The issue of institutionalized beauty and the threat it poses towards women has long been a topic of feminist debate. This threat can be described as a power dynamic, where beauty practices allow men to control and subjugate women. Feminists have drawn upon a variety of models in order to illustrate this phenomenon, including western practices like makeup, cosmetic surgery, and high heeled shoes. Moreover, older models have been investigated in order to holistically frame this issue in a way that spans time and cultures. One model that has not escaped notice is the bound foot, whose purpose and meaning has fueled anthropological and feminist debates. I wish to similarly adopt the bound foot as a model in order to join the feminist discourse,
…show more content…
During this period, millions of young girls deliberately had their feet broken and bound, a painful process which left them crippled, severely deformed, and susceptible to dangerous infections. Anthropologists have produced a number of theories to explain the appeal and purpose of bound feet which justified the suffering they entailed. One predominant belief is that the bound foot served as a prerequisite to marriage, where it was associated with elevated status or hypergamy (marrying up the social ladder). Other theories which align more with feminist perspectives posit that feet binding served as a leash, preserving a husband’s ability to control his wife, use her as a sexual object, or ensure her faithfulness. In her book, Beauty And Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West, Feminist Sheila Jeffreys espouses both theories, first claiming that bound feet were linked to the prospect of marriage, and then further joining the argument of peers like Andrea Dworkin by quoting “Through the crippling of a woman a man “glories in her agony, he adores her deformity, he annihilates her freedom, he will have her as sex object, even if he must destroy the bones in her feet to do it.” (Jeffreys 132). Though I believe that this argument is correct, it fails to address male dominance and beauty practices
During this period, millions of young girls deliberately had their feet broken and bound, a painful process which left them crippled, severely deformed, and susceptible to dangerous infections. Anthropologists have produced a number of theories to explain the appeal and purpose of bound feet which justified the suffering they entailed. One predominant belief is that the bound foot served as a prerequisite to marriage, where it was associated with elevated status or hypergamy (marrying up the social ladder). Other theories which align more with feminist perspectives posit that feet binding served as a leash, preserving a husband’s ability to control his wife, use her as a sexual object, or ensure her faithfulness. In her book, Beauty And Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West, Feminist Sheila Jeffreys espouses both theories, first claiming that bound feet were linked to the prospect of marriage, and then further joining the argument of peers like Andrea Dworkin by quoting “Through the crippling of a woman a man “glories in her agony, he adores her deformity, he annihilates her freedom, he will have her as sex object, even if he must destroy the bones in her feet to do it.” (Jeffreys 132). Though I believe that this argument is correct, it fails to address male dominance and beauty practices