Sheryl Wudunn & Nicholas Kristof's "Women's Crusade" article in today's New York Times magazine contains searing and moving exposure of the horrific conditions of women around the globe and this is most necessary. The problem, however, is that not only does their "Women's Crusade" promote NGOs, micro-lending, and other so-called solutions which only strengthen imperialist domination and the chains on women, but Wudunn & Kristof shockingly blot out 27 years of breathtaking history.
It was in revolutionary China led by Mao, from 1949-1976, when "Women Hold Up Half the Sky" was the slogan which set the terms for one-quarter of the planet. Before the 1976 coup in China which restored capitalism, brought back prostitution, female infanticide, and turned China into the sweatshop of the world, women in revolutionary China unbound their feet and, together with men, made unprecedented strides towards real women's liberation.
Check out Sunsara Taylor's response to the Wudunn & Kristof article.
And read A Declaration: For the Liberation of Women & the Emancipation of All Humanity.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: It wasn't sweatshops which un-bound the feet of China's women.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15632
I don't know about you, you might be an expert on China for all I know. You might even be chinese, in which case, please forgive my ignorance! But I'm going to talk as if you are just like me, a Westerner interested in China, and give my perspective.
I've read many, many books about the cultural revolution in China, and despite some progress, it doesn't seem like overall a great feminist time for women. Okay, there was the *appearance* of striving for equality, which is one of the reasons so many women were fooled into being massive Mao supporters. But women were oppressed in many, many ways, right from Mao himself who used to take advantage of women he liked the look of (according to 'Mao' by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, which is a realllly long biography of his life and the cultural revolution) down to the common woman. Anchee Min writes wonderfully in her autobiography 'Red Azalea' about how women were taught to feel ashamed of their bodies and kept ignorant of sex, and how this was not just a continuance of the way it was before the revolution, it was something the communist party and the Maoists picked up on and perpetuated. Women (and men) who had relationships were condemned. Mao also added to the population problem by telling women to have as many children as possible once they were married, to build up the workforce. There were nuns who were forced to get married so they could properly contribute to society by fulfilling their role as women, i.e. having children. Also, whilst it might have been good for some as 'reds', working class, if a woman was part of a family labelled 'black', that is a landowner or some other kind of person in the 'ruling class', or if she contradicted the Maoist regime in any way, she was treated just as badly as anyone else considered 'reactionary'. I could go on and on, but I'm guessing you've done your research.
I'm not denying that it had a role in emancipating women. But as far as I've read - and heard from Chinese people - it was not a fantastic time to be a woman, their choices were not respected. Of course it still isn't a great time to be a woman in China, or anyone for that matter. I've been interested in China since I was 11, but the Chinese are probably one of the most oppressed people in the world.
Foot binding was banned in 1912 by Sun Yat-sen. You're thinking of The Cultural Revolution, The Great Leap Forward, the death of 40 million Chinese, etc.
I thought of saying that (I heard it was 1911, but same difference) but I didn't think the original poster was referring to *literal* foot binding, I think they were using it as a metaphor for oppression of women.
As in "The guy before the guy before Mao *literally* unbound Chinese women's feet, but Mao did it metaphorically."?
Yeah, I think that's what she meant.
Could be. I think she was saying that foot binding ended (along with prostitution) during Mao's reign of benevolent non-patriarchality.
Well, if it was a metaphor, it was a poorly chosen one. Since it can be too easily confused with the literal unbinding of women's feet, given the temporal and geographical proximity to the event in question.
As a side note, I was lead to believe that the way this was carried out (the unbinding) was not particularly fantastic for women in the region. Many of the women in traditional communities would have chosen to keep binding their feet if they weren't subject to harsh penalties for doing so (some did it anyway). Then there were those with bound feet that wouldn't heel that were pitied and shunned later in life. The binding of the feet was often symbolic of binding a family to a woman (and vice versa obviously) so that they were then duty bound to provide for her, this practice was lessened with the unbinding, which for someone who can hardly walk wasn't great. Many women considered the binding of the feet to be a beautiful act, others wanted the results of that cultural practice.
I've often thought there might be a lesson about agency in here somewhere. In light of this was the government right to ban binding? What is the morality in respecting a woman's right to choose oppression? Surely if the practice had been allowed to continue many more women would have been invalided as the practice was passed down from generation to generation. And yet the women who participated in this practice claimed to get benefit from it.
