Mixed? Sino-American Transnational Families and Mixed Identities, 1842-1943

鄉關何處：華裔美國人的跨國家族與多重認同--從1842到1943年

Speaker: Dr. Emma Teng

在全球化的今日，不同族群國家的人們相戀通婚、混血兒的存在早已廣泛被接受與認同，很難想像在近150年前，跨種族的婚姻如何遭受歧視與限制。

在這場波士頓哲學非星期五的活動，MIT的Dr. Emma Teng帶我們回到1842到1943年間，用幾則生動的故事，一窺當年移民到美國的中國人與西方人通婚的景況。

在1849年後，大量的中國移民湧進美國，這批移民多為男性。除了為這片新大陸帶來不同的專業與技能並改變了美國人口組成的分佈，他們低微的工資也衝擊著美國的勞工市場。幾乎無法讓女性移民的政策也阻擋了這群中國男性移民在美國與華人女子結婚的機會，被迫與非華人的女子通婚。

1861年起，針對中國人的反種族通婚法令也紛紛在各州通過，時期分為1861-1910年間以及1910-1950年間兩波。這些法令不僅因州而異，法令內容更是朝令夕改。在這個時代，反對種族通婚的理由是沒有事實根據的，像是認為混血兒在生物科學上而言可能會有不孕、智力低下、壽命減短等等的基因缺陷；宗教上，更搬出上帝將不同人種分別安排在五大洲以水（海洋）隔開，一定是想阻擋這種現象的神諭。

儘管限制重重，在各個時期都都依然可聽聞種族之間通婚並組織家庭的事例。一般認為，種族通婚是民權運動大量發生後才有的現象，但在此之前就已發生，只是早期為了要保有門風，常常會隱瞞種族通婚下混血兒的血緣真相。像是歐亞混血兒第二代的Lady Clara Ho Tung （何東爵士夫人，1875-1938），常被認為是中國人。以及於1930-1940年間在香港出生長大的Eric Peter Ho （何鴻鑾），在1940年間因為他叔叔 Walter Bosman的出現，才突然被他父母告知他具有英國和荷蘭血緣。他們為與國外惡魔 ［foreign devils   〕有所連結而感到羞恥，所以傾向隱匿異族通婚身份來飽足顏面。因此，異族通婚後代的身份在這個時期仍然多不被公開。

然而，早年的重重困難並沒有阻擋種族通婚，其中最大驅動力大概就是「選擇權」的緣故了。所謂「選擇權受限」的因素，歸咎於只開放中國男性移民、卻對中國女性移民諸多阻撓的移民政策，加上中國傳統上男主外女主內的觀念束縛了女性離開家門，導致美國的中國移民族群出現男女比例極度不均的現象。

那麼，這些歐亞混血兒（Eurasian）又或是跨種族婚姻家庭中的小孩（Eurasian 的歐亞混血兒），在那個時代中成長又面臨什麼樣的處境呢? 以上海為例，歐亞學校（Eurasian school）的設立就是刻意將這些具有美國或歐洲血統、天主/基督教背景的孩子們區隔出來，對他們特別實施西方英語的天主/基督教育。但同時也將他們與「純正的歐洲後裔      」（pure European descent）完全分隔出來。

Dr.  T eng也舉了幾個種族通婚的例子可以讓我們探討反種族通婚法的影響：

容閎（Yung Wing），在1854年於耶魯學院畢業，是第一個在美國大學畢業的中國人。他在1875年和美國白人女子Mary Kellogg結婚。由於當時社會反對異族通婚的情節較薄弱，他們的婚姻還刊登於當年的紐約時報上，該報並大肆報導婚禮的華麗隆重，像是婚禮禮服使用中國進口的蠶絲且做工精細。另外，基督教師 Rev. J.Twichell的主婚，對於如此的種族通婚留下正面的影響，也順道完成了Twichell將基督教精神傳播至美國之外的宏願。雖然若干年後，Yung Wing還是受反種族通婚法（於1882年通過）影響，其國籍身分也遭質疑。

