My story of growth did not begin with ambition. It began with exhaustion.
I grew up in a home ruled by patriarchy and silence. My father—the unquestioned provider—was emotionally absent and occasionally punitive. My mother, crushed by a broken marriage, relied on me as her emotional outlet. There was no space for confusion or rebellion. I was taught to obey before I could even ask why. In that kind of system, love was conditional, safety was a performance, and survival meant suppressing myself until I disappeared.
Naturally, I carried this mindset into the world: speak less, feel less, disturb nothing. But the world is not a vacuum. Without a loving, caring, and accompanied system, I lacked the basic emotional infrastructure to interact with others—to form boundaries, to ask for help, to know what I even wanted. I couldn’t handle the chaos of campus life. So I fled.
Taking a gap year wasn’t a brave act—it was an act of collapse. But in that collapse, something shifted. Alone in foreign cities, navigating housing, discrimination, and decisions my parents could never guide me through, I began to notice: I was solving problems. Real ones. I had a white professor who discriminated against me openly, and I stood up for myself. I lived on my own terms, for the first time. For a moment, I thought: maybe I am strong.
But that realization, though comforting, was shallow. Strength without clarity can still become aggression, defensiveness, illusion. I needed more than the feeling of power—I needed the thinking that could sustain it. And that’s what MSA gave me.
MSA didn’t just allow me to take a gap year—it welcomed me back with questions. Through courses like AP Seminar, World History, and Western Philosophy, I was introduced to a new vocabulary of self-understanding. I learned to name systems— patriarchy, empire, race, trauma—not to excuse them, but to analyze them. I learned that the world isn’t always explainable. Not everything happens for a reason. Randomness, power, and contradiction shape more than justice ever has.
And this changed everything.
I used to believe that those who hurt me were simply stronger. Now I see they were often just earlier—earlier in their wounds, earlier in their failures, earlier in facing a world they never understood. I stopped asking why they failed me, and began to understand why they failed themselves. That’s when I stopped trying to win, and started trying to live.
MSA gave me a framework for making sense of pain, and for transforming it into insight. It allowed me to think critically without losing emotional precision, and to rebuild a sense of self not out of performance, but of presence.
I no longer want to be obedient, or even strong. I want to be clear—and that clarity is the most valuable thing I’ve earned.
At a surface level, I’ve contributed to MSA in the ways that are easiest to measure: I helped with campus marketing, designed materials to attract new students, and eventually became one of those “successful” case studies featured in college admissions propaganda. I’ve produced academic work I’m proud of, and I know some of it has inspired others. But none of that, to me, is the heart of what I’ve offered this community.
What I truly believe is this: my existence here is already a form of contribution.
I have lived through pain, stayed through confusion, and risen from collapse. I have remained curious when it was easier to become cynical. I have spoken the truth when silence would have been more convenient. I have kept faith in my future, even when the past felt too heavy to carry. And that, I think, is exactly what the spirit of Moonshot stands for.
Perseverance. Clarity. Compassion. The relentless pursuit of meaning in a world that often offers none. I didn’t just absorb these values—I embodied them. MSA always says this community is built by people. I am one of those people. My presence, my story, my daily being here—these are not accidental. They are a kind of offering.
I’m not perfect. But I am real. I have brought a particular energy to this place— sometimes intense, sometimes gentle, always sincere. I believe in the idealism that built this school. I reflect its diversity, its ambition, its struggle to become better.
And so, my greatest contribution to MSA has not been what I’ve achieved, but the kind of person I’ve insisted on becoming within its walls.
I’ve been admitted to the Liberal Studies Core at New York University. I chose this program, in part, because it was more accessible than other NYU schools, like Stern, but also because I’m a student of the humanities at heart. The curriculum offers me the space to explore ideas, history, and philosophy—subjects that have shaped the way I see the world.
But I’ve also always lived at the intersection of idealism and urgency.
My future isn’t just about academic exploration. It’s also about escape—about gaining financial independence so I can leave behind a family structure that has, for much of my life, confined and silenced me. I don’t want to rely on anyone. I don’t plan to pursue a master’s degree or a PhD. I want to build a life that is sustainable and mine, starting right after college.
That presents a dilemma. The majors I’m most passionate about—History and Gender Studies—are not traditionally “practical.” In many cases, staying on those tracks requires advanced degrees. Meanwhile, the job market for international students in the United States is brutally narrow. Liberal arts graduates often get only one year of OPT, meaning just one chance to apply for the H1B visa. If I want to stay overseas, especially in the U.S., I need to be strategic.
That’s why I’m already considering a double major in Economics, or an internal transfer to NYU Stern. But I’ll be honest: I also care deeply about prestige. I’m drawn to institutions with legacy, intellectual depth, and global recognition—not just because they “look good,” but because I’ve worked hard enough to know I belong there. If NYU gives me what I need, I’ll take advantage of its resources. But if I find that the academic culture lacks the rigor or clarity I’m seeking, I will apply to transfer to a higher-ranking university, perhaps even an Ivy League or a top 10 liberal arts college. That aspiration doesn’t embarrass me. It motivates me.
