明清政府不但奖励守节的女人

[kudra]

Here is the 5th paragraph from the text from Chapter 45, Huang and Stimpson, Written Standard Chinese vol 4. The title of the essay is 中国妇女的解放。

女人的丈夫死了再去嫁人， 在汉朝的时候社会上是许可的。到了唐朝， 妇女仍然有再嫁的自由。唐朝一代公主再嫁的就有二十三个之多。 只是到了宋朝， 风气渐渐改变。社会上的领导人物主张妇女守节。后来明清政府不但奖励守节的女人， 而且女人家里的人也可以从政府里得到好处； 于是这种可怕的观念就一直深入到农村里去。

Here is my translation:

After a woman’s husband died, during the Han Dynasty, she was allowed to remarry. At the time of the Tang Dynasty, women still had the freedom to remarry. The Tang Dynasty had over 23 princesses who remarried. Only with the Song Dynast did customs (ethos according to adsotrans) change little by little.

The leaders of society advocated being faithful (to a deceased husband) [守节]。 Afterwards, the Ming government not only encouraged women who continued fidelity (to a deceased husband), but also the woman’s family could gain benefits from the government; (thereupon)(this led to) this frightful concept entered directly and deeply into (rural) village (customs).

The book has the definition of 守节, as "be faithful (to a deceased husband)".

I am curious how this worked. Huang and Stimson seem to use strong language calling this a frightful custom. One view is that the govt supplied life insurance upon the death of the husband. Is their condemnation based on the point that the widow did not actually get control of that money, and instead the woman's family did? So the family had some kind of economic incentive to not have the widow remarry?

And the comment about entering into rural village customs: is the point that even if it was common among the upper classes, not until it began to pervade village customs can it be said to truely be part of Chinese culture?

Thanks for any clarification.

I am not through with the essay, so this might (or might not) clearer when I finish it.

[studentyoung]

One view is that the govt supplied life insurance upon the death of the husband. Is their condemnation based on the point that the widow did not actually get control of that money, and instead the woman's family did? So the family had some kind of economic incentive to not have the widow remarry?

I don't think governments from Song to Qing Dynasty could supply life insurance upon the death of the husband. I haven’t seen any historical books even mentioned anything in this field. Especially Song, Ming, and Qing Dynasty were suffered from 1.excessive governmental officials, 2.civil wars or foreign invasion (sometimes both), 3.corruption, 4.natural disasters. Sometimes even those who lost their sons or husbands as solders in wars could not get any compensation, so how could the governments offer life insurance to widows, especially those men died naturally or those in poor area? I haven’t heard that widow or widow’s families could get money from government in those days.

So the family had some kind of economic incentive to not have the widow remarry?

I think the incentive for the family to not have the widow remarry was the family thought remarrying was not the right thing for a faithful wife to do, which was also a well-known social common sense. If their daughter dared to remarry, that meant their daughter wasn’t a faithful woman as the society expected her to be and both the woman and her family deserved being despised by the whole society.

And the comment about entering into rural village customs: is the point that even if it was common among the upper classes, not until it began to pervade village customs can it be said to truely be part of Chinese culture?

In my opinion, this custom was also common among the upper classes and it should be counted as a part of Chinese culture.

Thanks!

[HashiriKata]

Huang and Stimson seem to use strong language calling this a frightful custom. One view is that the govt supplied life insurance upon the death of the husband. Is their condemnation based on the point that the widow did not actually get control of that money, and instead the woman's family did? So the family had some kind of economic incentive to not have the widow remarry?

I don't think so, as the above interpretation is fighteningly materialistic . "守节" is considered to be a frightful practice by the authors because it condemns the widows to a lonely life, and forces them to be "faithful" to their deceased husbands for the rest of their life regardless of any love, feelings they may have (Just imagine the widows are still in their twenties!!), .

I also think that the "好处" in the text refers largely to non-materialistic/ intangible benefits.

[夜雨叮咚6]

In the old days,贞操's concept is:a women, during all her life,is only allowed to have sex with her husband or be single and never have sex. if she remarry,have been raped or have sex with others,she would be regarded as "失贞" .

During those days, sociaty advocated women to be faithfull. Moreover, if women didn't conform to this,it was regarded as great shame by the sociaty. she would be punished,ranging from expelling her from her family to killing her .the killing ways were very cruel, too.(tie the women's hands and feet,put into a cage and throw into the river; burn her to die alive and killed her). As a saying goes :"饿死事小，失节事大". so you can imagine the cruelty! On the contrary, if a women conform to this, being lonely all her life after her husband die, her family will rise to fame, and she will be respected by the sociaty.

one true example: In qin dynasty, a women in a rich family，named 康烈女， be betrothed to a poor man. Before she truely married him, the man died. but she firmly regarded herself th be his wife and committed suicide. The man's father was a bad guy and every one looked down upon him, after ths ,he was greatly respected . It's not a love story. women in that days act only as a sacrificial lamb.

Because their thoughts were poisoned , most widows volunteered to be faithfull .she herself also regarded it as virtue.

numerous grammatical mistakes! I'm from non-english speaking country.

If you have a good command of chinese,you can get access to thishttp://zhidao.baidu.com/

and enter any question about china culture, someone will answer you