「警告逃妻」的歷史及其性別政治，1952-2000

本文聚焦於警告逃妻刊登啟事的歷史意義及其和性別政治的關係。一方面解構逃妻之所以為「逃」妻背後隱含的社會機制，是如何透過法律體系、社會關係而運作；另一方面則回顧台灣特定的歷史脈絡，如1970年代後期離婚率漸趨上升、自由戀愛興起、後至1980、90年代民法親屬編的修正以及家暴法的制定等法源改革和社會變遷，分析警告逃妻廣告刊登數量消長的性別意涵。研究方法蒐集聯合報警告逃妻刊登啟事為主，輔以律師訪談、離婚婦女口述、報導及其他相關文獻。研究發現警告逃妻刊登啟事的消長是緊扣著婚姻關係的轉變。台灣自1960年代以來的產業轉型、都市化工業化的影響，使得傳統依循的婚姻、家庭制度受到衝擊，包含傳統家庭結構的重組（從三代同堂到核心家庭）、婚配型式的轉換（「父母之命，媒妁之言」到自由戀愛）、婚姻觀念的轉變（傳統制度式婚姻到離婚、非婚生子等情形漸增）等，促使警告逃妻刊登數字產生變化。具體觀察指標是台灣歷年離婚率的數據，離婚率的上升與警告逃妻刊登數量的下降，剛好都發生於1970年代中後期。時值自由戀愛盛行、高等教育普及和大量女性進入勞動市場，促使女性地位提升，不只對婚姻意義產生影響，亦衝擊「男強女弱」的性別關係，或多或少也影響警告逃妻刊登啟事數量。本研究肯定警告逃妻刊登有其特殊的脈絡和歷史定位。首先，台灣早期來說，女性不僅只是嫁給丈夫，也是嫁入夫家的多重社會關係網絡，複雜化女性身兼妻子卅媳婦卅女兒的角色。再來，多警告逃妻、少警告逃夫的事實，具體而微地揭露了「從夫居」法條中隱含的性別政治以及司法體系的父權意識形態。最後，藉廣告中婚姻爭議的公共展現，反思當代「家醜不外揚」的觀念，以及當代親密關係中訴諸情愛至上、兩人隱私情感的思維。

關鍵字

警告逃妻；離婚；婚姻關係轉變；性別與法律

並列摘要

“Warning: Runaway-wife” is the advertisement that husband posted on newspaper to warn their wife who had left home, a common feature in post WWII Taiwan. The ad maybe used as the evidence against the wife who would be seen as not fulfilling her wifely duties of residing with the husband in a divorce lawsuit. It may also be a simple warning to the wife or a way to search for the missing wife. Drawing on the statistics and content of “Warning: Runaway-wife” advertisements on the United Daily News since 1952, oral history interviews with 3 lawyers, a divorce woman, and a newspaper staff, and various printed materials, this thesis examines the history and gender politics of marriage in Taiwan in the period between 1952 and 2000. I argue that the change in the number of “Warning: Runaway-wife” ads is, in part, a reflection of the social and historical transformation of marriage. During the 1960s Taiwan began a process of fast industrialization, which brought about several major changes, including the rise of the smaller-sized family and the decline of arranged marriage. Increasingly men and women entered marriage via love match. As more women entered the labor market and had access to higher education, women’s social status also improved. These changes brought about a fundamental transformation in the relationship between husband and wife. Couples gradually kept their marital dispute to a smaller circle, as opposed to earlier period when couples would take their case to the public by putting ads on the newspaper. As a result, the number of “Warning: Runaway-wife” ads peaked in the 1970s and started to decline afterwards. A detailed historical analysis reveals three salient features of the “Warning: Runaway-wife” ads. First, when a woman entered marriage, she was not just married with her husband; she was also married with the whole family in the sense that she had to fulfill a set of duties required of her as a wife, daughter-in-law, and others. Second, there many more “Warning: Runaway-wife” than “Warning: Runaway-husband” ads—a revealing fact that points to gender politics of the judicial system, particularly the “patrilocal” law. Third, compared to the contemporary “don’t wash your dirty linen in public” attitude regarding marital disputes, in the past couples were more likely to take their problems to the public, which also indicates a transformation of intimate relationship.