小靁léi：在名字里重写女性与土地 和权力的关系 Xiao Lei (靁): Rewriting the Relationship Between Women, Land, and Power Through a Name

我是小靁，是一名女性主义内容创作者，从女性视角切入社会、文化与日常生活，探讨父权结构、身体叙事与女性主体性。希望能用自己的内容，搭建一个可以共情、思考、彼此支撑的小空间，与大家一起看见女性，也看见自己。

抖音账号：alailei21260

1.  先从账号名「小靁léi」聊起，这个名字有什么寓意？

其实是因为我的朋友们经常叫我“小雷”，我觉得这个叫法很亲切，所以就直接用作网名。但是直接起“小雷”又显得太普通了，没什么辨识度，我就想到用雷的异体字“靁”，反正读音和含义都和“雷” 一样，既亲切又更特别。而且之前中国女权经常被嘲讽为“田园女权”，但我认为女性失去权利就是从失去土地（田园）开始的，土地是一种财产，而女性往往没有继承权，所以多这两个 “田”，也是想打破对 “田园女权” 的污名化，重新强调土地、财产与女性权益的联结。

2.  从穿搭转向性别议题，最初的契机是什么？有没有某类社会现象，让你下定决心做这类内容？

原因还蛮多样的哈哈哈，我最开始做穿搭主要是出于一种虚荣心，想表达自己的 “审美优越”。而且那个时候非常需要用外表的“精致”来强调自己的“反差”，因为我很喜欢在朋友圈或者其他社交平台写讽刺时事的短文（中文生的尊严），这种尖锐的文笔和个性有时候需要用漂亮的外貌中和一下，让我显得 “无害” 一些，所以对我来说这算是一种自保行为吧，做穿搭就是这种自保行为的延伸，让我显得没那么刻薄哈哈哈哈。

转向做女性主义就是因为我觉得我不想装了，我不想用外貌软化态度，因为我发现，我被当成一个“美女”的时候，我的任何观点、建议、成绩都不会被重视，我更容易被当做一个可以被随时征用的外貌资源，用来取悦客户或者给同事提供审美愉悦。我内心积攒了太多对现实的愤怒和不满，我需要有一个独立的身份让我尽情输出，穿搭博主显然不能满足我的需求，毕竟用外物表达个性也是一种主体性虚弱的体现，我觉得我现在已经不需要用外物或者说用消费发泄情绪和表达自我了，我需要一种更具体的、更能帮助我表达力量感的身份，所以我就转赛道了。

3. 看你的视频，感觉您的风格特别清醒直白，既不煽情也不贩卖焦虑。请问这种风格是一开始就想做的，还是慢慢摸索出来的？

我最早开始在公共领域表达观点的时候就不喜欢过多地输出情绪，因为发泄情绪对我来说是一个应该在私人领域完成的事，既然我决定要做一个有社会意义的、能给别人带来影响的账号，我要做的就不仅仅是成为其他姐妹的嘴替，更应该帮助大家解构这个畸形制度的底层运行逻辑。毕竟底层逻辑搞清楚了，发生再离谱的事情都能一眼看透本质，更有助于我们辨别哪些是规训，承载了哪些意识形态。有时候避免做一些热点话题也是这样，我基本只会写我真正想写的内容，因为这个世界的底层逻辑就那一套，拆解清楚了就可以摆脱迷茫。如果情绪表达占比过多，可能会让焦点转移，变成带有一点表演性质的“喊口号”，这就是我想避免的。

4.  你做内容的灵感，更多来自社会热点新闻、身边人的真实处境，还是对社会结构的日常思考？

应该都有哈哈哈，我本人思维很跳跃，基本就是想到什么就做什么内容，所以可能别的博主在讨论的热点我反而不会写，取决于我当下的感受和思考。因为不管是社会热点新闻，还是我身边朋友那些很离谱的真实遭遇，本质上指向的问题其实都大差不差，我更在意背后的逻辑，而不是单纯追问某个事件本身。

5. 你总能把复杂的性别思考讲得通俗易懂，是怎么平衡“观点深度”和“让观众听得懂、愿意看”的？

其实这一点我很怀疑自己有没有做到，经常有姐妹在我视频下面说我语言太书面化、太理论化了，但也有姐妹会喜欢这种风格，所以我也不知道我有没有平衡好。而且我有时候需要引入一些哲学或者社会学概念，直接用术语呢又担心很难理解，不用呢又好像削弱了这个术语的力量感，这一点我也很矛盾。

不过大多数时候我还是会坚持这种相对复杂的表达方式，因为我想吸引的就是对这些议题有兴趣、有好奇心的姐妹，就算有些内容有点难消化，只要她们去进一步查证和思考，那对她们形成自己的理解来说是一件好事，所以有时候我愿意牺牲流量来保持语言的锋利和深度，尽管看起来可能会有些晦涩。

6.  聊到父权制、婚姻制度这类社会结构性话题时，你觉得大众最容易陷入的认知误区是什么？

典型误区就是把父权制误认为对个体男性的指责和把婚姻视为稳定亲密关系的唯一保障。

分别讲的话，男性很难意识到也很难承认自己在父权制下享受的结构性优势，并且在计划生育和重男轻女的双重保障下，他们几乎已经形成了根深蒂固的男性中心主义的思维模式，一遇到性别相关的批判就本能抵触。经常看到一些男性博主可以对封建制度、资本主义大谈特谈，但是遇到其中的性别不平等，马上就开始转移话题，问他为什么，就说“大他者的压迫是不分性别的”。总之要么就是装傻，要么就是真傻。

也有很多人在进入异性恋亲密关系后想要通过婚姻制度给这段关系提供保障，毕竟自古以来的惯性思维就是这样嘛，很多人觉得只要利益绑定、有了沉没成本，关系就不容易破裂。这就是父权制最成功的功利主义规训，爱情和婚姻本来就应该是两条叙事线，两个人结婚了就是修成正果了吗？什么是正果？那张结婚证吗？爱情本身是没有答案的，它只有状态，爱或者不爱。结婚有明确的结果导向，所以能给普通人一种虚假的“确定感”，但制度本身隐含的性别规训和性别不平等的成分，就是这份“确定感”背后的代价，且这种代价往往需要女性承担，也很难被换算成经济成本。很多女性只是想要一个可以被命名的、稳定的爱，但却误认为婚姻是实现这种爱的唯一途径，这其实是巨大的认知错位。

7.  你聊过“全女空间”“脱美役”，你认为年轻女性重塑性别表达的核心阻碍是什么？

我认为核心阻碍在于不管你做什么都会被资本扭曲。先说 “全女空间” 吧，本来 “全女” 的空间设置是为了让女性更好地感受到体谅、尊重与安全感，但是资本很容易把它压缩成一个营销符号，比如很多所谓的全女健身房，只是把墙面刷成粉色、贴几句爱女标语就完事，根本不会真正考虑女性生理期不应算在会员期限内这类实际需求，甚至里面可能还会有男性工作人员，完全把 “全女” 当成噱头。又比如某些女性平台或者女性向游戏，一开始规则设置得很贴心，也很考虑女性用户的感受，但一旦资本想转向大众市场、赚更多人的钱（如游戏转为一般向），女性用户的需求就会被不断挤压，甚至最终被驱逐出自己原本的空间。

再说 “脱美役”，提出 “美役” 这个概念是为了让每个女性以自然面目生活也能被尊重，是为了反抗父权与资本审美规训。但是 “脱美役” 总是要与普遍意义的 “服美役” 形成对照组，很容易又被资本和舆论扭曲，把脱美役简化成一套新的行为规范，变成一种新的 “正确”，好像必须做到某些特定 “反传统审美” 动作才算脱美役，反而又成了一种新的束缚。其实在我看来 “脱美役” 的关键不在于某个具体的动作，而在心态与内心价值感的建立。不服从资本灌输的美的标准，不盲目跟着潮流买 “变美” 商品，就已经是脱美役了。但现实中，它很容易被简化成一种非此即彼的行为规范，变成新的规训，脱美役不该是统一的行为模板，而应该是每个人用自己的方式，去定义对女性身份的认同。

8.  面对“太敏感”的评价、平台规则，以及不同的社会观点碰撞，你如何守住自己的表达立场？

看到说我 “太敏感” 的评价，我一般都会直接删除，哈哈哈哈，没有觉察力的人当然感受不到结构性不公带来的刺痛，我不追求和这类人产生共鸣。

针对评论区不同的声音，我其实很开放。如果是关注我的姐妹不完全赞同我的观点，只要态度礼貌、真诚交流，我都觉得特别好，每个人视角不同，碰撞本身就能丰富彼此的认知；如果是对观点有疑问，我会在评论区再解释清楚；如果是提供另一个角度，那更是对我内容的补充，这几种我都非常欢迎。

有些姐妹可能会采取比较激烈的言辞，我也能理解，因为在公共平台上的沟通，不只是发生在博主和观众之间，也是面向所有人的立场表达，带有一定的政治性，所以有时候强硬一点是必要的。对我个人而言，沟通的基本礼貌很重要，因为我希望大家时刻记住，手机屏幕背后接受评价的是有血有肉的人，TA 的人生经历我们并不知晓，TA 此刻发出的评论或许局限于她的过往经验，你可以不认同，可以提出一针见血的建议，但是不要苛责。

