A few days ago, when I went out, I passed by a park and saw some young men and women gathered somewhere. They were sitting or squatting, seemingly chatting idly. The young men were dressed in leather jackets and jeans, with hair dyed yellow or brown, styled in mohawks, wolf tails, and the like, talking incessantly nearby, occasionally bursting into loud laughter. Because they spoke in local dialects, I couldn’t understand what they were saying. The young women, on the other hand, had dyed their hair purple or pink, wore black skirts and stockings, and sat quietly with masks on, squatting to the side.
“These are a bunch of hooligans!” I thought to myself, giving them a contemptuous glance before walking over.
On the way, I ran into an old acquaintance and discussed this matter with him. But he didn’t agree with my view. He said, “Those young men might be hooligans or thugs, but the young women are not hooligans; most of them are poor people who have no home.” I was shocked to hear this. “Homeless?” I thought of some news and documentaries I had seen before, where women were subjected to domestic violence, molestation, or even sexual assault, and had to end up on the streets. “But why do they dress up like ‘spiritual little sisters’ then? After all, no one forces them to dress like that.” I thought, maybe they are still victims of patriarchal oppression.
When I got home, I shared what I saw and my thoughts, seeking opinions from comrades.
“You’re wrong,” one comrade retorted. “In capitalist society, they haven’t been exposed to Marxism and can’t freely decide their actions. Just like you couldn’t decide whether to masturbate before, they will inevitably, like most men under capitalism, pick up these bad habits that oppress women. You think they dress that way ‘voluntarily,’ but this is also due to patriarchal oppression. Seeing these young women’s outfits, then attacking them as hooligans without distinction is the same as those who attack prostitutes as sluts and bitches.”
After being criticized, I thought about it and realized I indeed had some pornographic thoughts triggered by their clothing, glancing at them a few times. Seeing them in short skirts and stockings, I automatically assumed they were morally corrupt like social hooligans, which was driven by lustful thoughts. I believed these short skirts and stockings were meant for sexual activities, and when I saw women dressed like that, I used slut-shaming logic to attack their morality. What’s the difference between that and those male chauvinists calling them “sluts”? Clothes are just clothes; only male chauvinists see them as symbols of sexual activity because they want to look at women’s thighs and satisfy their fantasies, thus oppressing women. However, my thoughts haven’t fully changed yet.
“I still can’t understand why they dress up like ‘spiritual little sisters.’ The only thing I can think of is the abstract idea that they are ‘poisoned by patriarchal ideas,’ but why is that? I used to think these outfits were just hooligan costumes,” I said. So comrades researched what exactly “dressing like that” entails, and found that their style is very similar to the “Gareki-kei” (地雷系) fashion originating in Japan. Even the encyclopedia states that this style’s popularity is related to “misery and self-harm,” and it’s called “Gareki-kei” because it often provokes strong dissatisfaction among these women when discussing certain issues. Clearly, why some women become nihilistic, self-destructive, and react so strongly when discussing certain topics? The bourgeoisie, who are not oppressed, enjoy the real world because they live decadent lives. These women have been deeply hurt by patriarchal society; when mentioning past wounds, they become very resentful and have no way out, leading to their nihilism, self-harm, and self-hatred.
Another comrade criticized me, saying, “Your view of ‘submissive and rebellious’ is problematic. Dressing ‘unconventional’ should be labeled as hooliganism, which means that any deviation from Confucian norms in capitalist society is hooliganism.” When I saw this, I didn’t know what to say. In fact, I was attacking them in this way, and in my past life, I also regarded rebellious students who skipped classes, caused trouble, or used their phones in class as hooligans—until I needed to bring my phone to school for activities. But this kind of thinking persisted stubbornly, and today it was exposed.
Thus, our discussion expanded to groups like “spiritual little brothers” and “spiritual little sisters.” In my previous thinking, these terms were essentially synonyms for hooligans. However, everyone pointed out that most of these people come from economically underdeveloped and impoverished regions, such as Guangxi, Guangdong, or the four provinces of Shanhe, or the Northeast. Their “unconventional” dressing also contains elements of rebellion against capitalism, similar to the earlier “Killer Matt” style, expressing a desire for personal freedom and liberation. But they don’t understand Marxism, and their aesthetic views also carry some bourgeois elements, so their fashion also shows bourgeois aesthetic features. “Spiritual little brothers” and “spiritual little sisters” are at least “spiritual,” which is better than those mediocre, rule-abiding, “spiritless” cowards in capitalist society, right? In fact, these “spiritual little brothers” and “spiritual little sisters” also hold some mutual aid ideas, and some are quite loyal, willing to stand up for friends. For example, the case of Zhang Anmin, where a “spiritual little sister” stood up for her. This is much better than students in school who sell out classmates with phones or refuse to let others copy homework. In the past, many protesting peasants were called hooligans, thieves, bandits, or robbers by landlords. They formed organizations like the Hongmen, