d. Conclusion The dress codes for Taiwanese airlines impose higher risks on female cabin crew than their male counterparts, failing to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for the former. In this case, Taiwanese airlines have different dress codes for male and female cabin crew. Unlike male cabin crew, female cabin crew lack emergency response experience while wearing skirts because they do not wear them during aviation safety training. Their uniforms, shoes, and stockings also expose them to greater risks of falling, sexual harassment, and being burned by fire, showing insufficient protection; domestic studies also support these findings. The airlines have failed to comply with the requirements of Article 11 of CEDAW, Article 7 of the ICESCR, and Article 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which mandate that the airlines use/take reasonable and necessary preventive equipment and measures to protect their female cabin crew. However, the airlines are more concerned about their costs and attribute the aforementioned risks to inattentiveness on the part of their female cabin crew, thus failing to assess the occupational safety and health risks of cabin crew from a gender-neutral perspective. 2. Analysis of the Government’s Fulfillment of Its CEDAW State Obligation 1) Has the government eliminated public and private direct or indirect discrimination against women? Has it changed gender stereotypes and prejudice? Has it prevented discrimination or harm to women by third parties? Poking Fun at Them,” China Times; C.L. Yu (November 26, 2019). “Passenger Sued for Taking Illicit Photos of Legs of Female Cabin crew who sat opposite Him and Posting the Photos on Facebook,” SETN.COM. 71