telophase | How to turn telophase off of your book...

Entry tags:

How to turn telophase off of your book...

Earlier this week I grabbed a couple of books on the Han Chinese custom of footbinding, after seeing them recommended on

little_details and finding they were in the library. One of them, Dorothy Ko's Every Step a Lotus, is quite interesting and analyzes the practice as more than just a barbaric practice inflicted on women* or a bizarre erotic thing.**

The other one, Beverly Jackson's Splendid Slippers: A Thousand Years of an Erotic Tradition managed to turn me off in the first chapter and never gained my respect after that. Why?

Women's names	Men's names
Phoenix Treasure	Prince Li Yu
Precious Thing	Chu Hsi

Um, yeah. Later in the book, more women actually get non-translated, non-exoticized names, but not a single man has his name translated.

And Jackson takes more of her research from the 18th and 19th century accounts than the (admittedly fewer) earlier ones, but you get the impression reading her book that all Chinese women for the past millennium had their feet bound, and that's not the case - it was primarily a Han practice (the Manchu rulers apparently repeatedly attempted to outlaw it, and didn't bind their own daughter's feet***), and for most of its existence it was primarily an upper-class practice. Peasants started the practice in the 17th and 18th centuries, and by the mid-19th century it was starting to be seen as vulgar among the elite, although it didn't die out until the early 20th century.**** And, as you can probably tell by the subtitle of the book, she has a big focus on the erotic meanings that accumulated to the practice and the shoes and specialized clothing women wore on the feet and lower legs, which again was more of a later development. In general, it was a way to express the Confucian piety and filial sense of the daughter of the house. Parents weren't bowing to the wishes of their son to have a sexy wife - they were looking for someone who was going to be modest and hardworking and devote her life to the family.

So, overall, it gives a fairly narrow view of the subject, pandering to Western fascination with bizarre erotic practices of the Orient, most of which didn't have a whole lot of connection to reality.

(On the bright side, the books spurred me to grab several other books on women in historical Chinese society throughout the centuries, to read during the break. :D And I learned of the existence of the Chinese Jewish settlement in Kaifeng, which has been there since the 1100s. I must find a book on that, too.)

* Which it was. But it was also a lot more than that.

** It could be. But not as much as you'd think judging by the Western books out there.

*** An example of one of the many other things it meant: an expression of ethnic identity.

**** She has photographs of elderly women in 1997 with bound feet - there may still be a few remaining alive, which kind of wigged me out because the practice seemed safely back in the past until I was confronted with that.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Dorothy Ko is an interesting writer and comes highly recommended by my professor of Chinese history. We has to read her book "Cinderella's Sisters" on foot binding and I thought it was interesting and well worth the read.

Good. :D The book above by her is more of a popular reading book than an academic one, but one of the books I grabbed from the shelf is her Teachers of the Inner Chambers: Women and Culture in Seventeenth-Century China. I shall look forward to it. :)

Professor Kang actually went to graduate school with her and considers her to be an exemplar in her field and apparently a bit of a pioneer (although honestly I wouldn't know because I know next to nothing about China or its academic scholarship which is why I took his course). I haven't read any of her other books, just some articles in "Chinese Femininities and Chinese Masculinities", but now you've made me want to. To the library!

Spiffy! XD

When I read Snow Flower & the Secret Fan, the passages where the main character gets her feet bound? AIEEEEEEEE!

I don't think I'm very squeamish but those sections had me clutching my feet and making sure nothing like that would ever ever happen to them.

YES. Every so often for the past three days I've been flexing my feet and reminding myself that I have nice, big, flat feet.

I had the minor insight when reading the books that the closest thing to that practice that most people could relate to in the modern Western world is braces on the teeth - it's a painful (nowhere near the pain that binding feet gives, of course) practice that lasts for a couple of years and you have to go back periodically to have them tightened and more pain applied, in order to suit a particular culture's aesthetic ideals. It's not an ideal comparison, of course, but if I ever wrote anything about footbinding, I'd have to go back to my four years of braces to draw on the memories of repetitive, periodic pain applied by someone at the behest of my parents, I think.

