is long and deep. We’re still completely informed by Christianity, even if we consider ourselves secularized. And Christianity is fundamentally afraid of the power of women, turns us into good girls and whores, and invisible old women. So I brought this up, this topic of old women, because you guys grew up in Chinese culture, it’s completely different from what I know. So I want to know what’s the Chinese viewpoint of old women? I know Chinese culture has a reverence for old people, but in literature it only seems to be in the context of old men. So how about old women?
But the reality will be just like what you said. Like how they treat Lu Shiulien. [VP of Taiwan for 8 years] They don’t appreciate her intelligence, her wit, her contributions. They see an old woman. Most people will say they do cherish an old women, but they won’t get really high respect in society.
You mention sexism, right? But it’s kind of you care about the sex, the male or female.
Maybe.
But what I found, is that if a woman cannot help others, she is useless.
That’s why your mother-in-law is afraid not to help.
Right, in Chinese culture, her value is for what she do for others. We respect old women because what they contribute to others, not herself, the personal achievement. The value system. You will get high achievement as a male, but we are more focused on the contributions of women, not her own achievement. Do you see the difference?
You mention two words, contribution and treatment.
Achievement.
You say contribute to others, most of the females will help their partners,
No I mean, for old men, we all focus on his own acheivement. But for old women, we focus on her contribution.
It’s a stereotype.
So the truth is, we say old women is very important, but if she could not help others, the truth is she is not really important. In most common feelings. Not talking about your mother! We all agree that, we will all say your mother or your wife is very good etc, but OTHER women?
It’s difficult question, because, maybe since I am a man I can’t experience, I can’t maybe know what’s the, you say I can help other people, if I can’t help other people, even though I have achieved some successful business, I can’t get the respect from other people. But you say in Taiwan the status of the women. My opinion, I’m not sure it is true or not. Maybe, just I say, the acheivement for men, maybe we can evaluate the men, he fulfils the dream of a good business is a acheivment, or his goal is to teach some young kids, so that’s his achievement, but he can’t get any help from his wife, so his wife is not helpful for him to achieve his goal, but his wife is a successful woman, she can have another achievement. To that me the achievement and contribution is not related.
What do you think, do you agree with me?
It’s very hard to comment.
Because we are men.
Forget about this, just think about the question.
I really think that what the elderly can do for our society partly depends on our attitude toward them. If put them in the right place, they always contribute.
So is there any difference between elder men and elder women?
I don’t feel any difference for me.
Not your own parents, just the whole society. If we represent Taiwanese people to answer Angela’s question, is there a difference?
From my view, yes.
How about you?
At first I don't think there’s any difference, but after Angela mention this, I think there is. So when we value old men, we value their achievement. But we value old women, if she didn’t contribute to others, then we don’t value her.
She must have done something for her family?
Yeah.
So the problem is, how do we evaluate the success of the women? What is the basis? My opinion is like to evaluate man is different, it needs to have some difference. The difference comes from the because, for what do you want to evaluate, what’s that target you want to devaluate. It’s not men or women, it’s valuation metrics. If you want to evaluate a woman has a successful business, or she is successful in taking care her family, the evaluation factor is not same. So if you say the men and women, you want to evaluate the men and women, you use the same evaluation basis, it’s not fair, they are radically different.
But what is the difference, what is the criteria?
You need to know what factor or criteria you use to evaluate men and women?
So what are the ones you use?
So to evaluate a man, you have to consider that most of his goal is to establish his business or his company. So if you use how much he pay attention to his family, it’s not fair. But if you ignore how much he take to take care of his family, totally, it’s also not fair. You have to balance. How much he take care of his family, and how much he take to establish his business. So for women, you have a different factors.
So that’s why the same situation, like Lu Shiulien, or Shi Mingde, go to prison, but the appreciation received, it’s quite different, even the same reason, but the appreciation is different. [They were both jailed for activities in the democracy movement when Taiwan was still under martial law.]
But you will say the same situation, they are politicians, they are perform the political activity.
But they do the same thing!
But Lu, she is our vice president, and Shu is our party leader, so they are the same.
She was elected to be VP doesn’t mean that she is respected. Just because she’s chosen as the partner. For the common society, for the common feelings, I don’t think she received much appreciation for what she did in the past. I thing others receive more. Maybe it’s personal, we don’t like her personality
[Laugher.] [Because Lu’s personality is often criticized in the press]
Maybe it’s the stereotypes for the old women. I don’t know the answer, I’m just curious. What do you think?
You take the Lu Shiulien example, she is not a, she cannot, you cannot use she as example and see if the whole society respect old women, because she is a politician. So it’s more complex. So we should think about if we met an old woman or old man in the street, do you respect the old man or the old woman, what does their, when you saw them in the street, do you more respect the old man than the old omwan/? I don’t think there’s that much difference. So Lu Shiulien is not a good example.
Okay how about male and female branches of Tsu Ji, they’re treated equal!
But that’s really not easy to see, beaseu you’re bringing religion the mix. Also, the spiritual leader of Tsu Ji is a woman, so this might affect how women are treated in the organization.
So there’s a common stereotype in society, for male and female, it’s complicated, because you want to eliminate stereotype its not easy.
But think, old and ugly man, and old and ugly woman, people will treat them different.
But you can’t say that.
Okay but the American president race, if palin were old and ugly?
Oh, that’s the thing that bothers me the most about the race, it’s that because she’s beautiful, and ‘fuckable’ she’s a better candidate? Wow, because if you can fuck someone, you’ve got power over them, so they’re saying, we’ll only let those we can control in?
But Obama chose an old ugly man, but nobody talk about that!
[Laughter]
Old women in US, they say the older, the more invisible. You have to work really hard to be noticed.
In my shorthand version of Western history, I think of it like this: In pre-christian times women were the healers and the one who knew how to use the herbs. The Catholic church was uneasy with women having so much power, and so in the 13th century there was a massive campaign to demonize them as witches. And later the church even forbid its priests to marry, and became a male-only organization. And the shadow of the Catholic church, of all the Christian churches, over western culture is long and deep. We’re still completely informed by Christianity, even if we consider ourselves secularized. And Christianity is fundamentally afraid of the power of women, turns us into good girls and whores, and invisible old women. So I brought this up, this topic of old women, because you guys grew up in Chinese culture, it’s completely different from what I know. So I want to know what’s the Chinese viewpoint of old women? I know Chinese culture has a reverence for old people, but in literature it only seems to be in the context of old men. So how about old women?
But the reality will be just like what you said. Like how they treat Lu Shiulien. [VP of Taiwan for 8 years] They don’t appreciate her intelligence, her wit, her contributions. They see an old woman. Most people will say they do cherish an old women, but they won’t get really high respect in society.
You mention sexism, right? But it’s kind of you care about the sex, the male or female.
Maybe.
But what I found, is that if a woman cannot help others, she is useless.
That’s why your mother-in-law is afraid not to help.
Right, in Chinese culture, her value is for what she do for others. We respect old women because what they contribute to others, not herself, the personal achievement. The value system. You will get high achievement as a male, but we are more focused on the contributions of women, not her own achievement. Do you see the difference?
You mention two words, contribution and treatment.
Achievement.
You say contribute to others, most of the females will help their partners,
No I mean, for old men, we all focus on his own acheivement. But for old women, we focus on her contribution.
It’s a stereotype.
So the truth is, we say old women is very important, but if she could not help others, the truth is she is not really important. In most common feelings. Not talking about your mother! We all agree that, we will all say your mother or your wife is very good etc, but OTHER women?
It’s difficult question, because, maybe since I am a man I can’t experience, I can’t maybe know what’s the, you say I can help other people, if I can’t help other people, even though I have achieved some successful business, I can’t get the respect from other people. But you say in Taiwan the status of the women. My opinion, I’m not sure it is true or not. Maybe, just I say, the acheivement for men, maybe we can evaluate the men, he fulfils the dream of a good business is a acheivment, or his goal is to teach some young kids, so that’s his achievement, but he can’t get any help from his wife, so his wife is not helpful for him to achieve his goal, but his wife is a successful woman, she can have another achievement. To that me the achievement and contribution is not related.
What do you think, do you agree with me?
It’s very hard to comment.
Because we are men.
Forget about this, just think about the question.
I really think that what the elderly can do for our society partly depends on our attitude toward them. If put them in the right place, they always contribute.
So is there any difference between elder men and elder women?
I don’t feel any difference for me.
Not your own parents, just the whole society. If we represent Taiwanese people to answer Angela’s question, is there a difference?
From my view, yes.
How about you?
At first I don't think there’s any difference, but after Angela mention this, I think there is. So when we value old men, we value their achievement. But we value old women, if she didn’t contribute to others, then we don’t value her.
She must have done something for her family?
Yeah.
So the problem is, how do we evaluate the success of the women? What is the basis? My opinion is like to evaluate man is different, it needs to have some difference. The difference comes from the because, for what do you want to evaluate, what’s that target you want to devaluate. It’s not men or women, it’s valuation metrics. If you want to evaluate a woman has a successful business, or she is successful in taking care her family, the evaluation factor is not same. So if you say the men and women, you want to evaluate the men and women, you use the same evaluation basis, it’s not fair, they are radically different.
But what is the difference, what is the criteria?
You need to know what factor or criteria you use to evaluate men and women?
So what are the ones you use?
So to evaluate a man, you have to consider that most of his goal is to establish his business or his company. So if you use how much he pay attention to his family, it’s not fair. But if you ignore how much he take to take care of his family, totally, it’s also not fair. You have to balance. How much he take care of his family, and how much he take to establish his business. So for women, you have a different factors.
So that’s why the same situation, like Lu Shiulien, or Shi Mingde, go to prison, but the appreciation received, it’s quite different, even the same reason, but the appreciation is different. [They were both jailed for activities in the democracy movement when Taiwan was still under martial law.]
But you will say the same situation, they are politicians, they are perform the political activity.
But they do the same thing!
But Lu, she is our vice president, and Shu is our party leader, so they are the same.
She was elected to be VP doesn’t mean that she is respected. Just because she’s chosen as the partner. For the common society, for the common feelings, I don’t think she received much appreciation for what she did in the past. I thing others receive more. Maybe it’s personal, we don’t like her personality
[Laugher.] [Because Lu’s personality is often criticized in the press]
Maybe it’s the stereotypes for the old women. I don’t know the answer, I’m just curious. What do you think?
You take the Lu Shiulien example, she is not a, she cannot, you cannot use she as example and see if the whole society respect old women, because she is a politician. So it’s more complex. So we should think about if we met an old woman or old man in the street, do you respect the old man or the old woman, what does their, when you saw them in the street, do you more respect the old man than the old omwan/? I don’t think there’s that much difference. So Lu Shiulien is not a good example.
Okay how about male and female branches of Tsu Ji, they’re treated equal!
But that’s really not easy to see, beaseu you’re bringing religion the mix. Also, the spiritual leader of Tsu Ji is a woman, so this might affect how women are treated in the organization.
So there’s a common stereotype in society, for male and female, it’s complicated, because you want to eliminate stereotype its not easy.
But think, old and ugly man, and old and ugly woman, people will treat them different.
But you can’t say that.
Okay but the American president race, if palin were old and ugly?
Oh, that’s the thing that bothers me the most about the race, it’s that because she’s beautiful, and ‘fuckable’ she’s a better candidate? Wow, because if you can fuck someone, you’ve got power over them, so they’re saying, we’ll only let those we can control in?
But Obama chose an old ugly man, but nobody talk about that!
[Laughter]
Hsinchu Discussion Transcript: Grandmothers
Participants: Robert Wilson Vina Jason Angela
I think children are more affected by mother than father, and so the mother was affected by her mother, so that’s why the maternal grandmother has more of an effect.
So the daughter is more close to her own mother than her father, so you imply that?
For example, I live with my mother-in-law. The time the children spend with her is much more than they are with my mother. But the children’s characteristic is more like me, and more like my mother. So its very interesting, when I read the whole article. I think that maybe Asian people are more clever, because it’s all maternal lineage. But I think in modern society, it more tends to be like that. Because I find that many of my friends they live with their mother already. Maybe its because the wife takes the decision making power.
Or you know a lot of strong women.
Because the wife prefer her children to be taken care by her mother than her mother in law.
Why?
Because I can say what you should and shouldn’t do, but I can’t say that to my mother-in-law. Just like those wife prefer to stay their maternal leave in their own home, and not with their mother in law, because they can say what they want to eat or not in their own home, but not in their mother in law’s home!
Before we start, I just want to ask some background information about everyone.
You want to take a survey?
I just want to know do you lived with your mother or mother-in-law?
When I was child?
No, now?
No.
No.
No.
So I’m the only one. Because most of my friends say that I’m a very special girl that can bear to live with her mother-in-law. Because most people don’t.
Yes.
Not really hate, but most people choose not to.
I guess your husband is the local resident in Hsinchu.
