Fig 1.
Comparison of Chinese women’s bound and natural feet, circa 1902, in Guangzhou (Canton).
The woman on the left shows a bare, never-bound foot; the woman on the right shows lotus (or lily) feet, the most extreme form of bound feet, with bindings on and off. Source: [15].
Fig 2.
Older woman adjusting the bindings on a girl’s foot, 1917–1919, in Shilin, Zhejiang Province, China.
The woman, possibly the girl’s grandmother, appears to be tightening the bindings on the girl’s right foot. Note that the woman’s shoed right foot, visible next to the girl’s shoed left foot, appears to be the same size as girl’s foot. Photo by Sidney D. Gamble, used with permission. Source: [16], cf. [17].
Fig 3.
Map of Sichuan research sites in relation to macroregions and to shipping and trucking transport routes circa 1936.
Map created by the Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University (based on [24–29]).
Fig 4.
Map of Northern research sites in relation to macroregions; to shipping, trucking, and rail transport routes; and to textile mills circa 1936.
Map created by the Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University (based on [24–29]).
Fig 5.
Map of Central research sites in relation to macroregions; to shipping, trucking, and rail transport routes; and to textile mills circa 1936.
Map created by the Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University (based on [24–29]).
Fig 6.
Map of Southwestern research sites in relation to macroregions and to shipping, trucking, rail, and caravan transport routes circa 1936.
Map created by the Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University (based on [24–29]).
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of categorical variables.
Fig 7.
Percentage of Chinese women ever footbound in 11 Northern rural counties, by birth cohort (n = 568; error bars indicate the 95% CI).
Source: BBG data, women reporting on themselves and their mothers.
Fig 8.
Percentage of Chinese women ever footbound in 6 Central counties, by birth cohort (n = 780; error bars indicate the 95% CI).
Source: BBG data, women reporting on themselves and their mothers.
Fig 9.
Percentage of Chinese women ever footbound in 3 Southwestern rural counties, by birth cohort (n = 350; error bars indicate the 95% CI).
The spike in the 1920–1924 cohort is probably due to sampling error (only 12 women contributed data to this point, all of whom were footbound). Source: BBG data, women reporting on themselves and their mothers.
Fig 10.
Percentage of Chinese women ever footbound in 10 Sichuan counties, by birth cohort (n = 2489; error bars indicate the 95% CI).
Source: Sichuan data, women reporting on themselves.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics of major variables used.
Table 3.
Northern women conducting commercial and domestic handicraft production.
Table 4.
Central women conducting commercial and domestic handicraft production.
Table 5.
Southwest women conducting commercial and domestic handicraft production.
Table 6.
Sichuan women conducting commercial and domestic handicraft production.
Table 7.
Footbinding and spinning among mothers.
Table 8.
Data restrictions on the models.
Table 9.
FB-predictor model A1 (BBG dataset; data restrictions: BF1).
Table 10.
FB-predictor model A2 (Sichuan dataset; data restrictions: BF1).
Fig 11.
Fraction of women born 1887–1942 who were footbound in 20 counties in rural China by natal household wealth and commercial handicraft production (n = 5373; error bars indicate the 95% CI).
Both natal household wealth and whether a girl performed commercial handicraft labor predicted the likelihood of the girl being footbound (logistic regression, both p < 0.001 when all data were pooled). The wealth index was scored as 2 points for family ownership of land, and 1 point each for ownership of a house or draft animal ([18], Appendix B).
Table 11.
Prohibitions and unbinding (BBG dataset; data restriction: B).
Table 12.
Prohibitions and unbinding (Yunnan County 3102; data restriction: B).
Table 13.
Prohibitions and unbinding (Yunnan County 3103; data restriction: B).
Table 14.
Mothers’ FB and spinning (BBG dataset; data restriction: B).
Fig 12.
Amount of cotton spun daily by Chinese girls born 1907–1943 (n = 137), subdivided by whether they spun commercially, which was significant (multiple regression: p = 0.002) when other covariates were considered (model C1).
Boxes indicate the interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers extend to the farthest point ≤ 1.5 times the IQR. Individual points beyond the whiskers are plotted as circles. Medians are marked by the horizontal bar, and means by “+”, for direct comparison with average spinning rates Thomas Jefferson reported for enslaved girls at his Monticello and Poplar Forest plantations, indicated by the dotted line [35–37].
Table 15.
Daily-labor model C1 (BBG dataset; data restrictions: BFM1).
Table 16.
Daily-labor model C1 (BBG dataset; data restrictions: BFMx1).