Talk:Foot binding/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reads like a fetish porn story

Can somebody rewrite this article? A large portion of this text reads like someone's porn fetish, particularly in the portion where it describes the actual foot-binding, and frankly, someone with a fetish probably wrote it. I can't tell you how many times "this would have been extremely painful" is repeated and sadomasochism is emphasized. It's really uncomfortable to read.

Just one example of many, "A professional foot binder would ignore the girl's cries and would continue to bind her feet as tightly as possible." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.155.84 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Noaccount:you have my ip ([[User talk:?]) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.155.84 (talk)

Wiki assessment

I think this topic should be rated as high importance, not mid. This isn't THAT obscure of a topic; if the "Chinese Rites controversy" is a good example of a mid-level topic, then giving footbinding a rating of mid in importance is rather biased. I also did my best to clean up the article without changing too much content, as I'm not an expert in this area, so how does it get reassessed? Sorry, I am new here and don't know how to weigh in on assessments. GalenaMcGregor (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe rework article?

I changed back a couple of vandal droppings and a few items which struck me as POV, but the article might well be reworked from scratch to reflect both popular interest and recent scholarship. cwh 05:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - there are multiple issues with this article, votes in favour of tagging for the attention of an expert? Markleci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

IIRC, I believe I was one of the main contributers for this article a few years ago, as part of research I was performing for a book. Most of the photographic evidence I uploaded was censored, cited as being "too graphic" (for crying out loud, they were original material!). I would be happy to answer any questions you may pose. I agree that, compared to earlier revisions, the ones that I did contribute almost entirely to - this page has become quite biased by certain feelings and modern dogma. Please be advised that the sub-title of the book of mine you have cited here (I note you have removed the ISBN again) does not necessarily mean that I am biased/have a biased POV. As a scientist and independant researcher into certain traditional and ceremonial methods, I employ imparial methods. You may contact me through my IP message account here (that I have bookmarked). Peter M Austin as 86.142.176.185 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that there has been progress here, though not nearly enough of it. In particular, basing a Wikipedia article on an undergraduate term paper, no matter how thoughtful and well done, goes against Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History. If we editors are serious, we need to get away from the computer terminal and go to the nearest serious library (or if we don't want to leave the terminal, then order online) and get the books listed at the bottom, especially those by Dorothy Ko and Patricia Ebrey. ch (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Peter M Austin - Peter, you should upload those images again if you have the rights to them. I believe I saw them in old edits from 2004. Wikipedia is not censored (see Wikipedia:IINFO#Wikipedia_is_not_censored). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markleci (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The Liberation

Quote:

"When the liberation occurred, the women were told to unwrap their feet or they would be killed.

My guess: The abolition of the Chinese Empire, i.e. founding of the Chinese Republic in 1911. I changed the text accrodingly since before it didn't fit right anyway. If this is incorrect, anybody knowing better can correct it. Edwing 07:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold textIn the origin section, the part that claims that by the 12th century women's feet were bound extremely tightly is false. Binding actually started out as non-crippling but then became more and more debilitating as time went on. This is information is found in Dorothy Ko's Cinderella's Sisters, to which I will add a reference. Zeus1234 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought (from Pearl S. Buck) that this was limited to upper-class women. Lower-class women needed their feet for work, but were disparaged because of it. -- Error

That's my understanding, not from Buck, as well. I think middle-class women j;lkj;lItalic text could afford binding as well. --Menchi 05:10, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

There was NEVER an imperial order of foot-binding. It was purely "fashion". The following is two sources available online:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/studpages/vento.html http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/China/04/hutchins/hutchins.htm

wshun 06:13, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is entierly untrue and has been proven so by empiracal evidence that you can find with a simple google search. It may not have been an 'official' order, but there were 'orders' (ie, cults/religions) and also many local Han orders to do with this 86.142.176.185 (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs are redundant and should be integrated better with the rest of the article. It seems they were just slapped on there. (12 Dec 2005)

The TRUE origin of footbinding:

The vague origin stated in this entry is wrong. In reality, footbinding started far earlier and for a much different reason than is commonly known:

"Tang court women followed Persian and Turkish fashions, wearing dresses with tight-fitting bodices, pleated skirts, and hats with enormous veils. And it was apparently imitation of foreign toe-dancing groups that originally led upper-class Chinese women to bind their feet. At first it was just palace dancers who bound their feet slightly, like ballet dancers, to stand on their toes." - When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433 by Louise Levathes (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195112075/qid=1072385707//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/104-9319236-0455946?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

The Tang Dynasty was when foreign influence was at its peak in China and greatly welcomed. Elite Chinese courtesan female audiences must have been amazed to first see Western prototypical "toe-dancers" perform for them! They must have been genuinely fascinated by their tightly-bound feet or small shoes. For in any dance where women must get on their toes, they must wear under-sized "pointe"-type shoes or constrictive bindings to allow them to withstand the greatly-multiplied pressure. It's easily conceivable to see how Chinese women sought to imitate these wondrous dancers and their unique footwear. So, this practice started out harmlessly enough as an elitist fad. It didn't just spring up out of the air in the Song Dynasty for no apparent reason. Only very gradually did it become exaggerated and spread into the lower classes as a deforming . But even so, it was still a largely self-imposed tradition passed down from mother to daughter - and one borne of female social-climbing vanity, like many other self-imposed practices from Victorian corsets, high heels, b00b jobs and plastic surgery today.

