Women in East Asian History

[Rob_Hugo@PortNW]

I found that reading Ban Zhao’s Lessons for Women was a unique and insightful experience. Although shocking and entirely different from western cultural norms, I enjoyed Zhan’s justification for her writings:

She writes, “But I do grieve that you, my daughters, just now at the age for marriage, had not at this time had gradual training and advice: that you still have not learned the proper customs for married women. I fear that by failure in good manners in other families you will humiliate both your ancestors and your clan.”

To me, this quote encompasses so much of any stereotypes I have learned
surrounding Chinese women. I find it interesting that while Zhao honestly
explains her disappointment in her daughters, she also takes the time to develop an
entire book on lessons to aid in their survival.

[Anonymous]

Another thought on Zhan’s Lessons for Women, in particular Lesson number Five: Whole- Hearted Devotion. Zhan writes; In The Record of Rites is written the principle that a husband may marry again, but there is no Canon that authorizes a woman to be married the second time.”

Again, this is an interesting excerpt. I realize that I am reading this through an entirely different lens, but it is incredibly clear in its message… men may leave their wives, yet women may not leave their husbands. My, what a different world we live in!

[Anonymous]

I wish that someone would write me a book of life’s lessons. Lessons from someone who has lived and experienced are always so valuable, but on the other hand, sometimes you need to figure them out on your own.

[Anonymous]

My favorite chapter of these life’s lessons is chapter 4: Womanly Qualifications. Ban Zhao discusses that there are 4 qualifications for women, which include womanly virtue, womanly words, womanly bearing, and womanly work. She notes that these four qualifications characterize the greatest virtue of a woman and that no woman can “afford” to be without them. These traits are very stereotypical to a traditional woman and still very shocking to me. Ban Zhou writes that serving guests is womanly work and that showering regularly to keep free from filth is womanly bearing. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Another point in Ban Zhou’s lesson’s finds me erked again. “To win the love of one man is the crown of a woman’s life: to lose the love of one man is her eternal disgrace.” It is the sole purpose of the woman to serve and love her man. Ban Zhou also writes about tending to and responding in certain ways to the in-laws. The woman is to obey the every order of her in-laws. I know that relationships are about compromising, but really that is a little extreme. This is so different from western culture these days. Women are free to live the way they want.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree with you!! Last evening I attended Puccini's opera of Madama Butterfly for the second time in two years, and I'm still in awe of the devotion that Cio-Cio San's character depicts during Japan's early days of western contact. Puccini's opera brilliantly reveals the social and cultural status of the Japanese woman of that time. Butterfly abandons her faith and her family for her new American husband, Benjamin Franklin Pinkerton. Yet when Pinkerton boasts that he purchased his wife for 100 yen and can bow out of the marriage contract whenever he wishes (she of course cannot), illustrates the demeaning and fragile status of Japanese women during that time. For three years Butterfly waits for his return as an ever patient and devoted wife who was literally abandoned. This is a very emotional opera with gorgeous and atmospheric use of the orchestra which provides the characters with strong, vital melodies to express their emotions. Incredible insight into the world of the Japanese woman of 1904.

[Anonymous]

I'm struggling with a point that last night's speaker made. Maybe someone can help me clear this up, because shortly after he said this, I found myself questioning the validity of his other viewpoints.

He (sorry I'm not recalling his name) stated that footbinding was done by women and propagated by women because of their desire to have small feet like dancers and other performers. Additionally, because a male ruler (e.g. emporer) didn't directly order or mandate that women bind their feet as a practice, that the 'typical' way of shifting the blame onto males for this heinous convention isn't as valid as once believed.

I deeply contend that point. I would challenge anyone to find (in the course of all human history and of any culture) the equal amount of body modification among women and men for the purpose of attracting the opposite sex. Certainly, women have undergone an exacerbatingly [purposefully altered word] larger percentage of body modification than men, whether it be as topical as applying make-up or as physically integrated as breast augmentation or footbinding.

One might contend that once these conventions become adapted into one's society, they form our cultural definitions of beauty and therefore aren't used solely to attract the opposite sex. However, that is where they originate. And, if they didn't work, the practice wouldn't continue! It's as simple as that.

If men did not encourage, accept, or appreciate women's footbinding - if they didn't marry the women who were trying to better their status by marrying 'higher' - then women wouldn't continue to bind their feet - a practice that, obviously, was excruciatingly painful and physically compromising.

Women did what they needed to in order to survive and prosper in the male-dominated culture in which they lived. There is no humanist reason that justifies painful body modification for the purposes of heirarchical or financial survival.

So, in response to Clay's introduction of our speaker as a Renaissance man, (in memory of Betty Friedan) I respectfully disagree.

[Anonymous]

Here's a web site with more info and pictures of footbinding. (Very nasty images by the way)

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/China/04/hutchins/hutchins.htm

I agree that footbinding was a horrible, horrible thing. However, I think it's important to know that women choose to footbind themselves for reasons beyond personal beauty. Footbinding was a sign of social class. A footbinded woman could not work and therefore had to be cared for by someone with the financial means to do it.

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Thanks for the link. Agreed, the pictures are even painful to look at!

The article actually takes my assertion further. It is evident that the practice of footbinding was a symptom of the male-dominated society. Here are a few excerpts from the article:

"It was necessary then in China for a woman to have bound feet in order to achieve a good life. "

"Eventually, all classes of people had their feet bound. Poor people did so in hopes of improving their social status"

"Men in China in that era would not marry a woman who did not have bound feet."

"Foot binding kept women weak, out of power, and dominated by her husband. When women bound their feet, men could dominate more easily and not worry about women taking their power. "

[Anonymous]

University of California Press has a few very good references for Asia's cultural development - including the place of women. I think high school would be fairly receptive to this type of study:

Women and Confucian Cultures in Premodern China, Korea, and Japan
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/sale/pages/10461.html

Engendering the Chinese Revolution
Radical Women, Communist Politics, and Mass Movements in the 1920s
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6560.html

The Art of Calligraphy in Modern China
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/sale/pages/9787.html

[Author]

Posts