To me, prestige isn’t about appearances—it’s about access. Access to stronger networks, better mentorship, and the kind of peers who challenge you to grow every day. I want to be surrounded by people who take ideas seriously and who live with ambition. I want my bachelor’s degree to be a launchpad, not a limit.
Whatever exact path I end up choosing—whether I stay at NYU, transfer elsewhere, pursue economics, or return fully to the humanities—I know that much of what I imagine today will shift. The future, after all, is still unwritten. But no matter how far I go or how different my life becomes from what I now expect, I will always carry with me the power, the clarity, and the love that MSA gave me. This community didn’t just educate me. It accompanied me. And that, more than any plan or title, is what I’ll hold onto.
In both academic and popular discourse, the female hero is often seen as an early sign of feminist awakening. They symbolize rebellion, strength and defiance in a male- dominated society. However, this view deserves more scrutiny.
This paper explores two prominent examples: Fu Hao, a queen, military general and priestess of the Shang dynasty in China, and the legendary female warrior Amazons of ancient Greek mythology. Although they emerged from very different historical and cultural contexts, they are both repeatedly portrayed as exceptions, that is, as women who break social boundaries and enter the male-dominated sphere.
However, this paper argues that the Fuhao and the Amazons are in fact, products of patriarchy, never truly empowered and therefore unable to produce subjectivity and break the system. Literature Review
Most studies about Fu Hao and the Amazons focus on recording their stories, rather than analyzing them critically. Even in the few papers that do take an analytical approach, the focus is usually on their “multiple identities.” In other words, scholars tend to explore how these women moved between roles in the family and society, or how they symbolized “non-traditional” femininity. Among these, the warrior identity is the most widely discussed. Many researchers believe that this rebellious and free female image helped pave the way for later feminist ideas.
But before diving into cultural analysis, many scholars begin with a basic question: were these women real people or myths? For thousands of years, due to both religious beliefs and limited archaeological tools, Fu Hao and the Amazons were generally seen as
2
mythical figures. For example, before Fu Hao’s tomb was discovered in 1976, there was no physical evidence of her existence, and she was thought to be legendary. Only after the excavation of her tomb did scholars confirm that she was a real historical figure. Still, her image had already lived in folklore for centuries—people had long treated her like a goddess. So even today, though she has been proven real, that mythical feeling hasn’t completely faded. She still stands as a cultural symbol of female power that doesn’t quite belong to reality (Zhenglang, 1986).
The case of the Amazons is similar. For a long time, they were seen as purely fictional. But with new historical and archaeological research, some scholars have suggested that they might have been inspired by real warrior women. Papamichali (2023), a scholar of feminism and ancient mythology, argues that although the Amazons may have a historical basis, their cultural image is entirely mythologized. They are now seen more as symbols of rebellion against patriarchy and representations of female strength. Like Fu Hao, the Amazons exist somewhere between reality and imagination, and are often treated as cultural figures rather than actual individuals.
From a cultural perspective, Fu Hao is usually described as a complex female character. Scholar Chang Xin-zhi pointed out that she was not only a queen, a military leader, and a high priestess, but also a mother (Chang, 2005). Professor Lu agreed, saying that Fu Hao was the wife of King Wu Ding, who favored her deeply and gave her the responsibility to lead troops in battle (Lu, 2013). Although no one knows exactly why he did this, it’s clear that Fu Hao was treated as a military talent. She once led thousands, even tens of thousands, of soldiers and personally participated in wars against tribal enemies such as the Qiang, Tu, and Ba peoples (Chang, 2005). At the same time, she was also a high-ranking priestess
3
responsible for national rituals. She didn’t just follow orders—she prepared oracle bones, conducted divinations, and led major religious ceremonies. Yabing (2020) notes that most Shang Dynasty records come from oracle bones, many of which show Fu Hao in charge of large-scale state rituals. The Book of Rites says: “The Yin people respected the gods, led the people to serve them, and put spirits before rituals, (Confucius, n.d.)” which shows the high status of religion at the time. So Fu Hao’s priestly role was clearly important. She was also a mother. Although records differ on how many children she had, we know she had at least two sons: Zu Ji and Zu Geng. According to Oracle Bone Inscriptions 450, Fu Hao eventually died from childbirth complications (Oracle Bone Inscriptions, n.d., Heji 450).
The Amazons were also described as women with many roles. Mayor (2014) wrote that they were warriors, queens, mothers, and tribal leaders all at once. They were not just individuals but part of a structured society with families and hierarchies. They formed a self-sufficient community, and after giving birth, they cut off contact with men. Much of what we know about the Amazons comes from pottery and sculptures, which often show them fighting bravely in battle (Cartwright, 2019). Written records mainly focus on Amazon queens, especially in their battles with male heroes like Heracles and Theseus. This portrayal is actually quite similar to Fu Hao: both are women who “broke the rules,” stepped out of their households, and took on leadership and military duties.
Among their many roles, the most emphasized is still the role of the warrior. This is because it directly challenges the traditional image of women. As a result, both academic research and artistic works repeatedly highlight this identity. But there’s a clear problem: even though people call them warriors, very few studies actually explore what their military abilities looked like. For example, Professor Chang pointed out that while Fu Hao led
4
campaigns against the Qiang, Tu, and Ba tribes, there is little information about whether she created military strategies or personally commanded troops (Chang, 2005).