No, I am the local resident!
So your husband want to take care his mother, so his mother live with you.
Yes, because I’m quite fine with living with old people. I’m fine, but I find that most people find very serious problems between—
A tension relationship.
There’s tension in the relationship.
—They prefer to live in their own family. If they can choose, they prefer to live with their own mother, but they’d rather live by themselves. For me, I’m very busy, so I really do need to have someone help me with the children, so I’m quite happy, well not very happy, but I very appreciate that I can stay close to my mother and also live with my mother in-law
So is your relationship good?
I’m fine!
Wow, that speaks volumes.
Well what it is—there’s a different…my mother-in-law’s family was very poor
So there was an economic difference
Well it was a values difference.
Oh, so it’s a class difference.
Well, for instance she has to keep warming up the leftovers, over and over.
She has to save every last scrap of food!
Yes. My father was a teacher, so I’m high educational level, but my husband’s family was laborers. So it’s good, because they’re very traditional, but sometime it’s a burden for us, because she’s always sacrificing everything for us, but we don’t need them too. But she’s afraid we’ll kick her out. But my mom is different, she kicked us all out of the house so she could have some quiet.
My mother is different. She moved to Hsinchu with me, but she didn’t’ like it, because she was used to Miaoli, she didn’t want to change her situation. It’s common in Hsinchu, lots of people live here, but their families are not from here. So you asked a question, why we don’t live with our mother-in-law, it’s very common here.
And so your situation?
Actually, my father is still working.
But if they retired will they live with you?
I don’t know.
Why don’t you know?
Well, we’re still thinking about it, it’s a question of living style.
How about you?
Well, my parents said we can move out to form our own family. I live in Jubei and my parents live in Hsinchu. I go to my parents’ every day for lunch.
My brother is like that. They live so close they don’t need to live together.
Sounds like a win-win situation.
Really!
Still have some privacy, yes.
When my children were still young, I still lived with my parents. But now they’re grown, it’s not a good idea. I would say my parents’ viewpoint, especially to the education system, we want to adopt some attitude to teach our children, well we have different aspects. So sometimes living in different places, it’s a good idea. My children then don’t confuse about what the adults might, from his or her parents, and the parents in law. The same situation in this article. They say the mother-in-law, the grandmother have a different style. I would say it’s important for teaching our children.
But I’m in favor of team b, because I appreciate the grandmother factor. Because many of my friends, they're older and their children already grown up. They say they appreciate their parents, because when the child was young, the parents or parents-in-law take the role of mother and father. I notice this too, cuz when I was a child I didn’t live with my grandma because my mom was a housewife. When I came home, my mom was there. But this didn’t happen to my children, because I work in Taipei. But my children still have someone there, when they come home. Some of my friends’ children in Taipei, they have to hang out in fast food restaurants to wait for their parents. Because there’s the after school program, but after that their parents are still at work, and they have to get dinner for themselves. In primary school, they have some nanny, but after highschool, even though they’re not yet adult, they have to take care of themselves. Because they don’t find nanny for them. So they go to after school program by themselves, and feed themselves by themselves. So I do appreciate the traditional mothers’ role, and the traditional fathers’ role, too.
So you prefer team b? What’s the difference between b and e?
I’m not really supporting team e, because I’m not really think that…I appreciate that they play a role in child raising…spiritual. Although they do have a lot more life experience and see a lot more children than young women. But I don’t know that they do really know what to expect from a child, they may still not know what to do.
So team b is saying that old women—
Are wise!
—have the experience to take care of difficult situations. When something happens, they have more experience to take care of the situation.
But I’m not 100 percent supporting b. For example, my daughter uses her left had. So my mother-in-law wants me to change her to use her right hand and accuse me for not changing it, but I don’t agree with it, and then she goes to my husband.
It’s a conventional conflict.
And sometimes she will always say to the children what they do wrong. But I prefer to tell them what they do right. Because the modern parent cherish what their children do well. But in the past Chinese culture, they will not say what is good, but will correct you. It’s all correction. I’m not saying that correction is not right, but in the past culture its too focused on everyone having to fit in to a mold, and you have to correct everyone to the same mold. We are more western now, and more about respecting individualism. Like the grandmother two wolf story. But our grandmothers were all about correcting children’s behaviors, because of past Chinese culture didn’t respect individualism. So it’s not 100 percent wise.
I want to create team f.
Okay! Cool.
So the answer is yes. I would say the grandmother is important, especially for traditional Chinese society. But I would say the old grandparents have lots of experience to take care of children. But the most important is we want to maintain a Chinese culture characteristic. If I respect my mother this is a kind of education sample for my children. It’s a culture, we need to set up a sample for our children to learn how to respect your older people or your relatives. It’s very important but my reason to create the team f, I don’t completely agree the old women is totally their responsibility. The parent like me or my wife have a responsibility to take care of our children. That is why I want to take the team f. The answer is yes, but I have another reason.
Can you state it in one sentence?
The grandmother is important to help the mother/father to take care of grandkids, and it’s a learning example for the grandkids to learn how to respect older people.
But it only has effect when you live with them?
But just I said, to live together or separate is also another kind of experience.
So what ‘s the difference when you take them every weekend to the nursing home?
I would say if my parents have the ability to take care of themselves, I would say they should live in their house. But if they don’t have the ability, and I can’t, then to transfer them to a care center is a good idea. But I have a responsibility to visit the care center very often.
I’m not criticize you. I’m just say if you have a grandmother, it will have an effect to teach children to respect elder. If you don’t you still can teach them with your daily behavior. But what is the effect of the grandmother on the whole family.
I’m saying it’s like you teach your children to respect other people, but if you practice it, and you respect your mother, your child can learn from your practice.
Right. What I do to my parents my children will do to me. I do agree. I’m just curious about your wording. I think that if you live together, why live together, because it’s daily life, if the children get used to living with older people, without any functions, but you will have to bear it in your house, and you still have tot take care of them, this will really teach your children how to take care of those who used to be active. My friend said that when his children were taking care of by his parents, and when he grew up, and choose the school, and he was worried if he was too far away, he worried about his grandparents, because his parents often go abroad on business trip, and he was worried about that the grandparents had no one to care for them. I think this is really good, so the children start to think about others—they didn’t worry about the parents, they can take care of them selves, but they worry about the grandparents! It’s a way that they know they belong to the family. Their responsibility. Because they were fed by them, and then they want to take care of them.
You mention it’s related to different styles of grandmother or grandfather. In our generation, or the kids, they are the traditional style. But maybe our grandkids will face to another style. Like when I’m a grandfather, I will say I won’t be a traditional grandfather. Maybe it’s a different style, so in current Taiwan society, most grandmothers and grandfathers are traditional style but it will change. So if you are grandmother what, do you want to take care your grand kids?
No.
[Laugher]
But you would like to influence them?
Not necessarily. I think that if you are more independent, you not necessarily need to live with your children. But I know that my parents in law are not independent, but I can accept it because they need it. They need to live with you to prove that they are worthy of love, so it’s fine.
So let me re-ask this question. In 30 years, you are a grandmother, do you want to live with your children?
If I need, I hope they will welcome me. But it depends on my choice, you know?
That means that, if I want, I hope they will welcome me. But if I don’t want, it’s my decision. If I do need them, and they refuse to do so, I’ll be sad. But it will depend on what I feel that time.
Because I don’t want my grand daughter in law—normally you will like your grandchildren, but you may not like their spouse!
Hey, I want everyone to answer that question, that is interesting.
I prefer not. I think I can live happily with myself, and maybe with my wife. I have many hobbies, many dreams, many books to read, there’s so much to explore.
But you have to economic independence!
Yes, I’m going to say that! I’m getting to that.
So in Chinese old saying, before you had to save money to keep when you are old, but now you have to save money to protect the children.
But my answer is the same to Robert. My son tells me, when he grows up, he doesn’t want to live with us. And my daughter say she want to live with us.
Normally daughters prefer to live with their parents.
Not every daughter!
[Laughter]
So that’s why I say, I want them to have their own life, and my wife and I will have our own life. We could live together part of the time, but not every day.
But take my mother’s example she didn’t want to live with my brother, but when he bought a new house, she came to see it, and asked, hey? If I was here, where would I live?
So she wanted to know that she could!
Yes.
And my sister in law said, oh, there is not room for you!
Oh shit!
It was stupid, right? There’s room for the children, and a room for the books, but no room for her. So she’s stupid, she still should welcome her. But if this were you, what will you feel, can you accept it?
This kind of violates Chinese thinking, you need to express your welcome, but we have a problem in taiwan, no one has any room!
But I think that young people don’t really think about it. My colleague said the reason she doesn’t want to marry, she doesn’t want, when she comes home, she doesn’t want to find fruit in the fridge! Meaning, she doesn't want to find that the mother-in-law is there with out her permission. Right now, she is only a girlfriend, and the mother-in-law already makes her too involved in the family. But it’s quite strange, that I think it’s fine, because I’m too busy. So if there’s fruit, it’s fine, because I don’t have time, and you want to cook, it’s great! So now for the young people, it’s—
But maybe it’s because you're too busy. If you were less busy you’d have problems with your mother-in-law.
Well, it’s ‘cuz I’m lazy, I don’t mind people taking care of me.
But this is maybe another problem. When we get older, we have to think about what the younger people are thinking. We have to think about their thinking logic, and respect them for that.
I’ll ask in in another way. Do you like the family style in America? Because I think that in 30 years, we’ll be like the culture in America. So our future will be a lot different from our past. So when you look at the US family style, it’s our future. When you say Chinese culture, I think in 30 years, it won’t really be like that. 5 years generation gap, 10 years is really very obvious. But so 30 years, will really be different. So do you think this is good?
It’s not really about good or bad. I agree it will be happen in 20 or 30 years, but the only thing we can do is maintain their relationship with our children, to establish the cause relationship with them. It’s the only thing we can do. We can’t refuse to accept that situation. Think about my example, my son said he wants to …if he has the ability to travel around the world, he doesn’t want to live in Taiwan or Hsinchu. Now he doesn’t even want to be here, he wants to live in Taipei, and he wants to leave and go.
You’re in my parents’ position!
But when my son talks to me, I just encourage him to fulfill his dream. So I tell him how he needs to prepare. You need to earn money, you need to read books, and you need to know things. It’s not easy.
Actually, that’s not true. I just had a plane ticket and 600 dollars US, but I was okay.
But I think balance is best. Too traditional or too modern is not good. But since our society developed, I think our children will develop individualism, so we decided to teach them more Chinese style at home. And also individually. I was educated in Chinese style, but we are trained by society modern individualism so it’s quite balance.
I want to know what Jason thinks.
In 30 years, it depends how my children are thinking. Just like Vina, you need them to take care your children right?
Actually, she said they need her!
My children are actually taken care of by my mother. You know, my parents in law feel like their son has become a lu zue! [= the son is the ‘wife’ in the family, without the prestige of being the main hereditary line]
[laughter]
So, if they need, they can live with me, but in my style, I have my own house, and I live near with my parents, so my parents can see me, if they want, everyday, and they can see their grandson and granddaughter every day if they want. They are all retired now, so usually they go abroad for traveling. When I need them to take care my children, they are happy to take care. So I think it’s the best way for me.
But if your children want to go to foreign country?
That’s okay, it’s their life, I respect their decision.
So it seems their current status you live with your parents is the best model.
We don’t live under the same roof, but very near.
The same building?
Not the same. About 20 minutes drive apart. It’s the perfect model for me.
So you want your children adopt your mode.
Well, for me it’s a good style, because I love my parents.
Do you have children?
Yes,
How old are they?
7 and 5
And who takes care of them?
My wife.
Same as me, my elder is 7 and my second is 5.
And your wife doesn’t work.
Yes, she quit after the second one. She was a teacher before.
Just like me, my wife and I decide that one need to quit a job, and so we discuss, that I need to work! So she quit.
So that’s why you don’t need to live with the grandmother, because all your wife live with your children but I can’t, I need her.
You know, my wife’s salary was higher than me.
Then why didn’t you quit!
Because she said she wanted to take care of HER children. She wanted the experience of it, she thought that it was worth it.
You know, I wondered why always the women quit their job. But in fact, when you actually have the children, you know that the responsibility is on you, because these 10 months, it was already all on you. So you’re already used to have the responsibility. So the woman will decide to sacrifice.
It’s not a sacrifice, it’s a kind of trade off.
As Robert’s case, he is a house husband.
Well not really, you’re the main income bringer, right?
Well partial. But I have the greatest housewife!
For me, that’s why I’m not gonna have children.
For me, I’m a businesswoman, so it’s fine. But if I were a housewife, I can’t imagine what will happen. Because two housewife in the house, that would be terrible, who’s in charge?
That’s why my wife, my mother encourage me to move out.
[Laughter.]
It’s my house or your house! I come to your house, I follow your rules.