>basks in the glory of her big peasant-y wide feet<

I always wondered how a woman was supposed to be taking care of household duties like that. Maybe a really rich lady with tons of servants could get away with it - but how the heck was a peasant going to be a good wife and mother like that?

Peasants even worked in the fields with bound feet, and worked as servants.

One of the books cited a 19th century Westerner as complaining that you had to hire two female servants to do the work of one, because they worked so slowly on their bound feet. And the Jackson book has a photo of an upper-class Chinese woman with bound feet sitting down, while her servant with bound feet stands by, waiting on her.

I guess that goes along with the concept of having Western women in the mid- to late-19th century doing fieldwork in tight corsets ... I always silently applauded Laura Ingalls when she refused to be laced any tighter in the later "Little House" books.

My eeevil coworker from my former job was a by-the-book feminist: as in, she supported anything that was feminist on its surface without bothering to think through the implications.* We got in an argument about corsets once - as an SCA dork earlier in life, and a general historical costuming geek, I've made and worn corsets before. The coworker claimed that all corsets were uncomfortable and oppressive, etc. etc. Despite the fact that I said "I own a corset! It's quite comfortable! It gives me back support! I don't tight-lace and many, many women didn't tight-lace, either!" She refused to believe me because, after all, it was the fault of ... she was sort of vague on that, but it was probably those eeevil conservatives who were behind everything.

Yeah, there's plenty of women who tolerated much more discomfort and pain than we would, because society told them they had to, but the truth is never as cut-and-dried as people want it to be. XD

* As in, when one of the student workers got pregnant and dropped out of school, the coworker told me that if she had a daughter who got pregnant in school, she'd make her have an abortion. I coolly looked at her and replied that if I had a daughter who got pregnant in school, I'd educate her about her options and support her in whatever option she chose. Whereupon she backpedaled and claimed that's what she meant. Yeah, right.

Yes, I was startled by how comfortable and conducive to good posture my Harajuku corset was. Of course, it wouldn't have been if it had been much smaller and laced tighter, but some high-fashion items are inherently uncomfortable even if they do fit right, like spike-heeled shoes.

Yup. I only laced my corset to reduce my waist by 2", which for most women unused to them is comfortable. By the end of the day I'd be annoyed at it, but if I wore it daily, I wouldn't have that problem.

Of course, the rest of the clothing is restrictive, too. Tight sleeves, armholes set high and tight, buttons to the neck, many layers of skirts. It's not just the corset.

And one random fact: wearing a long skirt on the Oregon Trail was actually sort of practical, unlike what you'd think. When you're in a modest culture, and you're on a prairie with no trees or bushes as far as the eye can see, and you have to go to the bathroom, what do you do? Answer: you head off a ways with a few friends who circle around you and spread their skirts to form a screen, and take care of business. :) You couldn't do that with the Bloomer Costume. XD

Answer: you head off a ways with a few friends who circle around you and spread their skirts to form a screen, and take care of business. :)

And that is why women go to the bathroom in packs.

Re heels: I once had a housemate who was a stylist in a high-end salon, and she wore Candies heels every day on the job. One day my not-yet-husband and I accepted her invite to watch TV in her room, and we were all piled on her bed, when I bumped into something that felt like a chunk of wood. It was the bottom of her foot right behind her toes: there was easily a half inch of rock-hard callus there. And she admitted that she could no longer comfortably put her foot flat on the ground - her Achilles tendon had tightened to that extent. Voluntary foot binding, in essence ... .

* Also, a lot of women did textile work, and you sat down to do embroidering and spinning and weaving, so the feet weren't a drawback for them. Well, except for the whole "pain and agony and crippling your movements" thing, but you know what I meant.

Um, yeah!

Wasn't it also because peasant families hoped that their daughters would have a better life either by marrying into a higher-class family or work as a lady's maid?

My great-grandmother had bound feet when she was young--she was married off into a relatively wealthy family. She took off the bindings later when family circumstances changed and she had to work, so (according to my mum) her feet looked a bit misshapened, but not too bad.

The x-rays in books about bound feet scare the hell out of me.