The Amazons face a similar issue. While they are often painted as brave fighters on pottery and temple carvings, there is almost no written record of their military system or how they made decisions (Cartwright, 2019). Scholars usually focus on their battles with male heroes rather than how they functioned as a collective military force (Mayor, 2014). Cartwright mentions that the Parthenon’s Athena statue carries a shield decorated with scenes of the “Amazonomachy,” or Amazon battle, but gives no details on how they fought or won. Mayor also notes that these images and texts only emphasize that the Amazons were “brave,” without explaining what made them brave or how they achieved victory (Mayor, 2014).
This focus on symbolism without detail reveals a major problem: even though Fu Hao and the Amazons are placed within a military framework, few studies actually look at how they made decisions, how they thought about war, or what motivated them to fight.
In conclusion, while current research has explored the multiple identities and symbolic meanings of Fu Hao and the Amazons, it often fails to ask a basic question: did they truly have agency under patriarchy? Was their “power” something they earned, or just an illusion created by the system? An in-depth exploration of this key issue will follow.
Theoretical Framework
Subjectivity: Subjectivity refers to an individual’s sense of themselves. It includes awareness of one’s own ideas, emotions, intentions, and identity. It is the ability to perceive oneself as the main body. Such a concept allows people to think and act in their own conscious. In the context of female identity, subjectivity highlights a woman’s ability to
5
define her own existence outside of the roles ascribed to her by others. It rejects passive objectification and acknowledges the existence of inner life, personal agency, and conscious will, even when extrinsic systems seek to suppress these (Hollway, 1989).
Tokenism: Tokenism means pretending to empower a few people in marginalized groups to show the kindness and generosity of the dominant communities (King, Hebl, George, & Matusik, 2010). The dominant are not truly giving the power or benefits, but rather, offering symbolic goods that puzzle the public. This is to appease the marginalized groups from rebellion under overexploitation, and enhance the legitimization of their authoritative status. For example, a noble family allows one guy from a poor community to become an official, showing their openness. The truth is, the channel is still closed for the rest of the poor. It cannot touch their real obstacles and difficulties. But the nobles don’t care, because they never really want poor people to risk their dominance status.
Othering Theory: In feminism, othering theory explains how women are pushed to the margins by being seen as different from the male norm. Women are often described in contrast to men. As men is the mainstream power of society, they represent all positive merits that are encouraged in the culture. However, female, as the opposite, is the symbol of inferiority (Dawson, 2014). This is not simply targeted to the gender issue. Culturally, it also talks about excluding a group of people as the outsiders who are often emotional, irrational, and barbaric. It’s about using such differences to justify unequal treatments applied by the dominant and to keep power in the hands of the dominant.
Patriarchy: Patriarchy is a system where men monopolize the power in everything important, including the government, work, family, and culture (Christ, 2016). It means males are eligible to make the rules and implement them. To elaborate, the most solid
6
power are usually seized in the older, successful men in a family. During such a process, women are excluded. The patriarchal expectation to females is to follow men, whether their father, husband or son. Women must stay at home and cannot enter social life. So in this system, women are the voiceless ones. They are subordinated and oppressed. Methodology
This study focuses on the qualitative research methodology to explore the Fuhao and the Amazons through textual and comparative analyses. Two types of sources are used in the study, one is primary source documents, such as oracle bone records and ancient Greek narratives, and the secondary sources which include examinations from other scholars. In order to analyze the portrayal of female heroes, the paper cites theoretical concepts such as Subjectivity, Tokenism, Othering, and Patriarchy to help understand the process by which they are recognized in patriarchal societies but lose their true subjectivity. In the specific analysis, Contextual Analysis was used to focus on the cultural context in which the characters’ stories are set; Critical Discourse Analysis was used to reveal hidden gender biases in the storytelling; and Structural Analysis was also used to summarize a common pattern in which female heroes are first legitimized but then weakened or erased. Analysis Part 1: Why Patriarchy Needs Powerful Women: The Tokenism
In a patriarchal society, women’s voices are often silenced—no matter how capable they are, it is difficult for them to be seen. Yet, paradoxically, history and mythology have preserved the stories of some exceptional women who not only survived but were also remembered, such as Fu Hao and the Amazon queens. This raises a fundamental question: if patriarchy is truly so powerful, why didn’t it eliminate these women’s potential from the
7
8
start? Why would it “allow” them to gain power, status, and even be celebrated? The answer is quite simple: patriarchy needed them. 1. Fu Hao: A Strategic Instrument of Royal Power
Let’s take Fu Hao as an example. Her identity as a unique and seemingly rebellious female general was, in fact, granted by her husband, King Wu Ding. Behind this grant of power lies a larger patriarchal structure that “permitted” and “arranged” her rise. The power and status she held were not actively seized by her, but rather temporarily bestowed by a society that, at that historical moment, needed a woman who could be used without becoming uncontrollable—to help maintain the ruling order.
At the time, the Shang dynasty was plagued by internal unrest and external threats, with frequent warfare. After the death of Cheng Tang, the virtue of the Yin (Shang) declined; after twenty-two kings, Wu Ding finally came to power (Dai, n.d.). In other words, following over two dozen rulers, the Shang dynasty had weakened significantly, and Wu Ding urgently needed to restore order and authority through military expansion. But he could not personally participate in every battle, so he required someone who could represent his authority without posing a threat to it.
