Feminism: An Organic or an Extremist Position? On Tien Yee As Represented by He Zhen

It is not strange that the name of He Zhen is little known outside the very small group of researchers specializing in modern and near-modern history.¹ He Zhen, who lived in a time of "chaos," a time when Chinese society was entering modernity and when all kinds of historical characters teemed, did not emerge until the establishment of the journal Tien Yee [Natural justice] in Tokyo in 1907. But the life of the journal was less than a year. Later He Zhen sank low to become a "woman spy" for the Manchu Qing government, and still later she lived in seclusion for many years and eventually died of madness and cloistering. Today the only reliable source available for us to look for historical traces of this woman He Zhen is the text of Tien Yee.

Instead of perusing the many enlightenment texts about female rights (nüquan) written by male authors and constructed in the discourse of the nation-state, let us reexamine carefully the articles authored by He Zhen and the journal Tien Yee edited by her. I am surprised by her originality, clear-mindedness, and sharpness, which were rather rare among the few "new women" then and which place her beyond comparison with those men who enthusiastically propagated "female rights." He Zhen's voice is unique.

Tien Yee: Anarchism or Feminism?

Although Tien Yee is considered by latecomers as China's first anarchist journal, and He Zhen, Liu Shipei, and others did publish a number of articles and viewpoints propagating anarchism, I have to say that anarchism did not seem to be its original focus, let alone the only ism that it supported. It is noteworthy that its publication announcement stated that Tien Yee was the institutional journal of the Society for the Restoration of Women's Rights (Nüzi Fuquan Hui). More than half of the text of the announcement was concerned with the "women problem" in history and in reality.

When we talk about "revolution" today, we only define it in the economic sphere, not knowing that among all the class relationships in the world, the distinction between men and women is the strictest and most fundamental.² The East certainly has the custom of valuing men over women, but even in the West, where supposedly men and women are equal, women still have no rights to become government officials and to participate in politics, and the rights accorded to women cannot be compared with those enjoyed by lowest-class men. Take another look at China: men can have multiple wives, but women cannot have multiple husbands; men can remarry, but not women. A widow must mourn her dead husband for three years by wearing the highest-degree mourning dress, but a widower has to mourn his dead wife for one year by wearing the secondary mourning dress. In funeral and sacrifice rituals, the order is men before women. Even in an open-minded family, a married daughter takes her husband's home to be her own home and her natal home to be the home of others. Her children must inherit the father's name. How can this be called justice and equality? Men and women are so unequal institutionally that it is extremely difficult to abolish the class relationship in the existing society! Therefore, abolishing the existing class relationship will have to begin from abolishing the existing relationship between men and women. Both men and women should be given equal access to education and other equal rights so women will not be inferior to men and men cannot impose their will upon women. How men treat women should be how women treat men. If there are women made inferior to men or men oppress women, then women should all rise up to resist until men and women are equal again...