Yeah. And I want to say that I read those times in China were pretty full of social upheaval, and the lower classes started to take on a lot of customs of the upper classes as they became more powerful, but I might have made that up or mixed it up with something else.

A book I read earlier this year focused on one family where the wife unbound her feet after her husband died and her sons were in school, so they couldn't support the family. She had to do everything, pay for her sons' education, and took care of her aged parents-in-law. Ko's books says that sometimes when women unbound them, the feet were still painful so they had to wear some sort of bindings on them for support.

I've seen a lot of x-rays and photos of feet in the past two days. I have vast sympathy for the millions of women who've gone through this over the past millennium.

might have made that up or mixed it up with something else.

Nope, totally true. Upward social mobility is the great dream of the Chinese proletariat. :p Any peasant with pretensions to higher-classness was encouraging (or a stronger word than encouraging) the trend. That's why the practice was so widespread and so difficult to stop.

/am overgeneralising, of course

And I'll add that in the book you read, once her husband died, there was really no one to stop her, too. As for what happens after the feet are unbound, I guess it varies for each woman, whether she was still young enough for the feet to grow a little more (and how damaged the feet were).

>She has photographs of elderly women in 1997 with bound feet - there may still be a few remaining alive, which kind of wigged me out because the practice seemed safely back in the past until I was confronted with that.

I heard the other day--I want to say on NPR, but I can't say for sure, or in what context--that the last maker of slippers for bound feet is about to go out of business because he only has a few customers left. But he does have a few customers left.

It's amazing to be confronted with evidence that things like this are well within living memory.

This is totally random, but I subscribed to American Girl magazine (yeah, with the historical dolls) when I was in elementary school, and it often had relevant short stories in it. The only one I still remember distinctly was about a girl who was an aspiring ballerina, getting her first toe shoes, and having her Chinese grandmother flip out, thinking that it was another form of foot-binding (which she herself went through). So yeah, as of the late 80s/early 90s, there were theoretically enough Chinese grandmothers with formerly bound feet to make that story relevant. I think the issue might have also had a supplementary article about the practice, too, because I remember seeing some pretty horrifying photographs. Although I was a geek, so I may have done that research on my own later.

Later in the book, more women actually get non-translated, non-exoticized names, but not a single man has his name translated.

I've come across this a lot in translations of Chinese names (Raise the Red Lantern is an example), and I've gotten the impression that sometimes this has to do with the Chinese names themselves. The women's can often be translated literally whereas the men's often can't. I'm not an expert on Chinese names, though.

The title of that book is what turns me off.

I just wonder, though, why translate them at all? I don't know enough about Chinese languages and culture to know if the names carry the literal meaning in common use - my name means "crown or garland," but it doesn't carry that meaning in English use, and a name that's also another word like "Joy" or "June" usually doesn't carry that meaning in common use as a name, even if it was chosen for the meaning. If it *does* carry that meaning in the Chinese languages, then I think it still doesn't work in translation to English, because most English-speakers aren't used to that, so you end up with a more exoticized name that, in effect, turns the women into things when compared to the men.

Er, if that makes sense. I'm struggling to articulate what I mean.

The title of the book wouldn't turn me off if the book focused on the actual erotic meaning of the feet and shoes only, instead of implying that the meanings are 1000 years old and the only reasons anyone would do that. In other words - if it was accurate.

I think I understand what you're asking: Is a Chinese woman named "Lotus" called by the same name as the flower? Would people use the same word as her name at the market when they're asking for pickled lotus rootlets?

I'm pretty sure that the answer is "yes," which makes it different than your name. You wouldn't know the meaning of your name unless you were somehow told, because the meaning isn't literal.

you end up with a more exoticized name that, in effect, turns the women into things when compared to the men.

I agree, but what I'm saying is that this might not be the author's issue, but a problem with the original Chinese names. The sexism was already there, in other words.

In Raise the Red Lantern, there was an explanation, at least: the translated (female) names often had meanings related to the character or the story. This isn't the same as non-fiction, of course...