Why Fu Hao? The reasons are clear: First, she was a woman, with no possibility of succession and thus no challenge to imperial power. Second, she was the wife of Wu Ding (emperor). They have raised 2 children together. Such a strong family bond makes her more likely to remain loyal to the emperor though she gets the power that is supposedly out of her ruling scope. Third, she had not received formal military training like male nobles. Not only lack of professional training, but there is even no record to show that Fuhao knew how to ride horses before. However, for male nobles and generals, plenty of
records talk about their hunting and military campaigns. For instance, Oracle Bone Inscriptions 10426 records: “Divine inquiry: will Prince Hua catch prey?”—referring to noble sons being trained through hunting (Oracle Bone Inscriptions, n.d., Heji 10426). Inscription 10945 similarly notes: “Prince Shang hunts at Ge” (Oracle Bone Inscriptions, n.d., Heji 10945), again emphasizing that male aristocrats underwent military training via hunting. However, no oracle bones mention Fu Hao engaging in such activities, which suggests she was not truly a “professional” general. It also represents safety as she is not only no will but also not able to plan any rebellion or against the order from the emperor. Overall, Fuhao is a great symbolic figure who temporarily granted power.
2. The Amazons: Symbolic Rebels Constructed for Patriarchal Anxiety In ancient Greece, society was dominated by adult male citizens. Only men had the right to own land, inherit property, participate in democratic deliberation, go to war legally, act as judges, or vote. Women, on the other hand, were excluded from all public and political affairs. Beyond institutional exclusion, women were also culturally marginalized. In Athens, for instance, Aristotle’s Politics (2013, Book I, Chapter 13) clearly stated: “The virtue of a slave or a woman is not the same as that of a free man.” In tragedies such as The Oresteia, we repeatedly see women unable to defend themselves, forced to rely on the patriarchal center for legitimacy (Aeschylus, 2009). This suppression of female freedom and human rights stems from a deep, unspoken anxiety: once women possess agency and subjectivity, men risk losing their total control over the family and the state. Patriarchy
fears the collapse of its absolute authority. This anxiety found its perfect outlet in the Amazons. The Amazons were women who
refused marriage, refused motherhood, and refused to obey men. They were constructed as
9
foreigners, living on the fringes of the known world—along the Black Sea coast, on the Scythian steppes—regions the Greeks already associated with chaos and “uncivilized” life. But unlike traditional “barbarians,” the Amazons were not backward or ignorant. They were militarily powerful and politically organized, posing a real threat to the Greek city- states. Amazons are always portrayed as “speaking a different tongue,” “living without men”—unassimilable, incomprehensible cultural others. This dual identity made them the ideal enemies within patriarchal ideology: more complex than ordinary barbarians, more dangerous than ordinary women.
The story of Queen Penthesilea captures this complexity. In The Fall of Troy, she leads her troops to aid the Trojans against the Greek coalition. She fights valiantly and even momentarily drives back Achilles. But after killing her, Achilles is suddenly struck with deep remorse and love upon seeing her face. He says: “When he beheld her face, her beauty struck his heart with pangs of love… he sighed and said: ‘Thou shouldst have lived, and been Achilles’ wife’” (Quintus Smyrnaeus, 1913, 1.783–786).
This moment is highly symbolic. Penthesilea, as a female warrior, must be defeated; as a “barbarian,” she must die. Yet her beauty—as a woman—lives on in the emotional gaze of the male hero. She must fall in order for her “value” to be recognized. Her death signifies the Greek conquest of the barbarian; her death signifies male domination over women. But once the threat is neutralized, her essential “femininity”—her beautiful, sexualized body under the male gaze—becomes an object of male desire. Her death marks a double submission: cultural and gendered.
Another queen, Antiope, follows a different path of “taming.” According to Plutarch, she fell in love with Theseus during battle and eventually abandoned her tribe to become
10
his wife. He wrote that she “abandoned the Amazonian way of life for the love of Theseus” (1914). Antiope did not die in battle, but her transformation was still celebrated as a patriarchal triumph—not a military one, but a cultural and institutional victory. Compared to Penthesilea, Antiope’s submission is gentler. Her defeat comes not in bloodshed but through the softness of “love.” Yet from that moment on, Antiope relinquishes her identity, dignity, and lifestyle—transforming from an independent, courageous queen into a subordinate wife, signifying the triumph of the male narrative.
The fates of these two queens—one dead, one wed—both point to the same logic: their existence serves to provide Greek men with a sense of security and self-affirmation through their defeat. Through their downfall and submission, patriarchy not only claims victory on the battlefield, defeating political and cultural threats, but also reinforces male dominance by conquering “unruly women.” The Amazons were never created to express female strength. They were invented to resolve Greek male anxieties about gender and culture.