One house is owned by one woman!
[agreement and laugher]
So what team do you choose?
Team b and e. It mentioned that old women play an important role. I’d say they could, but not necessarily. But we should value the wisdom that old women bear. Actually for all old people.
I think all people would choose b and e in Taiwan. They would say so, they wouldn’t necessarily show in their behavior, but they think it. Because we are taught.
So who would say a?
I think they would think it, but they wouldn’t say it.
I think that some of my girlfriends would say a, but not in public.
so how about you, A?
ha, no I’ll take c.
trust me, it’s not what you think—that’s a moderator job.
so what are you?
She’s b!
So I’ll choose b,
So how about you!
Oh, uh, I’m typing, I’m not sure.
So what does it mean ‘strongly influence the quality of people’?
It’s like, people raised well are wealthy of spirit, interiorly.
So it’s an economic quality or spiritual quality, its contrasted.
What do you mean? Contrasted, that’s interesting.
Knowledgeable.
You can be rich and stupid, or you can be rich and wise, or poor and wise, or poor and stupid, the point is you can be wealthy in money or wealthy in spirit, they’re not related.
I think children are more affected by mother than father, and so the mother was affected by her mother, so that’s why the maternal grandmother has more of an effect.
So the daughter is more close to her own mother than her father, so you imply that?
For example, I live with my mother-in-law. The time the children spend with her is much more than they are with my mother. But the children’s characteristic is more like me, and more like my mother. So its very interesting, when I read the whole article. I think that maybe Asian people are more clever, because it’s all maternal lineage. But I think in modern society, it more tends to be like that. Because I find that many of my friends they live with their mother already. Maybe its because the wife takes the decision making power.
Or you know a lot of strong women.
Because the wife prefer her children to be taken care by her mother than her mother in law.
Why?
Because I can say what you should and shouldn’t do, but I can’t say that to my mother-in-law. Just like those wife prefer to stay their maternal leave in their own home, and not with their mother in law, because they can say what they want to eat or not in their own home, but not in their mother in law’s home!
Before we start, I just want to ask some background information about everyone.
You want to take a survey?
I just want to know do you lived with your mother or mother-in-law?
When I was child?
No, now?
No.
No.
No.
So I’m the only one. Because most of my friends say that I’m a very special girl that can bear to live with her mother-in-law. Because most people don’t.
Yes.
Not really hate, but most people choose not to.
I guess your husband is the local resident in Hsinchu.
No, I am the local resident!
So your husband want to take care his mother, so his mother live with you.
Yes, because I’m quite fine with living with old people. I’m fine, but I find that most people find very serious problems between—
A tension relationship.
There’s tension in the relationship.
—They prefer to live in their own family. If they can choose, they prefer to live with their own mother, but they’d rather live by themselves. For me, I’m very busy, so I really do need to have someone help me with the children, so I’m quite happy, well not very happy, but I very appreciate that I can stay close to my mother and also live with my mother in-law
So is your relationship good?
I’m fine!
Wow, that speaks volumes.
Well what it is—there’s a different…my mother-in-law’s family was very poor
So there was an economic difference
Well it was a values difference.
Oh, so it’s a class difference.
Well, for instance she has to keep warming up the leftovers, over and over.
She has to save every last scrap of food!
Yes. My father was a teacher, so I’m high educational level, but my husband’s family was laborers. So it’s good, because they’re very traditional, but sometime it’s a burden for us, because she’s always sacrificing everything for us, but we don’t need them too. But she’s afraid we’ll kick her out. But my mom is different, she kicked us all out of the house so she could have some quiet.
My mother is different. She moved to Hsinchu with me, but she didn’t’ like it, because she was used to Miaoli, she didn’t want to change her situation. It’s common in Hsinchu, lots of people live here, but their families are not from here. So you asked a question, why we don’t live with our mother-in-law, it’s very common here.
And so your situation?
Actually, my father is still working.
But if they retired will they live with you?
I don’t know.
Why don’t you know?
Well, we’re still thinking about it, it’s a question of living style.
How about you?
Well, my parents said we can move out to form our own family. I live in Jubei and my parents live in Hsinchu. I go to my parents’ every day for lunch.
My brother is like that. They live so close they don’t need to live together.
Sounds like a win-win situation.
Really!
Still have some privacy, yes.
When my children were still young, I still lived with my parents. But now they’re grown, it’s not a good idea. I would say my parents’ viewpoint, especially to the education system, we want to adopt some attitude to teach our children, well we have different aspects. So sometimes living in different places, it’s a good idea. My children then don’t confuse about what the adults might, from his or her parents, and the parents in law. The same situation in this article. They say the mother-in-law, the grandmother have a different style. I would say it’s important for teaching our children.
But I’m in favor of team b, because I appreciate the grandmother factor. Because many of my friends, they're older and their children already grown up. They say they appreciate their parents, because when the child was young, the parents or parents-in-law take the role of mother and father. I notice this too, cuz when I was a child I didn’t live with my grandma because my mom was a housewife. When I came home, my mom was there. But this didn’t happen to my children, because I work in Taipei. But my children still have someone there, when they come home. Some of my friends’ children in Taipei, they have to hang out in fast food restaurants to wait for their parents. Because there’s the after school program, but after that their parents are still at work, and they have to get dinner for themselves. In primary school, they have some nanny, but after highschool, even though they’re not yet adult, they have to take care of themselves. Because they don’t find nanny for them. So they go to after school program by themselves, and feed themselves by themselves. So I do appreciate the traditional mothers’ role, and the traditional fathers’ role, too.
So you prefer team b? What’s the difference between b and e?
I’m not really supporting team e, because I’m not really think that…I appreciate that they play a role in child raising…spiritual. Although they do have a lot more life experience and see a lot more children than young women. But I don’t know that they do really know what to expect from a child, they may still not know what to do.
So team b is saying that old women—
Are wise!
—have the experience to take care of difficult situations. When something happens, they have more experience to take care of the situation.
But I’m not 100 percent supporting b. For example, my daughter uses her left had. So my mother-in-law wants me to change her to use her right hand and accuse me for not changing it, but I don’t agree with it, and then she goes to my husband.
It’s a conventional conflict.
And sometimes she will always say to the children what they do wrong. But I prefer to tell them what they do right. Because the modern parent cherish what their children do well. But in the past Chinese culture, they will not say what is good, but will correct you. It’s all correction. I’m not saying that correction is not right, but in the past culture its too focused on everyone having to fit in to a mold, and you have to correct everyone to the same mold. We are more western now, and more about respecting individualism. Like the grandmother two wolf story. But our grandmothers were all about correcting children’s behaviors, because of past Chinese culture didn’t respect individualism. So it’s not 100 percent wise.
I want to create team f.
Okay! Cool.
So the answer is yes. I would say the grandmother is important, especially for traditional Chinese society. But I would say the old grandparents have lots of experience to take care of children. But the most important is we want to maintain a Chinese culture characteristic. If I respect my mother this is a kind of education sample for my children. It’s a culture, we need to set up a sample for our children to learn how to respect your older people or your relatives. It’s very important but my reason to create the team f, I don’t completely agree the old women is totally their responsibility. The parent like me or my wife have a responsibility to take care of our children. That is why I want to take the team f. The answer is yes, but I have another reason.
Can you state it in one sentence?
The grandmother is important to help the mother/father to take care of grandkids, and it’s a learning example for the grandkids to learn how to respect older people.
But it only has effect when you live with them?
But just I said, to live together or separate is also another kind of experience.
So what ‘s the difference when you take them every weekend to the nursing home?
I would say if my parents have the ability to take care of themselves, I would say they should live in their house. But if they don’t have the ability, and I can’t, then to transfer them to a care center is a good idea. But I have a responsibility to visit the care center very often.
I’m not criticize you. I’m just say if you have a grandmother, it will have an effect to teach children to respect elder. If you don’t you still can teach them with your daily behavior. But what is the effect of the grandmother on the whole family.
I’m saying it’s like you teach your children to respect other people, but if you practice it, and you respect your mother, your child can learn from your practice.
Right. What I do to my parents my children will do to me. I do agree. I’m just curious about your wording. I think that if you live together, why live together, because it’s daily life, if the children get used to living with older people, without any functions, but you will have to bear it in your house, and you still have tot take care of them, this will really teach your children how to take care of those who used to be active. My friend said that when his children were taking care of by his parents, and when he grew up, and choose the school, and he was worried if he was too far away, he worried about his grandparents, because his parents often go abroad on business trip, and he was worried about that the grandparents had no one to care for them. I think this is really good, so the children start to think about others—they didn’t worry about the parents, they can take care of them selves, but they worry about the grandparents! It’s a way that they know they belong to the family. Their responsibility. Because they were fed by them, and then they want to take care of them.
You mention it’s related to different styles of grandmother or grandfather. In our generation, or the kids, they are the traditional style. But maybe our grandkids will face to another style. Like when I’m a grandfather, I will say I won’t be a traditional grandfather. Maybe it’s a different style, so in current Taiwan society, most grandmothers and grandfathers are traditional style but it will change. So if you are grandmother what, do you want to take care your grand kids?
No.
[Laugher]
But you would like to influence them?
Not necessarily. I think that if you are more independent, you not necessarily need to live with your children. But I know that my parents in law are not independent, but I can accept it because they need it. They need to live with you to prove that they are worthy of love, so it’s fine.
So let me re-ask this question. In 30 years, you are a grandmother, do you want to live with your children?
If I need, I hope they will welcome me. But it depends on my choice, you know?
That means that, if I want, I hope they will welcome me. But if I don’t want, it’s my decision. If I do need them, and they refuse to do so, I’ll be sad. But it will depend on what I feel that time.
Because I don’t want my grand daughter in law—normally you will like your grandchildren, but you may not like their spouse!
Hey, I want everyone to answer that question, that is interesting.
I prefer not. I think I can live happily with myself, and maybe with my wife. I have many hobbies, many dreams, many books to read, there’s so much to explore.
But you have to economic independence!
Yes, I’m going to say that! I’m getting to that.
So in Chinese old saying, before you had to save money to keep when you are old, but now you have to save money to protect the children.
But my answer is the same to Robert. My son tells me, when he grows up, he doesn’t want to live with us. And my daughter say she want to live with us.
Normally daughters prefer to live with their parents.
Not every daughter!
[Laughter]
So that’s why I say, I want them to have their own life, and my wife and I will have our own life. We could live together part of the time, but not every day.
But take my mother’s example she didn’t want to live with my brother, but when he bought a new house, she came to see it, and asked, hey? If I was here, where would I live?
So she wanted to know that she could!
Yes.
And my sister in law said, oh, there is not room for you!
Oh shit!
It was stupid, right? There’s room for the children, and a room for the books, but no room for her. So she’s stupid, she still should welcome her. But if this were you, what will you feel, can you accept it?
This kind of violates Chinese thinking, you need to express your welcome, but we have a problem in taiwan, no one has any room!
But I think that young people don’t really think about it. My colleague said the reason she doesn’t want to marry, she doesn’t want, when she comes home, she doesn’t want to find fruit in the fridge! Meaning, she doesn't want to find that the mother-in-law is there with out her permission. Right now, she is only a girlfriend, and the mother-in-law already makes her too involved in the family. But it’s quite strange, that I think it’s fine, because I’m too busy. So if there’s fruit, it’s fine, because I don’t have time, and you want to cook, it’s great! So now for the young people, it’s—
But maybe it’s because you're too busy. If you were less busy you’d have problems with your mother-in-law.
Well, it’s ‘cuz I’m lazy, I don’t mind people taking care of me.
But this is maybe another problem. When we get older, we have to think about what the younger people are thinking. We have to think about their thinking logic, and respect them for that.
I’ll ask in in another way. Do you like the family style in America? Because I think that in 30 years, we’ll be like the culture in America. So our future will be a lot different from our past. So when you look at the US family style, it’s our future. When you say Chinese culture, I think in 30 years, it won’t really be like that. 5 years generation gap, 10 years is really very obvious. But so 30 years, will really be different. So do you think this is good?
It’s not really about good or bad. I agree it will be happen in 20 or 30 years, but the only thing we can do is maintain their relationship with our children, to establish the cause relationship with them. It’s the only thing we can do. We can’t refuse to accept that situation. Think about my example, my son said he wants to …if he has the ability to travel around the world, he doesn’t want to live in Taiwan or Hsinchu. Now he doesn’t even want to be here, he wants to live in Taipei, and he wants to leave and go.
You’re in my parents’ position!
But when my son talks to me, I just encourage him to fulfill his dream. So I tell him how he needs to prepare. You need to earn money, you need to read books, and you need to know things. It’s not easy.
Actually, that’s not true. I just had a plane ticket and 600 dollars US, but I was okay.
But I think balance is best. Too traditional or too modern is not good. But since our society developed, I think our children will develop individualism, so we decided to teach them more Chinese style at home. And also individually. I was educated in Chinese style, but we are trained by society modern individualism so it’s quite balance.