But I can understand why someone would want to translate those names that are literal and not translate those that aren't. It seems like some women's names are later left untranslated, and I would guess that's because there's no good translation for them rather than a sudden bout of awareness from the author.

Well, yeah, but after a while, your name is just... your name. My Chinese name has got the character for "health" in it, but when I say it or think it, I don't think of myself as "healthy balance." People will play with name meanings, especially kids, but when I'm using my mom's name or anyone else's name, I don't think of the meanings. Also, often, many characters used in Chinese names that I come across tend to be more obscure, or characters that are very specifically a name and not a noun.

Also also, most Chinese nouns are formed from two characters and when choosing a name, many people often just pick one character each from two words. It's a little different in China, as I've noticed there are many more one-character names there, but when you've got a one-character name, it sounds even less like a Chinese word. Ex. "lien" does mean "lotus," but when you're asking for a lotus root or a lotus seed, you don't just say "lien." I mean, yes, there are some people who do have names like "zhen zhu" ("pearl"), but I honestly don't come across them very often. Of course, this could just be Taiwan, but most of the names that I've come across have seemed like that.

Rereading your comment, maybe I didn't understand after all.

If there was an English biography that included people named Charity, Susuan, Prudence, Fred, and Robert, and this biography was going to be translated into Chinese: Do you think that the translator should translate "Charity" and "Prudence" into their Chinese equivalents, or do you think that they should just transcribe the sounds?

It's much less common in English, but these literal names are also typically limited to girls in our language, as far as I can recall.

I can see why you would feel like translating only the "exotic" female names in this book is skeevy, especially since the book seems to already have a sexist bent, but I just don't agree that it's necessarily sexist. I think it's one of those areas where there's no definitive right way to do it.

I think you had me right the first time - I'd have the translator translate the sounds, rather than the meaning, because in general I think modern American usage divorces the names from their meaning. However, if the biography was about early American Puritans, I'd translate the meanings, because I think Puritan practices in general showed they meant the literal meaning of the name to come to mind every time it was used.

But if, as you say, the general Chinese naming practice is that the parents intentionally want the literal meaning of the name to come to mind every time it's used, then that puts a different spin on it. (And names like the ones I mentioned a few months back that mean things like "Next time a brother" would almost become invocations or spells, invoked every time the girl was called by her name, perhaps. Which actually brings interesting ideas for stories to mind...)

I think I'd be more comfortable with it if there were an author's note in the front of a book explaining why they made the choices they did when using names.

You could always introduce them with the translation and then just call them by their names. Like Yuki (courage), who is blah blah blah...and then just use Yuki. I do understand what you're saying, though.

That would be very awkward in fiction, but in non-fiction it wouldn't be too bad. Of course, it would require a note somewhere explaining what the words in parentheses mean. (I don't think it would be immediately obvious to all readers that it's a translation of the name.)

I just don't think this is an issue that there is one right way to address. There are benefits and drawbacks to each method, and it depends on your point of view and purpose which is best for the work.

Oh, it'd be instant death in fiction, but I think in a book like this, where cultural context, etc. would be important, it'd be valuable-- especially since scholars might treat names differently, it'd be great to have both on hand in case you were cross-referencing. And yeah, obviously there are benefits/drawbacks on both sides.

Ooo, I'll have to look up Ko. And yes yes yes to the stupid translation of things like "Precious Lotus Blossom" or whatnot. I roll my eyes at it. And ditto with people who are horrified! Yes, horrified! at footbinding and don't think a thing about stilettos or corsets or whatnot. I mean, clearly they are not the same, but it's not as simple as they seem to think. Also, I hate hate hate the attitude of "OMG the evil Chinese look how they oppress their women!" But of course you knew that already ;).

God, yes. :) ISTR that Ko points out that although the men weren't physically deformed like the women were, they had really strict roles also.

I was glad to read a book that looked at it from several different viewpoints and showed how complex it was. Any practice that lasts longer than, say a generation or two, has got to have more to it than just OPPRESSION OF WOMEN, IMHO. There are several practices out there, one major one I won't type here in fear that Google will pick it up and hordes of crazy wankers descend, which GOD FORBID you suggest have any reason besides or in addition to men oppressing women without getting body-slammed.