Mae Watkins  and her children

另一個故事，是Mae Watkins和黃天福的婚姻。當時兩位都還是密西根大學得學生。當他們於1912年結婚時，當地的報紙以醜聞的方式報導他們的婚姻，導致密西根大學逼迫就讀的兩人退學離校。之後，夫妻倆被迫回到中國，因為根據1882年針對移民勞工的「排華法案」（Chinese Exclusion Act）黃天福無法拿到美國國籍。但是回到中國後，黃天福夫婦又面臨中國反對留學生與外國人通婚的法令問題。所幸，黃家接受了外國媳婦，Mae本身也相當努力融入中國傳統文化，不只學了中文和廈門話、也學習用筷子吃飯、接受中國食物等等。Mae Watkins和黃天福夫妻倆在1918年，因舊金山的一個機會回到美國。不幸黃天福在此次家族返美的旅行中得到西班牙流感而過世，不久後，Mae也患病去世，留下身分國籍極具爭議的孤兒子女們。孩子們最後搬回密西根與祖父母Watkins一同居住，但由於「排華法案」的關係，他們一直未能歸化美國籍，直到1940年間才有定論。

中美通婚的演進，由1842年至今有幾個重要的里程碑：1860 年代，居住美國的華人族群中只有5%為女性，這個數字在1920年代也才上升到了12％。這男女比例懸殊的數字，促成男性中國移民必須與不同種族的女子通婚。19世紀中期以後，紐約的中國城內，異族通婚的比例成為大宗。在1908-1940年間紐約中國城總計有50 %是跨種族的夫婦，同時期波士頓亦有異族通婚的現象。直到1965年，「移民與國籍法」（Immigration and Nationality Act）的通過，廢除了1920年對移民人數的總額限制（約100人/年）。另外，具有劃時代意義的民權法案判決是美國最高法院在1967年6月12日的Loving v. Virginia判例，讓人種為一黑一白的Mildred和Richard Loving夫婦有合法的婚姻，同時也宣告反種族通婚的法令無效。到了2010年的近代，27.7%的亞裔新婚夫妻為異族結合。美國的普查資料也顯示人口自我認同為中為「混血」的比例自2000年至2010年增長了32 %。

本次哲五討論中也提到，除了跨種族婚姻的比例隨時代增加，其組成比例也有所不同。早年因為中國移民美國的男性受限於男女比例的不均，於是「中國男性+非華人美國女性」的婚姻組合占多數，而這些女性並不限於白人，他們包含了歐裔美籍，非裔美籍，墨西哥裔與美國原住民。二次世界大近年由於戰後，由於美國開放軍人帶亞裔外國妻子返鄉，以及移民的開放等等，造就「美國男性+中國女性」的婚姻比例上升。

這些曾經遭受排擠阻礙的種族通婚，漸漸隨著時代以及全球化的影響成為被接受、被慶賀的事情。Mary Kellogg & Yung Wing以及Mae Watkins & 黃天福的後人也都以先祖為箇中先驅而引以為榮。

In today’s globalized world, there are many interracial relationships and marriages as well as children of mixed racial background. Interracial marriages as well as mixed racial identities have been widely accepted in the discourse of the mainstream society nowadays. In this context, it is difficult to imagine a reality that interracial relationships were discriminated against, and in fact illegal in many states, less than a century ago. The May, 2015 Cafe Philo offered a historical review looking at the context that fostered certain identities of Eurasian children between 1842 and 1943, introduced by Dr. Emma Teng.

After 1849, large numbers of male Chinese immigrants started to came to the US. They not only brought new technologies and skills, but also changed the demographic make-up of the US population. In addition, they were accused of being "cheap labor." Legal restrictions that made it difficult for Chinese women to immigrate to the US resulted in an unbalanced sex ratio in Chinese American communities. Chinese immigrant men who wished to form families in the US often had little choice but to marry outside their own racial group.

Beginning in 1861, anti-miscegenation laws against the Chinese were passed in various States, roughly with two waves between 1861-1910 and 1910-1950. The laws were diverse with respect to the legal definitions of what constituted miscegenation for each State. The language of the laws also changed frequently. To boot, the reasons behind anti-miscegenation laws were often unfounded. For example, some scientists during that time argued that mixed-race children are genetically inferior, thus are more likely to be infertile, mentally impaired, and/or short-lived. To complicate matters further, many religious leaders also promoted the idea that there was a reason that God divided the different races on five different continents and separated them by water, citing it as evidence of God’s gesture and intention to separate different races and to eliminate interracial contact.

