Editing Foot binding (section)

=== Variations and prevalence ===
[[File:Natural vs. bound feet comparison, 1902.JPG|thumb|left|A comparison between a woman with un-bound feet (left) and a woman with bound feet in 1902]]

Foot binding was practised in various forms and its prevalence varied in different regions.<ref name="fujian"/> A less severe form in Sichuan, called "cucumber foot" ({{transliteration|zh|huángguā jiǎo}} {{lang|zh|黃瓜腳}}) due to its slender shape, folded the four toes under but did not distort the heel or taper the ankle.<ref name=wsj />{{sfn|Gates|2014|p=7}} Some working women in [[Jiangsu]] made a pretence of binding while keeping their feet natural.<ref name="blake 1">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EFI7tr9XK6EC&pg=RA1-PA327 |title=The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History |first=C. Fred |last=Blake|pages=327–329|editor= Bonnie G. Smith |publisher=Oxford University Press USA |year= 2008 |isbn=978-0-19-514890-9 }}</ref> Not all women were always bound—some women once bound remained bound throughout their lives, some were only briefly bound and some were bound until marriage.{{sfn|Gates|2014|p=20}} Foot binding was most common among women whose work involved domestic [[craft]]s and those in urban areas;<ref name="blake 1" /> it was also more common in northern China, where it was widely practised by women of all social classes, but less so in parts of southern China such as [[Guangdong]] and [[Guangxi]], where it was largely a practice of women in the provincial capitals or among the gentry.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R-a2moz_taMC&pg=PT314 |title=World History|editor1=William Duiker |editor2=Jackson Spielvoge |publisher=Wadsworth |edition= 7th Revised |page= 282 |year= 2012 |isbn= 978-1-111-83165-3}}</ref>{{sfn|Ko|2005|p=111–115}} Feet were bound to their smallest in the northern provinces of Hebei, Shandong, Shanxi and Shaanxi, but the binding was less extreme and less common in the southern provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan and Guizhou, where not all daughters of the wealthy had bound feet.{{sfn|Ko|2005|p=139}} Foot binding limited the mobility of girls, so they became engaged in handwork from childhood.<ref name="bossen brown gates" /> It is thought that the necessity for female labour in the fields owing to a longer growing season in the South and the impracticability of bound feet working in wet rice fields limited the spread of the practice in the countryside of the South.{{sfn|Shepherd|2018|p=100}} However some farming women bound their daughter's feet, but "the process began later than in elite families, and feet were bound more loosely among the poor."{{sfn|Hershatter|2018|p=15}}

Scholarly estimates of the number of women with bound feet at the height of the practice range widely, but most modern historians place the figure between 10 and 20 million. Historian John R. Shepherd, drawing on Qing dynasty and early Republican census records, argues that footbinding reached its demographic peak in the mid- to late-19th century, particularly among Han women in the central and eastern provinces.{{sfn|Shepherd|2018|p=77-78}} Based on Taiwan's 1905 census, Shepherd found that over two-thirds of Hoklo women had bound feet, while Hakka and indigenous groups had binding rates below 1 percent.{{sfn|Shepherd|2018|pp=78–81}} Laurel Bossen and Hill Gates, drawing on interviews with thousands of elderly rural Chinese women, conclude that footbinding was nearly universal among inland Han women born before 1910, although its prevalence declined rapidly after 1915.{{sfn|Bossen|Gates|2017|pp=35–42}}

The practice transcended social class, though its function varied. While gentry families bound their daughters' feet to conform to elite aesthetics and reinforce chastity, some rural households bound only one daughter's feet to improve marriage prospects while leaving others unbound for agricultural labor.{{sfn|Ko|2005|pp=96–102, 138–141}} In textile-producing areas, footbinding was often linked to a household labor strategy: bound girls were confined indoors and tasked with spinning and weaving, while unbound girls performed fieldwork.{{sfn|Bossen|Gates|2017|pp=101–110}} Scholar C. Fred Blake argued that footbinding in these contexts "appropriated" female labor by enforcing immobility within the domestic sphere.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Blake |first=C. Fred |title=Foot-Binding in Neo-Confucian China and the Appropriation of Female Labor |journal=Signs |volume=19 |issue=3 |year=1994 |pages=676–712|doi=10.1086/494917 }}</ref>

Urban–rural differences in prevalence became especially stark in the early 20th century. In port cities such as Xiamen and Shanghai, anti-footbinding societies successfully curbed the practice by the 1910s. A 1937 survey in Xiamen found that only 4.5 percent of women still had bound feet, almost all of them born before 1905.{{sfn|Turner|1997|p=403}} In contrast, rural surveys from the 1920s show lingering adherence: in villages of Hebei Province, 99.2 percent of women born before 1890 had bound feet, and as late as 1915, 60 percent of young girls were still being bound.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gamble |first=Sidney D. |title=Peking: A Social Survey |publisher=George H. Doran Company |year=1921 |pages=247–255}}</ref> These disparities suggest that urban elites abandoned footbinding first, while the practice persisted in the countryside into the 1930s.

