茶垢裡的性別社會 ——香港殖民、父權與資本主義的合謀（上）

 

文：Yosuna (Scroll Down for English Version)

茶垢的典故是來自全國政協主席李瑞環在1995年向港區政協時所說的一個故事：「宜興有一種紫砂壺，用的時間長了，壺中就會長出茶山，據說長了茶山的壺不放茶葉也有茶味。有位老太太家中有這麼一把用了幾代上百年的老壺，她拿到市場上去賣，要價五錢銀子。一位買主很懂行，一看裡邊是茶山，知道這是難得的好東西，願出價三兩，並說一會兒來拿。老太太心想，這麼一把舊茶壺給這麼多錢，裡邊這麼髒實在不好意思，於是就把茶山給刮淨了。一會兒，買主來拿壺，一看茶山沒有了，掉頭就走，說就是五錢也不要了。」

李瑞環藉此表達，香港的價值所在，正是其殖民歷史之「餘香」。然而這個茶垢的「餘香」成分卻是複雜至極，混合了殖民、父權、傳統與資本主義之元素，造就了香港社會刮又刮不盡，洗又洗不去之「垢」。本文將試圖在香港殖民社會語境下，探討父權與資本主義結謀的二元系統(Dual System)。這種複雜的性別秩序呈現於以上四種體制之間的關係中：

a) 殖民主義與父權主義

b) 父權主義與傳統主義

c) 傳統主義與資本主義

由此可見，香港殖民時期以來的性別社會，正如李瑞環所說的一般，是茶垢一部份——見證著自近代西方與東方相交以來，華人社會作為性別社會的變化。在開始之前，我們需要談談一些概念。

性別秩序與性徵(sexualities)

性別秩序(Gender Order)可以定義為在世界範圍內將政權體制的性別制度，和地方社會的性別秩序相互聯繫的關係結構，創造了男性和女性氣質的等級制度（Connell，2002）。 然而，當談到像男性氣質（masculinities）和女性氣質（feminities）這樣的字眼時，我們無可避免要面對此一問題，「為什麼男性氣質和女性氣質之間會有如此大的『差異』？ 如果即使在『陽剛』和『陰柔』的總稱下也存在很多性別差異，那我們為什麼要把它們歸納為兩個術語呢？ 是什麼讓人們操演(Perform)，或者用巴特勒的話來說，「做出(Do)」ta們的性別，從而創造了性別秩序？

為了更好地理解這種情況，我們應先了解性徵(sexualities)是如何被「創造」的。根據 Connell (2002) 的說法，性別秩序和性徵與資本主義全球化有著密切的聯繫：「在帝國征服、新殖民主義以及當前的世界權力系統、投資、貿易和交流體系下，各式各樣社會相遇，而這些社會裡的性別秩序也因此相互接觸」，這樣看來，全球資本主義的發展創造了性徵的多樣，以更好地影響當地經濟。這裡也體現了資本主義的邏輯——在資本主義下，資本旨在實現資本積累（Luxemburg，2015），而為了達到這個目的，資本主義嘗試任何手段以延長資本主義的資本累積時段，如引發一場經濟危機，將市場上一些盈餘(surplus)化為烏有，以騰出市場空間予進一步的資本累積。這代表著，無論社會上存在何種邏輯，只要不違背資本渴望繼續積累的願望，那這些邏輯便是被容許的。

然而，用馬庫色(Marcuse, 2013)的話來說，這些被資本主義容許的「多元」邏輯亦同時創造了一個「單向度的人」（one-dimensional man）。為了更好地理解「單向人」的概念，我們可以參考阿多諾（1975）在《文化產業再思考》一文中的描述，「文化工業的面貌，實質上就是兩方面的混合物：一方面是流水線型的、攝影術般的嚴格精准，另一方面是個性的剩餘物、多愁善感、已經被理性處理並改編過了的浪漫主義。本雅明通過靈韻（aura）這個概念表達了對於傳統藝術品的看法，如果採用他的思路，那麼可以這樣定義文化工業：它並不提出一個對抗靈韻的原則，而是保持著一層已經消逝的靈韻的薄霧。文化工業由此洩漏了其意識形態的天機。」（阿多諾，1975）