Despite all the support surrounding anti-miscegenation legislations, interracial unions, albeit infrequent, still can be found during that period of time. While modern perception considers mixed marriages as a post Civil Rights phenomenon, it had occurred much earlier. The identities of the offsprings of these marriages were often hidden or made invisible because of shame and stigma. Examples of this include Lady Clara Ho Tung (1875-1938), who was a second-generation Eurasian, but considered by many to be Chinese. Eric Peter Ho, too, was born and raised in Hong Kong in 1930s, and he was not aware of his mixed racial background until 1940 when his uncle Walter Bosman appeared, and his parents suddenly informed him of his mixed British and Dutch heritage. This stemmed from the fact the family was deeply ashamed of their connection to "foreign devils," and preferred to keep their mixed racial identity a secret to save face.

Difficulties during this early era did not stop miscegenation, however. In addition to individual preferences, a major driving force of interracial marriages is the "limit of choices”: immigration policies of the day severely limited the number of Chinese women who could immigrate to the US. Combined with the traditional Chinese social value that considers men as the breadwinner of the family and women as homemakers, women were kept from leaving their home to explore the world, resulting in an overwhelming imbalance of male-to-female ratio within immigrant Chinese communities in the US.

The question remains, what happened to the Eurasian children, namely, the children from the families of interracial marriages? What challenges did they faced growing up in that era? In Shanghai, for example, a Eurasian School was deliberately established to segregate children of American or European (i.e. mixed-raced) descent, giving them a Western and Christian education while keeping them completely separated and differentiated from the children of so-called "pure European descent."

Dr. Teng also presented some examples of early interracial marriages to explore the impact of the anti-miscegenation laws:

Yung Wing is the first Chinese university graduate in the US, who graduated from Yale University in 1854. In 1875, Yung Wing married Mary Kellogg--a white American woman. With minimal anti-mixed marriages sentiment, their wedding was reported in the New York Times with the main focus on praising the luxuriousness of the wedding, such as the intricate nature the wedding dress using fine silk imported from China. The fact that the Rev. J. Twichell presided the wedding had a positive impact and paved the path for interracial marriage. This marriage also helped Twichell fulfill his goal of bringing Christianity beyond American lands. However, several years later, Yung Wing was still affected by the Chinese Exclusion Act, passed in 1882, and his US citizenship was called into question.

Another story is Mae Watkins and Tien-Fu Huang’s marriage, who were both students in university at the time of their marriage. They were married in Michigan in 1912. Unfortunately, the local newspaper painted a scandal-like picture of their marriage, which also resulted in the university administration forcing them to drop out. Tien-Fu Huang was unable to naturalize as a US citizen based on the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Law, leaving the couple with no choice but to return to China. After returning to China, the couple faced another problem of Chinese policy prohibiting students studying abroad from marrying foreigners. Fortunately, Huang’s family accepted Mae into the family. Meanwhile, Mae made huge efforts to fit into Chinese culture, such as learning the language and dialects, using chopsticks and accepting Chinese cuisine, and conforming with social norms for women of that time. The couple returned to the US in 1918, for an opportunity in San Francisco. Tien-Fu unfortunately contracted the flu shortly after their family’s pilgrimage back to the US, and passed away.  Mae also fell ill during that time, and their children were soon became orphaned.  The children ended up moving back to Michigan with their grandparents, the Watkins.  Despite having spent most of their time growing up in the US, due to complications with the Chinese Exclusion Act still, they were nation-less until the 1940s, when they were finally naturalized as US citizens.

There were a few milestones of the evolution of mixed Chinese-American families from 1842 until now. In 1860, the Chinese population in the US was only 5% female, and by 1920, this had only risen to approximately 12%. Therefore, early Chinese immigrant men had little choice but to marry outside their group. Beginning in the mid-19th century, interracial marriage became the dominant form of marriage among Chinese in New York's Chinatown. On average between 1908 and 1924, approximately 55% of married Chinese in New York were in mixed marriages. These marriages took place in the Boston area as well. In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated the national origins quota system. Along these lines, the decision of the US Supreme Court regarding Loving v. Virginia invalidated the law prohibiting Mildred and Richard Loving’s interracial marriage on June, 12, 1967, achieving a civil rights landmark. In 2010, 27.7 % of Asians first-time newlyweds are in interracial marriages. Nationally, people who identify themselves of mixed-raced background grew by 32% from 2000 to 2010, based on the US Census data.

In the discussion of this month’s Cafe Philo event, it was mentioned that as the percentage of interracial marriages increased, the racial makeup of these marriages has also skewed with time – in the early days, Chinese immigrant men mostly married Euro-American, African-American, Mexican, and Native American women. After World War II, the trend has shifted because returning veterans were allowed to bring their spouses from Asia back to the US, and the immigration law loosened, increasing the ratio of the unions between an American man and a Chinese woman.