They say Geishas also originally put on whiteface to imitate Western women, but that's another topic... ;)

Excuse me, but geishas were wearing white makeup long before any of them saw white women. A miniscule amount of western women ever saw Japan until the 20th century. The Japanese (geisha is NOT a Chinese tradition) considered westerners to be strange and barbaric, and the only western custom that became fashionable pre-WWII was the musket. And for some, Catholicism. Apparently you don't realize that Japanese women tend to be naturally pale, and to accentuate this leisure-class detail is common in many cultures. SO, Mr. Winking Emoticon, IN SHORT: "they" who say geisha has anything to do with imitating western women IS DEAD WRONG. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

God, why are you so upset about it? Who the hell cares whether she slapped white makeup on or not. BTW it might be interesting to see a geisha in "blackface". Ever thought of that? :0

unsigned comment added by 172.192.20.20 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ophelia Benson, in her essay "The Yuk Factor" on the subject of cultural relativism of morals, makes a remarkable claim about the purpose of Chinese foot-binding:

"The result was generations of women who could barely walk and couldn't possibly run, but were proud owners of the lotus foot - a foot which, by being folded in half, created a new orifice just the right size for an erect penis. Custom is king of all."

I had never heard such a thing before, even as an urban legend to say nothing of a piece of history. Is there any basis for this claim, or is it a piece of academic foot- ism? --FOo 23:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apparently bound feet were seen as sexually arousing; men apparently loved the look and feel of then. There's little doubt at least some men took things one, ahem, step further. Exploding Boy 01:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, until she took off her shoe for him. Never heard of the stench of gangrene and/or fungal infections being considered an aphrodisiac. You?

Two hundred years later the custom was as strong as ever and small deformed feet had lost none of their attraction for Chinese men, as a French scholar explained. "All the Celestials whom I have interrogated on this point have replied unanimously: 'Oh, a little foot! You Europeans cannot understand how exquisite, how sweet, how exciting it is!' The contact of the genital organ with the little foot produces in the male an indescribable degree of voluptuous feeling, and women skilled in love know that to arouse the ardor of their lovers a better method than all Chinese aphrodisiacs is to take the penis between their feet. It is not rare to find Chinese Christians accusing themselves at confession of having had 'evil thoughts on looking at a woman's foot.'" (http://www.romanization.com/books/formosan_odyssey/footbinding.html) Dpr 03:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

The origins section needs work, as it goes straight from origins into a discussion of the physical manifestations and political influences of footbinding.

I'm also unsure about the statement that only upper class women could be bound, I've seen pictures of poor women with tiny bound feet hobbling along. At least we need a source or two for this. And we should also bear in mind that a lot of footbinding sources have their own agendas, such as Beverly's book, which is rather romanticising.

And who put that comment about the geisha in? That is a common misconception without any factual basis. Sorry, but I have studied Japanese (and to some extent Chinese) customs for a while, and that kind of thing irritates me. Markleci 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You people... the 'Truth' as you call it is entirely subjective. Truth is illusiatory. ie, it is in the eye of the beholder and in the minds of those that believe said 'truth'. This is a Folk Legend and therefore must be treated as such. I have spoken with many, many people who have recounted many, many differing tales of the orignal 'footbinging' and the reasons behind it. Not many of them jibe. This is a postuation that is based upon mere personal opinion and I must aggree with Markleci here and say that your insistance that this is the 'truth' highly irritates me. As such - I propose that this section be removed from the main, factual page and placed into the lore/folk-knowledge of footbinding (aka lotus-feet now, thanks to the Western American influence - the two, binding and lotus feet are not synonymous ffs) 86.142.176.185 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

May be it was a case of rich parents, poor husbands. 86.177.126.239 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement

I found sentences copied word-for-word from this article:

http://www.sfmuseum.org/chin/foot.html

Notably, those dealing with the origins of the custom.

foot binding was a practice not a law, used on womens feet in the 1800, showing a sign of beauty.

--- It was not just for 'beauty' but also for several other reasons - reasons I included in my previous edits of the original page, but have since been removed by people such as yourself, anonymous... These include such things as 'crippling' (as in, the woman was so impaired in movement that the chance she would elope / leave the kitchen were minimal). You can see from this that your view is skewed and biased only by what you have learned. You have learned - and accepted - only one version of events and facts. What has happened to humanity so that it refuses to question that which it is told is the truth? If I said "footbinding was because they wanted to genetically select Chinese people with tiny feet, so they could make smaller footfalls and so better hunt", would you believe me?

Foot binding could not be said to be a Chinese culture, though it is believed among many experts on the subject as being raised to its highest 'art form' in China and during the periods outlined in this article(86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)), as it was practised by a minority of its people (and I take it this discounts the thousands of skeletal remains discovered with deformed feet, remaining in the national museums in China? Minority... Feh. 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)). If it had anything to do with culture, it was in fact a counter-culture.

Are you happy you used Counter-Culture then..? Counter Culture indeed - you need to get some education, my lad. Do you really believe what you said there? What a load of twaddle... 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was taught at school that in Victorian England, for the men it was titillating to catch a glimpse of women's ankles because their long dresses covered their feet. Nowadays, it would be the naked female breasts.