针对平台规则，我的创作会小心规避一些敏感字眼，说实话，平台的限制很难捉摸，有些内容被举报下架，我就会换个平台发布，如果还是发不出来，就把文字发在微博，或是在直播时说，感兴趣的人会看到。我不会调整我的立场和核心内容以适应平台规则，让表达向不合理的规则妥协本身就很荒谬，我不会做。

9.  结合你聊的东亚母女、消费时代系列，你觉得当下社会对女性的代际与生存困境，有哪些被忽视的真相？

结合在一起说的话，我认为当下社会对女性的代际与生存困境，最被忽视的真相，是时代转型带来的责任转嫁与集体兜底的消失。

东亚母女话题其实可以开很多期视频讲，我目前只分享了一小部分个人经历，有很多姐妹私聊我表达了相似的困境，我觉得这是东亚女儿共同的处境吧，与母亲相爱相杀，彼此隔着巨大鸿沟却又试图互相理解，但是向对方伸出手又会对方被刺伤。

时代的巨大差异让我们的生活有完全不同的频率，我们的人生经验很难给彼此参考。我们母辈成长在生产型社会，强调集体融入与奉献，生育被赋予家国属性，是理所应当的责任；而我们身处消费主义时代，生育变成了高耗能、低回报的消费项目，孩子不再是劳动力，更像奢侈品。比如在过去，女性产后修复被归为家庭内部、私人领域的事，身材恢复不是硬性要求。但是在今天，产后修复被高度市场化，请月嫂、做康复之类，虽然也没有形成硬性“规定”，但是如果没能恢复到产前状态，很容易被解读为个人不够努力，或是经济条件不够好。

我个人是觉得在消费时代，很多集体性的责任被高度个体化了，生产型社会里那种邻里互助、彼此搭把手的氛围，到今天更像是一种道德层面的表演。我们虽然一直处在父权结构之中，但过去的集体主义，一定程度上反而带有一点母系互助的色彩，那时候邻里之间有难处互相帮衬是自然而然的事。

但现在家庭结构高度原子化，个体也变得更加孤立无援。比如以前同一个大院的孩子互相串门吃饭很平常，到今天却很难实现，因为一点小事就可能涉及责任、追责，比如孩子吃坏东西、过敏之类。

如果说在生产型社会里，家务、育儿这些被归类为女性专属的劳役，至少还有一层集体兜底作为安慰，那在消费型社会，这种劳役几乎全都变成了个体独自承担的责任，很多问题最后只能靠钱来解决。

这一点很多老辈子其实意识不到，她们仍然停留在过去的认知里，觉得“生孩子不过就是多双碗筷”，看不到我们这代人需要独自面临的被层层加码的现实压力。

10. 你认为当下中文互联网讨论性别，最大的社会语境差异是什么？和上一代的核心区别在哪？

我认为当下中文互联网讨论性别，最大的社会语境差异是现实结构与网络舆论彻底分裂。现实里是几千年的封建家庭惯性、性别化的劳动分工惯性、法律与实践脱节，而到了互联网上，就变成了身份对立、情绪对抗、流量驱动的贴标签、站队游戏。

更尖锐一点说，当代很多年轻人的思想，本质上依旧是奴隶思维。TA 们把阶级压迫、性别压迫都解读为强者对弱者 “理所应当” 的压制，这其实就是复制了过去封建时代的行为规范，TA 们无法想象一个人生来就拥有价值、无需比较、无需证明的平等世界。价值必须靠争夺、靠碾压、靠排名才能存在，这是对现代文明最根本的误解。

现代年轻人与上一代人的核心区别在于，上一代还能用 “男性是主要劳动力”“按劳分配” 来伪装性别不平等，把压迫合理化成分工不同。因为新文化运动的思想解放没有真正下沉到基层，法律规定了平等，但现实仍旧按照封建家庭结构那一套，女性名义上被解放，实际上仍被框在传统角色里。

到今天，市场经济高度发达，女性劳动力必须被解放才能支撑经济发展，女性权益才被重新强调。但几千年的思维惯性太过强大，导致观念跟不上经济，经济跟不上法律，最终男女双方都被结构推着走，彼此无法理解，现在女性和男性更像是两个物种。女性主义反对的是一套老旧的、压迫所有人的结构，争取的是每个人都能自由做自己，不用被性别定义人生，但是另一个性别无法理解，他们只会用惯性思维，把女性的 “崛起” 曲解为新的压迫。就比如女性主义关注的不仅仅是性别话题，还会延伸到儿童权益、环境问题、动物福利多个领域，这就是女性视角自带的、对多元现实的天然关怀，和父权思维中掠夺、征服的基因截然不同。对他者的关怀本质仍旧是对 “人” 的关怀，是对所有生命平等地尊重。但很可惜现在的互联网，还远远没到讨论 “人” 的层面，还停留在 “谁压过谁” 的原始逻辑里。