Interracial marriage was once under many restrictions and hindrance. Over time, it has become something that is celebrated today. The stories of the pioneers, like Mary Kellogg & Yung Wing and Mae Watkins & Tien-Fu Huang, have greatly honored the progress of their era.

與會合影

文摘：Margaret Way, Meng Chun Chiang, Chia-Chun Chung, Herbert Chang, Yi-ying Chou

攝影：Chia-Chien Wu

Can the World Social Forum Process help strength democracy movements?

Jason pramas (left) and Suren Moodliar (right)

While writing this summary, there was a large scale upheaval in Baltimore, MD. And the city just enlisted National Guard and curfew to ‘fight’ riots and looting. This is not the America (yes I mean the United States of) I imagined when I traveled all the way from Taiwan with the so-called American Dream to this great nation, for the doctoral degree that I believed will one day provide me a better life. This is not the America that the Founding Fathers of this nation envisioned. Or maybe they did envision this kind of society, a utopia of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%. Then aren’t we (the 99%) all doomed?

Just like the Lead Organizer of Boston Social Forum Jason Pramas mentioned at the beginning of his talk to CafePhilo@Boston participants, “United States is viewed, from outside, a rich and wonderful country. This is not true. United States has a long history of racism….” Born in 1966 to a Greek-origin Boston working class family, Jason has involved in numerous labor activities since he was a teenager. He saw the change of ideologies and policies of the nation during 60s and 70s, which culminated during the reign of Ronald Reagan and (on the other side of Atlantic) of Margaret Thatcher. By embracing neoliberalism, which revolved around laissez-faire economy, deregulation of monetary system, free-trade, and globalization, the living condition of US labor deteriorated, as well as their children’s education opportunities. Jason later on participated in several campaigns to fight for labor rights, and to speak up for immigrant workers as well as contingent workers. These and other events (for instance the 1999 Seattle WTO protests and the 2001 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil) led to the inception of Boston Social Forum (BSF), an Agora-like event open to public for discussions and to envision the future of society, which was held at UMass Boston in July 2004. More than 5000 people participated the event, with 550 different programs, over 3 days.(Boston Social Forum: http://bostonsocialforum.org/archive/)

Suren Moodliar, who was the Program Coordinator during the BSF, later explained that a major purpose of Boston Social Forum was to connect people and communities in order to share ideas freely, and to create an open space such that right matches can be made. It was neither a coalition nor an alliance of parties. It was the attempt to construct the space. This also made people to think about the nature of capitalism, since the developmental dynamic capitalism is to transition commonly-held spaces to privately-owned properties, which led to the ultimate reduction of public space. For example, if everything is kept in private, there can be no shared awareness of social problems. For instance as long as an individual treats their own unemployment as a private matter, then public social movement may not emerge to address this problem. And due to the violent history of this nation and its oppression to certain social groups, BSF was also doing its best to reach out to people-of-color and immigrant communities. Despite the fact that their main funding came from donations, they still managed to raise 0.25 million for the event. This approach is entirely different from the methodology of some NGOs and philanthropists, which in the end is not tackling the real problems.

Although it seems to me that these activities, including BSF, other social forums took place in US, and more recently the Occupy movements, barely change the course of this country, I think there's still hope as long as people continue to participate in discussions (especially the ones that people can talk to each other face to face). As told by Suren in response to one of audience's question, “In 1985, demonstrations in South Africa always led to police killing protestors. And the burial of those people will lead to greater protests and yet more police violence. This seemed to be an endless negative cycle. But the situation was changed after 5 years (Nelson Mandela was released from Victor Verster Prison and the negotiation to end Apartheid started). The irregularity will come, so we’re expecting the change will come in the future.” So, maybe we're not doomed and the social forums are the birth place of new (and perhaps real) democracy. To conclude, let me quote a line from David Graeber's The Democracy Project: “The real origin of the democratic spirit - and most likely, many democratic institutions - lies precisely in those spaces of improvisation just outside the control of governments and organized churches.”

