Talk:Foot binding/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why is this under violence against women?

Even though most procedures were performed on women I feel it's really subjective to put it under violence against women. --2605:A000:D141:3800:9450:4878:E749:C80 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"Most"? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's subjective. Unfortunately there's no real way to fix it because there are too many members of the community who will fight to have Wikipedia endorse their personal opinions on the topic. 2601:644:2:B64B:C4:729:8621:6350 (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I was one of those who complained about its inclusion, but the compromise now I think is acceptable. Putting it under Feminist perspective would indicate that it is one of the many views on footbinding. Removing it completely may be considered inappropriate because the view that it is a form of violence against women is still currently a prominent viewpoint (and there are many sources to support it), therefore it can be seen as censoring that viewpoint which would go against Wikipedia guidelines. Hzh (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Why don't you get someone to break your foot and force your toes right into your heel so that your heel and toes meet at 360 degrees. Then wrap it all up in a cloth and let it fester. Keep doing it every day for a few years and get back to me on how good that feels. And whether you can still walk.

"this louche practice"

The word "louche" is a judgment, but which one?! "1. Of questionable taste or morality; decadent. 2. Not reputable or decent.   3. Unconventional and slightly disreputable in an attractive manner; raffish, rakish." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/louche --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It is there to suggest that it is traditionally not considered proper behavior to do such thing. Read the source on how it started - apparently it began with a rich man with loose morals who drank wine out of shoes of prostitutes. It was thought to be somewhat disreputable, therefore definitions 1 and 2 above are applicable, even 3 (at least the first part of the definition), if you think less harshly of such action (it is unlikely that someone more puritanical would considered such practice attractive, but its aficionados certainly would). Hzh (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The wording describes the practice as "louche" in Wikipedia's editorial voice, not attributed to the sources. Hence as written it reads as though Wikipedia considers the practice as improper, which goes against WP:NPOV. It would be ok to say "The practice was considered improper" with a citation, but not "The practice was improper". 2601:644:2:B64B:C4:729:8621:6350 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It is really not that difficult to find sources for that, casual reading of many Chinese texts would indicate that the practice was frowned upon. I'm not that bothered about its removal, but it is always useful to indicate what was considered proper and improper (footbinding was considered a proper practice, but drinking from the shoe was not). Hzh (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing

I would ask user Aelmsu to discuss it first before making changes, while some changes are fine, other changes are wrong, for example the assertion that it was common starting around 1070. There can be no such bold assertion as there are differences opinions, and most thought it only became common among the elite in initially, and slowly spread. There can also not be any such statement that say the practice is at its height circa 1835, such precision of date is simply unwarranted. There is no indication you understood the issue. While it is possible to classified it as sexual fethistism, some scholars argued that this is only limited to a minority of men who are interested in this aspect. Hzh (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm afraid my intentions has been misunderstood. When I wrote that that practice (and I specifically stated that it is not the "Classical" extreme form, the three inch lotus) was common in 1070, I was taking it straight from the sources (HS Levy and book about Marco Polo), and I do believe that the writer meant common among the gentry rather than the population at large; you could change that part if you wish. The 1835 date was also taken straight from the source from Levy (he wrote that approximately 50% of the female population, depending on locality), and combined with the one from Lim, and it was important to the article because the lede seemed to be suggesting that it was universally practiced, rather than half the population at the highest. If 1835 is too precise then it could be changed to mid-19th century. All the sources I have read so far strongly suggests the erotic aspect, or at least "beauty", and quite frankly the other claims i.e. about Neo-Confucian control of women is directly contradicting the other parts of the article: the women with bound feet still were effective workers etc. This especially since the original article is far too inclined in favour of the "Confucian" explanation, considering that there is no explicit promotion of the practice and plenty of disapproval in Neo-confucian writings. If you would be so kind as to reinstate my edit without the offending parts I would be very grateful. Aelmsu (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Levy did not say that it was the peak in 1835, he mentioned that a writer wrote in 1835 that it was common throughout China. Your various miswordings suggest that you did not understand the source or what you wrote. There are different authors who said different things, and we take into account of what many people write instead of just one. As I said, other authors (e.g. Hill) thought that the eroticism part is only of interest to a small part of Chinese men. I see however no issue with moving the sexual appeal section higher. There weren't actually many Confucians who spoke up against footbinding. Hzh (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You should however justify placing it as part of paraphilia, I don't see it in its list, and you should add it there and see if there is any objection first before you do it here. Hzh (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foot binding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928031927/http://travel.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976997081 to http://travel.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976997081