Thus, the patriarchal system repeatedly constructs and rewrites Amazonian women in order to achieve a dual confirmation: on the gender level, the male hero can only assert his masculinity by conquering powerful women and reframing them as “desirable” and “controllable” figures; on the cultural and political level, the patriarchal society must subdue this militarized, independently ordered “foreign other” to secure its own absolute and singular rule. The other is not meant to challenge but to be civilized; and the meaning of civilization, in this context, is to make male power appear eternally unshakable. 3. Between Obedience and Opposition: Two Models of Tokenism.
11
What these two figures have in common is that they have clear meaning and significance to the male and their male-dominance society. They were in missions: one as a loyal helper, the other as a dangerous outsider who must be crushed.
As mentioned earlier—why were they allowed to exist? Because patriarchy needed them to satisfy its own demands. Need drives production, so patriarchy did not merely tolerate their existence; to a certain extent, it created them.
Unlike history, which relies on archaeology and empirical evidence to establish a singular and verifiable account, mythology is a cultural construction. It is full of fictional elements and constantly evolves through oral transmission, shaped by the values and needs of the society that tells it. Within this narrative environment, the “permission” granted by patriarchy for figures like Fu Hao and the Amazons to exist is better understood not as a passive allowance, but as an active construction. In other words, their stories were shaped because they were needed. The mythological female heroes were not natural expressions of female voices, but figures designed by patriarchal culture to serve symbolic purposes. They were born from patriarchy.
Such a complex creation—beyond fulfilling the basic needs mentioned above—what other purpose does it serve? The answer may be: tokenism.
When we see Fu Hao and the Amazons, they symbolize a fake openness, a hallucination of freedom. Their presence is to show the generosity and inclusion of the patriarchy as a tool. But, they are not really willing to empower these women, considering the threats to their absolute authority. To define, they are the tokens that are born and used by the patriarchy, indicating that patriarchy is not completely oppressed, but rather a structure with openness and mobility.
12
This is the key function of tokenism. Patriarchy uses these rare female figures to send two messages to women in the real world: Firstly, there is hope: “If you are obedient, we might give you some space.” This keeps women working within the system, believing they might succeed if they try hard enough. It is a placebo for preventing women’s true rebellion under the over-oppressed structure. Secondly, there is risk: “If you rebel, you will be punished.” This warns women not to step out of line, or they will face the same fate as the Amazons.
These stories are not about progress. They are about control. They use a small number of chosen women to comfort and warn the rest. Fu Hao and the Amazons fit this model exactly. They are not signs of true empowerment. Again, they are just tokens. Part 2 – The Inescapable Cage, the Unattainable Subjectivity
If female heroes are born from patriarchal allowance or even drive, we must then ask a deeper question: under this mechanism of fabrication, can female heroes ever truly possess their own voice? Can they move beyond functionally assigned roles to express autonomy, reflection, and creativity?
The answer is: rarely. Being generated from a system essentially means losing the starting point of becoming oneself. These women are often called “heroes” not because they awaken power from a female perspective, but because they serve a role within a patriarchal narrative—assisting, defending, complying, or symbolically being defeated. Their images do not grow from the self but emerge already scripted for a purpose.
Take Fu Hao, for instance—she is the typical “obedient” female hero. She consistently saw herself as “the king’s wife” rather than an individual. Her participation in war was due to royal orders, not independent judgment. For example, Oracle Bone Inscription Heji 6480
13
reads: “On the day Xinwei, the king divined: should Fu Hao assist in the campaign against the Ba? The king himself would attack from the east; Fu Hao would follow” (Oracle Bone Inscriptions, n.d., Heji 6480). This shows that Fu Hao only played a supporting role in battle while the king led the main attack.
Other inscriptions reinforce this subordinate role. Heji 1103 records: “The king commands Fu Hao to go on an expedition against the Yi” (Oracle Bone Inscriptions, n.d., Heji 1103). In Heji 20715, the oracle asks: “Should we send Fu Hao?”—implying that the decision of whether to deploy her was not in her hands (Oracle Bone Inscriptions, n.d., Heji 20715).
The same pattern applies to her religious status. Although rituals were of great significance in the Shang dynasty, Fu Hao’s participation stemmed from her identity as queen, not from her own religious authority. Only royal women were permitted to represent the state in such ceremonies (Yabing, 2020). Even the most sacred acts of worship were tied to political status, not spiritual independence.
Throughout her life, Fu Hao never expressed personal will. She never questioned her role or attempted to break away from the ideal of the loyal and obedient wife. Her behavior followed the expectations placed on women at the time: obedience, gentleness, and loyalty. Obedient female heroes, although seemingly active in national affairs like warfare and ritual, lack real subjectivity. True subjectivity lies not in how much one does, but in whether one has the space to choose—and to define—one’s role. For someone like Fu Hao, every act was initiated by external forces: royal commands, divination, political rituals. She was recognized only because she followed well, proved her loyalty, and fit the system—not because she had thoughts to share or goals of her own.
14
In contrast, Amazon women might seem like “rebels.” They had their own tribes, military structures, and rejected traditional marriage. They even fought men as a defining feature of their culture. But this too was a form of submission—not to men directly, but to the male-defined image of what strength should look like.