在撰寫這篇文字記錄的同時，馬里蘭州的巴爾地摩正經歷一場大規模暴動；該市剛宣布實施宵禁，並招來國民兵以鎮壓動亂及偷竊等犯罪行為。這和我想像中的美國差異甚遠；這完全不是我當年那個心目中，充滿「美國夢」和工作機會的自由大陸。這應該也不是那個美國開國先父們 (Founding Fathers) 想像中的美國大陸；又或許這的確是他們想建立的社會－一個由上層百分之一的人們所統治、所擁有、所追求的烏托邦；如果這個國家的核心價值真的是這樣，那我們 (或至少美國人民) 的未來還有救嗎？

如同波士頓社會論壇 (Boston Social Forum，以下簡稱 BSF) 的主要組織人Jason Pramas 在演講的開頭指出：「從外面來看，美國是一個富強而美好的國家。這並不是真相。美國的種族歧視有很長的歷史…」。1966年生於一個希臘移民兼藍領階級家庭，Jason從青少年時期就積極參與各種勞工運動。他見證了美國在 60 和 70 年代意識型態及政策的轉變，在雷根和柴契爾 (英國) 當權的時候來到了新自由主義的全盛時期：自由放任的經濟體制、貨幣系統的去管制、自由貿易、以及全球化，都造成本土勞工生活品質的惡化，以及勞工子女的受教機會下降。Jason 之後參與了許多爭取勞工權益的抗爭運動，並為外籍勞工與約聘工作者發聲。這些經驗以及其他發生在世界各地的社會運動，例如 1999 年西雅圖 WTO 的抗議行動和 2001 年於巴西 Porto Alegre 舉辦的第一場世界社會論壇 (World Social Forum)，都成為舉辦 BSF 的契機。BSF 於 2004 年七月在 UMass Boston 舉行，是一個公開的論壇式活動，人人都有機會發表、討論各種關於未來社會的可能性；超過五千人參與了這場有五百五十個不同活動、超過三天的公共論壇。

Suren Moodliar，BSF的活動協調人，接著解釋了BSF的主要任務是在聯繫不同的人與社群，使他們能夠自由地交換意見，並且開創新的公共空間，讓更多連結能夠被建立。這有別於派系間的整合與結盟，而是企圖去建立那個公共空間的過程。這樣的過程也會讓人們去思考資本主義所帶來的影響：資本主義的動態發展是個消弭公共空間、將之轉換成私有財產的過程。舉例來說，如果所有的事務都只能被放在私領域，大眾對於社會問題就不會有共識 (例如失業問題)。再加上這個國家本身充滿暴力的歷史，以及國家對特定族群的壓迫，BSF 也盡可能地去接觸有色族群及移民社群。最後，雖然 BSF 的主要資金來源仰賴捐款，他們仍為這活動募得了 25 萬美元；這樣的做法也有別於一些非政府組織及慈善企業家，並未把錢花在解決真正的問題上。

雖然我感覺這些社會運動，包含 BSF、其他社會論壇、以及幾年前的佔領華爾街運動，尚未對這個國家的政策方向造成太多影響；但如果這樣公共論壇式的討論能夠在各地持續下去，我想社會還是有機會改變。Suren 在回答其中一位聽眾的問題時提到：「1985年時，在南非的示威遊行總會導致警察槍殺抗議者，而埋葬這些屍體的場合又會導致更嚴重的抗議活動，這看起來就像個血腥的輪迴。但五年後情況居然有了重大的轉變 (曼德拉獲釋、廢除種族隔離政策的談判開始)。不尋常的事總會發生，所以我們得期待未來會發生轉變。」所以，或許我們還有救，而各種社會論壇就是新民主的誕生地。最後，我想引用 David Graeber 在 The Democracy Project 裡的一段話：『民主精神的真正起源，以及許多民主體制的建立，都恰好落在那些政府及教堂控制以外的即興空間。』

Reference 參考資料:

Boston Social Forum 波士頓社會論壇: http://bostonsocialforum.org/archive/

Encuentro 5: http://encuentro5.org/

Note by Chi-Feng Pai

Photo: Chia-Chun Chung

與會合影

[Outline of the presentations provided by Suren]

Jason:

-          Economic Insecurity is Now the Norm in the United States

o   This contrasts with the 1960s when steady jobs with benefits and retirement pensions, etc. and public education were strong and available to the majority of the working class and appeared to move in the right direction for people of color too with the Great Society programs

o   Now we have the right of contingent employment—temp, day labor, partime, contracted, outsourcing—and neo-liberalism which is more than a set of ideas, it is a set of policies and practices

o   Organizations emerged to fight neo-liberalism and its expression in employment, contingent work

o   These organizations are different from traditional trade unions and parties but do focus specifically on employment issues

