A look-back into the series of writings published by a young Mao Zedong in 1919, that are still considered way ahead of its time even today.
Ifaz Ali Khan & The Sea Drop Mag Team
May 18, 2026 | Issue 1
"Women hold half the sky" ~ Comrade Mao Zedong
Illustration of Mao Zedong in three ages of himself.
Mao Zedong (1893 - 1976) was a revolutionary, writer, political theorist and communist activist from CPC (Communist Party of China). He was among the founders of CPC and eventually founded the People's Republic of China in 1949. His progressive leftist ideals helped build the modern republic of China, including paving the way for empowerment and emancipation of women.
After coming to power as China's paramount leader in 1949, he quickly banned "foot binding", concubinage and enslavement of women, forced marriages, dowry and other acts of crimes against women. He allowed women to equally participate in every sectors, helping them grow an equal presence in society, politics, education and employment.
A Chinese Golden Lily Foot, Lai Afong, c1870s. Photo by Roland Belgrave Vintage Photography, Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. Details : A Chinese woman showing her bound feet.
Consequence of Foot Binding, a survivor woman showing her severely deformed legs. Photo Source : Zhihu
However, Mao's ideals in favor of women empowerment didn't appear out of nowhere. It was the result of his involvement in battle for women's rights in his youth. On November 14, 1919, a 22 years old girl by the name of Zhao Wuzhen commits suicide in Changsha, Hunan. She was forced by her parents to marry someone she didn't want, and eventually she took her life with a razor/dagger. The case became a hot topic among educated youth, and a young Mao writing for Changsha's Dagongbao (also known as Ta Kung Pao) newspaper fiercely criticized the culture of forced marriage, through a series of commentaries and articles.
His articles and commentaries have been provided in English translation here, while keeping his revolutionary tone intact. He offered a sharp, early-20th-century critique of traditional Chinese marriage customs, with a wonderfully sarcastic and passionate voice. Some of these writings are still considered way ahead of its time, due to the progressive nature of his thoughts and opinions. Even today, his writings remain relevant for many societies around the world.
November 16, 1919
A person’s suicide is entirely determined by their environment. Was Miss Zhao’s original intent to seek death? No, it was to seek life. If Miss Zhao ended up dead, it was because her environment forced her to seek death.
Miss Zhao’s environment consisted of:
Chinese Society
The Zhao Family of Nanyang Street
The Wu Family of Ganzi Yuan (the family she did not wish to marry).
These three things formed a triangular iron net. Imagine this triangular arrangement: Miss Zhao was caught within this iron net, and no matter how she sought a way to live, there was no way to live. The opposite of life is death, and so, Miss Zhao died.
If even one of these three factors had not been part of that iron net—or if the net had been open—Miss Zhao would certainly not have died.
First: If Miss Zhao’s parents had not been so forceful, and had instead followed Miss Zhao’s own free will, she would never have died.
Second: If her parents and the groom’s family had allowed her to explain her reasons for refusing, and if the groom’s family had respected her individual freedom and accepted her choice, she would never have died.
Third: Even if her parents and the groom’s family could not tolerate her will, if there had been a powerful force of Public Opinion in society to serve as her backup—if there were a 'New World' that could have sheltered her and recognized her escape as an act of honor rather than a disgrace—Miss Zhao would never have died.
As it stands today, Miss Zhao is dead because all three sides of this iron net (Society, the Natal Family, and the Marital Family) tightened around her, making life impossible and driving her to seek death."
Last year in Tokyo, Japan, an incident occurred where a Countess and a chauffeur committed suicide together after their love was discovered. The Tokyo newspapers issued special editions, and many scholars and literati discussed the matter for months on end.
The incident of yesterday [the suicide of Miss Zhao] is a massive event. Behind this event lies the corruption of the marriage system, the darkness of the social system, the inability of the mind to be independent, and the denial of the freedom to love.
When we discuss various academic theories, we should discuss them in light of living, breathing events. Gentlemen Tianlai and Jiangong [other writers of the time] have already provided the opening arguments, and I now offer my own views to follow theirs. I hope that those who are passionate about this debate—on behalf of this young woman who died for freedom and for love—will cry out from every possible angle: 'Yuanwang !' ('Injustice !')
2) The Question of Miss Zhao's Personality
November 18, 1919
Someone asked me: Did Miss Zhao have a 'personality' (personhood)? I have two answers: One is that Miss Zhao had no personality. The other is that Miss Zhao did have a personality.