"(and I take it this discounts the thousands of skeletal remains discovered with deformed feet, remaining in the national museums in China? Minority... Feh."- Great maths, so what is it in percentage over the hundreds of millions of Chinese women- a very small fraction? 86.177.126.239 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"According to Professor Wang of CSU Stanislaus, Footbinding began in the Song Dynasty. It started after a man had a dream of a woman walking on lilypads, she looked so elegant and beautiful, that when he woke up he wanted his wife to look the same way. He thought up the idea of foot binding so that she would walk more elegantly, though only when shoed as the pain experienced when without support was so intense as to impede movement almost entirely (86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)). This is where the nickname "lily foot" comes from (rubbish 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)). Only her husband was allowed to see her feet unwrapped at night." (again, rubbish 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

I deleted this paragraph from the article completely; it seemed rather vague and difficult to prove. If anyone can cite a source I'd be happy to keep it, but I can't see how some random guy's dream would be recorded as any sort of historical fact. It's completely implausible. As such, it doesn't belong. Fedallah 02:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Good on you Fedallah, as there Wang of [ex]StanCSU is considered a quack in the community andis known to postulate and theorise as if it were truth. Though there is no mention in the article on the pain experienced on attempting to walk if the woman/man's feet were unshoed 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

'Two of the most deadly weapons for the oppression of a woman in China were either elaborated or had their origin in the Sung dynasty, and they have remained in power until recent times. I mean the custom of footbinding and the moral philosophy that condemns the marriage of widows' (Ch'en, Heng-che "Influences of Foreign Cultures on the Chinese Woman". In Chinese Women Through Chinese Eyes, ed. Yu-ning Li, Armock, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1992.)

I've read a great deal about footbinding and there doesn't seem to be any certainty among even Chinese scholars about when or why footbinding started. Not true - perform a scholarly google search and you will find several articles that you can use google translate to read in English, though you may have to you [golly] your own interpretation in order to understand the google interpretation, as there is no substitute for a native speaker/reader 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that footbinding spread down until only the very lowest members of society were unbound. Unture - I met many and saw photographs (photographs that were censored from this article as being "too gruesome", might I add - they were the *best* evidence you could've gotten to substatiate this) that were of Nonfu's [farmer's] wives - those that had either been unfaithful or who had chosen to endure the practice to shirk the toil of a serf's life and work in the local brothels [depending on the man, I suppose... It was never verified and I can find no verification in my notes], listened to tales, or women (and men) who had either voluntarily entered into the practice or had it forced upon them for many reasons. Lease of which is masquerade as a higher feudal tier or to mix in such strata for the betterment of the family and future ancestors. There was one lady (the lady who showed me these photos of her family) who claimed that her grandmother underwent such so that she could lead the life she led, instead of working in the paddies, like her cousins and extended families 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Beverly Jackson has a chapter about sex and bound feet in her book 'Splendid Slippers', but it's also mentioned in the Golden Lotus...

Markleci 07:16, 2 April 2006

Age footbinding started

I changed it from three years old to five years old. According to "The Lotus Lovers" by Howard Levy and "Splendid Slippers" by Beverley Jackson, the usual age for beginning footbinding was between the ages of 5 and 7. There have been cases of infants undergoing the practice, much like the Jewish Bris - verified 2004 during 2nd field trip to China. 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Please tag as not neutral point of view, or at least weasel words the section MODERN TIMES that declares "All modern societies would treat the behavior as child abuse and punish it accordingly".

I modified this section to say 'many people' as opposed to 'all modern societies.' Hope this makes it more netural. Zeus1234 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine how anyone in any time or place could do this to a kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.20.20 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any article that provokes such extreme reactions to its content will appease all and gain an NPV. Not somewhere where everyone has a voice, at least. Including opinions such as Feminism and out-moded fashions of living will mean this article will remain with a tag - probably for another few years. Losing the colourful descriptions and things such as "inhumane" would be a start. Unless it is written so that there is more balance, and the people read more consistent facts and information (as well as delivering that little titillation they come for :P) than opinions on all these different things. EXCEPT: the researched opinions on contemporary opinions of aesthetics, fashion and femanism - maybe then, once they are re-laid and the article is neutral once more, can it provoke discussion of these things rather than [i]report it as honest and true fact[/i]. I hope I made myself clear. I have trouble doing that sometimes. I wrote this page originally, I believe (or, at least made the first page from a stub) and, tbh, I think it was better back then... [lazy saccade as 86.147.235.51 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)] ps - an thank-you for citing my book. The year is wrong, but that is okay.

Pictures?

I think some non-Xray pictures of what bound feet look like would be interesting and informative, if they aren't too graphic or disgusting (don't know, I've never seen them). 68.69.145.52 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, the one being used right now is a little too disturbing for me. BTW, should we state that there's a reference to footbinding on "Snow Flower and The Secret Fan"? There's alot of info on it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.15.73 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There were some photos added to this page a while ago. However, they were deemed "too ugly" by the more sensitive people here and were removed. I guess that the current images are a lot more acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.53.88 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC) It seems from reading that in this talk page and the article itself, if you had allowed my photographs to be pubished and remain uncensored - to alllow the content that I originally placed here - a lot of the biased / iPOV arguments would be settled before they arose. I therefore find little reason to continue working on this page 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (same poster as the preceeding comments)

My last edit on this page: Just because TWO PEOPLE voiced an opinion that they didn't like the images, does not lend credence to them being removed. This is NOT Democracy. It is Policital Correctness. It is also a sign that it is, indeed, fruitless to continue to lend my knowledge to this page if it is only to be discarded because some weak-stomached whiner has the 'truth' surpressed. These photos were original and of contemporary footbindings, proving that the practice continues to this day (well, to 2007, anyhow...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.176.185 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The photographs -- graphic or not -- need to be shown and I demand to be able to see this person's expertise. This is an actual cultural practice that occurred and continues to occur in China. This is important to history, and to acknowledge the mutilation for the sake of cultural tradition that women have undergone in a specific place and time. I find it offensive that any would suppress the truth of this horrific practice, or try to make it sound less harsh. China has only had one female leader in its entire several thousand year history with none today, they continue to selectively abort females, and their human and minority rights violations are now well documented too. The Nobel Peace prize was just awarded to a Chinese dissident so the suppression of a Chinese male's political voice is now acknowledged by the rest of the world, acknowledging a long lived practice that mutilated and incapacitated Chinese women must be made known accurately and widely as well.