-          By the time of the Boston Social Forum, these Organizations Are in Crisis

o   Funding is running out (due to several sources, including economic downturn)

o   Organizations tend to be narrowly focused on one or other part of the problem

o   Need to escape the traditional non-profit mindset to achieve mission

-          Social Forum offered a model to experiment with and to get groups out of their silos

o   Open space (Agora)

o   Spontaneous collaborations

o   Assert and demand that there is an alternative to capitalism and its neo-liberal phase

Suren:

-          The Boston Social Forum recognized that the Open Space model had its limits

o   Needed to address the original sins of America – invasion of Native American land and genocide of its people together with the construction of a White Republic based on African labor power

o   Deliberate outreach to communities via organizations from the communities that were involved in the social forum process

o   Achieved that goal but could not produce an integration of movements and races at the social forum

-          US Social Forum happens three years later with a 10x larger budget

o   Successful at engaging people of color, indigenous people, GLBTQI communities, and people with disabilities

o   Focused on involving organizations that organized about working class people of color

o   Much more deliberate focus on the realities of inequalities within the US

-          World Social Forum process

o   Draws lines between Global North and South by occurring opposite the World Economic Forum

o   Becomes a platform through which “untouchability” on a global scale can be addressed; similarly involving indigenous people

o   Now influenced by the Arab Spring

o   Next iteration takes place in Montreal in 2016

Additional points emerging during the discussion:

-          The left is about more than protest; it builds alternatives including cooperatives, new forms of wealth, credit unions, sustainable agriculture, etc.

-          Derive optimism from the fact that people with extreme challenges are fighting and resisting and sometimes winning small victories – e.g.

o   Native Americans or First Nations in Canada stopping hydrofracking

o   Movement for equality involving gay marriage

o   Gender equality and role of mass entertainment

-          “Revolution comes like a thief in the night” – unexpectedly!

-          Massive wealth inequality does not mean we are permanently deprived of the resources to make social change

o   Foundations are not our allies especially ones like the Gates Foundation which tend to donate in ways that perpetuate corporate rule

o   Social change occurs when people utilize the resources around them, especially those that cannot be measured in monetary terms

§  E.g. consciousness raising groups than formed the basis for the women’s liberation movement and that ultimately changed western civilization

§  Not even the wealthiest foundations could afford to pay people to conduct the necessary conversations that made up consciousness raising

§  Social change movements always involve the almost spontaneous release of resources on a scale that surpasses anything foundations can measure.

亮起來吧，台灣女人！從台灣原住民女性眼中看起

講者: Unga Kalay 林春鳳 教授

因應三月八日國際婦女節，2015年三月份的波士頓哲學（非）星期五非常榮幸邀請到剛從聯合國開完會（註一）的Unga Kalay/林春鳳老師，從台灣原住民女性的角度，分享台灣性別平權運動和原住民平權運動的現況與展望。

承襲哲學星期五的傳統，與會的大家各自熱烈的自我介紹以後，Unga Kalay也用她的母語阿美族語與大家打招呼並自我介紹，詼諧生動地為三月份的活動揭開序幕。Unga Kalay/林老師觀察入微的點出與會眾人多為受過高等教育的「特權」族群。不避諱的，她也以自身為例，從身為一個受過高等教育的原住民女性的角度， 直言不諱地訴說著她在參與台灣婦女平權運動、討論性別尊重議題的同時，在台灣社會正義工作的大方向上加入了「文化去歧視」這個調味料所作的努力。

Unga Kalay/林老師首先介紹台灣女性在社會變遷的不同時期裡所扮演的角色與相應的社會期待。在清領／日治時期的社會價值下，傳統台灣女性多半依附在漢族父權社會的架構內，多被期待有「要甘願」、「要吞忍」的基本態度。1905年代，受到纏足的影響， 約有一半一上的漢族女性無法進入生產線。戰後與戒嚴時期是台灣婦女權益發展的開端；這個時期台灣女權運動的發展主要經由國民政府從政策上著手，將婦女政策列入政府輔導政策之一。政府輔導的婦女政策有效的讓女性勞動力進入生產線（例如成立家政教室、輔導女性成為女工、著名的芭比娃娃加工廠設立在台灣等等），也為台灣帶來經濟利益。在法律上，中華民國憲法頒布實施，其中第七條明訂國人無分男女、宗教、種族、階級、黨派，在法律上一律平等，享有同等公民權利的原則。台灣社會的性別平權與正義在法律上的立基自此成功的與國際接軌，也為日後準備婦女參政的可行性鋪路。即使如此，台灣的女權運動儘管在政策與職場參與上有了進展，社會價值觀的改變仍然需要時間的醞釀。Unga Kalay/林老師指出解嚴後至今的近代台灣社會組成中，雖然男女比率各半、重男輕女的觀念與態度仍然隱藏在日常生活的家庭觀念中。特別在女性加入職場後，社會與家庭的角色與分工仍存在隱性的性別差異。舉例來說，現代台灣的女性角色以身兼多職的情況為主，女性一心多用的情形普遍，常被期待包辦家庭中的大小事。相對的，男性多被期待從事較為粗重的工作，工作性質也較多包涵創意、挑戰、與主控權。2015年現代的台灣社會，70%的商業活動仍然掌握在男性手裡。回顧台灣性別平權發展的歷史脈絡之後，Unga Kalay/林老師強調，「最基本的平權在於分工」，台灣的社會應從教育加強、家庭勞力的從新分工開始。