I want to know what Jason thinks.
In 30 years, it depends how my children are thinking. Just like Vina, you need them to take care your children right?
Actually, she said they need her!
My children are actually taken care of by my mother. You know, my parents in law feel like their son has become a lu zue! [= the son is the ‘wife’ in the family, without the prestige of being the main hereditary line]
[laughter]
So, if they need, they can live with me, but in my style, I have my own house, and I live near with my parents, so my parents can see me, if they want, everyday, and they can see their grandson and granddaughter every day if they want. They are all retired now, so usually they go abroad for traveling. When I need them to take care my children, they are happy to take care. So I think it’s the best way for me.
But if your children want to go to foreign country?
That’s okay, it’s their life, I respect their decision.
So it seems their current status you live with your parents is the best model.
We don’t live under the same roof, but very near.
The same building?
Not the same. About 20 minutes drive apart. It’s the perfect model for me.
So you want your children adopt your mode.
Well, for me it’s a good style, because I love my parents.
Do you have children?
Yes,
How old are they?
7 and 5
And who takes care of them?
My wife.
Same as me, my elder is 7 and my second is 5.
And your wife doesn’t work.
Yes, she quit after the second one. She was a teacher before.
Just like me, my wife and I decide that one need to quit a job, and so we discuss, that I need to work! So she quit.
So that’s why you don’t need to live with the grandmother, because all your wife live with your children but I can’t, I need her.
You know, my wife’s salary was higher than me.
Then why didn’t you quit!
Because she said she wanted to take care of HER children. She wanted the experience of it, she thought that it was worth it.
You know, I wondered why always the women quit their job. But in fact, when you actually have the children, you know that the responsibility is on you, because these 10 months, it was already all on you. So you’re already used to have the responsibility. So the woman will decide to sacrifice.
It’s not a sacrifice, it’s a kind of trade off.
As Robert’s case, he is a house husband.
Well not really, you’re the main income bringer, right?
Well partial. But I have the greatest housewife!
For me, that’s why I’m not gonna have children.
For me, I’m a businesswoman, so it’s fine. But if I were a housewife, I can’t imagine what will happen. Because two housewife in the house, that would be terrible, who’s in charge?
That’s why my wife, my mother encourage me to move out.
[Laughter.]
It’s my house or your house! I come to your house, I follow your rules.
One house is owned by one woman!
[agreement and laugher]
So what team do you choose?
Team b and e. It mentioned that old women play an important role. I’d say they could, but not necessarily. But we should value the wisdom that old women bear. Actually for all old people.
I think all people would choose b and e in Taiwan. They would say so, they wouldn’t necessarily show in their behavior, but they think it. Because we are taught.
So who would say a?
I think they would think it, but they wouldn’t say it.
I think that some of my girlfriends would say a, but not in public.
so how about you, A?
ha, no I’ll take c.
trust me, it’s not what you think—that’s a moderator job.
so what are you?
She’s b!
So I’ll choose b,
So how about you!
Oh, uh, I’m typing, I’m not sure.
So what does it mean ‘strongly influence the quality of people’?
It’s like, people raised well are wealthy of spirit, interiorly.
So it’s an economic quality or spiritual quality, its contrasted.
What do you mean? Contrasted, that’s interesting.
Knowledgeable.
You can be rich and stupid, or you can be rich and wise, or poor and wise, or poor and stupid, the point is you can be wealthy in money or wealthy in spirit, they’re not related.
Hsinchu Discussion Transcript: Farming
Participants: Kevin, Peter W, Wilson, Vina, Regina, Angela
The original discussion question is here.
The point is, it’s not so serious. If it’s the metal mine or the oil, yes, it’s limited. But the plants, we plant some seed, let’s say in Taiwan, talking about rice, normally in the south of Taiwan we can have three harvests one year, and in the north, 2 times. So it’s not that serious.
Okay, no, what you don’t know is Taiwan’s soil is incredibly rich, because, just like the US, less than 200 years ago it was all forest. Also, Taiwanese farmers use ancient Chinese farming methods, which according to the author of this book, actually conserve the nutrition of the soil really well. It’s why the Chinese have used the same land for 1000 years and it’s basically okay.
But listen, let me show you a link, this is something that happened in Uzbekistan. The Soviet gvt took a fragile ecosystem, pumped it with water from the Ural sea—permanently reducing the sea by half, by the way, and killing the fishing industries and all the towns around the edges—and got 50 years of cotton out of it. But now, the land is completely dead. It’s not even a desert. It’s completely dead. Look at this picture.
Okay, but listen, until I read this book, I totally thought exactly what you did, that it’s industry and chemicals and plastics and carbon we have to worry about. But now, I see that this is a whole new area that’s got to be considered. The world is changing so fast, you know? The Taiwanese gvt is working on a 10 year old paradigm. They’re not remotely thinking about food yet, but I really think they should be.
The reason haven’t seen that scenario in Taiwan because we let the land take a rest after one season. Even though we use the chemical fertilizer to the soil, it’s because we let it rest, so we don’t harm.
Well, actually it does, it’s that it’s not as clearly harmful, because of the resting.
You know, population is like bacteria in a Petri dish. If you feed it a limited amount of food, the population of bacteriums doesn’t grow. But if you give it a surplus, the population grows, the more surplus the more growth, but the problem is, what happens when the food runs out?
Maybe in Taiwan we don’t have a lot of farming fields.
We do have! So the gvt policy is to rest.
But we don’t have fields on the scale of the US.
But the US is largely for-profit agriculture.
But I’m saying is, we don’t have the kind of field where we plant the same kind of food for miles. So we don’t have to exploit the forest. We can keep the forest.
No I don’t agree, because in the past we had to follow Japan’s rules. If as you say, we keep the forest, and have very good farming development, and the cities, and keep it as the original situation. But these few years, people are very worried about Taiwan’s future. So now we have the politicians ask those farmers to leave things fallow, because they’re afraid that too many…so they ask them to rest. But now they have changed the laws that allow them to build houses, and they can change restrictions to build houses, so the situation, that you say we lack farmland, will come to happen, will happen, because we’ve started to build on our farmland.
Do you know these two years, the agriculture is a quite popular issues, because of the growing of the emerging market, and the great population, and imagine if china, everyone ate one more piece of bread, what a shortage of wheat would be. So the land shortage has made agriculture prices go up. And in fact Taiwan has the great advantage. We have great dirt, and good soil, we could make money from it, but instead we have been developing industry. Not agriculture.
Okay, let me give you an example from my sister in law, she’s a farmer in Miaoli. The gvt wants her to have her land fallow. The gvt doesn’t approve her to plant. The gvt want to control the quantity of food, so it won’t depress prices. But maybe this year, the world lack of food, so the gvt approve she can plant in his land every year. So it’s a policy, it’s a gvt policy. It doesn’t mention any soil exploitation, the gvt want to control the price.
But there is another problem for Taiwanese farmer. They subsidy they get is only a little money, so they need to find a way for other money. So the gvt tell my sister in law to change her farming style, so need to do something, to change from pure forming to a recreation business. So need to change their farming style. And the gvt teach them how to change their style.
But I’m thinking, just for considering the future, just feed ourselves is fine. But in the future, we’re too reliant on imported foods. We don’t have much problems because we can feed ourselves. But if you think about in America, now they already suffers from this problems, because they don’ t have enough good enough farmland for corn, and basically their main food is corn, and the corn price. Because the corn is meant for biofuel, and this cause a great influence on them. And if our food type is rice, it’s fine. But if we too rely on the wheat, maybe we will have some problems. We will have to pay more, and still more. And farmers will to change those, will maximize their profits, so they will change there, for example, if corn is more profitable, they will change over to corn, and it’s not really good for the ecosystem.
So it's interesting, paragraph 32, they say it’s not necessary to say that every national agriculture is completely self contained, this would be a great pity. So Taiwan has enough food, we don’t need to import too much food, just some flour.
It’s interesting to think about Africa. They lack food so they want to increase their population.
Huh?
They want more labor to plant plants.
Wow. But if they would stop fighting, they would have the population.
So, about question number one, its strange to link, to say the population is proportional to the agriculture. So I don’t think it’s a real situation. I think the population, there are many factors that affect the population growth.
Yeah, medicine is one.
Even Africa, their economic situation is very bad, and agriculture unit output is not so….but their population is very huge.
Like in china.
So I don’t think the agricultural development is the major factor for the double triple of population in Europe in the 18th century. In my understand, the European empire, the Spanish and the British robbed the agricultural treasure from south east Asia and mainland china, is the reason for the economic growth.
How?
Their economic position improved.
So allow them to do what?
Allow them to have more babies, more land, and improve their living environment. So this can explain the high growth rate of their population.
Okay, back to the agriculture in Taiwan, after Wilson was say that it’s not a big problem. I’m not so optimistic about the agriculture here. I don’t think the soil is fertilized enough. For example, a few months ago, the worldwide fertilizer price rise very sharp, so many farmers couldn’t get enough, so without enough fertilizer, they can’t plant enough, and can’t get good harvest, so it means our soil also lack, like the Europe and America, it’s worse than before. But where we are strong is our agriculture scientist, our capability.
Yeah, don’t have lost talent.
Yes, is very advanced. And 20 or 30 years ago, they can dispatch the teams to help the African countries, or the middle east countries. So I think the soil crisis I think is global issue. And why our gvt decide to fallow many lands, partially is because just like Vina says, part of eating habit is changed to western, like McDonald, so we don’t need too many the rice to supply our internal demand.
But we can export it!
Rice, some surplus rice.
Just like Thailand.
What countries are importing our rice?
Lots of countries import Thai rice.
Number one in the world.
So I say, who buys Taiwan rice?
We haven’t developed the market.
China will need it.
I don’t think so
Yes! They will.
I’m supporting Peter. In the past, we have a lot of talented experts, like our previous president, Lee Tunghue. In that generation, some talented people liked to go into agriculture so we have many professionals who could make a good agriculture policy. But now we’re better at technology, so in education system, I don’t think many young talented people will go into agriculture, because it’s without money, without future. So in future, we’ll lack this professional area,. Everyone wants to go to TSMC.
No, that’s ten years ago.
Okay, IC design.
Sure, and it’s hard for farmers to make money. And it mentioned that their business model is not right. And I’ll say that the price of food is always low. It’s a worldwide problem. Because people need it every day. so if the price increases, it causes a lot of pressure to the country’s economy. And maybe, I’ll say it’s a problem, but it’s not a solvable problem. It’s very complicated.
But the profit, the farmers, they don’t get a considerable profit. Most of the profit is taken by the middle man, who takes advantage of the farmer, and of the consumer. So we actually pay a lot for food, but the farmer makes no money.
So if you can pay less money to buy the stuff, would you pay more for it? For me, I would choose to pay less money. It’s very straightforward.
But it’s talking about the true cost of making that thing. What if you say that this should cost 5, but you’re selling it for 2, I won’t buy it, because it’s too cheap.
Like in mainland china, all the fake foods.
Like okay, if a shop is going out of business, you can buy for cheap.
Or what about the reuses. Like someone steal the clothes put out for recycling, and wash it and sell for a cheap price, but it’s really not new.
So less than the true cost!
So that’s one problem of the social system, not the trading system.
But on the scale of mainland china? All the fake goods do affect!
But it’s also ethics!
But think about in Hsinchu, why do we have the low price policy, we try to do the lower cost. So what is the true cost?
So for low cost notebook, what do they do, to lower the margin, they can’t cut out materials so they cut out labor. So what do they do, they go to china.
But if you don’t have any margin, then you reduce the material cost!
But in Europe, some, they are against those company they build the factories in mainland china that use the very cheap laborers, because it’s children and overworked people. They say that even though we can get the cheaper price, we are against it. For example Nike, they didn’t know their manufacturer employed children, overworked with no rest. Or maybe you can get the cheaper price, they’ll say background, exporting costs, but it’s bullshit. So I’m against for buying.
This hiring children, this is a problem for the reputation of the company, for the image. So if Nike reduced cost by hiring children, so we can be against their product, we don’t use less money to buy their products. So maybe it’s like in example question. But I challenge the words, ‘true cost’ who can tell me what is the true cost?
Everything you buy you have a price in your mind.
It’s market price, but two high, or too low, everyone uses their sense, it’s market sense. You just know!
I don’t agree.
Give me an example, I’ll show you.
So you’re saying this cup should be 5 dollars.
But I agree that the true cost depends on people.
I'll give you an example of cars. Say a Lexus or BMW. Same car, same design, but Lexus is cheaper, because of customers loyalty.
But the price is rising now, because people will like it, so the price is rising.
But so it’s over the true cost, it’s the brand loyalty.
Sure, brand loyalty is why luxury goods still profitable.