The hub about China should document their extraordinary achievements and highlight their arts, sciences, and general history, but the one about the practice of foot binding needs to stay true to the facts which are that this practice mutilated women's feet and made them incapable of walking with ease and comfort for cultural reasons including the sexual gratification of men.

I think the poster above NEEDS to be allowed to present us his/her expertise and be allowed to show us the proof that this practice continues today. This is very surprising. This is important to know, and suppressing the information that women are still having their feet mutilated through binding must be part of information available to the world. We have a right to see this information, and describe it accurately as mutilation. The pictures are the proof it was and is mutilation.

Human rights violations, when involving women, must receive the same treatment any other politically subjugated group has. The practices that infringe upon their lives have to be exposed truthfully, and without inappropriate sugar coating. In view of the recent Nobel Prize I find it appalling anyone would try to hide a practice that literally bound women's bodies. Nobody but the Chinese government tries to suppress information about the way they've treated male minorities or male political prisoners, nobody should suppress information about their numerous and many thousands of years of oppressive practices towards women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcarlenius (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The above poster is unwise to bring politics to the discussion. If you want to look for photos of foot-binding, you can find them by doing a images/pictures search on google or baidu. Some wiki contributors probably felt uncomfortable with these photos and that was why they were removed. But I am not aware of any "censorship" on this matter. Like I said, you can find many pictures (including contemporary ones) by searching it on both Chinese and non-Chinese search engines.

Also, foot-binding is not really practiced anymore. The exceptions are those women who binded their feet when they were young, but the vast majority of these women are probably in their 80's and 90's now. In addition, even in that generation, not every women binded their feet. It is highly highly unlikely that there are young girls/women who still practice foot-binding today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.60.185 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add, if one wants to find some chinese scholarly articles on this subject, one should look for them in "China Academic Journals Full-Text Database". However, the database is not free. But one should be able to access it from a majority university or a good library's server. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.60.185 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The 'severe' example of footbinding picture is wrong

I've seen real bound feet and believe me, it's a whole lot mroe gruesome looking than that. All the toes but the big one are curled inside the foot like they were melted and stuck back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.236.133 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with 2 photos from a 1900 German book (taken from article on German Wiki). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You really should have kept my original contribtutions - they would've solved a lot of the bias / iPOV issues you are experiencing now. Internet Censorship is wrong. If you want the facts - from years of research in China and several other countries that practiced and contine to practice foot-binding and like - I suggest you purchase my book. Each time I add the ISBN, it is reverted, so - if you would like a copy, free/signed/whatever - please request on my un-logged talk page at this IP 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just exactly how popular was foot-binding?

Just how popular was foot-binding? If it was popular with the rich and wealthy, was it practised by the Imperial families of the time? For example were princesses and imperial concubines-to-be required to undergo foot-binding? 81.154.203.177 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The popularity began with the wealthy in the North, but as time went on, it even grew to envelop commoners in the 1800s. There are photos of the queens and princesses with tiny feet and shoes, albeit black and white. Also since you were royal you didn't do anything all day so all the more reason to bind. 75.4.228.168 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't believe you, unless you can provide respectable references. The Qings ruled China since the 17th century, way before photography was invented, and the Qing Imperials (Manchus) did not practise foot-binding. 86.162.138.240 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Photographs were a more recent development, yes. However, there were photographs available in the later 1800s. Even in Europe and Japan, the later royal members were indeed photographed (most would be well over 100 today). You would be a bit lightheaded to question such a thing. My family is super old, and they have photographs of my ancestors who had to have been born in the 1870s or so. While Manchus did not, most of the citizens were Han Chinese. Also, this was one of the books I read and it is true the footbinding process began amongst rich northern women. ★Dasani★ 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

too long?

Why is this article tagged as too long? It's not even at the limit 30-50kilobytes.Brian0324 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead was too long. I split off the history section into one of its own. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

what is the main reason for foot binding please explain in brief

Umang Patel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.48.110 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics (came later); confinement (one of original - esp. for wives and whores); punishment (one of original, much like bamboo strips tied around penis in male child to entertain permanent erection for sex-slave purposes); fashion (as aesthetics); lesbiansim (result of - use your imagination); Disfigurement (punishment additional); Pose and poise (Class distinction, it was though not serf would go though the process in order to pose as a noble); read my book, there is a chapter on each reason given to me as I travelled the countries - many differed (despite being the same reasons) from culture to culture, province to province). 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

contradiction within article

in the section "History" it says: ...contrary to many false tales the girls/women were able to walk, work in the fields, climb to mountain homes from valleys below. As late as 2005 women in one village in Yunnan Province formed an internationally known dancing troup to perform for foreign tourists. (etc)
however, in the "Reception and appeal" section it says The other primary attribute of a woman having bound feet was to limit her mobility... (etc)
These are obviously contradictory. also a source should be cited for the dance troupHypershock (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