接著，Unga Kalay/林老師介紹台灣女權運動與國際接軌及民間執行上的實際情況。與國際婦女運動接軌的方面，台灣在各項法律與政策的進步，完整符合聯合國的Committee on the elimination of discrimination against women （CEDAW，反女性歧視委員會，見註二）的建議；舉例來說，政黨輪替開始之後，台北市的民進黨時期， 台灣開始參加聯合國外會議，以國對國的方式進行對話，並主動遵守國際規範。此外，在公部門推動與民眾的配合之下，由於「國會議員比率」跟「勞動力參與率」方面兩性差距縮小，台灣的性別平等指數（Gender Inequality Index）位居接受評比的149國中全球第二名，僅次於荷蘭。在社會組織方面，經由個體與民間團體的力量，婦女權益的提升不僅只在平等，更重視平權，如增進婦女參與決策的落實；Unga Kalay/林老師提出工程會成功地達成大於三分之一女性會員的目標，就是一個翻轉社會觀念的活例子。在社會改變方面，性別意識地抬頭，讓女性在傳統觀念上男性為主的產業展露頭腳（例如：女黑手、女兵、女機師）；除了政府以外，也有越來約多的民間團體以促進兩性平權為主要訴求（例如：勞動部，青輔會，婦女權益促進發展基金會，彭婉如基金會等等。）在實際的數據上面，主計處的資料顯示台灣男女勞動力從1993年的男72.42%女44.68%轉變成2013年的66.13與50.23%，顯示男女勞動參與率的差異逐年下降，有漸趨平等的趨勢。Unga Kalay/林老師指出，台灣女權運動與國際接軌及民間執行上的實質改變，是經由多面向推動的性別平權具體行動來完成的，包含將性別變向加入統計的分析與常模的建構、提升婦女與性別平權預算、性別意識培力與性別賦權（empowerment）、在執行法令與公共政策前實施「性別影響評估」（例如設置「媽媽帶兒子」或「爸爸帶女兒」專用廁所 ）、性別平等政策綱領的製定推動與落實、以及在本土與在地機構成立「性別平等委員會」或是「性別工作小組」等從草根開始推動性別平權的認知及實踐。

在總結的部分，Unga Kalay/林老師提示台灣婦女運動演變的情形，重新檢視現今婦女所面臨的挑戰。雖然男女平權在政策上與民間的推動相較於清領日治及國民政府時期大有進展， 慢慢的轉變了社會對不同性別擔任不同性質工作的期待、造就了當今雙薪家庭的趨勢，但女性在職場上仍會因「結婚生小孩」短暫離開職場而產生工作上的斷層；舉例來說，台灣公務人員體系內女性主管只佔了19%，主要原因就是因為結構要求工作年限的連續性，沒有相關的配套措施支持女性因生理需求生產時需暫停工作造成的工作年資累積的斷層。在現代婦女的特色方面，因為多了工作與經濟獨立的選項，社會卻任然期待她兼顧職場與家庭，造成一人分飾多角的衝突；在科技發達以後，職場上可以使用的工具大大的擴展了女性可以從事的活動類型，女性也開始主動爭取駕駛權；女性活動範圍的增加（例如提高女性駕車的比例），也擴展了她們工作與人際活動的範圍；在個人需求方面，現代台灣女性也開始追求事業卓越的成就與社會肯定。