Does anyone think there is any similarity here to some women's participation in pornography, or in their choosing constricting fashions?
It is undeniable that some strides for women's equality were made under Maoism and that women participated powerfully in the revolution(s). That said, it was hardly an entirely glorious affair.
When women were encouraged to have many children (because population = power), it did raise the social value of motherhood, which was great--except that things went too far which led to issues of overpopulation which in turn led to birth limits and all that entails (including female infanticide). Prostitution never really went away, though prostitutes were harshly punished unless they had a powerful protector.
Then there were the actions that harmed men and women equally, including those mentioned by the above commenters.
We do need to question the extent to which methods of "assistance" increase western dominance rather than liberating people, and I commend you for this. That said, it's important not to fall into the trap of accepting other forms of power uncritically.
"That said, it's important not to fall into the trap of accepting other forms of power uncritically. "
This cannot be emphasized enough. It would be a grave shame if feminism as a modern movement were dragged down by hardcore Marxists such as the original poster, who have their own agendas which only occasionally intersect with third-wave feminism. (for instance, feminism places emphasis on individual liberty from the state and other oppressive, hierarchal, patriarchal power structures -- such thinking is of course incompatible with communism.)
Mao was a brutal patriarch and tyrant almost indistinguishable from Stalin and holding him up as a hero would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Let us not hold up failed power structures from the past, Communist, Western or otherwise.
I'm not sure how you determined from two paragraphs that the original poster is a "hardcore Marxist (TM)". Unless you would actually deny that economic and gender oppression are inalienably tied up together. Marxist theory is certainly useful in analyzing gender inequality; one needn't swallow the whole Marxist/socialist body of work to find some parts useful. I'm sure you know.
A pretty limited range of people completely erase the positives of Sun Yat-sen and the crimes of Mao Zedong. Maoist would have been more precise than Marxist, but definitely not anyone without a similarly warped ideology.
"micro-lending, and other so-called solutions which only strengthen imperialist domination and the chains on women"
I'd like to ask about this, if I could. I've been thinking of getting into microlending, which I've been hearing is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If there's an unstated or understated problem with it that makes it prohibitive, I'd like to know. Thank you very much.
One complaint I've heard is that it doesn't help the poorest of the poor, who lack either the reputation/collateral to be entrusted with a loan or the skills/status/whatever to actually start a business with it. I personally don't see a probably with helping the only very poor, even if they're not quite the poorest.
Another problem is the one that always comes with outside money: The people giving and distributing the money don't understand the local situation, and thus don't do a very good job of giving it to those who will make the best use of it.
Those are the main issues I've heard cited regarding micro-lending. Overall, it still seems very promising.
I'd like to speak to this, because it's something I've done a lot of research on. I think the OP's original assertion that Micro-Credit programs are merely a form of imperialist domination is fallacious.
While "Outside" funding might be needed initially to start up a MCP, the most effective and sustainable programs are ones whose portfolios are refreshed by former borrowers. Repayment rates for micro-credit loans are often as high as 90%, so "outside" influence is temporary and short-lived in the cases where it exists in the first place. Additionally, the most effective MCPs are those rooted in local culture and traditions, generally established through a grassroots movement in the area (the Grameen bank seems like an exception simply because of it's massive following). When people rely and build on traditional knowledge and values, it is easier for them to go further and learn more because their knowledge base builds on a secure foundation rooted in their own identities and society. Culturally appropriate loan terms and support systems (mental health support, business management education, etc) increase program efficacy; MCPs are not just about loaning and repayment. And they are certainly not a tool of imperialist domination: they provide credit as a factor of production to financially restricted entrepreneurs in the hopes of alleviating poverty.
This can be seen in the success of the Country Women’s Association of Nigeria (COWAN) which encourages the knowledge of local technology, culture and tradition that are sustainable for economic development in combination with education, health services and leadership training. Currently, COWAN has a membership of over 178,000 women spread across 28 states and has made significant progress in providing microcredit services to rural areas.
I realize it says on wikipedia that critics suggest the poorest borrowers are the more likely to be negatively affected by taking out MC loans... but other studies have suggested the opposite (those who have less access to capital before receiving microcredit loans were more likely to seen an increase in incomes).