因此，性徵作為文化工業產品，其現代意義也有兩面性。在現代社會中，我們在包括教育和「核心家庭模式」在內的社會體制中被社教化，這些體制以性別二元系統(Gender binary system)為骨幹，配以「個性的剩餘物」成為了性徵。因此，「陽剛」和「陰柔」可被理解作性別系統的「靈韻薄霧」，作為一個社會系統的文化「單向維度」，以文化工業產品形式存在。正如康奈爾（2020）所說，「新自由主義盛行的世界仍然是一個性別化的世界，新自由主義隱含著性別政治。」康奈爾認為，在全球經濟秩序中，父權制和資本主義在性別二元制度上合建的霸權男性氣質——即「跨國商業男性氣質」：「經濟的鬆綁將重點權力交給了特定的男性群體——經理和企業家手中」。這種霸權男性氣質雖然並非是同質的，並在不同的地區有不同的展現，如東亞的儒家文化，及歐美的基督教世俗文化（secularized Christain），但這些男性氣質皆以個人自由與市場競爭為名，削減社會對性別改革政策的支援（如削減對托兒所的資助），使父權制仍能被保留下來，並將與之不符的性別氣質力量壓制下去，因而引起了邊陲地帶及邊緣群體的反抗（這些反抗可以是反動性的，如原教旨主義（fundamentalist）的父權主義）。

這種性別秩序在香港「本地化」的情況更為複雜：殖民主義、父權主義、傳統主義、資本主義都高度混合在一起，造成了香港社會兩性之間的矛盾，而這段歷史則由早期的氏族圍村文化、近代中國的半現代文化、晚期資本主義的都會主義文化編織而成的。本文將先追溯圍村文化——香港殖民資本主義下的性別社會中的霸權男性氣質。

父權、殖民與資本主義

香港是一個如此特殊的地方，它是一個「借來」的地方，殖民政府的態度總是謹慎地思考應該如何治理這個地區（Law, 2009）。 當英國殖民者獲得這一塊新領土時，按其殖民傳統實行間接統治(indirect rule)，形成了屬於香港的霸權男性氣質（不過，它仍然是一種商業驅動的男性氣質）。

殖民主義與父權制

在英國的統治下， 地方領導人和權力精英獲得官方授權與支持， 丁屋政策便是一例；原住民的居住權僅於原住民家族以內，這種原住民家族則被定義為父系家族，他們在 1889 年之前曾居住在新界的原始村莊（Cheung，2004）。 因此，英國在新界的間接管治是與次殖民者(sub-coloniser)（即氏族社會中的男性精英）的共謀殖民主義（collaborative colonism）。因此，只有男性才能從殖民主義中受益（例如丁權政策）。 在這樣的政策方式下，如果一個家庭的獨生子是女性，那麼這個女性便永遠無法繼承父母的財產。

然而這並不代表這種父權體制的獲益者必定是男性，事實上，男性也因為這種父權競爭而受害。例如，一所房子的大小和裝修華麗度將決定他們的社會地位、甚至將損害這些男性原住民的自尊心。男性的「無能」（包括無法生育下一代）在圍村成為一個負面的標籤，張少強在關於圍村父權社會的民族誌（2004）中進一步討論了這種情況：「鄧德銘（化名）也患有不孕症，他的獨子不是妻子所生，而是收養而來。村民們都知道，鄧德明是從妓女那裡買來的養子。但後來大家都為鄧德銘的不幸感到難過，因為他的養子在 16 歲左右就染上了毒癮，成為罪犯，在監獄裡的次數比在家裡的次數還要多…… 他們的居所決定了男性的能力和力量。它賦予男性獨特的優越感和權力，但同時也會產生一種深深的焦慮和無能感。這是男性特權的霸權體系，但也是男性權力的基本構成。」

這也是說，霸權的男性氣質（能於家庭、生育以及經濟層面上有所成就）對男性來說是一種負擔。當男人在與彼此競爭時，殖民者維持殖民地管治的目的就達到了。男性通過性別操演，與他人競爭以履行霸權男子氣質，這造成了父權制下的男性焦慮；成功的男性成功地表現出男子氣概，而失敗的男性則對自己失去信心。殖民者和制度內的成功男性（次殖民者）結成聯盟，一方面殖民者得以維持統治，另一方面本地社會的性別秩序被事業成功的男性維持、加強和操縱，令父權制轉向傳統主義，以保護殖民聯盟中既得利益者。