One of the most telling examples is their treatment of the female body. Diodorus Siculus, a first-century BCE Greek historian best known for his Bibliotheca historica, a universal history covering myth, geography, and politics, offers a striking account of how the Amazons shaped their bodies to meet the demands of war. He notes that they would cauterize the right breasts of female infants to improve their archery performance, ensuring that nothing on the body would interfere with drawing a bowstring (Diodorus Siculus, 1867, Book 4.16.1).
They altered their bodies to gain more precise shooting ability, even destroying a part of their body most symbolic of femininity. This was not simple military training—it was an act of denying female characteristics. Breasts are not only body parts; they also represent identity, motherhood, and the power to give life. From a patriarchal view, the Amazons could only become warriors by removing these feminine features. They were not allowed to be strong and remain female; they had to give up being women in order to be accepted as powerful.
In social roles as well, the Amazons avoided any behavior associated with traditional femininity, especially in motherhood. Strabo, a Greek geographer and philosopher writing during the early Roman Empire, composed Geography, an encyclopedic work detailing the peoples, customs, and landscapes of the known world. In his account of the Amazons, he explains that their daughters were not raised through emotional nurturing but through rigid
15
military discipline. Instead of emphasizing care and affection, Amazon mothers hardened their daughters from infancy, training them for endurance and combat (Strabo, 2014, Book 11.5.1).
They were not mothers in the gentle sense but rather instructors—producers and trainers of tribal warriors. This approach denied the emotional connection often associated with motherhood. They did not allow themselves or their children to be soft; they did not focus on care, but on strength and control. In this way, the Amazons did not build a new model of powerful femininity—they gave up female experience and followed male standards.
We see that Amazon women’s behaviors were modeled almost entirely on masculine patterns. These “replicating-type” female heroes lacked true subjectivity because they had neither the opportunity nor the ability to create meaning from within. Subjectivity does not mean rebellion or aggression; it means the ability to ask, “Who am I?” and make choices from that inner awareness. When the Amazons had to rely on male language, values, and frameworks to define themselves, their actions became performances rather than expressions of the self. Their fierceness lacked a core of personal identity—that is the real reason why subjectivity could not emerge.
Fu Hao and the Amazons represent different stages of the same path. Fu Hao took no steps toward subjectivity—she did not even realize it was an option. Her life was centered around her husband, the state, and obedience. She did not rebel, nor did she question. It was not that she lacked ability, but that no one ever told her she could be anything else.
The Amazons went a step further. They rejected marriage, formed their own societies, and stood against male authority. They seemed like pioneers breaking free from
16
confinement, trying to build new possibilities for women. But after escaping, they did not know where to go.
They had no female traditions to rely on and no cultural models of what strong women could be. As Simone de Beauvoir famously wrote, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” (de Beauvoir, 2011, p. 283). But if women, in the process of resisting what was imposed on them, fail to create new systems of expression based on their own experiences, they are still not becoming themselves. Without a path shaped by women themselves, they are forced to copy masculine ways of living—training, fighting, ruling, suppressing emotion, and cutting off parts of their female bodies. They learn how to resist but are not given the tools to imagine what female power could look like. In the end, they become another version of men.
Like a revolution that overthrows a king but has no plan for governing, they fall into chaos. The Amazons did not fail on the battlefield—they failed in a cultural void. They tried to become themselves, only to find that the concept of “self” had never been made for them. Limitation
As for limitations, the foremost one must be the modern perspective of the concept of subjectivity. The concept of “subjectivity” used in this paper comes from contemporary feminist theory, which emphasizes the individual’s self-awareness, autonomous choice and inner will. However, this concept itself is a product of modern thought and has no corresponding language or logical system in ancient culture. Applying modern “subjectivity” to these historical figures may misinterpret their real situation.
17
Secondly, the insufficient analysis of context in cross-cultural comparison. This paper tries to make a horizontal comparison between Women’s Hao in the Shang Dynasty and the Amazon in ancient Greek mythology, pointing out the commonalities in the loss of subjectivity between the two, which reflects a cross-cultural phenomenon of “women being constructed”. However, due to the limitation of space and research depth, the article is relatively brief in analyzing the social structure, cultural system and gender concepts of the two characters. In fact, these contexts are important for understanding why they appear as “non-subjects”. Further analysis of their respective cultural backgrounds and cultural differences may shed more light on the prevalence of patriarchy. Implication
One of the most important revelations of this study is that it breaks the widely accepted perception that “heroines” represent women’s awakening and struggle. In popular culture and some feminist narratives, images such as the woman or the Amazon are often seen as early manifestations of female power, or even as “precursors of female liberation”. This paper argues, however, that such understandings are illusions actively created by patriarchy. The military identity of the woman was authorized by the king, and the battle image of the Amazon was portrayed by male poets and artists. Their “power” was not a natural expression of female will, but rather a way to satisfy the patriarchal society’s setup of controllable female roles. These heroes are not awakened beings, but choreographed “actors”.
More importantly, these mythic patterns have not disappeared with history, but continue to exist in contemporary culture in a softer way. The image of the “perfect woman” – smart, capable, a fighter, emotionally stable, and without weaknesses – often appears in
18
modern movies and television, such as Marvel’s “Captain Marvel” or Disney’s “Mulan” – they are powerful, but they have no weaknesses. “They are powerful, but never really challenge the system; they are allowed to appear, but must fulfill the public’s imagination of the “perfect woman”. This is a continuation of the Amazonian logic: you can be strong, but you have to be appropriately strong and not threaten the male-dominated structure. The myth is constantly being rewritten, but the way it disciplines women remains the same.