Why do I say she had no personality? If she had personality, she would not be dead. Why? Personhood is something that arises from mutual respect. Its prerequisite is freedom of will. Did Miss Zhao have freedom of will? She did not. Why not? Because she had parents.
In the West, a person’s parents do not interfere with the free will of their children. In Western family structures, parents recognize that children have their own free will. China is not like this. Here, the parents' commands and the children's will are completely incompatible.
The parents of the Zhao family clearly forced their daughter to love someone she did not want to love. What freedom of will is there in that? To say 'you don't want to love him, but I force you to love him'—this is a form of rape. I call this 'direct rape.' Forcing a daughter to marry someone she does not love—this is also a form of rape. I call this 'indirect rape.' Chinese parents are constantly 'indirectly raping' their own children.
This is the inevitable conclusion under the Chinese family system (Patriarchy) and marriage system (the policy of 'parents deciding for children'). For Miss Zhao to have had a personality, she would have needed free will; for her to have had free will, her parents would have had to respect and permit it. If her parents had respected her, would she have ever stepped into that cage-like bridal sedan chair and committed suicide? No.
So, my answer is: (1) Miss Zhao had no personality.
Then why do I say she did have a personality? This refers to Miss Zhao’s actual self. Miss Zhao lived for twenty-one years in a family that did not allow her to have personhood. Her parents spent twenty-one years denying her that right. But in the very last moment of those twenty-one years, her personality suddenly flared into existence.
Alas! Alas! Give me liberty or give me death. Upon that snow-bright blade, stained with her strange, red blood, the Ganzi Yuan [the groom's home] and Nanyang Street were instantly transformed into a solemn, sacred battlefield. Miss Zhao’s personality surged forth in that moment, shining with a light that reached ten thousand feet !
So, my answer is: (2) Miss Zhao had a personality.
Therefore, my conscience compels me to say two final things:
All parents in the world who are like Miss Zhao's parents should be thrown into prison.
I lead the people of the world in a great shout: 'Long live Miss Zhao!'
3) Advice to Young Men and Women Regarding the Marriage Question
November 19, 1919
Here, I quote my colleague Mr.Jiangong : "Chinese people are not all deaf and blind; they must have a shred of conscience. There should be a thorough awakening: stop interfering in the marriages of your children. Only then will this woman’s death [Miss Zhao] have been worth it... we must not fail her, and we must not let her life be thrown away in vain."
Mr. Jiangong’s words have said half of it. But there is another half that has not been said. I add this:
Young men and women of all China! You are not deaf and blind! Seeing this tragedy of 'blood spilled in the city of Changsha', your hearts should be shaken and you should have a thorough awakening. Your own marriages should be handled by yourselves. The policy of parents acting as agents should be absolutely rejected. Love is sacred ! It absolutely cannot be handled by agents, cannot be coerced, and cannot be lured by profit ! We must not fail her, and we must not let her life be thrown away in vain.
What do you readers think of this ?
4) The Question of Reforming the Marriage System
November 19, 1919
Yesterday, I discussed a passage from Mr. Jiangong’s article 'The Sacrifice of Reforming the Marriage System,' and added a section of my own to make a proper argument on behalf of young men and women.
What I want to say today is this: since we have raised the issue of 'Reforming the Marriage System,' we must now conduct a thorough investigation into 'How the marriage system should be reformed.' I earnestly hope that you, the young men and women of this generation, will find a resolution to this problem. If anyone submits an essay regarding a solution to this newspaper, we [the Dagongbao] will, of course, be extremely welcoming.
Articles and commentaries by Mao Zedong in Dagongbao newspaper
5) The Question of Women's Independence
November 21, 1919
[The Root of Injustice]
Regarding the suicide of Miss Zhao, there have been many commentators in Japan. I, too, have offered brief critiques published in the Dagongbao of this city. This is a public event for humanity; setting aside extreme individualism and celibacy, everyone should pay attention and study it.
In our country, regarding the status of women, one must pay special attention. Because of thousands of years of improper ritual customs (social norms), women have no position in any aspect. From politics, law, and education, to profession, social interaction, entertainment, and title—they are kept entirely separate from men, relegated to the dark corners of society. Beyond being denied happiness, they endure many inhuman cruelties.