Okay, but if someone wants to sell you a new BMW, one million [=NT, about 30,000USD], everyone else pays 2 million, then you know something’s wrong
Stolen car!
Sure, but why is IBM so much more expensive computer?
That’s what they price it.
So if you can buy it cheap, something is wrong.
But Lenovo laptop is the same, but it’s cheaper.
So I don’t buy IBM, I buy Lenovo!
Sure, but you see my point.
Okay, but if the price is so much lower, then you know it’s fake goods, or sacrifice some benefit to the supplier. And it’s not good for the consumer to pursue this behavior. For example my husband’s company, the purchasing manager, tried to cut costs of suppliers, to a very low price, and one year the supplier’s bankrupt, so they still have to find other, which cost them in a different way. So the best way is everyone can make money. Not big money, but you have to keep the supplier alive. You still have to thinking about others. So the lower price, I think that maybe really means that only you are benefit. It’s a short term benefit, but not more.
The key point is ethics. I know it’s judgmental but you know what’s right or wrong. You use your feelings. You buy the more expensive thing, but you get something in return. You buy low quality, you lose.
How about your opinion, Regina?
Okay, I think in example B, sometimes it’s not depends on our intention, sometimes it depends on market price. For example, in Africa, they plant coffee beans, because our developed country need it. The develop countries don’t really need it. And the price, maybe it’s under the cost, because our wealth is stronger, so we can control them. Maybe we would like to pay more, but the market is like this, so we don’t have the power to control this.
I remember I read one article that we talk about children in Africa, they have to collect those beans, and a lot of boxes, and not more than one dollar, and the price at Starbucks is 3 or 4 dollars, and it’s really the margins of it is only made by—
The middle man, like Kevin was saying.
—Right. They can manipulate the price.
Yeah, and if we can use the internet, we can organized this for itself.
Yeah, but talking about Starbucks, the environmentalists said that Starbucks was manipulating the markets, and they fought back, saying that they showed what price they sold what country’s coffee, and they’re saying they hope—
Yeah, using another way to explain.
Sure, but who is lying. It’s not Starbucks. It’s not the environmentalists are not lying. The information is distorted. The point is the complete money is not involved here.
Most of the money goes to third-party organizations.
So they are talking different target, but it’s the same issue.
Because the consumer wants cheaper, so the company wants to cut costs, so the suppliers can’t earn money.
And I think the key issue is the example b. Want to highlight for the true cost. It try, okay, to point out the most of the manufacturing costs is underestimate, then it’s true. Normally, we over consume the resources on the earth, and also, some resource is export form other countries, by some, you know, inhuman way. So I think its purpose is to remind us, that when you pay one dollar to buy some product, so what’s the real, invisible, some heightened cost behind the cost showing the finance report.
Okay, another issue I want to, I think the price, the transaction price in the market is determined by buyer and seller. I think its very simple, but we can say, I don’t think it’s guilty or illegal for business man or company owner to try decide this production site to supply cheaper to the market, it’s not about guilt or illegality. If the market is free enough, so the consumer has the right to decide to purchase a product at the lowest cost, under the condition the quality is equal. So that’s why china has become the world’s factory. Of course, a lot of people refuse to buy products made in china—
[laughter]
—but for rational consumer, there’s no reason not to buy, because it’s cheaper. So…I don’t think the transfer wealth, from one countries to another underdeveloped country is wrong, because we all know the businessman’s money, always he will invest in an area, in most efficient way.
Oh?
So what we have to do is try to improve our distribution.
You mean channel.
Yes, because most of industry in Taiwan, the smile curve, we discussed a few weeks ago. The margin of the manufacturing is very very low. So most of Taiwanese companies try to invest more in the marketing, and in the development. So these two sides are the most value added in the supply chain of any products.
But I can understand what Peter said, and I also agree, but, also this article, like Kevin said, the ethics of transferring wealth. We talk about b, but we didn’t talk about a, which is more about American style.
Sorry—
No, go ahead, I bash the US all the time, it doesn’t offend me when others do it!
I think that when people talk about climate change, about bigger issues, but in America, there is the most irresponsibility, the most throwing away of resources—
100 percent agree!
—and they can just buy others’, like mainland china, Africa. But if you agree, that I can pay for it, and also make those countries rich. But the truth is that most of the irresponsible behaviour, the result is suffered by the whole people, because of the climate change, the revolutions, even in mainland china, and the revolution and the waste is caused by ourselves. Sure I can pay for it, I can get the cheaper price, I can pay for others’ resources. But it’s not a good way of thinking. For example in Japan and Europe, they’re really devoted to lower, minimize the waste of resource. Just like the Kyoto protocol only two people didn’t sign, just America and Australia. But now only America. So maybe after Bush—
Depends if McCain or not.
But the point is what this article is talking about, it’s not just about marketing and brands.
You mention about responsibility to society.
Yes, because this article is talking about this.
It’s very ideal, and practically, we can talk about as peter said, value added, why low product are for gaining more money, so you add value. So the lowest cost is manufacturing, because it’s just to compose some component. But for the branding, they can put more value, but that’s depend on you need or you trust. If you can rely on the brand, you don’t care about paying more, because they add on the brand. So it depends on, so I’m saying, how do you really figure out the true costs? If you rely on your logic, you might be paying more.
So I’m saying this article is too idealistic. The practical economy is not evil, they can get the balance. Challenging the trading system as an evil thing against the agriculture system.. I’m saying he’s a scientist, he’s not an engineer.
So from paragraph 28: “Modern opinion is now set against all forms of exploitation. The limitation of money dividends, the disciplining of capital investments have begun. Undertaken originally only from the point of view of economic order, then continued for political and national motives, these measures bear in themselves further possibilities; it would be easy to give them wide moral significance. [Quite possibly this was true in 1930, I highly doubt it’s true now. –Angela]”
You wrote that note, Angela, what are you saying by that?
He was writing this at the end of World War II. He was saying that modern people understand how wrong capitalism could go, because of the war? And so people would thinking differently. But he’s wrong, obviously. I’m saying, if we were truly against exploitation, it wouldn’t exist now, because we would have got rid of it already. If we truly were against it.
So it’s saying capitalism = democracy? That if our economic system is capitalism, then our society would be democratic?
Wait, you’re not saying capitalism is democracy, are you?
[Laughter]
So if capitalism does not equal democracy, then what does, socialism? Communism?
Wow, I’m not sure whether you question is in the right vein.
If our society is free or democratic, you have a right to play your business on your own, but you need to obey the law. And we also discus some, we have disciplines, because we have social responsibility, so we have to constrain our freedom to run our business. So I just say, does it violate the democratic spirit?
Wow, what do you think?
Well I don’t know what democracy is…
Democracy means free, or free democracy.
I think democracy is free plus responsibilty, so I don’t think that it violates….
But Wilson, you’re mixing up the systems. Anarchy is emphasis the full freedom for emphasizing everyone’s right. But democracy, the basic rule, is the minority has to follow the majority.
Wow.
I so agree.
Exactly right.
But the majority have to respect the minority.
Yes.
Yes.
But the minority has to follow the majority.
Sure, after the decision has already been taken…
The majority has to respect the minority’s right or benefit, so that’s the base of what democratic society exists on. If the basis of the rule is broken, the democratic society cannot sustain.
For example if the, for nuclear waste. All Taiwan’s people decide to put the waste in Lanyu [=Orchid Island, about a two hour plane flight away, inhabited by an aboriginal tribe], of course the majority would!
Majority violence!
But you still have to respect the minority voice.
Even the decision is to locate the waste in Lanyu, also all the protection or compensation should be taken by the government, for the nearby people.
But it’s interesting that if we decided to put the waste in their neighborhood, and we give them money, would they really want it?
Sure, they want it, but they want more money.
So the key point is the price.
So you need to give me enough money!
So it means democracy can be solved my money.
As long as you’re rich it’s okay!
The original discussion question is here.
The point is, it’s not so serious. If it’s the metal mine or the oil, yes, it’s limited. But the plants, we plant some seed, let’s say in Taiwan, talking about rice, normally in the south of Taiwan we can have three harvests one year, and in the north, 2 times. So it’s not that serious.
Okay, no, what you don’t know is Taiwan’s soil is incredibly rich, because, just like the US, less than 200 years ago it was all forest. Also, Taiwanese farmers use ancient Chinese farming methods, which according to the author of this book, actually conserve the nutrition of the soil really well. It’s why the Chinese have used the same land for 1000 years and it’s basically okay.
But listen, let me show you a link, this is something that happened in Uzbekistan. The Soviet gvt took a fragile ecosystem, pumped it with water from the Ural sea—permanently reducing the sea by half, by the way, and killing the fishing industries and all the towns around the edges—and got 50 years of cotton out of it. But now, the land is completely dead. It’s not even a desert. It’s completely dead. Look at this picture.
Okay, but listen, until I read this book, I totally thought exactly what you did, that it’s industry and chemicals and plastics and carbon we have to worry about. But now, I see that this is a whole new area that’s got to be considered. The world is changing so fast, you know? The Taiwanese gvt is working on a 10 year old paradigm. They’re not remotely thinking about food yet, but I really think they should be.
The reason haven’t seen that scenario in Taiwan because we let the land take a rest after one season. Even though we use the chemical fertilizer to the soil, it’s because we let it rest, so we don’t harm.
Well, actually it does, it’s that it’s not as clearly harmful, because of the resting.
You know, population is like bacteria in a Petri dish. If you feed it a limited amount of food, the population of bacteriums doesn’t grow. But if you give it a surplus, the population grows, the more surplus the more growth, but the problem is, what happens when the food runs out?
Maybe in Taiwan we don’t have a lot of farming fields.
We do have! So the gvt policy is to rest.
But we don’t have fields on the scale of the US.
But the US is largely for-profit agriculture.
But I’m saying is, we don’t have the kind of field where we plant the same kind of food for miles. So we don’t have to exploit the forest. We can keep the forest.
No I don’t agree, because in the past we had to follow Japan’s rules. If as you say, we keep the forest, and have very good farming development, and the cities, and keep it as the original situation. But these few years, people are very worried about Taiwan’s future. So now we have the politicians ask those farmers to leave things fallow, because they’re afraid that too many…so they ask them to rest. But now they have changed the laws that allow them to build houses, and they can change restrictions to build houses, so the situation, that you say we lack farmland, will come to happen, will happen, because we’ve started to build on our farmland.
Do you know these two years, the agriculture is a quite popular issues, because of the growing of the emerging market, and the great population, and imagine if china, everyone ate one more piece of bread, what a shortage of wheat would be. So the land shortage has made agriculture prices go up. And in fact Taiwan has the great advantage. We have great dirt, and good soil, we could make money from it, but instead we have been developing industry. Not agriculture.
Okay, let me give you an example from my sister in law, she’s a farmer in Miaoli. The gvt wants her to have her land fallow. The gvt doesn’t approve her to plant. The gvt want to control the quantity of food, so it won’t depress prices. But maybe this year, the world lack of food, so the gvt approve she can plant in his land every year. So it’s a policy, it’s a gvt policy. It doesn’t mention any soil exploitation, the gvt want to control the price.
But there is another problem for Taiwanese farmer. They subsidy they get is only a little money, so they need to find a way for other money. So the gvt tell my sister in law to change her farming style, so need to do something, to change from pure forming to a recreation business. So need to change their farming style. And the gvt teach them how to change their style.
But I’m thinking, just for considering the future, just feed ourselves is fine. But in the future, we’re too reliant on imported foods. We don’t have much problems because we can feed ourselves. But if you think about in America, now they already suffers from this problems, because they don’ t have enough good enough farmland for corn, and basically their main food is corn, and the corn price. Because the corn is meant for biofuel, and this cause a great influence on them. And if our food type is rice, it’s fine. But if we too rely on the wheat, maybe we will have some problems. We will have to pay more, and still more. And farmers will to change those, will maximize their profits, so they will change there, for example, if corn is more profitable, they will change over to corn, and it’s not really good for the ecosystem.
So it's interesting, paragraph 32, they say it’s not necessary to say that every national agriculture is completely self contained, this would be a great pity. So Taiwan has enough food, we don’t need to import too much food, just some flour.
It’s interesting to think about Africa. They lack food so they want to increase their population.
Huh?
They want more labor to plant plants.
Wow. But if they would stop fighting, they would have the population.
So, about question number one, its strange to link, to say the population is proportional to the agriculture. So I don’t think it’s a real situation. I think the population, there are many factors that affect the population growth.
Yeah, medicine is one.
Even Africa, their economic situation is very bad, and agriculture unit output is not so….but their population is very huge.
Like in china.
So I don’t think the agricultural development is the major factor for the double triple of population in Europe in the 18th century. In my understand, the European empire, the Spanish and the British robbed the agricultural treasure from south east Asia and mainland china, is the reason for the economic growth.
How?
Their economic position improved.
So allow them to do what?