These are not obviously contradictory. There is a difference between 'limited mobility' -- ie, a woman who will never be able to walk for days or run a marathon -- and total inability to walk. A bound woman would not have been able to keep up with a woman with unbound feet, but may have still been able to walk to her home or perform short dances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefox226G (talk • contribs) 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you not even considered that this may have been trickery..? The Chinese are renowned for sideshow trickery. Even if it was not, the design of some shoes - the limit of the disfigurement - allowed some, though not many, who practiced (forced or not) to be able to pass as walking almost normally. There is no reversing such disfigurement, but there are such things as prosthetic attachements. Come one people - use you heads for crying out loud... It is not contradictory at all. 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the blantantly racist tone of your comment and its general incoherence, it is hard to take your point seriously at all. Besides, the contradiction in the article is obvious and should be rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.10.66.116 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Process of footbinding?

it says that the toes were broken while the foot was being bound but isn't it that the foot bound was just under extreme pressure and girls were forced to walk on their newly bandaged feet to break the bones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.101.95 (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad NPR estimate?

The article stats "Some estimate that as many as 2 billion Chinese women were subjected to this practice" which comes from the npr.org source. But since the population of China is only recently above 1 billion that seems like a very poor estimate (it would mean that 2 million each year for 1000 years), and I'd think there were not that many babies being born in 10th century China, especially if the practice was mostly for rich families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.150.85 (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The figures given are totally fictitious. If there were that many women with bound feet, then you would have seen Chinese women with bound feet in every village and every street in China surviving into the 1940s and 1950s, and even the 1960s and 1970s. The fact is, you didn't. 86.177.126.239 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to Dog Kung Fu article

In the interests of POV (i.e. showing that at least some bound women were able to carry out physical activity to the extent of defending themselves) and general information, should a link be added to Dog Kung Fu? Markleci (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other methods, despite the style of Gung-fu you mention, that were/are employed by those with crippling injuries/footbound. You are thinking with a limit. Think outside. While it may be possible that this style was practiced, the most common method for a woman to defend herself is her husband, then poison. You can find the profiles/lists quite easily on google, Markleci. It is not like a footbound woman is going to be walking dark alleys at night unescorted. Please do not fall into the trap of thinking with only one mind. You show promise in your interest. If a style of Martial Art would be practiced by a woman (which was a rare thing indeed, especially for a footbound wife) it would have involved deception and not acrobatics. It is more likely that something such as an hair-pin be used than what you are suggesting. Do not forget, also, that women were highly prised as captives - footbound women were, often, nobles and so would fetch a higher price. It is very unlikely that they would put up the resistance you propose. They are bound housewives, primarily, not trained fighters. 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my point at all. My point (as I stated) was to show that at least some footbound women were able to carry out physical activity. The social or cultural circumstances under which they might or might not use these skills is not a matter for discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markleci (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Macau and Hong Kong

Hello.

Is there any data on when this practice was banned in Macau and Hong Kong - or, indeed, if it was ever prominent in those two colonies-turned-SARs in the first place? --Nerroth (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that I can find no data in my notes on these regions. But that is not to say that a search of the legistlative records for them will not turn up the required information you are looking for. All it will take is a few phone-calls/emails/visits and - possibly - greasing a few palms. Bribes work wonders in these countries. As far as I am aware, the practice is still ongoing, despite the illigality in many parts of the world. 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Major Gaps in This Article

This article appears to be off to a good start, but there seems to be some major gaps that should be filled in, so that it covers the full beginning, middle, end, and current status of the practice. Also, those in the modern Western world may not have the context to understand why such a painful and inhumane practice which no industrialized nation today would ever do was so appealing in early China. Here are some questions that could be addressed in further sections of the article.

1.) How the practice was banned, and how the law handles modern offenders

The law handles modern offences (in China, Borneo and Phillipines) by turning a blind eye - how would you punish an amputee if having one harm were illegal? - or, more often, by fine. 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2.) How and when lotus feet had fallen out of aesthetic appeal?

As far as I know, it hasn't for those that still find it appealing 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

3.) Why foot binding was started in the first place if so excruciatingly painful?

Please read the preceeding 'reasons' section of this discussion article 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

4.) Why were golden lotuses so appealing?

Why is gold so appealing over tin? 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

5.) Why was no pain relief used? Was none invented?

It was. 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

6.) Are there any religious connotations to the practice?

There were sects, but the practice was mostly for the reasons stated in the 'reasons' section of this discussion 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

7.) When the practice was popular, did any people or groups deliberately dislike lotus feet, no matter how "sexually appealing", because the knew it was cruel and inhumane?
There were/are those that have always been disgusted/attracted/fascinated by human disfugurement - that you add "because the(y) knew it was cruel and inhumane?" is not without bias and should be disregarded. It is because it is, not because it is cruel and unusual punishment. Many of the practitioners chose to undergo the procedure, despite being too young to truely understand what they were letting themselves in for. You mention nothing of exploitation - I have found more evidence of that than I have that people shunned (in fact only a few lusted, it seems, at certain times - you assertation that it is "sexually appealing" is very closed minded) the pracice. It seems it was to be aspired to because of 'rank' and 'status' than because of its aesthetic value, as is commonly believed by those who have contributed here. There is more information than to be found online, you know 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

8.) Footbinding vs. Human Rights Organizations.