[The Myth of Female Weakness]
Let us consider: why have women been bullied by men for thousands of years without being able to stand up? Regarding this point, we must ask: what is the fundamental flaw in women?
On the surface, it seems women’s knowledge is lower than men’s, their will is weaker, and they are overly emotional—leading to a decline in wisdom. It is said this is where their psychology falls short of men's. Furthermore, their bodies are supposedly weaker; add to this the pain of foot-binding, which makes walking difficult. People claim these are physiological flaws.
In truth, none of these are fundamental flaws. Generally speaking, the psychological workings of women and men are not far apart. Education across all nations has proven that, without the distinction of sex, achievements are equal. As for physical weakness, that is a matter of habit and lack of exercise. Foot-binding was not an ancient custom; it is not enough to be called a fundamental physiological flaw. The only true fundamental physiological difference is the issue of childbirth.
[The Economic Trap]
According to modern views, the relationship between men and women should have "Love" as its center. Beyond love, it cannot be dominated by "economics." The modern claim is: "Economic independence for each, and a communal life of love."
In the past, it was not so. People did not understand the principle that "Love is Sacred." Between men and women, love was merely an appendage; the central relationship was economic—dominated by capitalism. In the ancient world, when food was abundant, men and women were in an equal position. But later, as population increased and food became scarce, life became a competition. One had no choice but to focus on labor. At this point, the era of women being conquered by men truly began.
[The Strategy for Liberation]
Women perform physical labor no less than men, yet they cannot work during the period of childbirth. Men took advantage of this weak point, using "submission" as the exchange condition for "food." This is the primary reason why women were suppressed and unable to stand up.
Since I have discussed the "Reason," I can now speak on the "Method." The methods for women to achieve independence and no longer suffer oppression from men are roughly as follows:
Women must absolutely not marry before their bodies are fully grown.
Before marriage, women must prepare themselves with enough knowledge and skills to live independently.
Women must prepare their own living expenses for the period following childbirth.
These three points are the basic conditions for a woman’s personal independence. Furthermore, there is a condition that society must pay great attention to: If society provides facilities for the public rearing of children (Children's Communes), then a couple's relationship with love as the center can be established. This is where the efforts of our young men and women must lie !
6) "The Myriad Evils of Society” and Miss Zhao
November 21, 1919
[The Source of Evil]
My friend Mr. Gu Bai published his argument the day before yesterday, criticizing my piece 'A Critique of Miss Zhao’s Suicide.' He said I was merely attributing everything to the 'environment' and relaxing the focus on Miss Zhao herself. He argued: 'Miss Zhao’s act was a weak and passive one. Such acts should absolutely not be encouraged.'
I fully agree with Mr. Gu Bai’s call for active, positive struggle. When I planned my critique of Miss Zhao’s suicide, I originally intended to divide it into several sections, one of which was titled 'Non-Suicide.' So, Mr. Gu Bai’s stance and mine are essentially consistent.
However, I cannot let 'society' off the hook. Miss Zhao’s act of suicide—even if you call it weak—cannot be said to have happened 'without cause.' If society contains the 'cause' that makes a Miss Zhao die, then that society is a proactively dangerous thing. It can make a Miss Zhao die; it can make a Miss Qian, a Miss Sun, or a Miss Li die. It can make 'women' die, and it can make 'men' die. We who are still living cannot fail to guard against this dangerous thing... we cannot but shout at the top of our lungs: 'Society is myriad evils!'
I say there were three sides that forced Miss Zhao to her death: her natal family, her husband's family, and society. Ultimately, both families are contained within society. We must understand that while the families possess evil, the source of that evil remains in society.
[The "Extreme Isolation" of Women]
"Someone might ask: Why didn't Miss Zhao just flee? Why was fleeing impossible? I will answer today by listing a few questions:
In Changsha city, there are over forty Western-goods stalls; in my home of Shaoshan, within thirty li [distance measurement unit in traditional Han Chinese], there are seven or eight general stores. Why is this?
Why are there public toilets for men in Changsha, but none for women?
Why do you never see a woman entering a barbershop?
Why do you never see a woman living alone in a hotel?
Why do you never see a woman going into a teahouse to drink tea?
Why, in the silk shops and general stores, do you only see men serving customers, and never women?
Why are all the rickshaw pullers in the city men?
