Was Foot Binding Oppression?

   Sparked by the second chapter "White Tigers" from "The Woman Warrior," a foot binding controversy arose between William and the rest of the class about the patriarchal oppression of foot binding in China. Having a great-grandma who was actually foot-bound, previous curiosity on this topic, and sticking to the theme of expanding upon small topics in class, I'm writing this today.

   From the line "Even now China wraps double binds around my feet," Kingston suggests that even though times have progressed in terms of feminism, she still feels the patriarchal effects of society relative to the ages of foot binding in China. I'm going to have to agree with the majority of the class and say that even though William's point of foot binding being a sign of prosperity through the signification of economical stability from the male, it comes with many other reasons of being.

Sign of Prosperity

   Going back to where we left off in the previous paragraph, the status of well-being was initially stimulated by the desire of males to somewhat "show off" to others, it's still without a doubt a forced action by mothers and families upon their daughters. The ability to show other people that you could feed "useless mouths" was a sign that you had more money and food than needed. 

Sex

   One of the most overlooked reasons of foot binding was the desire of men for women who were foot bound. Although that cultural reasons was the main cause of foot binding, it was explicitly sexual. This comes down to the reason that mutilated feet resulted in tighter thigh and pelvic muscles which men I assume desired more than anything. It was because of this patriarchal standard that mothers would force the practice onto their children despite the pain given the chance that their daughters could be taken away by a wealthy man. Unfortunately, this lasted for centuries and was even continued after its ban in 1911 because of the innate desires of men. Just because it was banned, it didn't mean that the desirable effects of foot binding went away. This is solid proof that it wasn't a cultural but societal problem.

   In conclusion, foot binding is purely a result of patriarchal oppression because of the values that men put onto the practice. There was in no way a choice for the person who was being foot bound. I couldn't imagine someone saying "Yes, please break the bones in my feet and bandage them together so that they're permanently disfigured and crippled for life." So although William made the correct point that it was a positive sign, it was invalid in its attempt to validate the moral and ethical values of the practice. Due to the fact that I don't want everyone to be completely grossed out, I won't post a picture on the blog. You're Welcome.