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed " agonizing pedicure" to " agonizing procedure" MaddieKM (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)MaddieM

Footbinding in Hong Kong and Macau

Was footbinding allowed in Hong Kong and Macau during colonial times? 86.184.52.111 (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Confucius

There is no evidence that footbinding was practised in the time of Confucius, so what's it got to do with him or his philosophy? 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:1176:4EC1:D032:10E7 (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is pretty clear on that. It says nothing about Confucius, but it mentions Confucianism (specifically neo-Confucianism that became popular in the Song dynasty). The section is about the arguments made by some scholars, we only write what they say. Hzh (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

About Feng Jicai's work

"The Three-Inch Golden Lotus (1994) by Feng Jicai presents a satirical picture of the movement to abolish the practice, which is seen as part of Chinese culture." It should be clarified if Feng Jicai was in favor or against food binding. This reads like he was in favor of it, but then the last part should be written in the active voice. YourGrammarIsShit (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Expanding section, "Feminist perspective"

I am interested in expanding upon the Feminist perspective section on foot binding. I hope to expand on Ko's research and am interested in the rise of feminist perspectives in China. Please let me know what you think! Prisci8 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to do it, but keep it concise and relevant and not excessive in size compared to the other subsections in the Views and interpretations section, also avoid giving excessive prominence to one person's views. Any mention of the "rise of feminist perspectives" should only be in relation to footbinding. Hzh (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Situation after 1949

After the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the custom was finally banned and outlawed under Mao Zedong, presumably because the government demanded equal rights for women and labour was needed. Women with bound feet had to expect sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:C6BE:E940:3886:3322:AACB:E3B (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Other interpretations

I added "The body and labor of unmarried daughters belonged to their parents, thereby the boundaries between work and kinship for women are blurred", "When women could do light industry without the need to farm or carry heavy things, foot binding became common. Women who did heavy work often did not bind their feet, because binding their feet hindered physical work" and "At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the reasons that prevented the foot binding were changes in politics and people's consciousness, as well as the development of the industry. After two generations, the foot binding disappeared in China forever" under this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristen998 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Additional

I added "The revival of Neo-Confucianism in the Song Dynasty prompted the development of foot binding.""Foot binding plays a role in the media. At the same time, the disappearance of foot binding has an impact on the development of Chinese feminism."and "With the development of mechanization, people's ideological changes and political influence, foot binding gradually disappeared." on the lead section. I added "The society asked members to promise not to bind their daughters' feet or let their sons marry a woman who bound their feet." on the origin part. I added "Marriage could change the environment the bride was in and brought the bride to a more satisfying environment." and "Women with bound feet were "attractive". The reason was both her little feet and the handmade shoes she wore would show that she was good at completing the craft industry." on the later eras part. I added "By 1908, the majority of the public held objections to foot binding." and "They told the Chinese that there was no custom of binding feet in the world except China. The Chinese were ridiculed in the world." on the demise part. I added "Foot binding is believed to be spread from elite women to civilian women, and there are large differences in each region." and "Foot binding prevented girls from running and playing, so they had been engaged in manual labor since childhood." on the Variations and prevalence part. I added "In the Song Dynasty, the status of women declined." and "Foot binding restricted women's activities. Foot binding prevented women from running, reduced walking speed and balance ability." on the health issues part. I added "Therefore, people had greater expectations for foot-binding brides." on the beauty and appeal part. I added "Most of the women receiving treatment did not go out often and are disabled." and "Mechanization caused women who worked at home to face a crisis." on the other interpretations part.