Do you really want to go there? It is a lengthy subject and, needless to say, can involve the national authorities and UN. The most active, during 2002-2008 were the Medical Organisations, due to the 'backstreet' bindings and infections that commonly occoured. It is chapter XXI of my book, ask and I will send you a second printing copy 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For those in the modern Western world unfamiliar with the process, this material would greatly help. help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.126.69 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC) You are welcome. Peter M Austin 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

These gaps in the article I think still need to be addressed in some areas. Peter's book is self-published, and as such probably does not meet the standard for reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. I should note I don't mean to offend at all by suggesting that. However if we can find other sources for the comments made here that would be excellent for the article. Markleci (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting foot binding under Violence against women is subjective

I am questioning placing foot binding under Violence against women. If foot binding is considered violence against women, why not include high-heeled shoes and corsets? They are also practices that have negative physical effects and are done in the name of fashion. I would suggest not putting this article under the Violence against women category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurion (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

self-abuse by women is generally not considered violence against women. foot binding was forced. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

While some instances /may/ have been forced, the majority were voluntary. Despite the child's age meaning they did not know what they were letting themselves in for, it was seen by them as something to aspire to. Much like J'Lo's buttocks or the photoshopped, skinny figure many western women strive to attain these days. It should in no way be included in any torture, abuse or violence category. By doing so, you would totally destroy all accuracy of this article. What a ridiculous suggestion, Taurion 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are frequently dropped into multitudes of categories and "features" by people involved in those groups. The existence of a group tag isn't really part of the article content itself and shouldn't be seen as bias. Feel free to add a Fashion category tag if you like. --70.142.34.215 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F0C:F510:D8FE:A839:91B9:1AB1 (talk)

Wearing corsets and high heels is voluntary and does not break bones. Foot binding broke bones and caused permanent deformities. Wearing corsets and high heels is the choice of adults; foot-binding was a painful procedure which limited its victims' mobility. Although the victims were told that foot-binding would make them more popular and attractive, they were far too young to understand what was being done to them, which is very different from a twentysomething woman having her buttocks enlarged so that they are the same size and shape as those of Jennifer Lopez.

Is the anon serious? This was/is violence all right. However, you might argue that it wasn't against women but children. JIMp_talk·cont 14:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That is very much the problem. It would be truer to class it as violence against children. Footbinding is done by the mother (or other women) on the young daughter, men are not directly involved in the binding, so it is in truth violence by women on children, even if it is done to please men. I have no problem if feminists wish to class this as violence against women in the broader view of what females have to suffer in a patriarchal society, it is just a point of view, the problem is that wikipedia should not subscribe to any particular point of view and describing the article as "violence against women" so prominently violates this principle. Hzh (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Violence against women does not have to be done directly by men, as long as the victim is a woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.58.130 (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

...Is this person seriously comparing breaking toes to high heels and corsets? 119.92.224.208 (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

...I think it clearly belongs in the Violence Against Women section, for one simple reason... Did any parents insist on binding their little BOY's feet? No? Well, there you go. Even if you wanted to argue that it should go under something about violence against children, you'd still have that problem. 12.31.187.178 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original post. It is barbaric to us, but it is a symbol of status and fashion not a measure of control. Violence in this context is an action that is designed to control a group, such as genital mutilation to stop females from seeking sex with other partners; or beating, imprisonment, or stoning of women for showing their body/being to sexually alluring.

This action is like tooth sharpening, which, although some men did it, was and still is predominantly done to women; the Neck Rings such as the Kayan people which is solely women; and corsets, which would crush the wasit pushing organs up, even cracked ribs, and caused difficulty breathing. All were the purpose of status, erotica and fashion not control. None of these three are under the violence against women, so why is foot binding which was not a punishment or a means of control but a symbol of status?

Also the argument above "I think it clearly belongs in the Violence Against Women section, for one simple reason... Did any parents insist on binding their little BOY's feet? No?" is very poor. Circumcision is common practice of solely men in the West, but it is not considered violence against men. Although its origin was highly likely to stop masturbation, the procedure was typically practiced for religious reasons, not a means of control. Mikeymikemikey (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that is hard to judge where the dividing line should be. Throughout human history modifications of the body for beauty and status had been practiced in various societies, such as cranial deformation, lip plate, scarification, even tattooing (which can be a painful process in some practices). While footbinding lies towards the extreme end of the range of practices, I'm not sure about classifying it as violence against women over something whose intention was not violence, but status and beauty. Those who had small bound feet were proud of their bound feet. When it was practiced, it was done by women on young girls, many had to be forced to go through the binding process, many also did so willingly. When the abolition of footbinding was proposed, there were in fact some resistance from women who saw its abolition as something that diminishes them, some in fact still tried to bind their feet themselves when it was abolished.

