What's wrong with not invoking the spirit of "three from four virtues"?

Bright net commentator: Ding Xuan fire. In a public lecture at Jiangxi Jiujiang College, this "female moral culture research scholar" "female moral and etiquette senior expert" said, "women's clothing exposure easy to lose their virginity", "the best dowry for a girl is chastity". "The best dowry for a girl is her chastity," and so on. Out of the modern trend of affirmative action with men and women, Jiujiang College responded to the first time - "part of the PPT images are not used in our school", but the cut is not complete, the statement instead confirms the school's acquiescence, at least part of the content of the lecture rumors are true.

As for "the content of Mr. Ding Xuan's lectures published by some netizens has been taken out of context," this is not a strong defense. About Ding Xuan, there are a lot of lectures on the Internet that can be publicly accessed, and the topics include the importance of women's morality, how women can help their husbands and their families, and women's etiquette and cultivation, etc. These lectures are aimed at women. The target audience of these lectures is women, and their contents are basically contrary to women's independence and emancipation.

Feminists must not like Ding Xuan. After years of calling for women's emancipation, but not being treated well by mainstream public opinion, she has gone into the schoolyard with her three virtues and four virtues, as well as women's manners and etiquette, at her fingertips. I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about it, but I think it's a good way to get a sense of what it's like to be in the old world.

In fact, the feeling of revulsion is not only feminists, the wind of public opinion around Ding Xuan, the overall tilt of the state. This suggests that at the level of public discourse, the "Three Obediences and Four Virtues" has been swept under the rug, or at least has lost its "legitimacy" as a public statement.

But the reality is more subtle than public opinion, and although Ding Xuan has taken a lot of flak this time around, she has always been a popular guest of honor. The preview released by Jiujiang College shows that the word Ding Xuan, not only tied to the Women's United Foundation traditional culture public welfare lecturer, the executive vice president of the traditional culture research society in Hebei Province, many titles, over the years, she was also invited by the trade unions, women's federation, colleges and universities, enterprises and private organizations, and more than hundreds of voluntary lecture tours. It must be recognized that Ding Xuan is a product of the market, and female virtue is still the underground epiphany of this era.

It is not difficult to refute Ding Xuan. In modern society, we talk about rights and freedoms, and we talk about dependence, and we talk about being attached to your father before you get married, and to your husband after you get married, which is why there is such talk about "being a good husband and a good family". Ding Xuan also said that women should dress appropriately and not be too revealing. The phrase "you can't disturb me no matter what I do" can be scoffed at. In terms of theoretical struggles, there was not much room for a defender of traditional women's culture like Ding Xuan to fight. Ding Xuan's weapon lies in reality, in the remnants of the patriarchal system in modern society.

The new generation of young people will probably find it hard to believe that a man's husband should die and follow his son's footsteps in the Three Obediences and Four Virtues. However, if the social division of labor is "men on the outside and women on the inside", the number of people who agree with it will increase; if it is expanded to include the man buying a house and marrying a good husband, the number of people who take it for granted will be even higher. This is the divide between theory and reality. At a glance, women seem to have gotten rid of the traditional culture of their own curing, instrumentalization, removed the shackles, and began the road to financial freedom. But the road is still long, male power still suppresses women's emancipation, and in the economic structure and social division of labor, women, as a whole of rights, have not established their independence.

The viewer finds Ding Xuan absurd, but in essence, she is merely following the threads of the remnants of a patriarchal society back through history, looking for a historical theoretical basis to match, and thus forming a diametrically opposed direction to that of the feminists. The discomfort of the outside world is not so much about the absurdity of female moral education as demonstrated by Ding Xuan, but rather about our unwillingness to recognize Ding Xuan's existence, because her existence implies a huge gap between the theoretical **** knowledge of women's emancipation and its social practice. It's a gap that feminists have been trying to bridge for a long time, but people seem to have gotten tired of it. And the flip side of being fed up is enjoying the dividends of that gap, including women themselves.

The greater irony is that, as Ding Xuan has moved women's moral education into the university classroom, the dregs of traditional culture have, instead, crowned their way into a field that should be the most cognizant of dregs. If we link the previous university self-regulatory committees beat up couples, as well as the university set up an exposure wall to expose couples make out news, more or less a little bit of each other into an interesting flavor. The resurrection of women's virtue has been a resounding slap in the face of rights liberation. Then, who are the invokers? The answer is certainly not only Ding Xuan.