I also added one image and created 6 wikilinks, these wikilinks are "feminist", "Beijing", "craft", "perversion", "erotic art", and "Chinese encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristen998 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There is too much repetition and some of the edits are not quite correct and would need adjustment. Hzh (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Misleading and possibly biased claim about feminist discourse of foot binding not supported by citation given

I read the Ebrey article, and it really doesn't seem to support the claim that feminists argued that foot binding should be viewed in a positive light. Although Ebrey makes the claim that such works exist, from what I can tell, none of the sources she cites argue for viewing foot binding as a way for women to exhibit "mastery over their bodies". In addition, her article focuses on western perceptions prior to the 20th century, and the sentence about this supposed new feminist view of foot binding is thrown in as an afterthought in the conclusion. It seems like this is simply the case of an author attempting to conclude her article and briefly summarizing contemporary feminist revisionism in a way that, in its brevity, leads to misinterpretation.

Although the authors she cites do indeed advocate for a new lens of viewing foot binding, they hardly present it as a "feminist" practice, but rather advocate for viewing the issue with more nuance than simply as an act done for the sexual pleasure of men. All of the authors she cites also call attention to the pain inflicted by the practice, as well as to the fact that women who had their feet bound were relegated to social roles subservient to and dependent on men as a result of the practice. So, although drawing attention to the attempts to revise how foot-binding was viewed from a western perspective in the late 20th century is warranted, I simply don't think it's valid to claim that "Some feminists ... [argued] that it gave women a sense of mastery over their bodies, and pride in their beauty." Unless somebody is able to produce a source of a feminist author actually arguing this point, I don't think it makes sense to leave the section as is. Nodrokov (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I found this article from 2018 [1] (therefore not the feminists mentioned) that says "Control over one's body is a fundamental tenet of feminism; and foot-binders, who can assent to treatment, may be happy when they control they bodies." I think it is a wrong-headed argument since few children can make meaningful assent to their "treatment", nevertheless it is an indication that it is a position still held by some. Note that some women being proud of their bound feet is a general observation, not really specifically a feminist one - [2], and the article does not say that that it is an act done simply for the sexual pleasure of men (it's just one of a number of possibilities). Note also that saying that pain was inflicted and women being subservient does not contradict the idea of some women being proud of their bound feet. I do agree, however, we need the original sources made by those feminists in the article so that we can more accurately reflect their positions. If you have access to the Dorothy Ko's article, perhaps there are sources there as to who said what. Hzh (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting article you found and does seem to support the claim that at least some published feminist authors view footbinding in a positive light. However, I still maintain that this is by far a minority position and that it should not be presented as representative of feminist discourse as a whole. I was able to get access to the Dorothy Ko article, and it's actually quite shocking how little it has to do with the notion that Western feminists view footbinding as a positive practice. The only Western feminist she directly responds to in the article is Mary Daly, who quite firmly views the practice as patriarchal and victimizing towards women, and Ko's article is not really a rebuttal of Daly's argument but rather a constructive analysis which compares Daly's points to works by Eastern authors and women who underwent the foot-binding process. Ko is indeed critical of Daly's work, and argues that her analysis relies too heavily on Western ideas, but to make the claim that Daly views footbinding as positive (or that Ko's article was a response to authors viewing footbinding as positive) is simply incorrect. I think it's most likely that the original author of this section was confused by the highly academic tone of Ko's article which presumes familiarity with Daly's work, and came away with the misconception that Daly was a footbinding advocate to which Ko was responding.--Nodrokov (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think that there is any misrepresentation of views in the article, feel free to make any adjustment you consider appropriate. You can expand on any individual's position on the issue, or delete any statement that you think is wrong. I don't have access to Ko's critique, so I can't assess the validity of the statement attributed to her. Hzh (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)