Story One of the most selfish laws, EVER

[TAW122]

Check out this news article about a civil/criminal law in the Republic of China, aka Taiwan. My parents are originally from Taiwan and just in the recent times, I've learned about this law there. It's one of the most selfish laws ever written. I mean, a child was brought into this world against his/her consent and then expected by law to care for his/her parents when his/her parents reach elderly age (retirement age or so). I am going to assume this includes shitty parents, abusive families, and what not. Granted, back in the days (over half a century ago), Taiwan was struggling a lot to make it. It was not long after World War II that the PRC (People's Republic of China) took over mainland China and made it communist, which forced the KMT (Kuomintang), which are the non-communist, to flee to Taiwan and start up their own settlement there.

Apparently, such a law does exist and it's incredibly selfish. Yet it's another reason why I don't want to live there (it's ok to visit I guess). Coupling with that, right to die is basically prohibited there, it's humid almost all year around (worst during the summers), oh and if you want to CTB via a firearm, forget it, firearms are illegal for civilian ownership in Taiwan barring a few exceptions (active military personnel, hunters, and farmers, and even then it's difficult to legally acquire one - makes states like California and New York look easy in terms of acquiring a firearm legally.). So yeah in short, I don't want to shit on Taiwan that much, but it's just not a place for me.

 

[Wayfaerer]

I couldn't imagine if such a law were passed here in the US. Being literal slaves to baby boomers... I shutter at the thought.

 

[Broken Chimera]

He should've sued her for giving birth to him without his consent. Who makes laws like that?

 

[TAW122]

@Wayfaerer I think there would be a huge civil uprising and societal unrest if such a law were ever to pass. It would certainly go against American culture of individualism and independence. Tbh, I don't think most Americans would be on board with it.

@Broken Chimera Indeed, and it's sad that the Taiwanese government still has these antiqued laws about requiring one's own kin to take care of one's elder. Yes, it is kind of the children to do so if the child does so by his/her own volition (free will), but to require it via law and enforced with fines + jail time for not providing is just wrong.

 

[CynicalHopelessness]

I seriously think about making memes for this kind of thinking. There's too many of them!

- Gee, women are making abortions. What should we do?
- How about we do sex ed, family planning and work to lessen the societal pressure into gender roles?
- Right, let's ban abortions. 'Cuz obviously nobody's gonna do them if we ban 'em, and it's not like the demand is generating the supply or anything.
(this one is fading from laws nowadays, but many people still cling to such mentality)

- Gee, people are killing themselves. What should we do?
- How about we try to make sure that in our society they grow up healthy so that the thought doesn't even cross their mind?
- Right, let's not talk about it, and if somebody does, we lock 'em up for some time, pump with pills that nobody understands, and also guilt-trip them into continuing existence.

- Gee, people are stopping caring about their parents. What should we do?
- How about we accept that lots of shit is happening in family and nobody should be forced to care about anyone, as healthy relationships are necessarily voluntary? We can also work to improve our retirement fund situation.
- Riiight, let's just put young capable working people in jail. That'll definitely solve it.

 

[TAW122]

@CynicalHopelessness Go for it, and yeah as far as the three issues are concerned, here are my responses. In regards to abortion, yes there are still lots of places where that is controversial and living in the Bible belt in the US, (the south eastern part of the US) it is very religious and most of the people see life as a gift no matter what it is and anytime or anything that deals with death to be evil, or sinful.

In regards to suicide and what not, as far as the government is concerned, it wants to keep people alive to keep contributing to the system and reap the labors of people. In regards to societal views, once again it's selfishness and also religious attitudes towards death that keep the stigma and taboo alive. To people, it's easier to sweep things under the rug than to address a systemic issue.

Finally in regards to caring for one's elderly parents, people once again are selfish and ignore the fact that each human being is brought into this world against his/her consent and then forced to live they never wanted. Most people don't object as they lack the self-awareness and/or refuse to acknowledge this fact. As a result, they are indoctrinated by society, peers, government, and religious/secular values (for those who don't believe in a god or non-religious), that it is an obligation and are shamed for shirking it.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I wonder if there are child protection laws in Taiwan as well that require the parents provide certain things to the children so that when they are adults they are financially, physically, and emotionally capable of providing for the parents, then there is balance.

In the news story in the OP, the son signed a contract as an adult that the mother would get a return on her investment. If he was not unduly influenced to sign the contract, he is liable, and the law reinforces the decision but from what I read was not a primary consideration.

