The Real Mulans

A few years ago, Disney released the animated film Mulan, which was tagged as based on the legend of Hua Mulan (presumably quite loosely and without the Eddie Murphy-voiced guardian dragon).

Hua Mulan lived in the 4^th century, in north-western China. She was the daughter of a veteran who dressed as a man to take her family’s place in the army (her father was too old, her brother too young) and she fought for many years, earning – so the legend goes – 12 ranks which she refused, and in the end she retired, ultimately dying of old age. She remained undiscovered throughout her military career, but she’s not the only Chinese soldier who happened to be a woman. In fact, one of the most famous never masqueraded as a man in the first place.

Wang Cong’er (who has been wrongly referenced as Disney’s inspiration) was a general, who led the White Lotus Rebellion against Manchu in the Qing period (18^th Century) Ultimately, the rebellion was put down, but it is worth noting she was feared by her enemies, who considered the troops she led to be the deadliest of the rebels. The fact she could lead an army without disguising herself as a man is significant – it reminds us that, like almost every other culture in history, China has a tradition of warrior women as well as the quiet, passive ones the West tends to associate with Chinese history.

Further East, Japan has a terrible reputation for historical gender imbalance. So why do you barely need to scratch the surface to find the names and stories of Empress Jingu, who ruled after her husband died in the 3^rd Century and led the successful invasion of Korea; Tomoe Gozen, a 12^th Century concubine of Minamoto no Yoshinaka, described in The Tale of the Heike as “especially beautiful, with white skin, long hair, and charming features. She was also a remarkably strong archer, and as a swordswoman she was a warrior worth a thousand, ready to confront a demon or a god, mounted or on foot. She handled unbroken horses with superb skill; she rode unscathed down perilous descents.”

But she’s not alone. There were many other onna bugeisha, or female samurai throughout Japanese history, like Nakano Takeko of the 19^th Century, who led a corps of women warriors during the Boshin War, a corps that included her sister, and who died leading a charge. And what of Hojo Masako? She lived in the late 12^th and early 13^th Centuries, and was such an astute and formidable political player in the warrior government of the time, they called her the ama-shogun, or nun-shogun. The Western ideas of the gender history of the East, it seems, are sadly out of touch with the facts. Pity, given the facts are so much more interesting.

LEADING LADIES

When you’re looking for inspiration from history, it’s often difficult to separate the facts from the embellishments. I don’t know how much it matters – after all, what matters is what we believe, the message their stories send about the limits of individual ability to change the world, and if legends grow in the telling, doesn’t it just make the next generation of heroes aim higher?

But I was looking for facts to support the hypothesis that gender roles are not as “from time immemorial” as generally assumed. This assumption pretty global, so I thought I’d start in the East.

Ng Mui (Wu Mei)  was one of the legendary Five Elders who survived the desturction of the Shaolin temple by Quing forces in ancient China. She was an abbess, and (fairly obviously) a woman and the only woman among the 5 elders. (The Shaolin temple was Buddhist, and early Budhhism promoted far more gender equality than other religions of its time. Most subsequent gender imbalances were result of local political and cultural mores. As usual) 

Wu Mei is credited with founding or co-founding about five different martial arts styles, and it’s significant that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of surprise at her existence or her legend, which says something for the equality of Buddhist precepts, and even more about the nature of humanity and cultural thought patterns.

Yim Wing Chun’s legend says that she learned to fight in order to ward off unwanted male advances. She defeated the local lord in a fight using the ‘yin’ martial techniques of the kung fu style that bears her name – which she reputedly learned from Wu Mei. While the Yin styles of martial arts are often disparaged by the more commonly known Yang styles, they’re still very effective, and in the case of Wing Chun, pretty aggressive. (Comparison being about as valid as cucumbers versus tomatoes)

The point of bringing up these two legendary women is this: it doesn’t really matter now what parts of the legend are solid historical fact and what parts have grown in the telling, because the point is the lack of shock at their existence. They are remembered because they were remarkable and exceptional as fighters and characters, not purely because they did not follow the usual female path. History doesn’t care about gender as much as talent. Yes, the reason it remembers more men than women is because it’s harder (and thus less usual) for women to stand apart from, above the throng and do something world-changing, but it does recall those who do manage that. And remembers what they achieved rather than what chromosome they had.