11. 长期做这类内容，除了观众反馈，是什么让你一直坚持下去？

观众的反馈给了我很大的动力。我最开始发第一条视频的时候还很紧张，严阵以待地打扮了一下，甚至脑子里提前演练了一万条应对方案，万一有人怼我、质疑我，我该怎么回应，哈哈哈。

但是好在大多数和我交流的都是对性别议题感兴趣的同频共振的姐妹，她们在评论区留言或者私聊我时分享的那些过往经历、个人的理解和共鸣，都让我更加确信，我们是彼此的伙伴，讨论女性议题，能给我们带来多大的慰藉和力量。

因为我发现我做视频分享观点，其实是给大家提供了一个 “安全区”，至少在我的评论区或者群里，大家可以放下顾虑，放心地聊一些现实中不能跟家人、朋友倾诉的困境，不用再被贴上 “想太多”“太敏感” 的标签，不用一个人消化所有委屈。

除了观众反馈之外，做视频和写稿本身也给我带来了很大的 “确信感”。因为我发现当我沉浸在痛苦中时，单纯只记住难过的感受是没有用处的，只有把痛苦的根源搞清楚，我才能从痛苦中解脱，因为我看清了痛苦背后的本质，看清了是什么样的现实、什么样的结构造成了今天这种畸形的现状。

有句话不是说 “命名是一种力量” 嘛，任何痛苦只要能找到合适的文献综述，那痛苦就能减半，因为当我精确定位、精准表述那个具体折磨我的魔鬼时，这个魔鬼就消失了，它从一个模糊的感受，被我的描述降格为一个可以被讨论、可以被拆解、可以被正视的问题，它的神秘性和威慑力被消解了。

表达或许不能带来直接的改变，不能一下子打破那些不合理的结构，但它本身就是一种力量。

12. 您做过最感兴趣的话题是什么？有什么话题是您以后会想探索的？

“身体政治”是我目前最感兴趣的话题之一，我认为一切强权制度能够长期存续的根源，就是制造“身体隔离”，把精神和肉体对立，将精神追求奉为高尚，肉体舒适贬为肤浅。

但是肉体是人最根本、也是唯一真实的“自我载体”，我们对世界的所有认知，都必须经由肉体的感受来传递。如果一个人从小就活在压抑身体感受的环境里，比如被要求压抑疲惫、忍耐疼痛、放弃舒适，那么TA的精神被忽视、被规训也会变得顺理成章，也更容易适应极端控制。对应到现实就是：习惯衡水模式的学生，工作后也会更丝滑地接受 996。

死亡恐惧也是制造强权统治最有力的手段，且这种恐惧也是通过对肉体的刻意回避塑造的，把死亡的肉体视为不吉利、不可言说的存在，把死亡的肉体神秘化、禁忌化，将生者与逝者强行对立，放大对消逝、失控的恐惧，又用这种恐惧合理化现实中你死我活的竞争机制、资源掠夺的行为，让人们在恐惧中被迫陷入内卷，默认“弱肉强食”的“真理”。忽视肉体其实本质上就是忽视精神，连自己的肉体都不被重视，自然也会忽视其他生命的感受。当人背叛了自己的肉体，忽视了自己最原始最根本的感受，也就会离真正的自己越来越远。

就像西方社会传统的性别二元对立，不就是通过把女性和男性的肉体性别，强行与精神特质绑定在一起，还用“科学”“生理决定论” 的名义为这种绑定背书，才制造出那么多性别困境和痛苦吗？甚至西方哲学病根就是从身体异化开始的，早一点有马克思提出的人的肉体被物化，晚一点有鲍德里亚说的身体消失、进入超真实的状态，本质上都是对身体的忽视和异化。

以后想探索的话题现在还说不准，我这个人比较跳跃，看到什么算什么，也许之后会做一些性别视角下的文学分析吧（中文人的执念）。

13. 接下来对账号有什么小期待？

最朴素的期待当然就是视频数据越来越好哈哈哈，这也意味着越来越多的姐妹能参与到性别议题的讨论里，说明我们的伙伴越来越多，声音也越来越大。

当民间的声音足够多、足够响亮，形成一股无法被忽视的力量，自然就能被上层听见、被看见。

而且数据好一点，我也许就能有钱雇一位剪辑助理了。其实我有很多内容都想做成长视频，但找素材、剪辑的工作量太大了，我这个账号目前做了大概4个月，大部分时间都花在看书和写稿上，对剪辑其实没那么多耐心。如果条件允许，我希望能有人和我一起把内容做得更完整、更深入。