There is nevertheless a feeling that a POV is being pushed by its inclusion so unambiguously in the Violence Against Women category when it is not something so clear cut. I would suggest removing it because it violates Wikipedia guidelines on staying neutral. Hzh (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There are too many people here posting what they feel or what the think ought to be without any reference to what is written in quality sources on the subject. It is as simple thing to research: do reputable books and other such sources refer to foot binding as violence against women or not. A simple search on Google books clears this up:

Ordinary Violence: Everyday Assaults against Women Worldwide by Mary White Stewart
When Violence Begins at Home: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding and Ending Domestic Abuse by K. J. Wilson
Domestic Violence and the Law in Colonial and Postcolonial by Emily S. Burrill, et al
Violence Against Women in Asian Societies: Gender Inequality and Technologies of Violence by Linda Rae Bennett and Lenore Manderson
Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence by Claire M. Renzetti and Jeffrey L. Edleson
Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives by Laura L. O'Toole, Jessica R. Schiffman and Margie L. Kiter Edwards
Against Violence Against Women: The Case for Gender as a Protected Class by Rona M. Fields
Women, War, and Violence: Personal Perspectives and Global Activism by Robin M. Chandler

All the above books, and many many more, list foot binding as a form of violence against women. Many of them devote whole chapters to the subject of foot binding as a form of violence against women. It is clear that a substantial quantity of reputable sources consider foot binding to be a form of violence and therefore it is correct that this article makes such a statement. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That it was a barbaric practice against women is pretty much the view in the West, before and after it was banned, particularly as given later in a feminist narrative. Even though there were objections by Chinese writers to the practice before the late 19th century, it was not the traditional Chinese view. More recently people are looking at it in a different way, see for example the work of Dorothy Ko and Hill Gates (both cited a number of times in the article), also Ping Wang's Aching for Beauty: Footbinding in China, and various other articles which offered a more nuanced perspective, particularly from the viewpoint of women themselves (a review here.) This is not arguing that the practice is acceptable, just that people are getting a more rounded view, and opinions are changing, particularly among those who are experts on the issue. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Foot binding causes extreme pain and breaks bones, while the others do not.02:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)2601:640:4080:3CC0:4523:3F32:F28D:6713 (talk)

"Resurgence" of Foot binding?

Okay as far as I know there hasn't been a "resurgence of this in China itself (then again I don't live there but I'm pretty sure about this one). However I've seen TV shows in North America depicting both Asian and non-Asians living in the West (who are into body-modifications) to practice this. I'm curious as to how big of a "resurgence" (if you could even call it that) or curiosity this practice has been in the West. Anybody with any interesting sources or info to add regarding my point? 207.216.33.144 (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this in the article (am I missing it?), but a "resurgence" in the true sense would not be possible, since actual foot binding would require the binding of children's feet. I have seen exactly one reference to modern "foot binding," which was merely a grown woman wrapping her feet tightly in bandages. No bones were being broken, and the wrapping was only worn for short periods. This is not foot binding in the sense of 缠足 / 纏足. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that the above user is that calling footbinding violence is historically dependent. Now footbinding is absoloutely a violent and inhumane practice, but during its time it was a socially acceptable practice, forced or not. I think the classification of this as violence against women is one of whether it discusses the practice historically or as a present day violation of a woman's rights. I think given the way this article is written, it should be removed from the violence against women section, given the historical perspective of the article. --70.79.65.193 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a small 'resurgence' in California, USA, by a few people who find it 'fashionable'. They use a device they call the "Fakir's Foot Bender" to create "Pretty Feet". It is much akin to a brace. This is currently ongoing and the last reported incident of someone using the device was 18 April 2005. It is not, however, quite the same as footbinding, as it only bends the metatarsus temporarily (though there is no doubt that with prolonged use it would cause permanent deformity), instead of contorting it over a much longer period. This is the only reported 'major' resurgence in any major peroidical for several years 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I should add that this reported incident was on a female child of 13, whos parents were members of a local cult that longed for the resurgence of footbinding as part of their ethos. The majority of other cases were of adults. 86.142.176.185 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What is it?

Obviously I can tell from the pictures, and from reading the article, but the very first part of the lead needs to be a succinct description of the practice. --70.142.34.215 (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, maybe it should explicitly state what the goal of the binding is.ViniTheHat (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusing and contradictory

The article repeatedly claims that women with bound feet were unable to walk properly and do any work, yet it also states that this is false, and that women with bound feet were able to work in the fields, walk up hills and so on. Can someone sort this out, please? It seems likely to me that women with bound feet from rich families didn't have to work, so could sit around and get their servants to do everything, while poor women would just have to get on with it. There needs to be some citations for this, though, and it's not my subject. Snorgle (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am confused as well - the article states (at reference 23) that women in China had their feet bound and were unable to do anything so they had servants to do everything for them. I know that only the very poorest women did not bind their feet, which leaves a lot of poor women out there doing manual labor and *being* servants to these more middle and upper-class Chinese women who *also* had their feet bound. There are plenty of Western reports of Chinese women working in fields, walking up hills, working in restaurants, etc. and those reports span several hundreds of years, so women with bound feet clearly could walk and do work. You simply can't take 50% of the population out of the equation to the extent that the other 50% are then required to do *all* the work, especially considering that women have done most of the manual labor throughout history. It just doesn't seem right. Sandarmoir (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The figures are made up. 86.177.126.239 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

86.177.126.239, are you my ex, or my old publisher? Idk why you have removed so much when it was cited. Peter Austin109.150.22.184 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers were made up. 81.129.181.182 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Desirable to men