Casus Pax

Apparently, we all have a flight-or-fight instinct. I do not possess the flight part, so this choice is difficult for me. The trouble with only having the fight part is the risk of being constantly martial which is very limiting – if you always fight, ultimately you will lose. You will lose because there is always another battle, and constant warfare is exhausting. You will lose because you get stuck in the thought patterns battle and war and are unable to see a wider picture or alternative means to an end.

Yes, there are times when fighting back (possibly before being attacked) is the only pratical option, but militarism too often loses sight of the primary purpose of fighting. In a fight, the object is to end the fight as soon as possible. The object is to win, to stop them. Attack, much to the chagrin of the hawks in various political regimes, is supposed to be a way to stop fighting, not continue an endless attritive war. Militarism glorifies the ideals of a professional military class. It’s a useful attitude in the build-up to a war, but it is a nightmare when it comes to ending said war. If you value battle and martial prowess, if you glorify those who slaughter the enemy, you cannot also value peace and those who build common ground with the enemy.

This is part of the reason for the strong honour codes found in martial arts. In Wing Chun, which appears an aggressive technique at first, this is expressed as: “Strike when you should. Do not strike when you should not”, and “Be quick to end the fight.”

Where you have people who know how to fight, and also how to be injured in fighting (this is a distinct advantage of traditional unarmed martial arts over armed forms – you learn how to be injured while fighting very quickly, because you are sparring, not on a target range aiming at an inanimate dummy), you have people who know the value of not fighting, and of choosing when to fight.

I am all for defence under attack, and I am realistic enough to see the political and humanitarian arguments for opening a war (and fiscal… oh, just go watch The Mouse That Roared), but I am also aware these days of the bruises I have from training, and the survival value of running – if only to fight on my own ground. Because in the end, there is some truth to the idea that "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."  (Unknown)

CASUS BELLI

Libya, Egypt, Bahrain – so many rebellions, so many trembling regimes in such a small part of the world. Are we looking at (yet another) Middle Eastern war?

Nobody in their right mind likes war. Profiteers, fools, madmen – yes, absolutely. But even then, I think it’s more likely that profiteers, for instance, see war as a means to an end (profit) rather than a good thing of itself. So pacifism is good, then. Right?

Um. Doesn’t there come a point at which you must stand your ground, if only because your back is against the wall and there is nowhere left to run?

And let’s be a bit pedantic – even passive resistance is still resistance – just not violent. It is a reactive form of rebellion, not an offensive one. But don’t kid yourself – it is still rebellion. It's still a form of pushing back, by standing one’s ground.

The trouble with pacifism is that we tend to assume it’s good because it’s the opposite of warmongering. But that’s to take a very simplistic view of the issue and over-simplification is hazardous to your health.

Pacifism is wrought with moral dilemmas. If I, as a pacifist (I know, but pretend), refuse to fight back, then you will walk all over me, and anyone who looks to me for protection. Then you win, and regardless of the moral victory, for all practical purposes, shooting the dictator would have served international purposes better.

The Policy of Appeasement is a case in point – according to his own diary, Hitler was extremely nervous of Allied retaliation when his forces re-entered the demilitarised Rhineland. If the Allies had struck then, before the Third Reich was at full strength and confidence, WW2 may not have been the six years of horror it turned out to be. (I doubt it would have prevented the war entirely – Hitler’s economy was designed to result in war; Germany was smarting resentfully under the Versailles Treaty, looking to regain its national dignity. Battle of some kind was inevitable).

Now, we talk of not being doormats, being assertive and standing up for ourselves, but we simultaneously say that fighting is bad (worse – unladylike). I’m sorry -  what? I’m not advocating violence, I’m not advocating military solutions to every diplomatic problem, but you have to admit that refusing to fight or resist (as a true pacifist would) does not give you any practical advantage. And the bad guys win, and keep on winning because every victory adds to their power and with every gain in power, they can mould more of the world to suit them.