父權制與傳統主義

原住民的父權制「傳統」是混雜的。殖民者以「尊重傳統」為名，保留了清朝遺留下來的宗法《大清法》，而後來的《新界獨立條例》、《香港普通法》、後殖民的「小」憲法《香港基本法》都是由殖民政府、華人精英在錯綜複雜的爭論中得出的，在這些爭論中，當代男女平等的公民原則和『中國傳統主義』的歷史價值觀在應用中互相磨合 (Cheung, 2004) 。由此可見，政治經濟利益和社會文化為維護「傳統」面貌的努力密不可分。對於新界居民來說，發展主義(developmentalism)帶來的財富雖然可觀，但這也對他們的遺產（祖傳土地）帶來威脅——如果他們不能擴展他們的中國傳統，他們的中國傳統總有一天會枯竭（Cheung，2004）。因此，原居民以傳統的名義不斷重建新的父權傳統，但在資本主義下，這些傳統只能以文化產品，而非文化實踐的面貌出現，在這個重建過程中，這些父權傳統與香港的資本主義社會融為一體，最終導致香港出現了另一種都會主義的霸權男性氣質。

傳統主義與資本主義

在大眾文化媒體中我們可以找到傳統主義和資本主義的混合體，這個局面是由社會生活的各個層面構成的，包括立法機關、媒體、社會服務提供者和家庭，它們都共享著一個基於「需求話語」（need-based discourse）的父權家庭體系。傳統主義作為父權文化，在這個過程中融入了香港的資本主義文化。其中一個例子是自從改革開放政策提供了進入中國大陸的機會後，香港男性中出現「包二奶」現象。在香港，無論立法機關還是政治制度，各個領域都與中國存在巨大差異，這差異容許了香港男性可以透過跨越兩地來實現「包二奶」的願望。根據 Tam, Fung, Kam, & Liong (2009) 的研究，「男性將跨境工作作為一種生存策略，他們認為自己是養家糊口的人，肩負著好父親和好丈夫的家庭責任。這些傳統價值觀自相矛盾地為婚外情提供了溫床。正是在這個複雜的社會和文化環境中，我們審視了這些一夫多妻制的意識形態及男性氣質。」

換言之，傳統主義與資本主義的交匯點在於，男性氣質是由一個男人可以供養的家庭消費來定義的，Tam, Fung, Kam, & Liong (2009) 提供的一個例子如下：「周先生面臨兩難境地。他認為，作為一個負責任的丈夫和父親，他應該養家糊口。但也作為一個成功的男人，他不想放棄他的情婦。他的男性氣質也因此突然被社會所挑戰。」因此，「能夠供養兩個家庭」構成了霸權男性氣質，尤其是在資本主義世界中，個人在社會之中沒有足夠的經濟與情感能力負擔起兩個家庭需求，因此這直接導致了這些男性心生理上的不適，「他開始表現出消化系統紊亂、心理壓力甚至抑鬱等身體症狀。他正在經歷性慾減退，並擔心自己會感染艾滋病毒/艾滋病」。這種壓力與男性氣質的維持之間的矛盾造成了悲劇，而從資本主義的角度來看，這些悲劇並沒有阻礙它積累資本（它甚至有助於積累資本，因為男、女性都在為了他人的目光而消費更多），因此，通過大眾傳播和文化產業的方式，資本主義並沒有意欲根除，甚至有意鞏固父權意識形態與「需求話語」。

結論

與本地社會父權制結謀的殖民主義，本是全球資本擴張的一部份，而這個過程中，殖民、父權與資本主義互相利用，當中也充滿衝突。一方面，父權制在殖民主義的羽翼下被保留下來，但其傳統男性氣質隨著資本主義下，家庭逐漸擺脫氏族社會而被削弱，但同時又被吸納進資本主義的文化工業中，與霸權男性氣質相結合。這個複雜的過程不僅傷害了女性，也傷害了男性，強化了「男性的能力」的概念，即男性氣質（霸權男性氣質是社會中所形容的、完美無缺的性徵(sexualties)）。然而，在資本主義世界中，經濟邏輯注定了這是一場零和遊戲，有人贏就有人輸，也就是說，不是每個男人都能達到霸權男性氣質，而女性與其他性別群體亦被壓制到性別秩序中的底層。

正如馬庫色 (2013) 所說，「文化特權表現了不公平的自由、意識形態同現實的矛盾、精神生產力同物質生產力的脫離；但它們也提供了一個受保護的領域，使得被禁忌的真理能以抽象的完整性倖存下來——疏遠壓制這些真理的社會。」——也就是說，霸權男性氣質所營造出的理型，是寄生於不平等的經濟與性別秩序之上，表現了其「不公平的自由」，而這種自由，是一種對想像的消費；通過賦予一個不可能的夢想，一種虛榮的生活方式，創造出霸權的男性氣質。在殖民-父權-資本主義制度的博弈中，無論男女，都不會是贏家。如何實踐性別平等，不僅是女性，也是男性從幻想中解放出來的問題，我們需要奪回我們的自主性。