I didn't mean to derail... this is just a subject I am exceptionally passionate about.
Thank you for sharing your researched perspective, Chelsa. If it wasn't obvious from my post, I realize that my knowledge of the micro-lending issue is an inch deep (Newsweek, newspaper articles, Lehrer News Hour, etc.)
Yes, thank you both for your perspectives.
Of course. It`s the first time I`ve gotten to talk about it outside of uni, so I`m more than happy to blather on. :)
Mao and his 'Great Leap Forward' and 'Cultural Revolution' killed vast numbers of citizens, some intentionally, others due to starvation. Women were ordered to become 'revolutionary mothers' and produce lots of children. There bodies were not their own. The Cultural Revolution may have changes traditions, but lauding it is not a good idea when it caused the death, unfair imprisonment and beating of thousands upon thousands.
You may not like capitalism. But to laud Mao for really anything is disrespectful to the millions who died under his thumb, for crimes no great than disagreeing with him or being from a wealthy family. It is estimated that Mao killed around 20 million people; to laud Mao for 'helping women' to like lauding Hitler for 're-making Germany's political system.'
Joan
Guess we'd better stop all that lauding of our "Founding Fathers," who built the entire brilliant United States on a goddamn Native American genocide and the backs of black slaves.
(?)
Yes, we get it. Mao was bad bad bad. But, um, in case you haven't noticed, so are our own historical traditions.
Did she say something that made you feel she hadn't "noticed" America's horrific racial history?
Yeah, I gotta say, that whole time period? Not so great for women in Tibet. Even if you leave out the destruction of the convents, you have that whole "let's try to grow rice, the food of Chinese people, in Tibet, since that's also part of China". And that's just stupid. Hell, let's grow rice on the Moon. I bet that'll work well too.
Who suffers most, who goes without food during a famine? Women.
While there were parts of the NYTimes Magazine article that I loved, Kristof's work often causes me to feel conflicted. I agree that the article advances Western neo-imperialism. It does not at all address how sustainable growth might work in tandem with feminist and first-cultures aims to secure the environmental health of the planet.
Also, I am glad that he notes that women's problems are human rights problems and are central to global issues, but quotes like this make me squirm: 'If you’re reading this article, the phrase “gender discrimination' might conjure thoughts of unequal pay, underfinanced sports teams or unwanted touching from a boss. In the developing world, meanwhile, millions of women and girls are actually enslaved."
Just this morning, a man was found hung (police say likely by himself) in North America after his Playboy Playmate girlfriend's body was found so mutilated that they had to identify her by the serial numbers in her breast implants.
Several problems (women exploiting their bodies for money, surgery to make their bodies unreal and appealing to a ridiculous idea that men have of what women should look like, and a woman being mutilated beyond recognition) suggest that the deep problems of patriarchal oppression do not just count for non-U.S. women. If the lives of U.S. women are the goal for African, Chinese, Indian, or women from other countries, I'd take a double look at the aim.
One case, a case which was investigated, and an incident which everyone agrees was horrific. By contrast do you even realize what is common place in the Congo? A woman choosing of her own free will to get breast implants is in no way comparable to the horrors which go on there.
For the average citizen of the Congo or one of the many other places Kristof has written about to live with the same freedoms, rights, oppurtunities, and resources of a citizen in an OECD nation would be a spectacular achievement. To criticize that simply because the first world isn't perfect shows a tremendous lack of perspective.
Further you could make that argument against providing any technology, program, service, form of government, etc. Simply because something isn't yet perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be promoted.
Yeah, it's interesting. I haven't read much about Chinese history, but I took my students to a lecture by a social sciences professor, a Chinese woman who grew up in China, who said women did come out in droves to work under Mao, and women's value was at least symbolically recognized. And apparently people had basic state services like health care. But since China opened up to Western-style capitalism and the health care went out the window, many women have been choosing to stay home with their families again, to stay out of the workforce, because they're still paid less than men in the factories and are basically sweatshop (I'd say slave) labor. In their homes, she says, at least they feel like their time is worth something.
Also, I think the overarching theme that women's emancipation is fundamentally entangled with class/economic equality and labor issues is right on. Certainly economic oppression contributes to, parallels, and/or even serves as a model for other types of oppression, as Eric Williams argued in _Capitalism and Slavery_.