Unga Kalay/林老師生動、刺激思考的演講帶動了熱烈的討論，為三月份哲五更添深度。參與討論的學生、學者、以及來自社會各行各業關心台灣公共社會議題的人們，殷切在不同角度切入並呼應今天Unga Kalay/林老師提示到的論點。一個半小時的熱烈討論囊括了以下議題：特定行業對女性加權分數的看法與隱含意義、現代雙薪家庭台灣社會中男性被要求肩付房貸的現象、在加強女性在特定行業參與率的提升並同時讓女性加入決策主體的必要性、納入性別考量後因產業經濟效益提升而成就了社會上重男輕女觀念的翻轉、台灣民間婦女及原住民團體在聯合國內的角色受到國際賞識學習的現況、現有女性車廂的設置凸顯出台灣社會男女平全促進仍存在有進步的空間、女性「增能」與「增權」的相得益彰（權利與義務的同時精進）、和促進女性參政平等權益並不忘提升女性面對輿論與領導能力的必要性。

筆者認為，三月份波士頓哲五最精緻、最令人印象深刻的地方，是Unga Kalay/林老師從原住民的角度從容反省台灣性別平權運動的發展與阻礙，巧妙的使用性別與文化兩個向度鋪陳出來的空間來引爆出更大範圍對社會正義相關議題的討論。舉例來說，Unga Kalay/林老師從開場就明確指出把「部落的經營概念」加入行政體系的重要性；以部落生態的角度出發來思考政策的設計，刺激了台灣舊有文化轉變的契機，政策的實施因而更有包容性的往多元文化邁進。在類似的脈絡下，Unga Kalay/林老師在討論社會變遷對台灣女性角色影響的同時，添加了文化向度讓女性平權的討論更加立體——在多數漢族女性仍因纏足而無法加入社會勞動力的清領／日治時期，原住民女性卻沒有受到同樣的「文化」限制，反而能「與山鼠飛奔」；相似的「文化阻隔效應」也反映在客家婦女身上——她們因有下田工作的生活需求，男女勞動力與參與力的懸殊較漢人為低，多多少少減低了早期社會性別間的巨大差異。性別平權運動發展至現代，更可以引鑑台灣社會不同族群體現的不同「社會體系」下性別分工與權力分配差異。例如漢族多承繼了父權為主的「父系社會」體系；相對的，原住民的社會體系裡面，阿美族、卑南族等都有母系社會的模範，在「重女輕男」的實踐上造就了溫柔的阿美族男性，Unga Kalay/林老師幽默地說阿美族男性都「賣到缺貨」、「搶也搶不到」。從文化與性別兩個向度開展出來的空間，提供了台灣社會促進性別平權更多元的討論、想像空間、與創造的可能性。Unga Kalay/林老師再舉平埔、排灣、魯凱族等在實施「兩性平權體系」上實際操作的情形，例如家產一律由老大（即天命）繼承不分男女、頭目的提名與傳承也不因性別而有差異。性別平權與社會正義的討論，除了性別與文化向度的鋪陳，也可加入「社會階級」的變向，更加成了在此議題上反覆詰問的複雜度；以國民政府時期大力推動的「婦女運動」為例，雖然從政策面上促進了女性參政與勞動參與的可能性，但該政策仍多以社會階層較高的女性為主軸——當時的婦女會多為依附在高官下的組織（即由高官們的太太所組成），多半沒有落實到一般女性的生活所需中。

三月份波士頓哲五的最後，Unga Kalay/林老師強調，婦女平權的促進需要長遠持續地耕耘，一旦停止推動，很快就會停止進步。而性別平等地推動，主要的目標應該是透過想法與做法的改變，讓所有的性別都有更多選擇機會與自由，才會達到真正的性別平等（立基上的平等並非平頭式的平等）。如Unga Kalay/林老師說：「性別平等，不是要打倒哪一方，唯一不能輸的就是幸福感。」如詩的呼應了美國黑人女性主義理論學者bell hooks說的：「feminism is for everybody!」台灣婦權運動的推行，除了重視女性權益，也應開始考量男性權益；台灣社會對男性角色的期待往往造成看不見的壓力、加上社會輔導機構缺少從男性角度中心來思考身心健康的需求，也是推動男女平權該繼續著眼努力的地方。

註一：台灣婦女民間團體參加2015聯合國大會相關資料：http://goo.gl/o79rj7
註二：CEDAW台灣網站：www.cedaw.org.tw/tw/en-global/home

文字稿 Yi-ying Chou, Mengchun Chiang

攝影 Tien-Yun Huang

錄影 Chia-Chun Chung