下一次我們將具體探討中國半現代性在香港的表現和演化。

The origin of "tea stains" comes from a story told by Li Ruihuan, the Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, to the Hong Kong Committee in 1995: "There is a kind of purple clay teapot in Yixing. As it is used over time, tea mountains will grow in the pot. It is said that even if no tea leaves are added, the pot with tea mountains will still have tea flavor. There was an old lady who had such an old teapot that had been passed down for generations and used for hundreds of years. She took it to the market to sell, asking for five silver coins. A knowledgeable buyer saw the tea mountains inside and knew it was a rare treasure. He offered three taels and said he would come back later to pick it up. The old lady thought it was embarrassing to sell such an old teapot for so much money, so she scraped off the tea mountains. When the buyer came to pick up the pot, he saw that the tea mountains were gone and turned around and left, saying he didn't want it even for five coins." Li Ruihuan expressed that the value of Hong Kong lies in its colonial history's "lingering fragrance." However, the "lingering fragrance" in this "tea stain" is extremely complex, mixing elements of colonialism, patriarchy, tradition, and capitalism, creating the "stains" that cannot be wiped away in Hong Kong society. This article will try to explore the dual system of patriarchy and capitalism in the context of Hong Kong's colonial society. This complex gender order is presented in the relationships between the following four systems: a) colonialism and patriarchy b) patriarchy and tradition c) tradition and capitalism. Therefore, as Li Ruihuan said, the gender society in Hong Kong since the colonial period is like a part of "tea stains" - witnessing the changes of Chinese society as a gendered society since the modern Western and Eastern encounters. Before we begin, we need to talk about some concepts.

Gender Order and Sexualities

Gender order can be defined as the hierarchical system of masculinity and femininity created by the gender system of political regimes worldwide and the gender order of local societies, which are interrelated (Connell, 2002). However, when talking about terms like masculinity and femininity, we inevitably face the question, "Why is there such a big 'difference' between masculinity and femininity? If there are many gender differences even under the general term of 'masculine' and 'feminine,' why do we classify them into two terms? What makes people perform or 'do' their gender, thus creating a gender order? To better understand this situation, we should first understand how sexualities are "created." According to Connell (2002), gender order and sexualities are closely linked to global capitalism globalization: "Under the empire's conquest, new colonialism, and the current world power system, investment, trade, and communication systems, social encounters of all kinds occur, and gender orders in these societies come into contact with each other." Thus, the development of global capitalism creates various sexualities to better influence local economies. Here, we see the logic of capitalism - under capitalism, capital aims to achieve capital accumulation (Luxemburg, 2015), and to achieve this goal, capitalism tries any means to prolong the period of capital accumulation, such as triggering an economic crisis and turning some surpluses on the market into nothingness to make room for further capital accumulation. This means that no matter what logic exists in society, as long as it does not violate the desire of capital to continue accumulation, these logics are allowed. However, as Marcuse (2013) put it, these "plural" logics allowed by capitalism also create a "one-dimensional man." To better understand the concept of "one-dimensional man," we can refer to Adorno's (1975) description in his essay "Culture Industry Reconsidered": "The face of the culture industry is a mixture of two elements: one is the strict precision, the mechanical repetition of the assembly line, and the other is the personality residue, the sentimentalism that has already been processed and adapted by reason. Benjamin expressed his views on traditional art through the concept of aura. If we adopt his thinking, we can define the culture industry as not proposing a principle that opposes aura but maintaining a mist of already vanished aura. The culture industry thus leaks the ideological secret." (Adorno, 1975) Therefore, as a cultural industry product, sexualities also have a dual nature. In modern society, we are socialized in social systems, including education and the "core family pattern," which are based on the gender binary system, with "personality residues" becoming sexualities. Therefore, "masculine" and "feminine" can be understood as the "mists of aura" of the gender system, as a cultural "one-dimensional dimension" of a social system, existing in the form of cultural industry products. As Cornell (2020) said, "The world dominated by neoliberalism is still a gendered world, and neoliberalism implies gender politics." Cornell believes that in the global economic order, the hegemonic masculinity of patriarchy and capitalism built on the gender binary system - that is, "transnational commercial masculinity": "The economic unbinding puts key power in the hands of specific male groups - managers and entrepreneurs." Although this hegemonic masculinity is not homogeneous and has different manifestations in different regions, such as Confucian culture in East Asia and secularized Christian culture in Europe and America, these masculinities are all based on personal freedom and market competition, reducing support for gender reform policies in society (such as reducing subsidies to child care), preserving patriarchy, and suppressing gender forces that are not in line with it, thereby causing resistance from peripheral areas and marginalized groups (these resistances can be reactionary, such as fundamentalist patriarchy). This gender order is even more complicated in the context of Hong Kong's "localization": colonialism, patriarchy, tradition, and capitalism are highly mixed together, causing contradictions between the sexes in Hong Kong society. This history is woven from the clan village culture in the early days, the semi-modern culture of modern China, and the cosmopolitan culture of late capitalism. This article will first trace the clan village culture - the hegemonic masculinity in the gender society of Hong Kong's colonial capitalism.

