Talk:Mizuage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

The information in this article has just been corrected. I have a direct quote from a former geisha, Mineko Iwasaki, who wrote her autobiography in large part to debunk the mizuage myth. In this quote from an interview, I think she makes it pretty clear that mizuage does not involve virginity for a geisha. Here is the interview:

"Q: Talk to me about the mizuage ceremony. What is it, and why is there so much confusion about it? A: This again goes back to the separation between the pleasure quarter and the entertainment quarter. Mizuage is really a coming-of-age ceremony, and apparently there was some selling of the virginity that went on in association with that ritual ceremony in the pleasure district a long time ago. However, that has never been true for the geisha. For the geisha, it was simply when they were becoming a young woman, similar to a sweet 16 in the West, and it was symbolized by the change in hairstyle, into a more womanly, grown-up hairstyle. And also certain subtle changes in the ensembles. There are a lot of rites of passage, but for some reason this one has been really latched on by people, and maybe it’s because of this misunderstanding. Also, it is true that as with many of the rituals and rites of passage, once one has become a maiko [geisha-in-training], or a geiko, it’s very expensive, because every time you go through an entire change of kimono, for example, or of hairstyle and you need different hair ornaments, these are expensive things. For me, I was the successor to the house, the atotori, so there was no question that the money was there to provide this. But if someone is coming from the outside and training, as basically someone who is there under contract, it is expensive, and sometimes they do ask their patrons to help pay for the cost involved in making the transition. Q: But their virginity isn’t offered in exchange for that help? A: That is never on the table. There is one other potential source of confusion, and that is with the word "mizuage" itself. In the Gion, the geisha district, and in many areas of the entertainment industry, "mizuage" is also a term that directly means "gross earnings," because it’s an old fishing term; as you may know, Japan was dependent on fishing for one of its main economic bases for many years. "Mizuage" means "to take out of the water." It stood for the catch. "What was your catch?" — "How much money did you make from the water?" So when I refer to mizuage, I’m actually referring to my earnings, rather than the ceremony itself."

It is from an interview of Iwasaki by Tamara Weider in the Boston Phoenix, the url for it is http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/02473409.htm. I'm suprised nobody mentioned it before, it is one of the first Google results for "mizuage." puppies_fly 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)



Contents

[edit] Re: above

I can't see how you can dismiss Iwasaki so lightly given that her whole life she was immersed in or connected to the Geisha life and art-form. Liza Dalby, while oft-quoted and undoubtedly an interesting source is less reliable IMHO if for no other reasons than being an outsider and having less exposure. Ultimately she is a foreign novelist who has ties to another novelist (Arthur Golden) who is most famous for a controversial book in which his misrepresentation of geisha as prostitutes landed him in court. I think it's no coincidence that the western interpretation of Mizuage, in particular, is now inescapably linked to his novel despite the fact that it is so riddled with innacuries.

The bottom line I suspect is that there are strong arguments for both views. Given the extremely insular nature of Japan at the time the geisha were most numerous and the secrecy and mystery that surrounded the geisha within that culture I doubt a clear and simple consenses can be reached. It is also worth considering that geisha operated somewhat differently at different times in their history and in the different cities and regions they operated in so both views may be valid in different contexts.

This article currently presents only one viewpoint however and noticably it's the more western and sensational position. The article is therefore lacking and should be corrected.

Re: Mineko Iwasaki

Mineko Iwasaki was a maiko/geisha during the sixties and seventies, and can only relate her personal experiences. She is NOT a historian, or any sort of an expert on historical geisha, nor can her experiences be applied to the geisha who came before her. To blindly take her word, when she obviously has an agenda, over the scholarship of so many others who dedicated their lives to researching history is illogical and can only result in a biased article. What she describes may well be the modern form of mizuage, but to claim this is what has always been is ridiculous.

I noticed that she never explains what the cutting of the maiko's hair actually symbolises. Why? I would think that would be incredibly important. Not to mention that the explanation of the symbolism itself is important to the validity of this article.

In GEISHA, Liza Dalby's book, she discusses the historical mizuage openly, and relates the stories of former Geisha who actually experienced the deflowering ceremony before the anti-prostitution laws. To deny that it happened at all, aside from being a slap in the face to all the women who were forced to go through this, is blatant revisionist history and has no place here. Dalby herself felt that the experiences of these women were important enough to document, regardless of how the modern mind perceives the ceremony. What happened in the past wasn't always clean and pretty and politically correct.

Let us not forget that back in the 'old days' no one CHOSE to become geisha. Girls were either sold or born into it. They did what they had to do to survive, and pay off the massive debts that were heaped upon them by the people that purchased them. Regardless of the mizuage and danna, geisha were not prostitutes because these practices were not, at the time, considered prostitution. That our definition of prostitution has changed to put these practices into a grey area, is irrelevant. Historical people should not be judged based on modern definitions and standards of morality, but on the definitions and standards of their own times.