 

[CynicalHopelessness]

I wonder if there are child protection laws in Taiwan as well that require the parents provide certain things to the children so that when they are adults they are financially, physically, and emotionally capable of providing for the parents, then there is balance.

I don't think that balances anything. Parent chooses to have a kid. Kid doesn't choose to have a parent (or a life). Full responsibility should lie on a parent.

If he was not unduly influenced to sign the contract, he is liable

I highly doubt it is possible to not be "unduly influenced" by one who raised you in a way it is possible with business partners. For example, a mother could be blackmailing his son with guilt-tripping, as if he is a burden and she is suffering through it because of him, for years on end, and this will definitely affect kid's decision in a way he himself won't be able to figure out without a therapist.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I highly doubt it is possible to not be "unduly influenced" by one who raised you in a way it is possible with business partners. For example, a mother could be blackmailing his son with guilt-tripping, as if he is a burden and she is suffering through it because of him, for years on end, and this will definitely affect kid's decision in a way he himself won't be able to figure out without a therapist.

Exactly. That's why I said "if." I cannot assume that happened or did not happen.

I don't think that balances anything. Parent chooses to have a kid. Kid doesn't choose to have a parent (or a life). Full responsibility should lie on a parent.

I would respond that that is a very Western point of view that an Asian would not relate to. They are much more inclined to view themselves in relation to their position and its requirements of service to others. They tend to focus on the other before the self. Each culture's view has merits, and to me a balance would be ideal as we are by necessity social beings that rely on reciprocity and others'care, especially when we are young and when we are old. That's why I do not outright reject the law's validity in their culture, but think that the same value and concern that are applied to the elderly must also be applied to the children. If their society functions on these types of reciprocity, then great care must be taken to build up the future providers. Recall that the elderly did not ask to be born either. There seems to be more acceptance in their culture of what is -- being born, suffering, aging and dying are not choices, they simply are and must be dealt with. Respect and care for the elderly are important in their culture, so I think there should be effort made to ensure children are given the safest and healthiest opportunities to become someone who can successfully support themselves and others without falling the eff apart.

EDIT: Please note I am not arguing or minimizing you. To me this is an intellectual conversation and sharing of ideas, challenging, enhancing and sometimes reinforcing our points of view, sometimes changing them. I am focused on the ideas we're debating, not on you, just wanted to make that clear. I find these kinds of conversations stimulating.

 

[CynicalHopelessness]

Exactly. That's why I said "if." I cannot assume that happened or did not happen.

Yeah, I'm just erring on the side "it happens in 99.9% of the families by the structure of the family, and usually in a way that cannot be established in the court".

Each culture's view has merits, and to me a balance would be ideal as we are by necessity social beings that rely on reciprocity and others'care, especially when we are young and when we are old

I can't really agree or disagree to this. But maybe "culture" has to be tweaked instead.

Since we're on a suicide forum, let's take suicide rate as a measurement of an "unhealth" of a society. South Korea (20.2 per 100k people), Taiwan (20.1 by 3rd party estimate, 16.4 by gov. data) and Japan (16.5) have a higher rate than say United States (14.5) or UK (11.2) or Germany (11.29). I'm picking countries that are supposed to be among better-off ones in both cultures, so we can expect e.g. economical factors to be similar.

This can be interpreted differently - e.g. that both are extremes, and Western one is less unhealthy, or that in fact that this very Western point of view is a step in the right direction, but there's still lots of work to be done. Or, maybe it doesn't matter since this particular factor is actually irrelevant if you check the whole picture, which I'm not doing right now.

So I don't really have an objection to what you say, except it seems that there are options I don't have a convincing argument for or against.

If their society functions on these types of reciprocity, then great care must be taken to build up the future providers. Recall that the elderly did not ask to be born either

Well, I think in terms of freedoms and responsibility. Being born isn't a choice, but having kids is. An actor (parents) takes a responsibility for the results (child). Child doesn't choose to have elders, so any responsibility must not be forced upon him. Not that it shouldn't be encouraged, but child supporting his elder parents must be an act of child's own free will.

EDIT: Please note I am not arguing or minimizing you. To me this is an intellectual conversation and sharing of ideas

Same here. We probably won't agree on anything, but it's nice to see a fairly extensive opinion. Thanks for being there

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Same here. We probably won't agree on anything, but it's nice to see a fairly extensive opinion. Thanks for being there

Loving this conversation! Thank you as well for being there. back.