Allow them to have more babies, more land, and improve their living environment. So this can explain the high growth rate of their population.
Okay, back to the agriculture in Taiwan, after Wilson was say that it’s not a big problem. I’m not so optimistic about the agriculture here. I don’t think the soil is fertilized enough. For example, a few months ago, the worldwide fertilizer price rise very sharp, so many farmers couldn’t get enough, so without enough fertilizer, they can’t plant enough, and can’t get good harvest, so it means our soil also lack, like the Europe and America, it’s worse than before. But where we are strong is our agriculture scientist, our capability.
Yeah, don’t have lost talent.
Yes, is very advanced. And 20 or 30 years ago, they can dispatch the teams to help the African countries, or the middle east countries. So I think the soil crisis I think is global issue. And why our gvt decide to fallow many lands, partially is because just like Vina says, part of eating habit is changed to western, like McDonald, so we don’t need too many the rice to supply our internal demand.
But we can export it!
Rice, some surplus rice.
Just like Thailand.
What countries are importing our rice?
Lots of countries import Thai rice.
Number one in the world.
So I say, who buys Taiwan rice?
We haven’t developed the market.
China will need it.
I don’t think so
Yes! They will.
I’m supporting Peter. In the past, we have a lot of talented experts, like our previous president, Lee Tunghue. In that generation, some talented people liked to go into agriculture so we have many professionals who could make a good agriculture policy. But now we’re better at technology, so in education system, I don’t think many young talented people will go into agriculture, because it’s without money, without future. So in future, we’ll lack this professional area,. Everyone wants to go to TSMC.
No, that’s ten years ago.
Okay, IC design.
Sure, and it’s hard for farmers to make money. And it mentioned that their business model is not right. And I’ll say that the price of food is always low. It’s a worldwide problem. Because people need it every day. so if the price increases, it causes a lot of pressure to the country’s economy. And maybe, I’ll say it’s a problem, but it’s not a solvable problem. It’s very complicated.
But the profit, the farmers, they don’t get a considerable profit. Most of the profit is taken by the middle man, who takes advantage of the farmer, and of the consumer. So we actually pay a lot for food, but the farmer makes no money.
So if you can pay less money to buy the stuff, would you pay more for it? For me, I would choose to pay less money. It’s very straightforward.
But it’s talking about the true cost of making that thing. What if you say that this should cost 5, but you’re selling it for 2, I won’t buy it, because it’s too cheap.
Like in mainland china, all the fake foods.
Like okay, if a shop is going out of business, you can buy for cheap.
Or what about the reuses. Like someone steal the clothes put out for recycling, and wash it and sell for a cheap price, but it’s really not new.
So less than the true cost!
So that’s one problem of the social system, not the trading system.
But on the scale of mainland china? All the fake goods do affect!
But it’s also ethics!
But think about in Hsinchu, why do we have the low price policy, we try to do the lower cost. So what is the true cost?
So for low cost notebook, what do they do, to lower the margin, they can’t cut out materials so they cut out labor. So what do they do, they go to china.
But if you don’t have any margin, then you reduce the material cost!
But in Europe, some, they are against those company they build the factories in mainland china that use the very cheap laborers, because it’s children and overworked people. They say that even though we can get the cheaper price, we are against it. For example Nike, they didn’t know their manufacturer employed children, overworked with no rest. Or maybe you can get the cheaper price, they’ll say background, exporting costs, but it’s bullshit. So I’m against for buying.
This hiring children, this is a problem for the reputation of the company, for the image. So if Nike reduced cost by hiring children, so we can be against their product, we don’t use less money to buy their products. So maybe it’s like in example question. But I challenge the words, ‘true cost’ who can tell me what is the true cost?
Everything you buy you have a price in your mind.
It’s market price, but two high, or too low, everyone uses their sense, it’s market sense. You just know!
I don’t agree.
Give me an example, I’ll show you.
So you’re saying this cup should be 5 dollars.
But I agree that the true cost depends on people.
I'll give you an example of cars. Say a Lexus or BMW. Same car, same design, but Lexus is cheaper, because of customers loyalty.
But the price is rising now, because people will like it, so the price is rising.
But so it’s over the true cost, it’s the brand loyalty.
Sure, brand loyalty is why luxury goods still profitable.
Okay, but if someone wants to sell you a new BMW, one million [=NT, about 30,000USD], everyone else pays 2 million, then you know something’s wrong
Stolen car!
Sure, but why is IBM so much more expensive computer?
That’s what they price it.
So if you can buy it cheap, something is wrong.
But Lenovo laptop is the same, but it’s cheaper.
So I don’t buy IBM, I buy Lenovo!
Sure, but you see my point.
Okay, but if the price is so much lower, then you know it’s fake goods, or sacrifice some benefit to the supplier. And it’s not good for the consumer to pursue this behavior. For example my husband’s company, the purchasing manager, tried to cut costs of suppliers, to a very low price, and one year the supplier’s bankrupt, so they still have to find other, which cost them in a different way. So the best way is everyone can make money. Not big money, but you have to keep the supplier alive. You still have to thinking about others. So the lower price, I think that maybe really means that only you are benefit. It’s a short term benefit, but not more.
The key point is ethics. I know it’s judgmental but you know what’s right or wrong. You use your feelings. You buy the more expensive thing, but you get something in return. You buy low quality, you lose.
How about your opinion, Regina?
Okay, I think in example B, sometimes it’s not depends on our intention, sometimes it depends on market price. For example, in Africa, they plant coffee beans, because our developed country need it. The develop countries don’t really need it. And the price, maybe it’s under the cost, because our wealth is stronger, so we can control them. Maybe we would like to pay more, but the market is like this, so we don’t have the power to control this.
I remember I read one article that we talk about children in Africa, they have to collect those beans, and a lot of boxes, and not more than one dollar, and the price at Starbucks is 3 or 4 dollars, and it’s really the margins of it is only made by—
The middle man, like Kevin was saying.
—Right. They can manipulate the price.
Yeah, and if we can use the internet, we can organized this for itself.
Yeah, but talking about Starbucks, the environmentalists said that Starbucks was manipulating the markets, and they fought back, saying that they showed what price they sold what country’s coffee, and they’re saying they hope—
Yeah, using another way to explain.
Sure, but who is lying. It’s not Starbucks. It’s not the environmentalists are not lying. The information is distorted. The point is the complete money is not involved here.
Most of the money goes to third-party organizations.
So they are talking different target, but it’s the same issue.
Because the consumer wants cheaper, so the company wants to cut costs, so the suppliers can’t earn money.
And I think the key issue is the example b. Want to highlight for the true cost. It try, okay, to point out the most of the manufacturing costs is underestimate, then it’s true. Normally, we over consume the resources on the earth, and also, some resource is export form other countries, by some, you know, inhuman way. So I think its purpose is to remind us, that when you pay one dollar to buy some product, so what’s the real, invisible, some heightened cost behind the cost showing the finance report.
Okay, another issue I want to, I think the price, the transaction price in the market is determined by buyer and seller. I think its very simple, but we can say, I don’t think it’s guilty or illegal for business man or company owner to try decide this production site to supply cheaper to the market, it’s not about guilt or illegality. If the market is free enough, so the consumer has the right to decide to purchase a product at the lowest cost, under the condition the quality is equal. So that’s why china has become the world’s factory. Of course, a lot of people refuse to buy products made in china—
[laughter]
—but for rational consumer, there’s no reason not to buy, because it’s cheaper. So…I don’t think the transfer wealth, from one countries to another underdeveloped country is wrong, because we all know the businessman’s money, always he will invest in an area, in most efficient way.
Oh?
So what we have to do is try to improve our distribution.
You mean channel.
Yes, because most of industry in Taiwan, the smile curve, we discussed a few weeks ago. The margin of the manufacturing is very very low. So most of Taiwanese companies try to invest more in the marketing, and in the development. So these two sides are the most value added in the supply chain of any products.
But I can understand what Peter said, and I also agree, but, also this article, like Kevin said, the ethics of transferring wealth. We talk about b, but we didn’t talk about a, which is more about American style.
Sorry—
No, go ahead, I bash the US all the time, it doesn’t offend me when others do it!
I think that when people talk about climate change, about bigger issues, but in America, there is the most irresponsibility, the most throwing away of resources—
100 percent agree!
—and they can just buy others’, like mainland china, Africa. But if you agree, that I can pay for it, and also make those countries rich. But the truth is that most of the irresponsible behaviour, the result is suffered by the whole people, because of the climate change, the revolutions, even in mainland china, and the revolution and the waste is caused by ourselves. Sure I can pay for it, I can get the cheaper price, I can pay for others’ resources. But it’s not a good way of thinking. For example in Japan and Europe, they’re really devoted to lower, minimize the waste of resource. Just like the Kyoto protocol only two people didn’t sign, just America and Australia. But now only America. So maybe after Bush—
Depends if McCain or not.
But the point is what this article is talking about, it’s not just about marketing and brands.
You mention about responsibility to society.
Yes, because this article is talking about this.
It’s very ideal, and practically, we can talk about as peter said, value added, why low product are for gaining more money, so you add value. So the lowest cost is manufacturing, because it’s just to compose some component. But for the branding, they can put more value, but that’s depend on you need or you trust. If you can rely on the brand, you don’t care about paying more, because they add on the brand. So it depends on, so I’m saying, how do you really figure out the true costs? If you rely on your logic, you might be paying more.
So I’m saying this article is too idealistic. The practical economy is not evil, they can get the balance. Challenging the trading system as an evil thing against the agriculture system.. I’m saying he’s a scientist, he’s not an engineer.
So from paragraph 28: “Modern opinion is now set against all forms of exploitation. The limitation of money dividends, the disciplining of capital investments have begun. Undertaken originally only from the point of view of economic order, then continued for political and national motives, these measures bear in themselves further possibilities; it would be easy to give them wide moral significance. [Quite possibly this was true in 1930, I highly doubt it’s true now. –Angela]”
You wrote that note, Angela, what are you saying by that?
He was writing this at the end of World War II. He was saying that modern people understand how wrong capitalism could go, because of the war? And so people would thinking differently. But he’s wrong, obviously. I’m saying, if we were truly against exploitation, it wouldn’t exist now, because we would have got rid of it already. If we truly were against it.
So it’s saying capitalism = democracy? That if our economic system is capitalism, then our society would be democratic?
Wait, you’re not saying capitalism is democracy, are you?
[Laughter]
So if capitalism does not equal democracy, then what does, socialism? Communism?
Wow, I’m not sure whether you question is in the right vein.
If our society is free or democratic, you have a right to play your business on your own, but you need to obey the law. And we also discus some, we have disciplines, because we have social responsibility, so we have to constrain our freedom to run our business. So I just say, does it violate the democratic spirit?
Wow, what do you think?
Well I don’t know what democracy is…
Democracy means free, or free democracy.
I think democracy is free plus responsibilty, so I don’t think that it violates….
But Wilson, you’re mixing up the systems. Anarchy is emphasis the full freedom for emphasizing everyone’s right. But democracy, the basic rule, is the minority has to follow the majority.
Wow.
I so agree.
Exactly right.
But the majority have to respect the minority.
Yes.
Yes.
But the minority has to follow the majority.
Sure, after the decision has already been taken…
The majority has to respect the minority’s right or benefit, so that’s the base of what democratic society exists on. If the basis of the rule is broken, the democratic society cannot sustain.
For example if the, for nuclear waste. All Taiwan’s people decide to put the waste in Lanyu [=Orchid Island, about a two hour plane flight away, inhabited by an aboriginal tribe], of course the majority would!
Majority violence!
But you still have to respect the minority voice.
Even the decision is to locate the waste in Lanyu, also all the protection or compensation should be taken by the government, for the nearby people.
But it’s interesting that if we decided to put the waste in their neighborhood, and we give them money, would they really want it?
Sure, they want it, but they want more money.
So the key point is the price.
So you need to give me enough money!
So it means democracy can be solved my money.
As long as you’re rich it’s okay!
Hsinchu Discussion Transcript: Feminism
Participants: Kevin, Robert, Wilson, Maurice, Angela
Its interesting how the human being society, why it’s always patriarchal. You know ants, they’re not patriarchal. That’s because the female ant has the right to, it’s the females can choose to have male or female offspring.
Yes, it depends what they feed the larvae.
Also bees. So only humans are patriarchal.
Not every country. I read the news, some places, the woman is more important in the family. Like in Vietnam, the women are very powerful there.
So we have a female gvt in Vietnam?
…
Yes, okay, but they have power at the home.
So that’s why of all the female trafficking in Asia, there’s no Vietnamese wives. I mean, none of the women that are trafficked come from Vietnam, yeah?
…
So our society is controlled by men, and most of the power is controlled by men. It’s interesting.
Maybe it’s the physical strength.
Oh, let’s not go there, I’m really bored with that argument.
I’m saying that men can lift heavy loads.