未来也有可能再开一个新账号。我属于思维比较活跃的类型，大部分做成视频的话题，都是在脑子里反复打磨很久的，但也会有很多灵光一闪的瞬间，需要被及时记录。或许做一个没那么严肃、更轻松的账号，会更适合这类内容。不过也说不准，我每天清醒的时间不算多（睡很久），精力也有限哈哈哈哈。

总体来说，先把现在这个账号做好，让更多人看到、愿意参与进来，我就已经很满足了。

以上为未翻译采访

采访者: Cindy (Xinyue) Hu

I’m Xiao Lei, a feminist content creator. Through a female perspective, I explore society, culture, and everyday life, focusing on patriarchal structures, narratives of the body, and women’s subjectivity. Through my work, I hope to build a small space for empathy, reflection, and mutual support—where we can see women, and also see ourselves.

Douyin account: alailei21260

1. Let’s start with your username “小靁 (léi).” What does it mean?

It actually comes from my friends—they always call me “Xiao Lei,” and I’ve always found it really warm and familiar, so I just used it as my username. But “小雷” felt too ordinary, not very distinctive, so I switched to the variant character “靁.” It has the same pronunciation and meaning as “雷,” but looks more unique.

Also, Chinese feminism has often been mocked as “田园女权” (pastoral feminism), but I see things differently. I think women began losing rights when they lost access to land. Land is a form of property, and women have historically been excluded from inheritance. So the extra “田” radicals in “靁” are intentional—it’s my way of pushing back against that stereotype and re-emphasizing the connection between land, property, and women’s rights.

2. You shifted from fashion content to gender issues—what prompted that change? Was there a specific moment or phenomenon?

There were a lot of reasons, honestly. At first, I did fashion content out of vanity—I wanted to show off my “superior taste.” I also relied on looking polished to create contrast, because I liked writing sharp, satirical takes on current events on social media. That kind of writing can come off as harsh, so presenting myself as “pretty” softened it and made me seem more harmless. In a way, fashion was a form of self-protection.

But eventually, I got tired of that. I didn’t want to keep using my appearance to dilute my voice. I realized that when I was seen primarily as “a pretty girl,” my ideas, suggestions, and achievements weren’t taken seriously. Instead, I was treated as something decorative, something to please clients or provide aesthetic value.

I had accumulated a lot of anger and frustration about reality, and I needed a space to express it fully. Being a fashion creator couldn’t give me that. Expressing yourself through external things is, in some sense, a weaker form of subjectivity. I felt ready to move beyond that—to express something more grounded, more powerful. So I switched directions.

3. Your style feels very clear and direct—never overly emotional or anxiety-driven. Was that intentional from the start?

From the beginning, I didn’t like centering emotional release in public expression. For me, emotions are something to process in private. If I’m creating something meant to have social value and impact, I shouldn’t just act as a mouthpiece for feelings—I should help people understand the underlying structures.

Once you understand the logic underneath, even the most outrageous situations become easier to interpret. You can see what kind of conditioning is at play, what ideologies are being carried. That’s also why I don’t always follow trending topics. I only talk about things I genuinely want to unpack.

If too much focus goes to emotion, the content can turn into performative slogan-shouting, and that’s something I try to avoid.

4. Where do your ideas usually come from—news, personal experiences, or broader social thinking?

All of the above. My thinking is pretty jumpy—I just follow whatever I’m thinking about in the moment. Sometimes I ignore popular topics entirely. Whether it’s a news story or something absurd that happened to a friend, the underlying issues are usually very similar. I care more about the structure behind things than the events themselves.

5. You explain complex ideas in an accessible way. How do you balance depth with clarity?

Honestly, I’m not sure I’ve figured that out. Some people say my language is too academic or theoretical, while others enjoy that style. I often struggle with whether to use technical terms—if I do, they can be hard to understand; if I don’t, the concept loses some of its precision.

Most of the time, I stick with the more complex style. I want to attract people who are genuinely curious about these topics. Even if something is a bit hard to digest, if it pushes someone to think further or look things up, that’s valuable. I’m willing to sacrifice some reach to keep the language sharp, even if it comes across as dense.

6. When discussing patriarchy or marriage, what are the most common misunderstandings?

A typical misunderstanding is treating patriarchy as an attack on individual men, and seeing marriage as the only way to secure a stable, intimate relationship.

To break it down, many men find it difficult to recognize—let alone admit—the structural advantages they benefit from under patriarchy. Shaped by factors like family planning policies and longstanding son preference, a deeply ingrained male-centered mindset has taken hold. As soon as gender-related criticism comes up, their instinct is to resist. You’ll often see male content creators speak at length about feudal systems or capitalism, but the moment gender inequality is mentioned, they immediately deflect. Ask them why, and they’ll say something like, “oppression from the larger system isn’t gender-specific.” At best, they’re playing dumb; at worst, they actually believe it.