Appeasment allowed Hitler to start the war on his schedule – countering his re-entry into the Rhineland would have forced his hand, forced him to commit to his war that much sooner – too soon. According to him, he wasn’t ready. And before anyone points out that the diaries of political figures are best read by a cynic, there is and was no political or tactical advantage for Hitler to admit fear, hesitation or weakness. Like most dictators, he came to power and held power by appearing to have a definite plan, by appearing decisive, like he had the answers the people were crying out for. The admission of fear and doubt in his diary runs counter to that.

So I wonder how Gaddafi’s, Mubarak’s or King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s reads. In their countries, pacifism has wound up with its back against the wall and survival instinct has cut in – there is resistance, rebellion, however Ghandian, and now the tyrants tremble in their boots, because they know how much their rule depended on the pacifism of their people.

HONOUR CODE

It fascinates me how much of a premium warrior cultures place on respect and honour. All of them - Zulu, Spartan, Samurai - I've never found one that didn't. Sparta is perhaps the most famous Western warrior caste society about which we know a fair amount. We know how their society worked and what they believed. We like to think we know how they lived. Maybe, but do we know how they thought? A lot of what we learn today about the Spartans – and other warrior caste societies – seems to us anathema. But, like the founders of religions, the Spartans need to be understood in the context of their time.

They didn’t think the way we do – we have sufficient evidence from the plays and poems of Ancient Greece to know that. In the context of their world, exposing weak or sickly infants wasn’t cruel so much as pragmatic. Medicine wasn’t all that advanced, and diseases we’ve since eradicated were often deadly.  Slavery was just part of how the world worked.  Life was nasty, brutal and usually short.

In that context, Sparta becomes less spartan and more interesting, and it stands out among the Greek city-states by the relative freedom and power of its women. I’ve always liked that about the place, and admired their strict discipline and sense of purpose.

When I started looking into other warrior caste systems, I found a certain set of similarities between them.  In all the traditional martial societies – those in which warriors were held in esteem, for whom it was a way of life and social stratum rather than a those with a professional army such as we’re familiar with today – operated by a code. From Samurai through Sparta west to the Aztecs, the warrior castes were the nobles – the powerful, educated, cultured classes (however bloodthirsty).

Despite the apparent contradiction inherent in this, it makes sense, when you think about it. It’s the people with the bigger swords and better skills who win the war, and they then become the rulers. The ruling class has money and therefore access to education, and more leisure to pursue cultural interests. This is how conquering cultures become dominant – by beating and starving (often literally) the previous culture into submission.

Facts aside, however, we no longer understand them. We’ve lost their the world-view –empires are no longer fashionable, war is undesirable and ambition, especially for women, has become a guilty secret.  Those who want to rule the world are evil geniuses or soulless conglomerates, not role models.

The overwhelming similarity among them all is one of attitude – honour, discipline, pride in achievement, shame in failure to achieve. They judged others as they judged themselves – on deeds done, not promises made; on honest courage, not spin-doctoring.

The greatest tragedy of losing our drive to rule the world is that we’ve lost this ownership of both our achievements and our mistakes. We’ve lost our vertebrae along with our focus, and that can’t be good in the long-term.

MODERN DISCURSION

I am terrible for distracting myself from what I should be doing. Apparently I am not alone, and for the first time since the Gutenberg press was invented, mobile phone apps have overtaken books as a means of procrastination.

I thought my attention span was supposed to increase as I got older, not get shorter than a New York Second. But I seem to have lost the ability to focus on any one task, without distraction, with full absorption. It may be a product of this ever-connected, ever-informative (I use the word in its loosest sense) world.

When I watch my niece and nephews, they play with enviable single-mindedness, completely taken up in their own imaginations. I used to be like that, I sometimes still am in a movie, or reading. So why can’t I call on that ability on demand anymore?

Is it lost, or just a forgotten skill I need to revisit?

They say the secret is to create an insular environment – to deliberately cut away all distractions so you have no choice but to focus on the task in hand. A) that isn’t always possible and b) we didn’t need to do that when we were kids. Once absorbed, nothing from outside gets in.