Okay, right, if we’re going to go there, let’s get this out of the way quickly. Men can sometimes life heavier loads than women, but women have far more endurance and tolerance for pain than men, meaning they can work harder and longer. So, talking about who is stronger? Sort of not the point, becase if you can lift heavy loads, well, I can probably work much longer than you, so how are men stronger, physically? Okay? So lets talk about what men and women care about, the power relations. I think when people say ‘men are stronger’ they’re saying ‘this justifies that men control things.”
Evolutionarily, men protect women, the men have more power to protect their family, and the female can promote more time to take care their new generation, their children. So it’s kind of like an evolutionary result. So men control most of the power. So the background for the female to support the men. But just for the society of ants, it’s different because their population is very large, so maybe it’s not dangerous for the population, so the female can control all things. You know the ratio for ants to people is like 10 to one.
Yes, if you add up the total mass of ants on this planet, it’s ten times the mass of humans. Talking about volume and weight of the bodies, not number of bodies. Okay, you mentioned matriarchal earlier, let me say something about that here. I heard that there was a matriarchal tribe in Taiwan, the women owned the houses, and the men lived with whoever they were lovers with at the time. If the woman got pissed off at the man, she could kick him out of the house, and he had no right to return. And brothers lived with their sisters and helped raise their sister’s kids, if they had no lover to live with at the time. So what if, if this story were true, maybe the men got tired of not having their own house, of someone else having power over where they could live. And I’ve been speculating that perhaps, where the change happened, why the men are in control now, is that they redefined the meaning of the home. They were like, yeah, you women, you still control the home, no problem, but we’re going to build this bigger society structure, and it’ll be more powerful than the home, so even though women are still in the home, the home has been devalued as not as important as the public sphere of commerce and gvt.
So this question, is feminism important, is it a difficult or easy question?
But I think that feminism, this question, it depends on how we live in this society. It’s just, why today we have such a situation that men usually have a more resources, more powerful than women, is it because that in our culture period, and women, men may have more strength to, how to say that! Er, to feed, like hunting and farming, like that, I think it’s the main reason why men could dominate society.
Okay, let’s address the ‘men brought home the meat, so they were more important’ myth. Actually, what they’ve studied about the diets of previous cultures and primitive cultures, they found that in fact their diet was composed very little of meat. Mostly it was grains, fruits, what was gathered, or later, what was grown. But okay, so why does hunting take hold of the imagination? A well-known author, Ursual K. LeGuin, put it very well when she said that, basically, hunting is a better story. Like: “…and then, the beast roared, and twisted, and Oleg nearly lost a leg, but then Biff threw his spear really hard…” But, she’s like, how do you make a story about gathering? “…and then I found another great clump of really beautiful nuts, and then Trudi found another really nice tree, then we walked and chatted for awhile, then we got to the other nut grove…” You know?
People want to hear interesting things, so if you’re a good storyteller, people will listen to you. So having great stories can be a springboard to power.
Yeah, everyone likes a story. On the TV, it says, everyone needs a drink of milk, so you’ll be more intelligent. So you’re forced to believe that, it’s quite interesting. So if you can tell a good story and make them to believe it, then you are successful.
And the Greeks! They wrote some great stories, but they were these two-bit city states. The Persians, at the same time, were this huge empire, but they weren’t all that interested in writing. And so now we hear how powerful the Greeks are, and how the Persians are pigs, because of the famous Greek stories, but we never hear how wonderful Persian society and culture and ideas were, because they never wrote anything down. Or how about Chinese history? 1000 years of ‘Tien Shia’. [lit. ‘all under heaven’ = all must be united under the heavenly emperor’] How do you combat that, if you’re an island with a mere 300 years of colonized history? How do you talk about Taiwanese indepedence when you’ve got 1000 years of ‘Tien Shia’ to go against.
…
Feminism is important, because of one word, it talks of equal for women. But how do you say equal? Can you really say men and women are the same?
Okay, this is a problem going back to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. When it says ‘all men are created equal’, it sounds like ‘all men are born with the same abilities’. What they were actually saying is: ‘all men are given the same rights, to live, to be free, and to do whatever makes them happy’. So we’re not talking about ability, who’s stronger or so on.
So the Declaration was talking about men. Feminism is talking about everybody: Men, Women, all humans. It’s the idea that every human should be given equal rights, to live, to be free, to do what makes them happy.
So if our law have the regulation to protect or guarantee the equal right for men and women, and then I would say the men and the women, in nature, they are not the same, they have different responsibility.
Responsibility?
If men are stronger than women, generally, they can have responsibility to protect women. And women have ability to generate the new generation, so it is our responsibility to take care our children. So I would say it’s a kind of evolution, it’s our human being living.
Our way of life?
So I would say feminism is not important, its kind of our society rule. So I would say it’s not equal to give the better treatment to female. Our society can change, but it’s not important, but it’s a kind of natural rule, if our society have the right to change the situation, it would change.
The right? The ability, the desire?
The desire. Like the west has a different attitude towards women. Or say, African women. I would say Africa has a very tough situation for women, because they have a tough living environment, and the women have the most responsibility for children, and search for the food for their children. And the men’s job is just for fighting and maybe to protect their family. So its a kind of cultural evolution.
I have another point of view. I think it’s a kind of a, it depends on what kind of a profit you want to grab. Though it’s a kind of lifestyle about how you would like to live in, in today’s, let me say, in Taiwan society, there’s no need to for men to protect women, for technology, with such greater technology development, I don’t think that women need men to protect women. Women can protect themselves with the…the modern device and equipment.
Smith and Wesson!
Yeah, maybe weapon. It depends on what kind of a life you want to live it. I don’t think it’s a kind of responsibly or not, it the life you choose. Men could also decide to educate their children by themselves. It’s not a duty for women. It’s not anymore the duty for women. So that’s my point of view.
But according to your point, for Taiwanese, we don’t need to marriage, because the Taiwanese girl doesn’t need Taiwanese boy to protect them.
But marriage is not just for who protects who! It’s a kind of agreement.
Contract?
Contract. It—
So we have a contract to have a baby.
—it depends on both of you, the wife and the husband, it depends on their consensus. So the role of woman or man is, they can discuss themselves to each other. I still think that modern society, we don’t have to think in the traditional way. Yeah. So I think the author propose such a question is to remind us we can think things in another way, in another side, that’s my point of view.
Wait, I’m sorry, I want to go back to what Wilson said. Forgive me if this is too straightforward, but it sounds to me maybe like you’re saying: “If they don’t need us, why would they want us?” Is that what you were saying?
Well kind of, so why to form a marriage, just to generate a new baby? But it’s not true for our society, the family have a function of our society.
Right.
Yes.
Well, so, what is the function of the society?
We need to have a harmonious society, we need to have a cooperative relationship. And the father and mother have a responsibility, and also the children. So it’s a kind of human being evolution result. I would say evolution is a mystery word. Because we don’t know why we have a male and female, why people don’t have a binary gender—why every creature has a binary gender.
Well, actually, there are a few species who reproduce parthogenically, for instance there’s a kind of lizard, there’s no males, not at all. The eggs are produced in the females, and somehow the genetics works. It turns out, actually, that humans could produce parthgenically, we have all of the codes in the eggs, but a certain section of the genes is switched ‘off’, but they’re switched ‘on’ in the sperm. So if a sperm fertilizes an egg, it goes all the way to making a complete baby, but if the egg does it by itself, then the baby goes wrong, doesn’t fully form, and then aborts. So there are cases where they’ve found a half-formed baby, or at least discrete genetic material, like hair or teeth, and they’ve got a different dna, in a woman’s ovary. But yes, in fact the majority of the species on this planet have male and female. And that's really interesting, I do wonder why evolution brought us to this point. I mean, from an evolutionary perspective, why do you really need men?
Okay, wait, you were talking about male privilege, what is the main problem for women?
Constrainment of choices!
Okay, don’t say that. I don’t see how that’s true.
Well, you’re male! You have the privilege to not see it!
…
I can say, from my marriage, I can say that asking this question, asking is equality important? In marriage, I have learned so much, it’s about mutual respect. I can say nothing is more important than that.
Of course, in marriage you need to respect your wife’s thinking. If she thinks you’re not treating her with a better way, you need to treat her with a better way. You need to respect her thought and treat her better. I say respect is based on what you believe and what you think.
Um, because I’m a homeschooling father, so I find out if I’m not supporting enough, or I’m ignorant sometimes, I’ll see that our family functions less than it should be. So supporting your wife is supporting your family, if you want our family to prosper.
You have the responsibility to take care of your family. It’s not only your wife’s responsibility. You have the right and the duty to teach your children, maybe to grow up to stand beside your children while they are growing up.
Well, I usually see our family as a unit, so I think every family member has their contribution, and, um, I would say that family is the learning center of our first socialization, and I um, hadn’t thought
about that much before I got married. I realized, when I was a father, in addition to taking care of, being a financial support, I also have to educate my children. And sometimes I would ignore my wife’s emotion, and not give enough support to what she’s doing, and I would see that the happiness of the family would not be good. Maybe my viewpoint is very partial, but it’s what I feel.
Something comes up in my brain. I think, cuz the author mention that boy are growing up knowing that one day they will have to function. Today we sit there and discuss the many aspect of this question, it’s because we are well educated. I think is feminism important implies that good education is important, and its because, uh, we are well educated, we are more open minded, and will have a positive manner towards the question or on what you have seen on a lot of events.
Your experience.
Yes! And so the core concept of feminism, I think it will eventually be how we educate our new education, it depends on how you educate your children, and how do they know that we cannot just thinking about yourself. We should think about…it’s something like that we should help others if we have enough ability. There’s a Taiwanese saying, it’s something like, the happiest thing is to help other people.
It’s that, why we need feminism is it comes from there are some inequality between men and women. But it’s just not what I thought, it is not important to just find, to observe sorts of situations we know or we observe, the most important is your manner toward this problem, and a good attitude comes from good education.
It’s like, our education is teach us to believe our society is formed by male and female. So the form of the marriage is to generate a new generation, for our children. So if, the marriage is not for children, for example, two young people they got married, but they don’t want to have children, it’s nothing, they don’t care about their equal status, because the nature of unequal, the factor does not exist, because they don’t want to have baby. They’re only married to live together. I don’t care you are male or female, I just want to live with you. So if this is the situation, then nothing unequal You can declare your right for you living, or anything. I would say, it’s another interesting point.
It really is.
It’s just like lesbian or gay for our society, homosexual is unusual. But in western society, it’s normal. It’s a kind of cultural acceptance. So it’s question of what you want to support. So the most important thing is, we define our marriage is for, you need to have your own children, so you define role of father, and role of mother, so family is for children. So it’s a kind of education system, to give us belief.
Sorry, what I mean for education, is not normal education. Its not just you have to go to school and listen what teacher say to you. My meaning for education, is for our school system, we have teach you to believe something, maybe is for knowledge, maybe is for living style, It’s a process for you learning something. It’s not necessary for education system, just for your learning process.
Maybe you can put that in another way, that you shift your focus to further self development for each individual, instead of devotion to your family, maybe that would be more clear. So everyone deserves to have his or her potential fully developed.
Well, let me say another way. We have equal right to learn, to know our potential, and to develop our own life, and meanwhile we need to communicate and to coordinate, to compromise, to have same conscious then finally we need to cooperate with each other. So that our human society could function well, and could keep going, and will not misfunction at all, and be destroyed.
This conversation is intensely interesting. How do you define family? In my experience, family was very strong when I was a child, then when the children grew up and left home, it’s like the family was dismantled, it was a formal shell, not a living organism. Before modern society, family was your social security, children were how you were cared for in old age. But when families dismantle, your social security is also dismantled. But in modern society, actually, you can create family, from unrelated people. People are choosing to live together in groups, because more people living together is much easier than just dad mom 2.2 children. It’s called ‘intentional community’. You can Google that and learn some interesting things about creating a family not from blood relatives.
I also came from a dismantled family. In my growing up, in my childhood, my family seldom got support from our, from our…my main point is that I come from dismantled family, I don’t got any support from my cousin, my relatives, but I still can live well by myself. That’s why I don’t think family support would mean anything in my life. I think this can be, just be an extra option, if you have a good family network, maybe you can live more well.
I think this is true. A good family network of any sort, allows you to live more well.
It’s a human mystery. There’s some combination, some component that lives in our blood. It’s not removable, even though we don’t live together, we have a relationship, contact.
Who is family???
Good question!
Its interesting how the human being society, why it’s always patriarchal. You know ants, they’re not patriarchal. That’s because the female ant has the right to, it’s the females can choose to have male or female offspring.
Yes, it depends what they feed the larvae.
Also bees. So only humans are patriarchal.
Not every country. I read the news, some places, the woman is more important in the family. Like in Vietnam, the women are very powerful there.
So we have a female gvt in Vietnam?
