Talk:Foot binding

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 11 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adamyau12, Beanta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kristen998. Peer reviewers: Brittanyli, Phoenix 1620, SisiShen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2022 (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 (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 -, 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)

Baseless statistic in the introduction
An internet mentioned today that the following statistic in the introduction is unfounded: "It has been estimated that by the 19th century, 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, rising to almost 100% in upper-class Chinese women." Indeed, the source (an NPR article) claims it based only on a book about foot fetishism. Do there exist references that confirm the statistic? Moreover, the source claims that "[s]ome estimate that as many as 2 billion Chinese women broke and bound their feet to attain this agonizing ideal of physical perfection" without giving any reference or at least a time period over which this value has been aggregated. It may be better to ignore the source for this Wikipedia article.Leonry (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After some research on the author and the book, it seems that this is a general reference for foot and shoe fetishism. The author comes from the shoe industry, I didn't find any academic sound work. The claim may be altered to "William A. Rossi estimates that by the 19th century, 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, rising to almost 100% in upper-class Chinese women." with the reference to the NPR article as a source if the original source (i.e. the book) cannot be used.Leonry (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from now. Estimate of 50%, with an error of +/-50%, so the real figure lies between 0% to 100%. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:282B:B9FA:2092:6AA6 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can indeed make it clearer as to who said it, but it is sourced, so it should not be removed without good reason. We are not using the 2 billion claim (it is just a claim by some), so that is irrelevant. Hzh (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A note also that the percentage estimates given are not unusual, in fact among women surveyed in many parts of China, the number of women who had their feet bound at some stage were 100% in the late 19th and early 20th century - . Hzh (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where? 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:282B:B9FA:2092:6AA6 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I guess I got triggered by the allegation of sinophobia that the internet claimed, so I made a fool of myself. I will stick to my topics better. Leonry (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What a load of rubbish. These figures were made up. No one actually did a count. The real proportion was less than 5%, and probably less than 1%. Given 90% and more of the Chinese lived in poverty, their daughters were not foot-bound. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:282B:B9FA:2092:6AA6 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the statistic that 10 percent of women with bound feet died of gangrene be better sourced?
This statistic comes from a book which, from looking at the google preview, makes reference in turn to another source. Unfortunately the preview doesn't allow me to view the original source. Wouldn't it be better practice to reference the original source rather than a third party book, especially with such a bold and important statistic as this? If so, could anyone who owns this book add the proper reference to this statistic. Forgive me if this is a nonissue, I'm not overly familliar with the customs on wikipedia Camholl (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * no, that's a valid concern, and a good call. What's the name of the original book? I'll see if I can track down a copy.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 23:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The book is called Ordinary Violence: Everyday Assaults against Women Worldwide, by Mary White Stewart. ISBN 978-1-4408-2937-6. In the article, it can be found under reference nuber 83 Camholl (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've found a copy on archive.org. The citation for this 10% number is reference 29 in the book, H. Gates' "Bound Feet: How Sexy Were They?", in History of the Family 13, no. 1 (2008), page 62.
 * I don't have a university account, so I can't access the full text, but I can request a copy from the author. I'll see where that takes me.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 14:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, all this over a single reference! Thank you for your effort in keeping wikipedia a reliable and trustworthy source of information!
 * Keep me updated if you get to the bottom of this. Camholl (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * will do! And thank you :) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 22:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 4048 Women and Gender in Modern China
— Assignment last updated by Allendq (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Harbin shoemaker was not necessarily the last "littleshoes" factory to close
This Harbin shoemaker kept her factory open not for profit but because she was committed to "keeping every last of these elderly ladies well-shod, so they can still get around as they will". Basically it was a contribution to her local community. When she got to retire her production line in Harbin, there were still lots of elderly women with bound feet outside Manchuria, but factories there were closing off nonetheless as it became less and less profitable. I've not yet found a reliable source as to if Harbin Zhiqiang was really the last one. It'd be sad if true. Even today there's inflicted elderly ladies who's only in their 70's, if you think about it.

I'm removing this sentence for now because her mission completion marked only the disappearance of this abhorrent tradition in Manchuria, and bears a sense of false optimism that would potentially make one ignore other elderly ladies' unmet needs, if there's still any. Arachnikhan (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You should not remove the sentence until you cam provide an alternative source. Hzh (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the instruction. The ref was a popular book that only mentioned Harbin shoemaker anecdotally to ease into the main theme. I probably should have marked it with a flag like [dubious] first? Although my reason for deleting mainly was it was placed at the very end of "decline" section presumably as a closure, but it was actually anachronistic with the previous sentence.
 * This preceding sentence sounds pretty questionable too. The sources quoted here are two blog posts that refers to the same photographer's recent(2015) published photos & interviews of "the very last victims of foot binding after nine years of searching and travelling across China". It doesn't appear the editor who added it intended to promote anything here, but I don't think this description can be taken literally.
 * On a side note, is "Heavenly Foot Society" a legit translation used by people back then? There's a separate article under this exact name but was translated from Swedish. I'm thinking if there wasn't a well-established English term already maybe we should use "Natural Foot Society"? .. "heavenly foot" sounds suspiciously like what contemporary dudes would want the most given the history development.. oooor, maybe if unless "heaven" underwent similar change like "gay" did and people really did call it that back then.. in which case Heaven Eden Tengri pardon my degeneracy Arachnikhan (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The book is written by an academic and a social historian, and she likely knows more than you do. So far you haven't offered anything apart from personal opinion, and Wikipedia article has no place for personal opinion. The Guardian or Slate article are not blogs, they simply gave something from a recently published book. "Heavenly" is a direct translation of "tian", more recent publication prefers "natural", which is more explanatory. Either is fine, I have no objection to anyone changing it. Hzh (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)