This whole article talks about the practice being to please men, but I think that raises a perspective issue. What about lesbian/bisexual women? We'd be hard pressed to find anecdotes of bound feet appealing to lesbian/bisexual women in a conservative society that was not particularly tolerant of homosexuality, but it would be silly to assume that bound feet exclusively appealed to men. Kajaeo (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Find one published utterance on the subject, one. Then feel free to make a new section about it. ViniTheHat (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the practice developed amongst wealthy heterosexual women. Men found the feet to be very attractive, and one story recalls that exclusively female dancers would perform for men while being wrapped in such a way, though I don't see how this is realistic or possible. Even if you were lesbian (which most women were not), you were always forced into an arranged marriage with a man who valued your feet. That's why it's interesting to see in Lisa See's Snow Flower book that the protagonist actually faced this exact dilemna, although I think it was pretty rare/shunned back then. ★Dasani★ 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this was going on a VERY long time ago... LONG before society in general was willing to openly acknowledge the existence of non-straight people in any kind of dialogue that would have ended up being documented by anybody. That is a relatively recent, modern phenomenon. Add to that the fact that this was happening in an extremely male-dominated culture, and it is obvious why you will have a hard time finding any documented references to what lesbians thought of this... or of anything else, for that matter.12.31.187.178 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What does what Kim Kardashian does to herself and her body count as then? 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:1176:4EC1:D032:10E7 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Alicia Little

I've read that a westerner named Alicia Little helped end the foot binding tradition by publishing writings about the practice. There's a lot of information out there and I think it should be added. --Turn685 (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.readaroundasia.co.uk/miclittle.html 86.178.225.9 (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt very much her writing did much to end foot binding. It's like saying someone wrote a lot about the dangers of drug taking, and thereby stopped drug taking in say the USA. Let's just say, it's not going to happen. The reason foot binding stopped was because the whole Chinese society stopped its practice, not because someone wrote about it. 86.178.225.9 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

She's not alone. I've heard of a few other cases where women came with their families from Western nations to help fight the practice. Very little effect resulted, however, and I've read that the majority of citizens back then still continued to bind. There were some cases as late as the 1950s. ★Dasani★ 19:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is Peter M Austin 86.142.176.185 (talk)?

Who is Peter M Austin 86.142.176.185 (talk)? Why are dubious and totally unsupported statistics quoted in the article? 86.177.126.239 (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If this Peter M Austin is not going to introduce himself, I am going to delete his inaccurate and fake contributions to the article. 86.176.190.115 (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell us what edits you are referring to? Oh, I see, from two years ago. I don't see article edits; which are his? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have only just seen this - what is the problem, 86.177.126.239..? i think you should have looked at the references, written down an ISBN number and then gone to your library and checked out the book that was cited... 109.150.22.184 (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So it is ok for the article to keep my photographs, but not my research material? pfff... quitting now. The photos are copyrighted, and provided to accompany my text. adios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.22.184 (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You released your contributions under a creative commons license when you added them to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. 2601:644:2:B64B:C4:729:8621:6350 (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources with proven statistics? 81.129.181.182 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A self publicist. 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:1176:4EC1:D032:10E7 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding comments on 'Putting foot binding under Violence against women is subjective'

Cannot one woman hurting another be regarded as violence against women? Is not violence against one person to another violence, regardless of gender? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyduker (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I just posted under the section you spoke of and I'll summarise here, Violence, in this context, is an action that is designed to control a group, such as genital mutilation to stop females from seeking sex with other partners, or beating, imprisonment, or stoning of women for showing their body/being to sexually alluring. footbinding is a symbol of statusm, not control.

Mikeymikemikey (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Foot binding can be interpreted as an action designed to control women by crippling them and making them dependent on men. And genital cutting is/was seen as a symbol of status and beauty among cultures that practice it. So your argument relies on a false dichotomy. Regardless, editors' individual opinions are not really relevant on Wikipedia. 2601:644:2:B64B:C4:729:8621:6350 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Should we count what Kim Kardashian does to herself (or to her body) as violence against women (or at least to one woman)? 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:1176:4EC1:D032:10E7 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm?

Look, you really need to sort this out, you can't have a passage claim that,

"Another attribute of a woman with bound feet was the limitations of her mobility, and therefore, her inability to take part in politics, social life and the world."

Whilst at the same time include passages like,

“Many women with bound feet were in fact able to walk and work in the fields, albeit with greater limitation than their nonbound counterparts. In the 19th and early 20th century, dancers with bound feet were very popular, as were circus performers who stood on prancing or running horses. Women with bound feet in one village in Yunnan Province even formed an internationally known dance troupe to perform for foreign tourists”

Obviously if a woman can, walk, work in fields (albeit with greater limitations), dance, stand on prancing horses and form internationally known dance troupe, it does not really mean there is an "...inability to take part in social life and the world." Or is there something I'm just not getting here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.138.33 (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take any of the article seriously. It was written in the realm of fantasy. 81.129.181.182 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So the fact that foot-binding took place is a fantasy, is that what you're saying? Really now.

No. The figures, attributes and significance are a fantasy. 81.156.244.212 (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I really want to bump this up since it's true that the hyperbolic meanings (as only I can imagine) are really difficult to break but it's also difficult to see the physical pain to sustain actual acts like everyday house keeping. 75.61.140.205 (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Lim

Louisa Lim's name is given as Lim and Lin. Lim seems to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.73.93 (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The following statement attributed to Lim is in the article "It has been estimated that by the 19th century, 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, and up to almost 100% among upper class Han Chinese women." It is very weasel, "may" can mean "may" or "may not". Unless proper evidence is provided to support the claim, then I propose to delete the passage for being misleading or possibly fake information. 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:1176:4EC1:D032:10E7 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)