We’ve forgotten that wonderful observation of F Scott Fitzgerald’s “that most limited of all specialists, the “well-rounded man.” This isn’t just an epigram — life is much more successfully looked at from a single window, after all.” (Great Gatsby). We’ve made ourselves multi-task, Jacks (Jills) of all trades, forgetting that a Jack of all trades is by definition master of none.

We cannot have it all, at least not simultaneously. We try and fail and then agonise over our “work-life” balance. That equation probably traces back to a generalised and somewhat creative interpretation of the old Greek saw: meden agan – Nothing in Excess, which dates back too far for accurate accreditation.

The ancient Classical world was very keen on moderation, discipline and austerity. And it’s that focus, that discipline that allowed Alexander and subsequently the Romans to conquer so much of the world. Empires are out of fashion now, and we’ve pretty much lost the discipline to focus like that (I am unsure which of those is chicken and which is egg), which view Donna Tartt echoes in 'Secret History' when her narrator talks of the modern mind as "discursive" and the classical mind as "focussed".  This is what makes Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” so outrageous to the Western mind – because the East hasn’t lost this ability, and one of the best places to learn it is through the Eastern Martial Arts (this isn’t just me. Anecdotal evidence suggests karate may be more beneficial for ADHD than Ritalin).

It also explains why China and India are the rising economies, becoming serious threats to America’s geo-economic crown.

So, to reclaim that discipline that allows us to focus in spite of distractions, it’s probably best to start small – ignore the email icon when it pops up, until you’re ready to deal with multiple emails. Ignore the phone – easy when the caller ID is someone we don’t want to speak to right now. If it’s important, they’ll either keep trying or leave a message

WOMEN BEHIND THE WHEEL

Last week, the EU decided it was time to end cheap car insurance for women. They ruled it was discrimination against men. I have to say, I’ve never understood why women automatically get cheaper car insurance. I’ve never liked the way in which my insurance premium is decided by other people’s mistakes. I don’t care what the statistics say – statistics lie. You can make them say anything you want, which is why they are an advertisers dream.

Yes, statistically, fewer accidents involve women than men. Statistically, fewer women drive than men, and they drive fewer miles. I cover a lot of miles, and I’ve been driving for many, many years. I have an advanced licence, and I haven’t (touch wood) had a serious accident for a decade. I’ve never had an accident that was in any way my fault.

Granted, I haven’t owned a car for about eight years, but I have and do own a motorbike. And my insurance on that gets ramped up because so few women ride that we don’t make into the statistics and my premium is based on what a bunch of petrol-head throttle-jockeys mess up trying to get their kicks.

I have never had a serious accident on the bike (hold tightly to wood). I am not a boy-racer or throttle-jockey and I don’t take stupid risks or ride under pressure. But try telling the insurers that. It’s improving with every year my licence stays clean and I have no claims, but it’s still ridiculous that my age automatically lumps me in with the accident-prone speed-freaks who cost insurers millions every year. And pushes my premium up.

It gets worse when you know that the accident statistics are completely erroneous, because virtually any accident involving a bike gets recorded as a KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) regardless of the actual level of injury, and usually, isn’t subsquently altered when it turns out that nobody died and the most serious injury is a cracked rib/ broken ankle. Which, again, pushes my premium up.

So, feminist though I am, I’m all for ending the automatically cheaper car insurance for women. Insurance should be based on individual driving history as well as blind, generic statistics (in my case, the claim-free car-driving years and advanced car licence should have been enough for bike insurers to get an idea of my riding style – clearly, I don’t take stupid risks, and the lack of an endorsement history on my licence should have told them what I think of paying fines), not on random criteria like gender and star-sign (I kid you not. If I was insured with them, I’d pay more because apparently, the stars say I’m a bad driver, contrary to my entire driving history).

Besides, on the road women cut me up more than men. I don’t know if they assume that, because I’m on two wheels, I must needs be a chauvinist boy-racer, or if they’re just so busy dealing with children/doing their make-up they can’t be bothered to use their mirrors for observation or their indicators as intended, but I reckon it’s half and half.