Since we're on a suicide forum, let's take suicide rate as a measurement of an "unhealth" of a society. South Korea (20.2 per 100k people), Taiwan (20.1 by 3rd party estimate, 16.4 by gov. data) and Japan (16.5) have a higher rate than say United States (14.5) or UK (11.2) or Germany (11.29). I'm picking countries that are supposed to be among better-off ones in both cultures, so we can expect e.g. economical factors to be similar.

Love that you took this approach.

I'm not sure about the other Asian countries, but I do know that in Japan it is more accepted in the culture and does not carry the same taboos. Suicide is also more accepted in Buddhist cultures because it can be justified in that philosophy, even honored for releasing attachment. So the statistics don't reveal enough information, like how much of the higher ctb success is motivated by socioeconomic factors and/or acceptance of ctb, vs. how much stigmatization and taboo of ctb may create aversion to ctb that may somewhat offset the wealth of the society as being life-supportive.

There is a Malaysian woman on this forum who shared on a thread that she lives in a Catholic country and there is heavy judgment against the actor which is then directed at the family (e.g., "Your mother was weak," "She didn't love you enough").

America and Britain are predominantly Judeo-Christian countries, and the stance of the Christian and Catholic churches is that suicide is a huge sin which could lead to damnation. Heck of a deterrent, and their lobbies are powerful political influences as well in enforcing pro-life measures, along with psychojudicial and pharma lobbies.

Well, I think in terms of freedoms and responsibility. Being born isn't a choice, but having kids is. An actor (parents) takes a responsibility for the results (child). Child doesn't choose to have elders, so any responsibility must not be forced upon him. Not that it shouldn't be encouraged, but child supporting his elder parents must be an act of child's own free will.

I would argue that the drive to procreate can be as manipulative of logic and difficult to overpower as SI. I cannot prove it, but my research about what drives us and what can unduly influence us leads me to tentativley accept this argument as having validity.

I still approach what we're talking about here from a sociocultural perspective, thinking about one's place in the social structures, yet needing a sense of autonomy and self, a very real challenge that Asians experience.

I recall reading an Asian woman saying that she was in her 40s and just now learning to stand up to her mother. The hierarchical social restrictions lead to a lot of excuses and support for abuse, with demands for unearned respect and obedience, or "honor," for parents, teachers, and the elderly.

That's why I am attracted to a balance of Eastern and Western, because in the West, especially in America, the emphasis on the individual is isolating. We call out and reject abuse, and are therefore banned and shunned from the social supports that are necessary for surviving and thriving.

Yeah, I'm just erring on the side "it happens in 99.9% of the families by the structure of the family, and usually in a way that cannot be established in the court".

...and I'm trying not to err on the side of your excellent logic, nor on the side of the law.

You wisely said, "So I don't really have an objection to what you say, except it seems that there are options I don't have a convincing argument for or against."

Somehwat similarly, I don't have enough evidence to support my desire to lean in the same direction...nor to lean in the direction of the legal logic that ostensibly led to the ruling. There's not enough information in the news report so I'm trying to remain neutral. Not an easy thing for me! So I'm respecting your stance of erring on the side you do (and with which I agree) and respecting mine to see potential in both sides and remain neutral.

 

[CynicalHopelessness]

So the statistics don't reveal enough information, like how much of the higher ctb success is motivated by socioeconomic factors and/or acceptance of ctb, vs. how much stigmatization and taboo of ctb may create aversion to ctb that may somewhat offset the wealth of the society as being life-supportive.

That's a good point. I agree statistics are insufficient, but I don't think stigmatization of suicides actually prevents them. Sure, it might be a way in which SI manifests, but any sort of stigma on anything (cue trans people) pushes people close to the darker place. Even here you can see examples - people who perceive themselves as damned already, their Christianity pushing them deeper.

I would argue that the drive to procreate can be as manipulative of logic and difficult to overpower as SI

Yes and I'm not actually saying they actually could have stopped - sociocultural factors in play are very strong. But we don't condone rapists who were pushed by their manipulative desires, either. I'm talking about what should be based on logic, and this law is the opposite direction. Laws should change to push humanity forwards, not keep us tied to old superstitions .

