人尽可夫（All Man are husband）+A general note regarding remarriage in Traditional Chinese Culture

Phrase: 人皆可夫/人尽可夫

(Hanyu Pinyin: Ren2 Jie1 Ke3 Fu1/ Ren2 Jin4 Ke3 Fu1)

Meaning: To describe ladies who are……promiscuous.

    This is the perfect case of taking something out of the context and blown it out of proportion. If you are familiar with Ren Jie Ke Fu’s origin, you will realise that this phrase does not describe promiscuous behaviour. 

    Allow me to summarise the story behind the Chinese idiom (成语) first.  Long time ago (697 B.C to be exact), in the dukedom of Zheng (郑, it is somewhere around Henan region in China today), the Duke of Zheng was merely a puppet on the throne. The one who held true power was his chancellor Zai Zhong (祭仲). Due to fear and perhaps the desire to restore the former glory of his family, the Duke of Zheng began to plot against Zai Zhong. He even persuaded Zai Zhong’s son in law to join his cause. Soon after, Zai Zhong’s daughter found out about her husband collaboration with the Duke and their subsequence plan of assassination. Caught in between the conflict, she didn’t know what to do and who to side. She wrote a letter to her Mother asking the question: "Who is more important to a women. Is it the father or the husband? Her Mum replied as such, “My silly girl, why such question? It’s your father of course. All Men are potential spouse (人，皆可夫), but you can only have one father”. That is the first recorded version of the question “If your mum and I are drowning in the river, who do you rescue first?” Listened to her Mum’s advice, we can all assume what happen next.

    From the above origin story, you would realise that within the context Ren Jie Ke Fu only convey the message “All Men are potential spouse”. But once it is taken out of the context, we interpret the phrase on face value, which refers to promiscuous behaviour as the phrase literally mean “All Men is one’s husband”. The “potential” aspect can only be understood within the context through thorough reading of the text.

    So next time, when you do any reading and stuff, please be mindful of the context it is in. Conflicts and misunderstandings easily arise when we only take things on face value, and assume that we understand.

 

Side note: A general note regarding remarriage in Traditional Chinese Culture 

 

    Reading the above introduction to 人尽可夫, you may have realised that remarriage might be common in ancient China for "All Men are potential spouse" to make sense. This somehow contradict with the impression that widow’s remarriage is unacceptable in traditional Chinese culture. Widows who seems to be unfaithful will submit themselves to the scorns and harsh punishment set by the society. 浸猪笼, which refers to the act of placing the “adulterers”(The woman may be widow) or those who perform fornication in pig cage and drown them in a nearby river, is unfortunately one of the punishments. Generally speaking, such impressions have truth in it. However, one must understand that the notion of widow's remarriage being unacceptable is considered recent in the Chinese culture. Thus it is completely normal and ok for Zai Zhong daughter to remarry.

    Why is it considered recent? This concept is only prevalent during early modern to modern times, namely, Ming and Qing dynasty(we are now at the era of contemporary). Before that, which is like for 3000+ years of history, remarriage is the norm of the society. They even have melodramatic stories during the Wei Jin period (Around AD 300) detailing how Parents tricked their daughters into remarriage. Tricked their daughters into remarriage? Isn’t that as cruel as not allowing them to remarry. But you may want to understand, in anicent time, Man has a very low average life expectancy, especially during chaotic times. In Three Kingdom era for example, Man's average life expectancy is below 25.  Thus many women became widows at a very young age. Furthermore, woman in ancient China are not as financial independent as compared to our female counterpart today. An extra member in the family implies the increase in household's expenditure. Not to mention when the widow has kids to raise. For “for your own sake” and financial reasons, remarriage is the norm of the society as it is the most pragmatic way to maintain a living (If you are interested in the stories I have mentioned, please let me know and I will try to share it). 

    You may have argued that the government throughout most dynasties provide economic incentives like tax exemption and commendation for the widows who remains widowed. This implies that the behaviour of remaining faithful to the late husband is highly encouraged. True enough, there are policies that encouraged widows to remain faithful. But are these policies structured solely to encourage widow say no to remarriage? I will like to bring two points into your attention.

1.  Firstly, the job of the government is to take good care of its people. Financial incentives, from another point of view, can be regarded as financial assistance. As mentioned earlier, widows who refuse remarriage, by their own will, are at a huge economic disadvantage. They either have no breadwinner in the family or have to rely on their own parents or brothers ,who most likely, barely meeting their ends. In traditional Chinese culture, the state or government is like a father. A father’s duty is to take care of his kids. It is only natural for the government to provide aid for widow who remained unmarried for a period of time.
2. Secondly, widows who held true to their late husband, to the extend of sacrificing their life against all forms of persuade and extortion into remarriage is commended simply because they are commendable. If we find a man who willingly sacrifices his individual life for values he believe or stay true to his kings and lords commendable, why shouldn’t a woman who willingly stay true to her late husband be regarded as the same. Remarriage is a choice. It's mostly a forceful one, but it is not a requirement. It does however, requires great deal of self-sacrifice when one refuse remarriage due to the economic woes as mentioned earlier. Thus, commending widows who choose to remain faithful to her love is only a logical result when one commends loyal Men who hold true to their values rather than their own life and personal gains.

    How do these changes occur then, from allowing remarriage for widows to the unlawful ban on remarriage? Most scholars agree that it is the rise of Neo-Confucianism which influences this paradigm shift. Neo-Confucianism scholars greatly empathise on the moral fulfillment, where we have to get rid of our desire and do what is just and right. As Neo-Confucianism became more and more influential, what they have advocated became requirements and doctrines of the society. And thus, a widow must stay true to his late husband till the very end her life and any wants to remarriage is merely human’s desire that we have to get rid of. This paradigm shift is the very bane for Neo-Confucianism. Future scholars, together with educated Man and Woman, criticise the Neo-Confucianists as the cause of all the grievously inhumane punishment given to the poor widows. However, this is not what the Neo-Confucianists truly advocate. They speak of upholding values as an individual choice through realisation and awakening of the moral self, not as a doctrine which enforces on the others. People are encouraged and enlightened to fulfill moral obligation, not through force and social pressure. Their influence in Chinese history which results in this predicament is ironically, against what they have believed.

    Nowadays for the Chinese, remarriage is not much of a taboo anymore. However, some deformed Neo-Confucianism mentality still remains with us. Neo-Confucianist believes that all Man is born with the potential of perfectibility. “A sage is as human as we all. If a sage can do it, we can do it.” Sounds familiar, let’s do a little twit, “John from Class A can score 100 for his Maths exam. Peter from your class also score 100 for his Math. If they can do it, why can’t you do it?” Similar to the case of widow’s remarriage, words that initially meant to be encouraging later becomes the constant ghost in the banquet. Surely, we would not allow the ghost to further haunt our future generations. But to restore intentions as they meant to intent, or to rid away any trace of such supposedly old fashion autocratically demanding ideals once and for all? This is the question indeed.