Why, at the First Normal School at South Gate, are there no female students? At the First Normal School in Gudaohe, why are there no male students?
If someone can answer these questions, they will know why Miss Zhao could not flee. The answer is just one phrase: 'The extreme isolation of men and women.' Society has no place for a woman. In a society that allows no place for a woman, if Miss Zhao wanted to flee, where could she have gone?
[The Result of Rebellion]
If we say there are examples of fleeing in the world, I would say yes. Let me cite another: In my home of Shaoshan, there was a woman named Mao who was intelligent and beautiful. She was married to a man named Zhong who was extremely ugly. She was unwilling, and eventually abandoned her husband to run away with the son of a neighbor named Li to pursue free love.
You might think this is wonderful. But listen: Within two days, they were surrounded by laborers and reported to his family. The family sent people to seize them. They didn't just seize them; they brought them home, gave them a massive, cruel beating, and locked them in a storage room—forcing them back into that 'extremely proper' husband-and-wife relationship.
That wasn't all. One person said: 'Beating her is good; she’s shameless.' Another said: 'Why wait to beat her? When a family produces such a woman, it’s an ugly death for the whole clan!'
This Ms. Mao was a practitioner of 'active struggle'; she fought against the devil despite the danger. But what result did she get? I see only three things: Seizure, Beating, and Cursing. From this, we can see: How could Miss Zhao not commit suicide? Oh, Miss Zhao! Oh, the myriad evils of society!"
7) Non-Suicide
November 23, 1919
Regarding the death of Miss Zhao, I have blamed the "environment" for forcing it to happen, but I have not yet discussed the act of "suicide" itself. Regarding the act of suicide, from ancient times to the present, East and West, I do not know how many ethicists have argued over it. Some praise suicide, others reject it; their starting points lie entirely in their "outlook on life"—in how that person interprets the meaning of existence. Regarding suicide, I adopt an attitude of rejection, which I will explain in several layers.
[I. The Scientific and Ethical Rejection]
Ethics: Ethics is the science of defining the goals of human life and the methods to achieve them. Except for a few pessimistic philosophers, most argue that the goal of humanity is "Living." Friedrich Paulsen said: "The human physical and spiritual powers should both develop to the highest position without a shred of regret." I find his words the most practical guide for life’s purpose. Suicide, as a method, can never achieve this goal. It is not just a failure to develop one's powers; it is the active opposition to one's own physical and spiritual potential. This is an easily understood truth.
Psychology: We have no experience in suicide, so we cannot judge definitively. However, the psychology of ordinary living people rejects the concept of "death" and welcomes "life." If the vast majority welcome life, those few who welcome death must be considered exceptions—a type of psychological abnormality.
Physiology: A body is composed of cells. A person's total life is the union of the lives of these cells. The natural state of cells is to continue forward until death by old age. Suicide is a revolt against this physiological natural state.
Biology: In the biological world, suicide is rare. While there are stories of "loyal dogs" dying for their masters, it is not common. The norm is to find joy in living and to strive for survival against all odds.
Therefore, suicide has no place in ethics, psychology, physiology, or biology. This is why the laws of all nations forbid it.
[II. Why Does Suicide Happen?]
If it is so unnatural, why is it common? Why do we respect "heroic" suicides and say "he died well"? My answers are:
Suicide is actually a "Desperate Cry for Life": Before the psychological impulse to die occurs, there is an exceptionally intense desire to live. If the environment is poorly handled and causes all hopes to fail, they turn into total despair. The motive for suicide is not seeking death, but a violent seeking of life. Society causes suicide by stripping away a person's "hope" and giving them "complete despair." If society strips hope from an individual (like Miss Zhao) or a group (like the 500 martyrs of Tian Heng), they will inevitably commit suicide.
Why we respect it: We respect heroic suicide because the person does what others dare not do (showing a spirit stronger than ours), and because it represents a spirit of resistance against powerful authority. Even though their body dies, their will is extended (or we feel it is), and the power that oppressed them cannot have its way.
[III. The "Non-Suicide" Manifesto]
Since our goal is "living," we should not seek death. Therefore: Non-Suicide.
Since society strips away hope, we should insist on struggling with society to seize back that hope. To die while struggling is to be "Killed," not to "commit suicide." Therefore: Non-Suicide.
We do not respect "suicide" itself; we respect the "resistance against power." We should seek that resistance through struggle, not through the cruelty of self-destruction. Therefore: Non-Suicide.