Patriarchy, Colonialism and Capitalism

Hong Kong is such a unique place, as it is a "borrowed" place, and the colonial government always thinks carefully about how to govern this territory (Law, 2009). When the British colonizers acquired this new territory, they practiced indirect rule according to their colonial tradition, forming a hegemonic male character that belongs to Hong Kong (although it is still a commercial-driven male character).

Colonialism and Patriarchy

Under British rule, local leaders and power elites were authorized and supported by the authorities, and the policy of ding uk is an example. The right of aboriginals to live only within their own families, defined as patrilineal families, who lived in primitive villages in the New Territories before 1889 (Cheung, 2004). Therefore, British indirect rule in the New Territories was a collaborative colonialism with sub-colonizers (male elites in tribal society). Therefore, only men could benefit from colonialism (such as the ding uk policy). Under this policy, if the only child of a family is female, this female will never inherit her parents' property. However, this does not mean that the beneficiaries of this patriarchal system must be male. In fact, men are also harmed by this patriarchal competition. For example, the size and luxurious decoration of a house will determine their social status, and even damage the self-esteem of these male aborigines. Male incompetence (including inability to reproduce) became a negative label in the walled villages. Zhang Shaoqiang further discussed this situation in his ethnography on the patriarchal society of the walled villages (2004): "Deng Deming (pseudonym) also suffers from infertility. His only son was not born to his wife, but was adopted. The villagers all know that Deng Deming’s adopted son was bought from a prostitute. But later everyone felt sorry for Deng Deming because his adopted son became addicted to drugs at the age of 16 and became a criminal with more times in prison than at home... Their place of residence determines men's ability and strength. It gives men a unique sense of superiority and power, but it also creates a deep sense of anxiety and incompetence. This is the hegemonic system of male privilege, but it is also the basic composition of male power." This also means that the hegemonic male character (able to achieve success in family, reproduction, and economic aspects) is a burden for men. When men compete with each other, the purpose of maintaining colonial rule is achieved by the colonizers. Men compete with each other through gender performance to fulfill the hegemonic male character, which causes male anxiety under patriarchy; successful men successfully demonstrate male masculinity, while unsuccessful men lose confidence in themselves. The colonizers and successful men (sub-colonizers) within the system formed an alliance, enabling the colonizers to maintain their rule, while the local gender order was maintained, strengthened, and manipulated by successful men, leading patriarchy to turn to traditionalism to protect the vested interests of the colonial alliance.

Patriarchy and Traditionalism

The traditional patriarchy of the indigenous people is a mixture of different elements. The colonizers used the excuse of "respecting tradition" to preserve the Qing Dynasty's customary law, and later the New Territories Ordinance, the Hong Kong common law, and the post-colonial "mini" constitution, the Basic Law of Hong Kong, were all the result of complex debates between the colonial government and Chinese elites. In these debates, contemporary principles of gender equality and the historical values of "Chinese traditionalism" are intertwined and polished in their application (Cheung, 2004). Thus, efforts to maintain the appearance of "tradition" are closely linked to political, economic, and socio-cultural interests. For the New Territories residents, while developmentalism has brought considerable wealth, it also poses a threat to their heritage (ancestral land) - if they cannot expand their Chinese tradition, their Chinese tradition will eventually wither away (Cheung, 2004). Therefore, indigenous peoples continuously rebuild new patriarchal traditions in the name of tradition, but under capitalism, these traditions can only appear in the form of cultural products rather than cultural practices. In this process of rebuilding, these patriarchal traditions integrate with Hong Kong's capitalist society, ultimately leading to the emergence of another hegemonic male temperament in the metropolis.

