Kat’s answer to “what is foot-binding that mentioned in this book?” > Likes and Comments
35 likes · Like
Hmm...it seems like so called foot attraction was very desirable to the Chinese man ...anyway thank you for the answer
Please can you tell me which book you are referring to here; 'but after reading a novel that talked a lot about it, I decided to research it' I would very much like to read about it, as part of a novel or any other
Thank you
Hi Suzie, It was Peony in Love by Lisa See. I read it for our book club. It was okay, but not as good as her others. You're welcome! Glad to help!
It is loosely comparable to getting one's ears pierced. Not the same thing, but it is comparable. Foot binding may be a lot worse than piercings, but poking a hole through the lobe of the ear or just about any were else on the body, purely for beautification, is comparable to breaking feet to make them smaller.
The consequences for piercing might even be argued as nearly as bad if someone with them gets a defibrillator used on them. The defibrillator will melt all metal below the head and above legs that is even touching the body, let alone in you. Molten metal under the skin. Fun.
So, to say they aren't comparable wouldn't be true. They have similarities, but they have their differences.
For example, you could say that grenades and thermonuclear warheads aren't comparable because one is so much worse than the other, though the main thing is that, at their core, they are explosives.
Agree, the only possible comparison is female genital mutilation.
Foot binding was also a status or wealth symbol.
Fun fact: it normally started around four years of age and to bind a girl's feet was considered the greatest gift a mother could give her daughter
There was an article recently in Quartz about some new research on foot-binding concluding that it was done as a way to ensure that women would not be able to leave the home and thereby the household could be guaranteed to maintain control over the women's labor which typically brought income (weaving, etc.). The researchers made the point that men found women's bound feet beautiful because men found women attractive and the women happened to have these bound feet. Basically, hormones win over cosmetics. I wish I could find the link for the article - it was really interesting.
And, yes, agreed. Foot binding is comparable to genital mutilation but not to ear piercing. Ear piercing, while momentarily painful, does not impinge on the person's ability to move, to exercise, or to sleep - i.e. to exist. Ear piercing is comparable to tattoos.
Let me add that ear piercing when one chooses to have her ears pierced herself is okay. I don't agree with how some cultures pierce baby girls' ears at birth. But I also don't agree with baptisms at birth or circumcisions of children. Children's bodies should be respected, and they should have the ability to choose what happens to their body (aside from situations involving medical issues).
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Tanvir
(new)
Mar 07, 2015 02:16AM
Hmm...it seems like so called foot attraction was very desirable to the Chinese man ...anyway thank you for the answer
reply
|
flag
Please can you tell me which book you are referring to here; 'but after reading a novel that talked a lot about it, I decided to research it' I would very much like to read about it, as part of a novel or any otherThank you
Hi Suzie, It was Peony in Love by Lisa See. I read it for our book club. It was okay, but not as good as her others. You're welcome! Glad to help!
It is loosely comparable to getting one's ears pierced. Not the same thing, but it is comparable. Foot binding may be a lot worse than piercings, but poking a hole through the lobe of the ear or just about any were else on the body, purely for beautification, is comparable to breaking feet to make them smaller.
The consequences for piercing might even be argued as nearly as bad if someone with them gets a defibrillator used on them. The defibrillator will melt all metal below the head and above legs that is even touching the body, let alone in you. Molten metal under the skin. Fun.
So, to say they aren't comparable wouldn't be true. They have similarities, but they have their differences. For example, you could say that grenades and thermonuclear warheads aren't comparable because one is so much worse than the other, though the main thing is that, at their core, they are explosives.
Agree, the only possible comparison is female genital mutilation.
Foot binding was also a status or wealth symbol.
Fun fact: it normally started around four years of age and to bind a girl's feet was considered the greatest gift a mother could give her daughter
There was an article recently in Quartz about some new research on foot-binding concluding that it was done as a way to ensure that women would not be able to leave the home and thereby the household could be guaranteed to maintain control over the women's labor which typically brought income (weaving, etc.). The researchers made the point that men found women's bound feet beautiful because men found women attractive and the women happened to have these bound feet. Basically, hormones win over cosmetics. I wish I could find the link for the article - it was really interesting.And, yes, agreed. Foot binding is comparable to genital mutilation but not to ear piercing. Ear piercing, while momentarily painful, does not impinge on the person's ability to move, to exercise, or to sleep - i.e. to exist. Ear piercing is comparable to tattoos.
Let me add that ear piercing when one chooses to have her ears pierced herself is okay. I don't agree with how some cultures pierce baby girls' ears at birth. But I also don't agree with baptisms at birth or circumcisions of children. Children's bodies should be respected, and they should have the ability to choose what happens to their body (aside from situations involving medical issues).
