Comments on: Why didn’t Manchu women bind their feet?

By: Peter Kauffner

Peter Kauffner — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:19:22 +0000

Those interested in this issue could benefit from reading this page: http://www.josephrupp.com/story15.html. This has first hand testimony from women explaining why they bound their feet. The number one reason they give is the hope that if they bound their feet really tight, they could marry into a wealthy family. The implication of this for Manchu is obvious: Manchu mothers wanted their daughters to marry Manchu husbands, and footbinding would likely lead to marriage with an ethnic Chinese.

By: Hayley Fletcher

Hayley Fletcher — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:23:57 +0000

I am currently researching Sexuality in Qing China, specifically sexuality from the point of view of the Manchus an alien rulers. My interest lies manly with homosexual practises.
I was therefore hoping that anyone from this well-informed thread may have certian opinions themselves on this subject or could suggest archives to visit or selected reading material.
I appreciate that many of you are renowned historians as i have read and enjoyed your works, and i realise how precious time is however any contact whatsoever would be greatly appreciated.
I hope you can help me, my mentor is Dr. Naomi Standen if any of you are familiar which her.
Thanks Hayley Fletcher (h.l.fletcher@ncl.ac.uk)

By: Bethany Simonson

Bethany Simonson — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:11:29 +0000

Hi! i’m doing a project on footbinding. the Manchu’s didn’t bind their feet. If you have any suggestions for sights to look at, please e-mail me at gtdramaqueen@yahoo.com

By: J Chan

J Chan — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:21:48 +0000

For the (estimated) proportion of women who had their feet bound, Mr Dresner should read comment 2 above from Hinrich, comment 11 by Alan Baumer and his own comment in comment 3.

By: Jonathan Dresner

Jonathan Dresner — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:49:58 +0000

Leaving aside the anti-semitic ahistoricality at the end, J. Chan makes some interesting, if humorless, points. It’s true that there was significant intermarriage between Manchu and Han, but patriliny, not genetics, was the tribal marker. The strong/weak stuff is pure cultural stereotyping, interesting as discourse but hardly proof of anything.

My impression has always been that footbinding, by the 19th century, was practiced quite widely among urban Han, and even among wealthy rural Han: a minority, but not a small minority. I have no argument with his characterization of it as problematic, but I’m aware of no evidence that the “majority of Chinese” rejected or had any reservations about it.

Finally, while the Manchu were privileged in the positions they held, many (most, I always thought) of Manchu males held positions in the Imperial bureaucracy: whether you want to call them rulers by virtue of their privilege or not, they were administrators.

By: J Chan

J Chan — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:31:45 +0000

Doesn’t Mr Dresner have a sense of humour? He confuses Manchu with the Qing Empire. The Qing Empire was founded by the Manchus, however by the 19th century, the Qing Imperial Family and its relatives had essentially become Hans, genetically speaking. I do not know of any claims now that a person described as Manchu nationality is in fact genetically Manchu. He is also mistaken that the Manchus were administrators. The Manchus and their descendants (through family lines and not genetic lines) were rulers- the adminstration was left from the founding of the Empire mostly to Hans. As for Manchu women not being put into position of power, it seems that Mr Dresner had forgotten as an example, the Empress Dowager. If Mr Dresner were aware of the folklores of the Steppes tribes (of which the original Manchu is one), he will surely know the influence of mothers in the upbringing of their sons- the women taught their sons to be strong in body. These women were themselves strong and were handy with horse-riding and weaponry such as archery unlike their Chinese counterpart. The Chinese on the other hand, where possible, encouraged their sons to be ‘academic’ and study books, who as a result became weak in body. So although the Manchus of the later Qing Court were in reality Hans, they retained some of the customs of the Steppes, an example was that they believed the bodies of their people had to be physically strong to rule.
Foot binding should be seen for what it was- mutilation forced upon an unwilling participant, just as in female circumcision. It was practised by a very small minority of Chinese. As such it cannot be regarded as a Chinese custom in general, as the majority of the Chinese did not agree with it and obviously had no use for it. To do so would taint the majority of Chinese who did not agree or accept such cruelty. Just as we should not blame every single Jew past and present for the death of Jesus Christ, in which the Jews allegedly present at His sentencing agreed to have His blood on their hands and their descendants’ hands, we should not claim foot binding was a custom of the Chinese people because it was not- it was only practised by a tiny proportion of Chinese, in the same way that the majority of Jews were not present at the sentencing of Jesus Christ, and had nothing to do with His death.

By: Jonathan Dresner

Jonathan Dresner — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:56:34 +0000

J. Chan: Actually, I think it's more plausible that footbinding is distinguished along both Han/non-Han and wealth axes. Whether or not you think it makes sense, by the 19th century there were farmers and peasants whose daughters feet were bound, though not as many as there were merchants and scholars. Similarly with the Manchu (who had no use for Mao's labor practices), though their minority status makes the importance of women logical there's actually no evidence that I'm aware of which indicates the Manchu were willing to put women in positions of authority or make use of their labor (and since the Manchu were administrators, not laborers, there's no contradiction between bound feet and productivity anyway) outside the family/home.

By: J Chan

J Chan — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:22:50 +0000

I am a Hakka. My grandmother who is approaching 90 has not known any Hakka women with bound feet. Foot binding is not question of a Han/ non-Han practice, it is about a distinction of wealthy Han from non-wealthy Han. As my ancestors were peasant farmers, like so many, all the girls have to work in the fields and in the home, so how can they have their feet bound?

As for Manchu women not taking up this practice, it is purely one of management logic. The Manchus were a minority. To effectively rule the dominant people, they need every trustworthy pair of hands and feet they can find, and as Chairman Mao said, women uphold half of the sky, ie women are a resource just as much as men. Who in the West would have thought 200 years ago that one day we would have active women soldiers?