Traditionalism and Capitalism

In popular culture media, we can find a hybrid of traditionalism and capitalism, which is constituted by various aspects of social life, including legislative bodies, media, social service providers, and families, all of which share a patriarchal family system based on "need-based discourse." As a patriarchal culture, traditionalism has merged into Hong Kong's capitalist culture. One example is the phenomenon of "mistress keeping" among Hong Kong men since the policy of reform and opening up provided opportunities to enter mainland China. In Hong Kong, there are significant differences between legislative bodies and political systems compared to China, which allows Hong Kong men to fulfill their desire for "mistress keeping" by crossing the border. According to Tam, Fung, Kam, & Liong (2009), "men see cross-border work as a survival strategy, and they see themselves as breadwinners, responsible for their families as good fathers and husbands. These traditional values provide a warm bed for extramarital affairs, which are, in turn, contradictory." In other words, the intersection of traditionalism and capitalism lies in the fact that male temperament is defined by the family consumption that a man can afford. An example provided by Tam, Fung, Kam, & Liong (2009) is, "Mr. Zhou faced a dilemma. He believed that as a responsible husband and father, he should support his family. But as a successful man, he did not want to give up his mistress. His masculine temperament was suddenly challenged by society." Therefore, the ability to support two families constitutes hegemonic male temperament, especially in the capitalist world, where individuals do not have enough economic and emotional capacity to meet the needs of two families. This directly leads to psychological discomfort among these men, "he begins to show symptoms of digestive disorders, psychological stress, and even depression. He is experiencing a decrease in sexual desire and is worried about contracting HIV/AIDS." The contradiction between this pressure and the maintenance of male temperament creates tragedies. From the perspective of capitalism, these tragedies do not hinder its accumulation of capital (they even contribute to the accumulation of capital because both men and women consume more for the sake of others' gaze). Therefore, through mass media and cultural industries, capitalism does not intend to eradicate patriarchal ideology and "need-based discourse," but even intends to consolidate them.

Conclusion

The collusion between colonialism and patriarchy in the local society is a part of the global capital expansion, in which colonialism, patriarchy, and capitalism are mutually beneficial but also full of conflicts. On the one hand, patriarchy is preserved under the wings of colonialism, but its traditional masculine traits are weakened as families gradually break away from clan society under capitalism, yet at the same time, it is absorbed into the cultural industry of capitalism and combined with hegemonic masculinity. This complex process not only harms women but also men, reinforcing the concept of "male ability," namely male traits (hegemonic masculinity is the perfect and flawless sexual characteristic described in society). However, in the capitalist world, economic logic determines that this is a zero-sum game, where someone wins and someone loses. In other words, not every man can achieve hegemonic masculinity, and women and other gender groups are also suppressed at the bottom of the gender hierarchy. As Marcuse (2013) said, "cultural privileges express the contradiction between unfair freedom and the reality of ideology, the separation of spiritual productivity from material productivity; but they also provide a protected area, allowing banned truths to survive in abstract integrity - a society that alienates and suppresses these truths." In other words, the ideal created by hegemonic masculinity is parasitic on the unequal economic and gender hierarchy and reflects its "unfair freedom," which is a kind of consumption of imagination. By giving an impossible dream and a vain lifestyle, the hegemonic masculinity is created. In the game of colonialism-patriarchy-capitalism, neither men nor women will be winners. How to achieve gender equality is not only a problem for women but also for men to break free from illusion. We need to regain our autonomy. Next time, we will discuss the expression and evolution of China's semi-modernity in Hong Kong in detail.

References
Adorno, T. W., & Rabinbach, A. G. (1975). The culture industry reconsidered. New German Critique, (6), 12-19.
Cheung, F. M., & Holroyd, E. (Eds.). (2009). Mainstreaming gender in Hong Kong society. Chinese University Press.
Cheung, S. K. (2004). Chinese gender and community under British colonialism: a case study of An He village in the New Territories (Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh).
Connell, R. W. (2020). Masculinities. Routledge.
Law, W. S. (2009). Collaborative colonial power: The making of the Hong Kong Chinese (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.
Marcuse, H. (2013). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Routledge.
Tam, S. M., Fung, A., Kam, L., & Liong, M. (2009). Re-gendering Hong Kong man in social, physical and discursive space. Mainstreaming gender in Hong Kong society, 335-365.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & society, 1(2), 125-151.