[IV. Conclusion on Miss Zhao]
Miss Zhao's methods of dealing with her situation were four-fold:
Life with Personhood: (Requires creating a new society, which she was not prepared for).
Struggle and be Killed: (The most courageous path).
Suicide: (An abnormality of nature).
Submission: (No place for personhood or free will).
She chose suicide to preserve her personhood. While I admire her courage to resist, suicide has no place in the natural laws of life. To die in battle (struggle) is better than to die by one's own hand.
My conclusion for Miss Zhao is: "Her suicide has only 'relative' value in the preservation of her personhood."
8) The Marriage Question: Young People vs. Older People — Breaking the Policy of Parents acting as Agents
November 25, 1919
[The Biological Conflict]
I often feel that older people always stand in opposition to young people on a variety of matters. From daily life—like eating and dressing—to feelings about society and the nation, to attitudes toward the world and humanity, the elderly are always desolate, dry, retreating, and static. Their insights are lowly, and their proposals are always passive.
I believe the only reason the young and old can still live together is largely due to "interest relationships." The old rely on the young to provide food and clothing; the young rely on the old to provide experience and knowledge. While this might be "extreme talk," it is because our country's systems and customs are so poor that this strange phenomenon exists.
Life for the old and the young is fundamentally different. This truth is built upon physiology and psychology. Human life is the satisfaction of physiological and psychological desires. Desires differ by sex, occupation, and belief, but the difference based on age is the most significant. This has already been proven by scholars of both the East and West.
[The Two Fundamental Desires]
Among our many desires, "Eating" and "Sex" are the fundamental ones. The former maintains the "Present"; the latter develops the "Future." While the appetite for food does not change absolutely with age, the sexual desire (libido) definitely does.
The expression of the sexual desire, broadly speaking, is Love. Young people take the question of love very seriously, while "old fogies" view it as something not worth bothering about.
[Marriage as Slavery]
Originally, the husband-wife relationship should have Love as its center, with all other matters being secondary. In China, however, this question is tossed aside. When I was a child, I saw many people holding wedding ceremonies and I asked them what they were doing. They all said: "A person takes a wife in order to boil the tea, cook the rice, feed the pigs, chase the dogs, spin the yarn, and weave the cloth."
I asked: "Why not just hire a worker? It would be much simpler." Later, I heard people say marriage was for "carrying on the lineage," but I remained confused. Even now, looking at marriage in our society, one cannot find a single shadow of Love.
Since society does not value Love, marriage—beyond slave work like cooking—becomes nothing more than a low-level physical life. (True sexual desire/Love includes not just physical satisfaction, but noble spiritual and social satisfaction). Slave work like cooking and cleaning is the result of Capitalism.
[The Capitalist Old Fogy]
Because older people no longer care about Love, they only pay attention to the "Eating" aspect. When a father wants his son to marry, he says he is "taking a daughter-in-law." His goal in taking a daughter-in-law is to have her perform slave labor for him.
The Book of Rites says: "Even if a son loves his wife, if the parents are displeased, the son must not love her." This is ironclad proof that they discard the Love of the couple and focus solely on the woman as a slave. When a father marries off his daughter, he doesn't say he is "choosing a husband for his daughter," but rather "choosing a fine son-in-law for himself." By "fine," he means a man who pleases him; whether the daughter is pleased is never asked. Some even demand high dowries, thinking only of their own "Eating."
In short:
Capitalism and Love stand in opposition.
Old Fogies and Love stand in opposition.
Old Fogies and Capitalism are deeply and firmly bound together.
The only true friend of Love is the Young Person.
[The Conclusion]
I have searched for a basis in physiology and psychology to prove that parents absolutely cannot interfere in the marriage of their children. On the children's side, they should absolutely reject parental interference. This must be done so that "Capitalist Marriage" can be abolished, and "Love-Centered Marriage" can be established. Only then can couples who truly possess the happiness of love emerge.