Ultimately it's not for me to decide, but that situation feels risky, even abstracting from the details. I.e. if in Taiwan the socioeconomic situation for elders becomes worse, I would expect a rise of suicides and family homicides for people who just won't accept this kind of slavery.

That's why I am attracted to a balance of Eastern and Western, because in the West, especially in America, the emphasis on the individual is isolating. We call out and reject abuse, and are therefore banned and shunned from the social supports that are necessary for surviving and thriving.

Yeah, and I'm saying let's abolish family :-) To thrive, we need healthy connections with indivuduals we sympathize with and share interests with, and that is not modern family. Western, Eastern or in-between, it would still be random people with a power to abuse, and we'll still see the same thing over and over again. Narcissistic parents. Abusive parents. Violent parents. Indifferent parents. Absentee parents. Egoistic parents. Enough with this! Even adoption-only for families would probably be better than what we have now. And if we can add some personality checks to filter out the shittiest of people, the better.

 

[TAW122]

I recall reading an Asian woman saying that she was in her 40s and just now learning to stand up to her mother. The hierarchical social restrictions lead to a lot of excuses and support for abuse, with demands for unearned respect and obedience, or "honor," for parents, teachers, and the elderly.

Yes, I can somewhat understand that. I suppose even as a teenager, I started to stand up to my parents but moreso when I entered college as an adult (18 years of age). Most East Asians (and Asian parents in general) do have this notion of unconditional obedience and no questioning authority attitude in their upbringing, and one of the flaws is that even if one's elder or teacher or parent is "wrong" the younger one (or lower on the hierarchy) is unable to point out or correct them, for fear of consequences. It is a part of Asian culture that fosters fear and obedience. It simply doesn't translate well to Western society and western values. Ever since I started to be more independent (in other ways, not financially) I start to have my own way of doing things that work better for me, but nonetheless I still respect my parents whenever I can and especially now when I am (temporarily) living under their roof while I work towards getting back on my feet.

To thrive, we need healthy connections with indivuduals we sympathize with and share interests with, and that is not modern family.

Agreed with this.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Yes, I can somewhat understand that. I suppose even as a teenager, I started to stand up to my parents but moreso when I entered college as an adult (18 years of age). Most East Asians (and Asian parents in general) do have this notion of unconditional obedience and no questioning authority attitude in their upbringing, and one of the flaws is that even if one's elder or teacher or parent is "wrong" the younger one (or lower on the hierarchy) is unable to point out or correct them, for fear of consequences. It is a part of Asian culture that fosters fear and obedience. It simply doesn't translate well to Western society and western values. Ever since I started to be more independent (in other ways, not financially) I start to have my own way of doing things that work better for me, but nonetheless I still respect my parents whenever I can and especially now when I am (temporarily) living under their roof while I work towards getting back on my feet.

I enjoyed reading this.

My ponderings in response to yours...

I think in a lot of Asian and Arab cultures, one has to bide their time until they get to be in a position of authority and power and then can in turn demand obedience under the guise of respect. The daughter is subject to the parents, then to the husband and mother-in-law. When the mother-in-law dies, it's her turn to wield power, be hated and feared and wished to die so the next one can have her turn.

I get that parents and teachers have more knowledge and experience, that they have paved the way for those who follow, but that doesn't mean they are right or did a good job of it. I think that authority should be able to stand up to questioning of it is legitimate, and that it should serve others, not others serve it (which I why I respect Marcus Aurelius).

In our culture, it is recommended by developmental psychologists and much of society that in the teens and early adult years one begins to "individuate," to become separate from their parents and build the inner foundations to be their own person in the world, to set boundaries with their parents and others. I can see how that would serve in our culture that's focused on the individual, and in my own life I can see how much stronger and more capable I feel for having learned how to do that increasingly my 30s and 40s, after many years of working at it and breaking the conditioning of the family stories and values. Unfortunately, individuating is not allowed by the power-holders in my family, so I no longer have family, a mixed blessing. But heck, I can even see how it would be valuable in Asian cultures. I can see how it is a need in every culture. No matter how a society functions, one is always their own separate being inside themselves, and, with rare exception after childhood, in need of inclusion in a social order.

Sounds like you went according to individuation schedule and balance things well, recognizing where your parents have power but also having your own. Seems like there's space for that in your family.

What time is dinner?

In every culture, family sucks. We need them, we love/hate them, they love/hate us, they need us. Mutual recognition, acceptance and value are rare.

Argh.


Thanks for the thread.