I think the only logical way to handle this is to discuss both the historical mizuagi and the modern practice in separate sections, and make the distinction very clear to the reader.

Furthermore, it is important to put geisha and mizuage into their proper context of the larger picture of historical Japan. For all its beauty and elegance, it was also a very brutal and oppressive society with traditions, practices, and ideologies that directly oppose the mindset of the average modern westerner. To change the history of any culture to make it more palatable today's mindset, and the fantasies of children, is downright despicable.

Kookykrisp 19:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sources

I think the reason most of the geisha community have a grudge against Golden is that he defamed them. That tends to cause animosity in most people. In Iwasaki's case his dishonesty and libel lead to death threats against her. Whether that has led her to lie in order to retaliate against him (or defend herself) I can't say but without evidence that this is the case it's wrong to assume she has. Given her reputation and his out-of-court settlement with her I personally lean towards believeing her.

wrt to the sources given : As I mentioned before I have my doubts on Liza Dalby's impartiality on this matter. The Japan Times "article" is actually a book review. I haven't read the title in question but it looks suspiciously like one of the many that came out in the years just after Memoirs trying to cash in on it's success. Immortalgeisha.com is a kind of fansite run by a enthusiastic foreigner. None of these are first-hand sources and all have very likely been influenced by Golden's novel.

Iwasaki is a first hand source and is very rare in that she has spoken publicly about a very secret lifestyle. Unfortunately that rarity makes it hard to either contradict or prove her claims but unless a source of similar credentials can be provided it is wrong to dismiss her completely while presenting the opinions of lesser sources as undisputed fact.

[edit] Addition to article

By all means add to the article, perhaps a section about Iwasaki, but I think completely diregarding the other side as false with so little to go on would be unfortunate.



[edit] Outlawed practice.

From the research that I have done into the Anti-Prostitution law of 1958, no mention is made of the practice of mizuage. I think that the author is making an illogical stretch, assuming that mizuage is a form of prostitution and therefore must have been banned along with other forms of prostitution in 1958.

[edit] Research

It's not my habit to get involved in online projects (its too close to what I do for a living), but this dispute did nothing to satisify my own curosity, so I decided to investigate somewhat. I am familiar with both the book Memoirs of a Geisha (I bought it while waiting for a delayed USAir flight shortly after the book came out), and the dispute over its fictional elements. While I am by no means fluent in Japanese, I have some limited capacity in the language, and decided to search for any Japanese-language information on mizuage as a coming-of-age ceremony. None of my 3 Japanese-English dictionaries translates mizuage into anything other than its common meanings - a catch (of fish), earnings, or the drawing of water by plants (esp. flowers). The Japanese-Japanese dictionary does specify a fourth meaning, however - specifically, having to do with the first time a geisha or prostitute attended to (touched, received) a client.

Literally (quoted from the Kojigen dictionary in an electronic handheld form): 芸者・娼妓が初めて客に接すること。

As I have probably made clear in the translation, the entry itself is somewhat ambiguous, from what I can tell. Certainly, in relation to prostitutes, one would assume that it did refer to the sale and loss of virginity, as no other interpretation would make much sense. What mizuage meant for geisha is still subject to debate - one can clearly see how the term could become misunderstood, particularly with the confusion of geisha and prostitutes. (One could also see this entailing different things for different 'geisha', as it seems unlikely that the difference between 'geisha' and 'prostitute' was always as sharp as modern geisha would have us believe. However, this would be hard (impossible?) to prove or disprove, unless Bunraku plays (or similar art that involved the 'pleasure' and 'merchant' classes) proved revealing.)

My Japanese google searches did not produce any additional information, at least not that I was able to make sense of. Certainly, the vast majority of references to mizuage were covered by the first three definitions. Perhaps someone more skilled in Japanese might be able to pull up additional details ...

I'm not going to get involved in the silly little Golden-Iwasaki fight here, other than to note that both of them have something to protect, and both of them undoubtedly have biases. It is also worth noting that sometimes their biases coincide (e.g. romanticizing the Geisha's role in society).

'chau

[edit] Danna

I have limited Japanese language knowledge, but does the word 'danna' not imply a mastership of sorts? or is this a more modern usage? Voici 12:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Danna" is also a common word for husband. MightyAtom 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

It is not our place to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth, if we do that, wikipedia will slowly be filled with inaccuracies, because sometimes we'll be wrong. Our job is to put down all the relevant facts down for both sides and explain the possible motives behind both sides down with a NPOV. If we do this, and simply document, we cannot go wrong. This acticle must be expanded to include both sides or it is a lie, or at least a misrepresentation. As far as what is TRUTH, the truth is that a geisha's vow of secrecy (does this exist?) and general misunderstanding of the japanese culture prevent us from knowing the absolute truth. As to the above comment, why would 'mastership' imply anything sexual? BDSM and the idea of sexual dominance is a highly western concept. There are plenty of cultures where you can say 'master' without sexual overtones even if the western culture isn't one of them. DamienBlack 03:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ofuku

I decided to look up what the mentioned hairstyles looked like. [1]Immortal Geisha says that the split-peach hairstyle is another name for the ofuku, in contrast to the information in this article.