Ethnic variation played a significant role in footbinding's distribution. Manchu women were officially prohibited from binding their feet and instead wore high-soled "flower bowl" shoes to mimic the swaying gait of bound feet.{{sfn|Shepherd|2018|pp=38–44}} Other non-Han groups, including Mongols and Tibetans, generally rejected the custom.{{sfn|Ko|2005|pp=115–118}} Nonetheless, assimilation occurred in some regions: Hui Muslim women in Gansu and Dungan communities in Central Asia retained footbinding into the 20th century, influenced by neighboring Han populations.{{sfn|Bossen|Gates|2017|pp=165–169}} In multiethnic areas, bound feet became a visible marker of Han female identity and distinction from non-Han groups.<ref>{{cite book |last=Rhoads |first=Edward J. M. |title=Manchus and Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China |publisher=University of Washington Press |year=2015}}</ref>

Recent scholarship has also challenged the notion that footbinding was solely patriarchal or aesthetic. Bossen and Gates argue that the practice was often embedded in rural household economies, where it kept girls indoors to perform textile labor critical to family income.{{sfn|Bossen|Gates|2017|pp=183–196}} Their research shows that footbinding was strongly associated with regions engaged in hand-spinning, and declined rapidly once machine-made yarn displaced home production.{{sfn|Bossen|Gates|2017|pp=200–209}} They conclude that the practice's demise stemmed not only from reformist ideology, but from material shifts in rural labor and technology.{{sfn|Bossen|Gates|2017|pp=213–220}}

[[File:Shoes for a Manchu noblewoman, China, Qing dynasty, mid 1800s AD, silk, wood - Textile Museum, George Washington University - DSC09970.JPG|thumb|upright=0.9|The Manchu "flower bowl" shoes designed to imitate bound feet, mid-1880s]]
[[Manchu people|Manchu]] women, as well as Mongol and Chinese women in the [[Eight Banners]], did not bind their feet. The most a Manchu woman might do was to wrap the feet tightly to give them a slender appearance.<ref name="manchu">{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA247|last=Elliott|first=Mark C.|title=The Manchu Way: the Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China|year=2001|publisher=Stanford University Press|location=Stanford, California|isbn=978-0-8047-3606-0|pages=246–249}}</ref> The Manchus, wanting to emulate the particular gait that bound feet necessitated, adapted their own form of platform shoes to cause them to walk in a similar swaying manner. These [[Manchu platform shoes]] were known as "flower bowl" shoes ({{Lang-zh|c=花盆鞋|p=Huāpénxié}}) or "horse-hoof" shoes ({{Lang-zh|c=馬蹄鞋|p=Mǎtíxié}}); they have a platform generally made of wood {{convert|2|–|6|in|cm|sp=us|order=flip|sigfig=1|abbr=on}} in height and fitted to the middle of the sole, or they have a small central tapered pedestal. Many [[Han Chinese]] in the Inner City of Beijing did not bind their feet either, and it was reported in the mid-1800s that around 50–60% of non-banner women had unbound feet. Han immigrant women to the Northeast came under Manchu influence and abandoned foot binding.{{sfn|Shepherd|2018|pp=144–163}} Bound feet nevertheless became a significant differentiating marker between Han women and Manchu or other banner women.<ref name="manchu" />

The [[Hakka people]] were unusual among Han Chinese in not practising foot binding.<ref>Lawrence Davis, Edward (2005). [https://books.google.com/books?id=2rLBvrlKI7QC&pg=PA333 ''Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture''], [[Routledge]], p. 333.</ref>{{sfn|Shepherd|2018|pp=43–44, 89–95}}  Most non-Han Chinese people, such as the Manchus, Mongols and Tibetans, did not bind their feet. Some non-Han ethnic groups did. Foot binding was practised by the [[Hui people|Hui Muslims]] in [[Gansu]] Province.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eEwTAAAAYAAJ&q=dungan+foot+binding&pg=PA893|title=Encyclopædia of religion and ethics |volume=8 |first1=James |last1=Hastings |first2=John Alexander |last2=Selbie |first3=Louis Herbert |last3=Gray |year=1916|publisher=T. & T. Clark|location=Edinburgh|page= 893|isbn=9780567065094|access-date=January 1, 2011}} Original from Harvard University</ref> The [[Dungan people|Dungan Muslims]], descendants of Hui from northwestern China who fled to central Asia, were also practising foot binding up to 1948.<ref>{{cite book| author = Touraj Atabaki, Sanjyot Mehendale|author2=Sanjyot Mehendale| title = Central Asia and the Caucasus: transnationalism and diaspora| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=OWMyFWAZLCwC| access-date = January 1, 2011| year = 2005| publisher = Psychology Press| isbn = 978-0-415-33260-6| page = 31 }}</ref> In southern China, in Canton ([[Guangzhou]]), 19th-century Scottish scholar [[James Legge]] noted a mosque that had a placard denouncing foot binding, saying Islam did not allow it since it constituted violating the creation of God.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/religionsofchina00legg|quote=mohammedan.|title=The religions of China: Confucianism and Tâoism described and compared with Christianity|author=James Legge|year=1880|publisher=Hodder and Stoughton|location=London|page=[https://archive.org/details/religionsofchina00legg/page/111 111]|access-date=June 28, 2010}} (Original from Harvard University)</ref><!-- Implying that they bound their feet? -->