At the same time, many people in heterosexual relationships try to use marriage as a way to secure that relationship. That way of thinking has deep historical roots—people assume that once interests are bound together and there are sunk costs, the relationship becomes less likely to fall apart. This is one of patriarchy’s most effective forms of utilitarian conditioning.

But love and marriage are fundamentally two separate narratives. Does getting married really mean a relationship has reached its “final, perfect state”? What does that even mean—just having a marriage certificate? Love itself doesn’t have a fixed answer; it exists only as a state—either there is love, or there isn’t. Marriage, on the other hand, is outcome-oriented, which gives people a sense of certainty. But that certainty is often an illusion.

The system behind marriage carries embedded gender norms and inequalities, and the cost of that “certainty” is usually borne by women—often in ways that can’t even be translated into economic terms. Many women are simply seeking a form of love that is stable and nameable, but they mistake marriage for the only path to achieving it. That, in itself, is a profound cognitive misalignment.

7. You’ve talked about “women-only spaces” and “rejecting beauty standards.” What’s the biggest barrier to change?

I think the core obstacle is that no matter what you do, it eventually gets distorted by capital.

Take “women-only spaces” as an example. They were originally created to give women a sense of understanding, respect, and safety. But capital quickly reduces them to marketing symbols. A lot of so-called women-only gyms, for instance, just paint the walls pink and put up a few slogans about empowering women, without actually considering real needs—like not counting menstrual leave against membership time. Some even still employ male staff, turning the idea of “women-only” into nothing more than a gimmick.

The same thing happens with certain women-focused platforms or games. At the beginning, their rules are thoughtful and genuinely consider women’s experiences. But once capital decides to expand into a broader market and maximize profit—like shifting a game toward a general audience—women’s needs start getting squeezed out, and they can eventually be pushed out of spaces that were originally built for them.

As for “rejecting beauty standards,” the idea was meant to allow women to live naturally and still be respected—to resist the aesthetic norms imposed by patriarchy and capital. But it often ends up being defined in opposition to “conforming to beauty standards,” which makes it easy for capital and public discourse to twist it into a new set of rules. It becomes another form of “correctness,” where you’re expected to perform certain anti-beauty behaviors to qualify. That, in itself, becomes another constraint.

To me, the essence of rejecting beauty standards isn’t about specific actions—it’s about mindset and inner self-worth. As long as you’re not blindly following imposed ideals or chasing trends by buying products to “fix” yourself, you’re already practicing it. But in reality, it often gets reduced to a rigid either-or framework, turning into yet another form of discipline.

Rejecting beauty standards shouldn’t be a standardized template of behavior. It should be something each person defines for themselves, in their own way, as part of how they understand and inhabit their identity as a woman.

8. How do you deal with criticism, platform rules, and conflicting opinions?

When people say I’m “too sensitive,” I usually just delete the comment, haha. People who lack awareness aren’t going to feel the sting of structural injustice anyway, and I’m not trying to resonate with that kind of audience.

That said, I’m actually very open to different perspectives in the comments. If it’s someone who follows me and doesn’t fully agree with my views, as long as they’re polite and sincere, I think that’s great. Everyone sees things differently, and that kind of exchange can deepen understanding on both sides. If someone has questions, I’ll clarify in the comments. If they offer a different angle, that’s even better—it adds to the conversation. All of that is welcome.

Some people may express themselves more aggressively, and I can understand that too. Communication on public platforms isn’t just between a creator and their audience—it’s also a kind of public statement, with a certain level of political weight. So sometimes a stronger tone is inevitable. But for me personally, basic respect in communication is essential. I want people to remember that behind every screen is a real person with a life we know nothing about. What they say at any given moment may be shaped by their own experiences. You can disagree, you can offer sharp and direct criticism, but don’t be unnecessarily harsh.

As for platform rules, I do try to avoid certain sensitive keywords. Honestly, the restrictions can be unpredictable. If something gets taken down, I’ll repost it elsewhere. If I still can’t publish it, I might share it on Weibo or talk about it in a livestream—people who care will find it. But I won’t change my stance or core message to fit platform rules. Compromising your expression to accommodate unreasonable restrictions is absurd, and I won’t do that.

9. What’s an overlooked truth about women’s generational struggles today?

Taken together, I think the most overlooked truth about women’s generational and survival struggles today is the way responsibility has been shifted onto individuals, alongside the disappearance of collective support systems.

The topic of East Asian mothers and daughters alone could fill many videos. So far, I’ve only shared a small part of my own experience, but many women have messaged me privately with similar stories. It feels like a shared condition among East Asian daughters—loving and clashing with our mothers at the same time, separated by a huge gap yet still trying to understand each other. And yet, every time we reach out, we end up hurting one another.

The gap between generations is so vast that we’re living at completely different rhythms, and our life experiences are often impossible to translate across that divide. Our mothers grew up in a production-based society that emphasized collective belonging and sacrifice. Childbearing was framed as a duty tied to family and nation. For us, living in a consumerist era, having children has become a high-cost, low-return endeavor. Children are no longer labor—they resemble a kind of “luxury good.”

For example, in the past, postpartum recovery was treated as a private, family matter, and returning to one’s pre-pregnancy body was not a strict expectation. Today, it has been heavily commercialized—hiring postpartum caregivers, paying for recovery programs. Even if there’s no explicit rule, failing to “bounce back” is often interpreted as a lack of effort or insufficient financial means.

Personally, I feel that in a consumer society, many collective responsibilities have been intensely individualized. In production-based societies, there was a real sense of mutual aid among neighbors—people naturally helped each other out. Now, that kind of support feels more like a moral performance than a lived reality.

Even though we’ve always existed within patriarchal structures, past forms of collectivism still carried a trace of maternal-style mutual care. Back then, neighbors stepping in to help each other was simply normal.

But today, family structures have become highly atomized, and individuals are much more isolated. Something as simple as kids going next door to eat together, which used to be completely ordinary, is now rare—because even small issues can lead to liability concerns, like food allergies or illness.

In a production-based society, while domestic labor and childcare were assigned to women, there was at least some layer of collective support that softened the burden. In today’s consumer-driven society, that labor has almost entirely become an individual responsibility, and many problems can only be solved with money.

Many older people don’t fully recognize this shift. They’re still operating within past frameworks, believing that “having a child just means one more pair of chopsticks,” without seeing the compounded pressures that our generation is expected to bear alone.

10. What’s different about gender discussions online today compared to the past?

I think the biggest difference in how gender is discussed on today’s Chinese internet is the complete split between real-world structures and online discourse. In reality, you still have thousands of years of feudal family inertia, gendered divisions of labor, and a gap between what the law says and how things actually operate. But online, everything turns into identity conflicts, emotional confrontation, and traffic-driven dynamics—labeling, taking sides, and performative positioning.

To put it more bluntly, a lot of young people today are still operating within a kind of “slave mentality.” They interpret class oppression and gender oppression as something naturally justified—the strong dominating the weak. In doing so, they’re essentially reproducing the logic of feudal systems. They can’t imagine a world where people are born with inherent value, where worth doesn’t have to be proven through comparison, competition, or ranking. The belief that value must be fought for, crushed out of others, or measured hierarchically is a fundamental misunderstanding of what modern civilization is supposed to be.

The key difference between today’s younger generation and the previous one is that the older generation could still disguise gender inequality through ideas like “men are the primary labor force” or “distribution according to work,” framing oppression as just a difference in roles. The intellectual liberation of movements like the New Culture Movement never fully reached the grassroots level. On paper, equality exists, but in reality, society still operates according to traditional family structures. Women were nominally “liberated,” but in practice remained confined within conventional roles.

Today, with a highly developed market economy, women’s labor has to be mobilized to sustain economic growth, which is why women’s rights have been re-emphasized. But the inertia of thousands of years of thinking is too strong—ideas lag behind economic change, and economic structures lag behind the law. As a result, both men and women are pushed along by these larger systems, often unable to understand each other. At this point, it almost feels like they belong to entirely different species.

Feminism, at its core, is not about opposing men—it’s about opposing an outdated system that constrains everyone. It seeks a world where people are free to define themselves, rather than having their lives dictated by gender. But many people, especially men, can’t understand this. They interpret women’s “rise” through the lens of old thinking, misreading it as a new form of oppression.

And feminism isn’t limited to gender issues. It often extends to concerns like children’s rights, environmental issues, and animal welfare. That reflects a broader, more expansive way of relating to the world—a kind of care for diverse forms of life that stands in contrast to the extractive, dominance-driven logic often associated with patriarchal systems. At its core, this concern for others is still a concern for humanity itself—for treating all life with equal respect.

Unfortunately, online discourse hasn’t reached the level of discussing “humanity” yet. It’s still stuck in a much more primitive logic of “who dominates whom.”

11. What keeps you going?

Audience feedback has been a huge source of motivation for me. When I first posted my very first video, I was incredibly nervous. I dressed up carefully, almost like I was preparing for battle, and I even rehearsed countless possible responses in my head—what if someone argued with me, challenged me, or criticized me? I wanted to be ready for everything.