…
Yes, okay, but they have power at the home.
So that’s why of all the female trafficking in Asia, there’s no Vietnamese wives. I mean, none of the women that are trafficked come from Vietnam, yeah?
…
So our society is controlled by men, and most of the power is controlled by men. It’s interesting.
Maybe it’s the physical strength.
Oh, let’s not go there, I’m really bored with that argument.
I’m saying that men can lift heavy loads.
Okay, right, if we’re going to go there, let’s get this out of the way quickly. Men can sometimes life heavier loads than women, but women have far more endurance and tolerance for pain than men, meaning they can work harder and longer. So, talking about who is stronger? Sort of not the point, becase if you can lift heavy loads, well, I can probably work much longer than you, so how are men stronger, physically? Okay? So lets talk about what men and women care about, the power relations. I think when people say ‘men are stronger’ they’re saying ‘this justifies that men control things.”
Evolutionarily, men protect women, the men have more power to protect their family, and the female can promote more time to take care their new generation, their children. So it’s kind of like an evolutionary result. So men control most of the power. So the background for the female to support the men. But just for the society of ants, it’s different because their population is very large, so maybe it’s not dangerous for the population, so the female can control all things. You know the ratio for ants to people is like 10 to one.
Yes, if you add up the total mass of ants on this planet, it’s ten times the mass of humans. Talking about volume and weight of the bodies, not number of bodies. Okay, you mentioned matriarchal earlier, let me say something about that here. I heard that there was a matriarchal tribe in Taiwan, the women owned the houses, and the men lived with whoever they were lovers with at the time. If the woman got pissed off at the man, she could kick him out of the house, and he had no right to return. And brothers lived with their sisters and helped raise their sister’s kids, if they had no lover to live with at the time. So what if, if this story were true, maybe the men got tired of not having their own house, of someone else having power over where they could live. And I’ve been speculating that perhaps, where the change happened, why the men are in control now, is that they redefined the meaning of the home. They were like, yeah, you women, you still control the home, no problem, but we’re going to build this bigger society structure, and it’ll be more powerful than the home, so even though women are still in the home, the home has been devalued as not as important as the public sphere of commerce and gvt.
So this question, is feminism important, is it a difficult or easy question?
But I think that feminism, this question, it depends on how we live in this society. It’s just, why today we have such a situation that men usually have a more resources, more powerful than women, is it because that in our culture period, and women, men may have more strength to, how to say that! Er, to feed, like hunting and farming, like that, I think it’s the main reason why men could dominate society.
Okay, let’s address the ‘men brought home the meat, so they were more important’ myth. Actually, what they’ve studied about the diets of previous cultures and primitive cultures, they found that in fact their diet was composed very little of meat. Mostly it was grains, fruits, what was gathered, or later, what was grown. But okay, so why does hunting take hold of the imagination? A well-known author, Ursual K. LeGuin, put it very well when she said that, basically, hunting is a better story. Like: “…and then, the beast roared, and twisted, and Oleg nearly lost a leg, but then Biff threw his spear really hard…” But, she’s like, how do you make a story about gathering? “…and then I found another great clump of really beautiful nuts, and then Trudi found another really nice tree, then we walked and chatted for awhile, then we got to the other nut grove…” You know?
People want to hear interesting things, so if you’re a good storyteller, people will listen to you. So having great stories can be a springboard to power.
Yeah, everyone likes a story. On the TV, it says, everyone needs a drink of milk, so you’ll be more intelligent. So you’re forced to believe that, it’s quite interesting. So if you can tell a good story and make them to believe it, then you are successful.
And the Greeks! They wrote some great stories, but they were these two-bit city states. The Persians, at the same time, were this huge empire, but they weren’t all that interested in writing. And so now we hear how powerful the Greeks are, and how the Persians are pigs, because of the famous Greek stories, but we never hear how wonderful Persian society and culture and ideas were, because they never wrote anything down. Or how about Chinese history? 1000 years of ‘Tien Shia’. [lit. ‘all under heaven’ = all must be united under the heavenly emperor’] How do you combat that, if you’re an island with a mere 300 years of colonized history? How do you talk about Taiwanese indepedence when you’ve got 1000 years of ‘Tien Shia’ to go against.
…
Feminism is important, because of one word, it talks of equal for women. But how do you say equal? Can you really say men and women are the same?
Okay, this is a problem going back to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. When it says ‘all men are created equal’, it sounds like ‘all men are born with the same abilities’. What they were actually saying is: ‘all men are given the same rights, to live, to be free, and to do whatever makes them happy’. So we’re not talking about ability, who’s stronger or so on.
So the Declaration was talking about men. Feminism is talking about everybody: Men, Women, all humans. It’s the idea that every human should be given equal rights, to live, to be free, to do what makes them happy.
So if our law have the regulation to protect or guarantee the equal right for men and women, and then I would say the men and the women, in nature, they are not the same, they have different responsibility.
Responsibility?
If men are stronger than women, generally, they can have responsibility to protect women. And women have ability to generate the new generation, so it is our responsibility to take care our children. So I would say it’s a kind of evolution, it’s our human being living.
Our way of life?
So I would say feminism is not important, its kind of our society rule. So I would say it’s not equal to give the better treatment to female. Our society can change, but it’s not important, but it’s a kind of natural rule, if our society have the right to change the situation, it would change.
The right? The ability, the desire?
The desire. Like the west has a different attitude towards women. Or say, African women. I would say Africa has a very tough situation for women, because they have a tough living environment, and the women have the most responsibility for children, and search for the food for their children. And the men’s job is just for fighting and maybe to protect their family. So its a kind of cultural evolution.
I have another point of view. I think it’s a kind of a, it depends on what kind of a profit you want to grab. Though it’s a kind of lifestyle about how you would like to live in, in today’s, let me say, in Taiwan society, there’s no need to for men to protect women, for technology, with such greater technology development, I don’t think that women need men to protect women. Women can protect themselves with the…the modern device and equipment.
Smith and Wesson!
Yeah, maybe weapon. It depends on what kind of a life you want to live it. I don’t think it’s a kind of responsibly or not, it the life you choose. Men could also decide to educate their children by themselves. It’s not a duty for women. It’s not anymore the duty for women. So that’s my point of view.
But according to your point, for Taiwanese, we don’t need to marriage, because the Taiwanese girl doesn’t need Taiwanese boy to protect them.
But marriage is not just for who protects who! It’s a kind of agreement.
Contract?
Contract. It—
So we have a contract to have a baby.
—it depends on both of you, the wife and the husband, it depends on their consensus. So the role of woman or man is, they can discuss themselves to each other. I still think that modern society, we don’t have to think in the traditional way. Yeah. So I think the author propose such a question is to remind us we can think things in another way, in another side, that’s my point of view.
Wait, I’m sorry, I want to go back to what Wilson said. Forgive me if this is too straightforward, but it sounds to me maybe like you’re saying: “If they don’t need us, why would they want us?” Is that what you were saying?
Well kind of, so why to form a marriage, just to generate a new baby? But it’s not true for our society, the family have a function of our society.
Right.
Yes.
Well, so, what is the function of the society?
We need to have a harmonious society, we need to have a cooperative relationship. And the father and mother have a responsibility, and also the children. So it’s a kind of human being evolution result. I would say evolution is a mystery word. Because we don’t know why we have a male and female, why people don’t have a binary gender—why every creature has a binary gender.
Well, actually, there are a few species who reproduce parthogenically, for instance there’s a kind of lizard, there’s no males, not at all. The eggs are produced in the females, and somehow the genetics works. It turns out, actually, that humans could produce parthgenically, we have all of the codes in the eggs, but a certain section of the genes is switched ‘off’, but they’re switched ‘on’ in the sperm. So if a sperm fertilizes an egg, it goes all the way to making a complete baby, but if the egg does it by itself, then the baby goes wrong, doesn’t fully form, and then aborts. So there are cases where they’ve found a half-formed baby, or at least discrete genetic material, like hair or teeth, and they’ve got a different dna, in a woman’s ovary. But yes, in fact the majority of the species on this planet have male and female. And that's really interesting, I do wonder why evolution brought us to this point. I mean, from an evolutionary perspective, why do you really need men?
Okay, wait, you were talking about male privilege, what is the main problem for women?
Constrainment of choices!
Okay, don’t say that. I don’t see how that’s true.
Well, you’re male! You have the privilege to not see it!
…
I can say, from my marriage, I can say that asking this question, asking is equality important? In marriage, I have learned so much, it’s about mutual respect. I can say nothing is more important than that.
Of course, in marriage you need to respect your wife’s thinking. If she thinks you’re not treating her with a better way, you need to treat her with a better way. You need to respect her thought and treat her better. I say respect is based on what you believe and what you think.
Um, because I’m a homeschooling father, so I find out if I’m not supporting enough, or I’m ignorant sometimes, I’ll see that our family functions less than it should be. So supporting your wife is supporting your family, if you want our family to prosper.
You have the responsibility to take care of your family. It’s not only your wife’s responsibility. You have the right and the duty to teach your children, maybe to grow up to stand beside your children while they are growing up.
Well, I usually see our family as a unit, so I think every family member has their contribution, and, um, I would say that family is the learning center of our first socialization, and I um, hadn’t thought
about that much before I got married. I realized, when I was a father, in addition to taking care of, being a financial support, I also have to educate my children. And sometimes I would ignore my wife’s emotion, and not give enough support to what she’s doing, and I would see that the happiness of the family would not be good. Maybe my viewpoint is very partial, but it’s what I feel.
Something comes up in my brain. I think, cuz the author mention that boy are growing up knowing that one day they will have to function. Today we sit there and discuss the many aspect of this question, it’s because we are well educated. I think is feminism important implies that good education is important, and its because, uh, we are well educated, we are more open minded, and will have a positive manner towards the question or on what you have seen on a lot of events.
Your experience.
Yes! And so the core concept of feminism, I think it will eventually be how we educate our new education, it depends on how you educate your children, and how do they know that we cannot just thinking about yourself. We should think about…it’s something like that we should help others if we have enough ability. There’s a Taiwanese saying, it’s something like, the happiest thing is to help other people.
It’s that, why we need feminism is it comes from there are some inequality between men and women. But it’s just not what I thought, it is not important to just find, to observe sorts of situations we know or we observe, the most important is your manner toward this problem, and a good attitude comes from good education.
It’s like, our education is teach us to believe our society is formed by male and female. So the form of the marriage is to generate a new generation, for our children. So if, the marriage is not for children, for example, two young people they got married, but they don’t want to have children, it’s nothing, they don’t care about their equal status, because the nature of unequal, the factor does not exist, because they don’t want to have baby. They’re only married to live together. I don’t care you are male or female, I just want to live with you. So if this is the situation, then nothing unequal You can declare your right for you living, or anything. I would say, it’s another interesting point.
It really is.
It’s just like lesbian or gay for our society, homosexual is unusual. But in western society, it’s normal. It’s a kind of cultural acceptance. So it’s question of what you want to support. So the most important thing is, we define our marriage is for, you need to have your own children, so you define role of father, and role of mother, so family is for children. So it’s a kind of education system, to give us belief.
Sorry, what I mean for education, is not normal education. Its not just you have to go to school and listen what teacher say to you. My meaning for education, is for our school system, we have teach you to believe something, maybe is for knowledge, maybe is for living style, It’s a process for you learning something. It’s not necessary for education system, just for your learning process.
Maybe you can put that in another way, that you shift your focus to further self development for each individual, instead of devotion to your family, maybe that would be more clear. So everyone deserves to have his or her potential fully developed.
Well, let me say another way. We have equal right to learn, to know our potential, and to develop our own life, and meanwhile we need to communicate and to coordinate, to compromise, to have same conscious then finally we need to cooperate with each other. So that our human society could function well, and could keep going, and will not misfunction at all, and be destroyed.
This conversation is intensely interesting. How do you define family? In my experience, family was very strong when I was a child, then when the children grew up and left home, it’s like the family was dismantled, it was a formal shell, not a living organism. Before modern society, family was your social security, children were how you were cared for in old age. But when families dismantle, your social security is also dismantled. But in modern society, actually, you can create family, from unrelated people. People are choosing to live together in groups, because more people living together is much easier than just dad mom 2.2 children. It’s called ‘intentional community’. You can Google that and learn some interesting things about creating a family not from blood relatives.
I also came from a dismantled family. In my growing up, in my childhood, my family seldom got support from our, from our…my main point is that I come from dismantled family, I don’t got any support from my cousin, my relatives, but I still can live well by myself. That’s why I don’t think family support would mean anything in my life. I think this can be, just be an extra option, if you have a good family network, maybe you can live more well.
I think this is true. A good family network of any sort, allows you to live more well.
It’s a human mystery. There’s some combination, some component that lives in our blood. It’s not removable, even though we don’t live together, we have a relationship, contact.
Who is family???
Good question!
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)