Moreover, the presence of symbolic representation masks the reality of the plight of most women. When people see women being empowered to fight and Amazons going to war, it is easy to get the illusion that women can break through the limitations if they are good enough. This narrative transforms structural injustices into individual problems, changing the problem from “systematic oppression” to “you don’t work hard enough”. In reality, many women still face problems such as employment discrimination, family pressure, and emotional denial, while society uses a few “successful women” to suppress criticism and maintain the status quo. For example, when a woman complains about her chances of promotion in the workplace, someone often cites the example of a “so-and-so female CEO”, saying that this shows that the system is fair. This is in fact a modern token logic, in the same vein as the model represented by women and Amazon. Conclusion
By analyzing the woman and the Amazon, this paper points out that patriarchy does not really empower women in history and mythology, but selectively creates a few seemingly powerful images to justify its rule. These “female heroes” do not derive from the will of real women, but are arranged symbolic representations, tokens, passive, obedient, and controllable. Their existence serves the cultural needs of patriarchy, not the
19
emancipation of the female collective. Under this institutional arrangement, even with their military, religious, and dominant identities, they remain incapable of developing true subjectivity. They are not self-selected actors, but symbols set by others. Understanding this will help us rethink the seemingly “progressive” images of women in contemporary culture. The future of feminism should not be satisfied with superficial heroic narratives, but should continue to ask: Who speaks? Who is represented? Who is silenced?
20
References
Aeschylus. (2009). The Oresteia (R. Fagles, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published ca. 458 B.C.E.)
Aristotle. (2013). Politics (C. Lord, Trans.; 2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)
Cartwright, M. (2019, November 14). Amazon women. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/Amazon_Women/
Chang, X. (2005). A heroic woman in the Shang dynasty: Fu Hao. [Unpublished manuscript].
Cheng, Y. (2016). 试析妇好带兵征战的原因 [An analysis of the reasons why Fu Hao led troops to war]. 南方文物, (1), 204–207.
Christ, C. P. (2016). A new definition of patriarchy: Control of women’s sexuality, private property and war. PhilPapers. https://philpapers.org/rec/CHRAND-2
Confucius. (n.d.). The Book of Rites (J. Legge, Trans.). Chinese Text Project. Retrieved April 18, 2025, from https://ctext.org/liji
Dai De. (n.d.). Shao Jian [少间]. In Da Dai Li Ji [大戴礼记]. Chinese Text Project.
Retrieved April 18, 2025, from https://ctext.org/da-dai-li-ji/shao-xian/zh Dawson, L. (2014). The Other: Gender, sexuality and ethnicity in European cinema and beyond. Studies in European Cinema, 11(2), 151–154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17411548.2014.972672
de Beauvoir, S. (2011). The second sex (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1949)
21
Diodorus Siculus. (1867). Diodōrou Bibliothēkē historikē (Vol. 55, L. A. Dindorf, Ed.). In aedibus B. G. Teubneri. https://books.google.com/
Hollway, W. (1989). Subjectivity and Method in Psychology: Gender, Meaning and Science. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791398
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F. (2010). Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of a psychological climate of gender inequity. Journal of Management, 36(2), 482–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328508
Lu, X. (2013). 商代女杰妇好与女性对抗意识 [The outstanding woman Fu Hao of the
Shang dynasty and female resistance consciousness]. 语文教学通讯, (742)7, 94–96.
Mayor, A. (2014). The Amazons: Lives and legends of warrior women across the ancient world. Princeton University Press.
Oracle Bone Inscriptions. (n.d.). Heji. In Oracle explanation [甲骨文合集释文]. Retrieved
April 18, 2025, from https://archive.org/details/06-14822-19753/ Papamichali, O. (2023). Amazons: The reality behind their legend. Feminist Theology,
32(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/09667350231183058 Plutarch. (1914). Lives, Volume I: Theseus and Romulus. Lycurgus and Numa. Solon and
Publicola (B. Perrin, Trans.). Harvard University Press. Quintus Smyrnaeus. (1913). The Fall of Troy (A. S. Way, Trans.). Harvard University
Press. (Original work composed ca. 4th century C.E.) Strabo. (2014). The geography of Strabo: An English translation, with introduction and
notes (D. W. Roller, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
22
Yabing, S. (2020). Manifold and splendid: 120 years of research on the oracle bone inscriptions and Shang history. Chinese Studies in History, 53(4), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094633.2020.1834816
Zhenglang, Z. (1986). A brief discussion on Fu Hao. Early China, 9, 21–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0362502800002984
满怀着对海岛生活的思念回到学校，心里很难没有怨怼。尤其春季学习也没有任何的缓冲期，上来就是高强度训练。我一下很烦躁，因为事情太多了，即便每一件都看似on the track，但这就跟玩音游一样，为了确保每个音符都得点到，不得不时刻神经紧绷。五月有ap，六月八月有sat，考完就是文书和申请，一年时间被划分的很清楚。我觉得很累，虽然一天可能只上五六个小时课，但是总要到凌晨才能合电脑，todolist每天都能列出八九条。天气还没有回暖，更让人emo，甚至连压力大了出去散散步都不行，每天最大的解压活动成了拉屎和玩第五人格
In the history of the Mongol empire, the undeniable fact is their strong and cruel military power. It allowed Mongols to expand at an incredible speed. However, since the nomadic people relatively lack experience in how to rule such a large empire. Therefore, this essay will give some advice to the Mongol empire in the period of Khan Chinggis to help him maintain the stability of the empire. It contains policies-suggestion of the administration, succession, law, rewarding and citizenship, mixed marriage, Emperor apotheosis, religion, culture, and history maintenance.