But thankfully, most of the people who engage with me are women who are genuinely interested in gender issues and share similar thoughts and goals. When they leave comments or message me privately to share their experiences, their perspectives, and their sense of resonance, it reassures me that we are companions in this. Talking about women’s issues can bring a kind of comfort and strength that’s hard to find elsewhere.

I’ve also realized that by making videos and sharing my thoughts, I’m actually creating a kind of “safe space.” At least in my comment section or my groups, people can let their guard down and talk about struggles they might not feel comfortable sharing with family or friends. They don’t have to be labeled as “overthinking” or “too sensitive,” and they don’t have to carry all their frustrations alone.

Beyond audience feedback, the act of creating itself—making videos, writing—has given me a strong sense of clarity. I’ve found that when I’m immersed in pain, simply holding onto the feeling of sadness doesn’t help. The only way out is to understand where that pain comes from. Once I can see the underlying reality and the structures that produce it, I can begin to free myself from it.

There’s a saying that “to name something is to gain power over it.” Any kind of pain, once it can be situated within the right framework or body of knowledge, becomes more manageable. When I can precisely identify and articulate the thing that’s tormenting me, it stops being this vague, overwhelming presence. It becomes something concrete—something that can be discussed, analyzed, and confronted. Its mystery and its power over me start to dissolve.

Expression might not bring immediate change or dismantle unjust structures overnight, but in itself, it is a form of power.

12. What topics interest you most right now?

“Body politics” is one of the topics I’m most interested in right now. I think the reason systems of power are able to sustain themselves for so long is that they create a kind of separation from the body. They set the mind and the body against each other, elevate spiritual or intellectual pursuits as noble, and dismiss bodily comfort as something shallow.

But the body is the most fundamental part of a person, and the only real vessel of the self. Everything we know about the world has to pass through bodily experience first. If someone grows up in an environment where they are taught to suppress bodily feelings—where they are expected to ignore fatigue, endure pain, and give up comfort—then it becomes much easier for their inner life to be neglected and disciplined too, and much easier for them to adapt to extreme forms of control. In real life, that looks like students who grow used to the “Hengshui model” and then move into the workforce already primed to accept 996 without resistance.

Fear of death is also one of the most powerful tools for maintaining domination, and that fear is shaped through the deliberate avoidance of the body as well. The dead body is treated as ominous, unspeakable, something taboo. Death is mystified, forbidden, and turned into a source of dread, while the living and the dead are forced into opposition. That intensifies people’s fear of disappearance and loss of control, and then that fear gets used to justify the brutal competition and resource-grabbing of real life. People are pushed into endless internalized competition and made to accept “survival of the fittest” as if it were some natural truth. To ignore the body is, in essence, to ignore the spirit. If a person cannot even take their own body seriously, then of course they will struggle to take the suffering of other lives seriously too. Once someone betrays their own body and turns away from their most basic, most instinctive feelings, they also move further and further away from their real self.

Take the traditional gender binary in Western society. Hasn’t it been built precisely by forcibly tying the physical sex of women and men to certain spiritual or psychological traits, then using “science” and biological determinism to legitimize that connection? That is exactly how so many gendered struggles and forms of pain are produced. You could even say that one of the root illnesses of Western philosophy begins with the alienation of the body: earlier on, Marx wrote about the human body being objectified; later, Baudrillard described the disappearance of the body into hyperreality. At heart, both are about the neglect and alienation of the body.

As for what I want to explore next, I’m not really sure yet. My mind jumps around a lot, so I usually just follow whatever catches my attention. Maybe in the future I’ll do some literary analysis from a gendered perspective too—it’s hard to let go of that as someone trained in Chinese language and literature.

13. Final question: What do you hope for your account going forward?

My most basic hope is just that my videos perform better, haha. That would mean more women are joining the conversation around gender issues—that our community is growing, and our voices are getting louder.

When enough grassroots voices come together and become impossible to ignore, they’ll naturally be heard by those in power.

And if my numbers improve, maybe I’ll be able to afford to hire a video editor. I actually have a lot of ideas I’d love to turn into longer-form content, but sourcing materials and editing takes so much time. I’ve been running this account for about four months now, and most of my time goes into reading and writing. I don’t really have the patience for editing. If possible, I’d love to have someone collaborate with me to make the content more complete and more in-depth.

I might also start a second account in the future. My mind moves pretty quickly—most of the topics I turn into videos are things I’ve thought through for a long time, but I also get sudden flashes of ideas that need to be captured right away. Maybe a less serious, more casual account would suit those moments better. But who knows—I don’t actually have that many waking hours in a day (I sleep a lot), and my energy is limited, haha.

Overall, if I can just keep building this account, reach more people, and get more of them involved, I’d already be very satisfied.

Above is the translated (modified) version.

Interviewer: Cindy (Xinyue) Hu