209.194.12.120 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern mizuage vs. earlier times

I agree with DamienBlack above. May I suggest that one way to present the differing viewpoints is to phrase them as a possible difference between modern practices and something that happened in the earlier decades?

[edit] POV dispute

I'm always interested in settling controversies in terms of presenting both sides. By the way, the English term 'split-peach' refers to the sight of a vulva which is spread open to expose the vagina. And the "taking of her cherry" refers to getting a girl's virginity.
The question mainly focuses on whether (1) selling of virginity is chiefly a medieval practice and (2) whether the practice was ever a prerequisite for maiko (apprentices) to become geisha. I can understand the reluctance to concede this, as it does not reflect well on the Japanese (see Denial).
Let's see if we can come up with any reliable sources about this matter. --Uncle Ed 16:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources:

Q. Little Sayuri is sold into slavery by her parents. Would that actually have happened in 1929? A. Yes, and fairly often. Professional procurers, pimps if you will, scoured the countryside for pretty little girls-some as young as six or seven-and on finding one would offer a hefty sum to "buy" her from her impoverished parents.

He would then take her to Kyoto's "pleasure quarters" (the geisha district) and sell her as a maid. The geisha house registered the payment for her as a debt against her future earnings as an adult geisha. The debt also included every yen the house subsequently spent to feed, clothe, and school her. And no, her child labor as a maid earned her nothing. [2]

Geisha were traditionally trained from childhood. Geisha were common in the 18th and 19th centuries, and are still in existence today, although fewer in number. They were skilled entertainers who endured years of hard training, effectively as child slavess. First they worked as maids, and once a woman became an apprentice geisha (maiko) she would begin to learn how to dance, sing, play the shamisen (a stringed instrument similar to the banjo), and in general practice the art of being a geisha.

Geisha were not prostitutes. Although the right to take their virginity ("mizuage") was sold, they were not obliged to have sex with any customers, including the men who bought their virginity. [3]

According to Iwasaki, Golden had grossly misunderstood the rite of mizuage, which was merely a celebration of the coming of age of a geisha and not some auction of virginity, as depicted in Golden’s book. Iwasaki went on to say that when a geisha came of age, she required new and costly kimonos and hairstyles. These things may have been financed by a patron, but the geisha’s virginity was never for sale. While Iwasaki speaks with conviction, one wonders why it took her so long to object to Golden’s book. And given this, could the rite of mizuage actually be what Golden claims it is? [4]

I don't understand. What exactly is it that you want to say/ believe should be said. It would help if you detail your arguments first without throwing quotations in. John Smith's 16:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there is a question about whether (1) selling of virginity is chiefly a medieval practice and (2) whether the practice was ever a prerequisite for maiko (apprentices) to become geisha.
I would like the article to address these points, but you reverted all my changes which were related to them. Without any mention of "selling virginity", the article gives the impression that it never happened or that it was never a step in the education of geisha. --Uncle Ed 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well so far we have the comments of an actual geiko who says that it wasn't an auction of virginity - the Golden book is a piece of trash, not a historical work. So we need objective, academic/knowledgable sources that say it is/was. If not then it would be better to say something along the lines of "it was implied by [Golden's book] that blaablaa, but Mineko Iwasaki.......". John Smith's 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In reply to the person above, I would like to point out that writing novels take considerable background research. Did Golden just make it up? No. Of course not. So where did he get it from?
Seraphim Whipp 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Mineko Iwasaki - and she said he completely misrepresented what she told him. John Smith's 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely that was not all? Golden: brave or stupid? I have seen the film and read the book and I did not see geisha as prostitutes as a result. It's a matter of interpretation I think.
Seraphim Whipp 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
But the mizuage process as described in Golden's book does make it seem very much that geiko's virginity was sold - that can be seen as prostitution. John Smith's 14:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


I do believe that novels shouldn't be taken as factual evidence... but calling someone's work "trash" does not really portray the NPOV that you are obviously trying to establish. Perhaps Golden did change the mizague ceremony to fit his own needs... but we're not using the book as a source, now are we? Obviously, the book is what makes people wonder... but I also think it would be wrong to assume that Golden was trying to make geisha out to be common whores... I read the book and watched the movie, and was personally, as an ignorant young adult, surprised that geisha "weren't" prostitutes! Yes, we do need hard facts to provide a true article... but we should also not be condemning to certain people. Perhaps even, I hate to say it, Mikeo Iwasaki even changed some details... I mean, she was very angry that Golden revelaed her name. Perhaps she felt she had to say some things differently so that the death threats would stop coming. I don't know... and maybe we'll never really know. Justi521 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)