Background information
Khan Chinggis who formerly known as Temujin, succeeded in unifying the various Mongol tribes and establishing a powerful military force. Under Genghis Khan’s leadership, the Mongol army undertook a series of conquests, including those of Central Asia, Persia, Eastern Europe, and China. These conquests made the Mongol Empire the largest land empire in the world at the time.
Policies-Suggestion
1. Administration
-In order to contain more perspectives from different nations in ruling and balancing the power of the empire, I suggest that Khan Chinggis and his generals select the members for these 2 congresses to be the first session. X should be Mongol nobles and leaders, and Y should be non-Mongol nobles, artisans, and others who have outstanding performances in their fields. The most important events must be discussed by the emperor and 2 congresses, such as decisions for succession and legislation.
Respond for 13,18
2. Succession
-Eligibility: Candidates of the successor include sons of the emperor and other 3 leaders elected by 3 main Mongol tribes (These 3 tribes should each be chosen by the emperor, congress X, and Congress Y). The successor must be of Mongol lineage, half is also accepted, and they must join the army before. All candidates have participated in the military before and have contributed to it. This is for the successor, which means the future emperor’s legitimacy, to prove their leader is capable and orthodox.
-Election: The next successor should be elected after the discussion of the emperor and congresses, to ensure the fairness of the election. Each member has 2 votes. If there are candidates get the same number of votes, the emperor has the power to decide which one.
Respond to concerns 15 22
3. Law
-2 Congresses work together to make the basic law of the empire, and the local tribes, governments, and nations have the right of explain the laws and right of execution, meaning that they can have some differences in specific rules considering their varied cultural backgrounds, however, it cannot be contradict with the basic law made by central congresses. For example, for Iran women, might need to wear hijabs to cover their body, which is an important policy in their law. But in China, since people don’t believe in Islamic doctrine, they won’t need to do this. This will be the empire’s concession for diversity and inclusion.
-The congresses will hold a leading meeting every 3 years. Leaders of local governments should come to the meeting to report their work. The congresses can randomly pick 2 places and go there for the check.
-Each local government must have 2 leaders, one is Mongol appointed by the central government(congress or emperor) and another one can be Mongol or non-Mongol from the local. The second and third one is designed to prevent local governments from detaching from central controls.
Respond to concerns 17 20 21
4. Rewarding and Citizenship
-Mongols can learn from the Roman Empire, which emphasizes the value of citizenship. When considering the reward system, for Mongols, the government can give them money and military rank, and for non-Mongols, the government can give them Mongol citizenship and give rewards to their hometown. This can help to get the loyalty of non-Mongols and promote the integrated of the empire.
-To elevate the value of Mongol citizenship, non-Mongols will have a ceiling for the military or official rank.
Respond to concerns 19
5. Military
-In order to maintain the strong military power of Mongols, all males, except disabilities, are forced to join the army from 16 to 26 years old. If they got a promotion during this period, they are being suggested to stay in the army, if they are not, they could decide whether to change to other fields.
-Generals will be on duty rotation every 5 years, which means their ministries and soldiers will be regularly changing. It is to prevent every general from getting too close to soldiers that they might be threatened by the emperor.
Respond to concerns 14 18
6. Mixed marriage
-To reinforce loyalty and integration, the government will encourage mixed marriages, both more plebeians and nobles. As it promotes the connection between different nations and cultures, it can enhance the stability of the empire.
-The children born with mixed marriages will automatically qualify to get Mongol citizenship, but the parents can also choose to let children join other nation’s citizenship.
14 15
7. Emperor apotheosis
-To enhance the great of the emperor’s sovereignty, the emperor can clarify himself as the representation of the Mongol religious God in the human world. By building a connection with supernatural power, people will respect and obey the emperor.
15
8. Religious
-Allowing and respecting all religions to exist.
-Any leader of religion cannot recruit military power, and they also cannot enter the military management system. This can avoid giving too much power to the religious.
7
9. Culture and history maintenance
-An official group will be responsible for recording every big event such as the change of succession and war. It will be written in books, each year have one book.
10
Conclusion
These policies are designed to help the empire stable, avoid rebellion, and enforce obedience. The main philosophy is to promote the integration of cultures and nations, be aware of the potential risks that might cause rebellion and balance the power of different institutions.
Our topic is murals during the Silk Road period reflect cultural fusion. This video includes evidence pieces from 5 different documentaries that talk about the Silk Roads civilization. We built connections for these documentaries and evidence to revitalize the glory of Silk Roads, forming a new video with the BGM lyrics adapted by ourselves.