9) Abolish the Matchmaker System
November 27, 1919
Speaking of the 'matchmaker,' this thing is another great piece of performance art in Chinese society. There are many such performances in Chinese society — things like the Eight-Legged Essay, the imperial examinations, bandits, and bureaucrats — all of them are nothing but performances. Also, exorcism rituals, Daoist ceremonies, dragon lantern dances, lion dances, even doctors seeing patients, teachers giving lessons, and men and women marrying — all are performances. Chinese society of this kind can truly be called a 'performance society.' Within the performance of marriage, issues concerning men and women give rise to many smaller 'performances', such as adultery with a father's concubine or daughter-in-law, seducing a brother's wife, keeping a lover, fighting over affection, wearing a 'green turban' (cuckoldry), using a honeytrap, and so on. But above these small performances within marriage, the one that can be called a 'great performance' without any shame is the all-powerful, many-armed, vastly capable 'matchmaker.'
Chinese matchmakers have the following peculiar characteristics:
They take 'successfully bringing a pair together' as their fundamental principle.
In at least eighty percent of marriages, lies are involved.
They use 'deities' and 'birth chart compatibility' as their protective charms.
People say that parents hold the real power in Chinese marriages, but in fact, although parents have the nominal authority, they lack actual decision-making power. The one who truly holds the power of decision is the matchmaker. In China, everyone is qualified to be a matchmaker, and people treat it almost as a duty. Whenever someone has a son seeking a wife or a daughter to be married, anyone around them can take up the matter. Such a matchmaker's first principle is 'successfully bringing the pair together.' He lobbies on both sides, fixated on 'success,' yet his words and arguments claim that he is leaving everything to the voluntary consent of both families. But in reality, after his repeated cajoling, even parents with 'iron ears' are softened. I have seen many matchmakers, and in eighty or ninety percent of cases, they succeed. They believe that if they fail to arrange the match, it is their fault, and if they succeed, turning two unrelated families into relatives, it is a great merit. Under this principle of pulling together, one indispensable thing is 'lying.' Since the two families are not in contact with each other, they know nothing of each other's actual circumstances — the daughter, secluded in her inner chamber, is even harder to observe. So the matchmaker begins to speak at random, fabricating words to make both parents feel pleased. Once the marriage contract is signed, the match is sealed. That is why, after marriage, it is often like 'a donkey's lips not matching a horse's mouth.' The recent matchmaking of Miss Zhao and Wu Wu by Granny She Si is a good example of such lying. Some even go so far as to swap the groom or change the bride — this becomes a 'contradiction in terms,' far beyond 'slight lying.' Since matchmakers only care about 'pulling together' and their 'white lies fill the sky' (country folk call lying 'talking white lies'), marriages where 'donkey lips don't match horse's mouths' nearly fill Chinese society from end to end. Yet why is it that neither the man's nor the woman's family ever pick a quarrel with the matchmaker? Why are lawsuits against 'Old Man Under the Moon' (the god of marriage) so rare? Instead, he remains free and at ease, handsomely paid in ceremonial gifts. Why is that? It is because 'deities' and 'birth chart compatibility' bestow this blessing, shifting the blame to the unseen realm. Not only do parents routinely not blame the matchmaker, but even the children can only lament their own past-life misfortunes — the mistake is already made, so they simply let the error stand. This is a major obstacle to proper marriage, which I have already discussed painfully in a previous issue of this newspaper.
Since matchmakers are this harmful, if we wish to improve marriage in the future, we must urgently break the matchmaker system. Words like 'matchmaker' and 'Old Man Under the Moon' must be deleted entirely from the Chinese dictionary. The formation of a new-style marriage only requires the mutual understanding of the man and woman. When their affection runs deep, they are free to unite of their own accord. If they wish to make it publicly known so that friends and relatives are informed, it is best to publish a notice in the newspaper, stating that we wish to become husband and wife, with the wedding date on such-and-such a day — that is sufficient. Otherwise, they may register at a government office, or in the countryside, sign up at the local self-government bureau — that is enough. Things like matchmakers should be cast out beyond the nine heavens and never bothered with again. If, due to rural customs that have not yet opened up, it is difficult to eliminate matchmakers all at once, then at the very least, men and women should see each other in person, to prevent the causes of lying. If a marriage is mismatched, the matchmaker should be held accountable — they must bear responsibility. I have often traced the origin of the matchmaker system to the excessive separation between men and women. Therefore, to abolish the matchmaker system, first and foremost, we must thoroughly dismantle this so-called 'great defense' between the sexes. In recent days, gentlemen such as Xincheng, Yuying, Borong, and Xitang have already explained this in detail, so there is no need for me to gild the lily.
毛泽东早期文稿, pp. 376 - 400