I always thought that if you understood *all* the roles such a practice played in a society, you'd have a better chance at stamping it out - the Manchu outlawing footbinding causing the Han to ironically keep doing it (and maybe increase, IIRC) is CASE IN POINT. But nooooooo, you're not allowed to even consider such a thing. (Er, yes, scarred veteran of many, many anthropology wanks over the past decade...)

Oh, yes. I really, really hate it when historical fiction or nonfiction is written from an obviously modern Western point-of-view, because so often it's just clear that that author is Missing The Point. I really love Lisa See's novels (like Snow Flower and the Secret Fan) because while the descriptions of footbinding are totally brutal, she presents it as something that was natural and socially acceptable for these people.

This reminds me of something I was recently reading about somebody complaining about how the book Gone With the Wind demonstrates how totally racist Margaret Mitchell was, because of the way she depicted the slaves. And, I dunno, I can't say for sure whether she was or wasn't racist, but what I loved about Gone With the Wind was how it portrayed slavery as something that was totally natural and morally acceptable to the people of that time and place. I certainly don't believe that slavery is at all okay, but people of that particular time period generally did, and it bugs me when authors write books about pre-Civil-War times and just saturate their books with the message the Slavery Is Bad, Okay. Because yes, yes it is, but most of the people at that time didn't think so!

The racism in GWtW to me was more the way she depicted the slaves as immature children who can't make their own decisions-- there's a bit in the book about how they couldn't be trusted with the vote, for example. I mean, it's still a great book, but Mitchell was racist.

Yeah, I get that, and many of the depictions really made me uncomfortable too. But I think I just found it interesting because of that. I mean, that's the way most people really felt and behaved in the South at that particular time, and it's something that gets softened in modern literature, I think. Yes, it's racist and wrong, but I thought it was interesting to see that viewpoint.

I didn't really phrase this well in my original comment, but what I was trying to say is that I like it when period books really depict the way people thought and acted during that time, even if it's something we would consider objectionable today.

Oh, absolutely! I love that book, for all its flaws, and I think it's really important for anyone trying to understand Reconstruction and how long its repercussions lasted-- did you know Margaret Mitchell grew up thinking the South had won the war?

There are indeed a few women still alive with bound feet. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8966942)

I can't imagine trying to dance on those feet. God.

One of the professors I worked for at Stanford was a post-feminist who viewed it as one of the ways in which women empowered other women. Post-feminism alarms me just as much as kneejerk feminism (as mentioned above).

Taiwanese aborigines didn't bind feet either, even ones who were otherwise thoroughly sinicized. (I don't think Hakka did, either, but I may not remember that correctly.)

Kaifeng is a really interesting subject. :)

Ko talked about it as something that women enfolded into a system of women's communication and culture, but didn't go quite so far as to say it empowered them. XD (Although I've had enough postmodern theory that I think I can see where your prof is coming from - in a society where women's prime worth is their body, it makes sense to mold that body in such a way as to get the highest price from it - i.e. if marriage partners are chosen because of physical characteristics, then you want to ensure your daughter has perfect examples of those characteristics. Although I'm putting that into economic terms. XD)

Oh yeah, I can see the justifications from an economic position and so forth, but it seemed to be her viewpoint that depicting footbinding in any negative light whatsoever, from any perspective, is sexist. o_O;

GAH.

I think the question I might ask her wouldbe: are yu willing to do that to your own daughter, then?

No, your memory is correct -- footbinding was apparently very, very rare among the Hakka.

And as for the historical presence of grandmothers with bound feet in the US -- in Hawai'i, at least, where the majority of Chinese immigrants were Punti, seeing older women with bound feet was still fairly commonplace and unremarkable in the 1950s (http://starbulletin.com/98/03/10/features/story1.html), and the last resident woman with bound feet was thought to have passed away in the mid-1990s. (Footbinding had been banned there in 1898, but some families continued to practice it, and some men had brides with bound feet sent from the old country.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How to turn telophase off of your book...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject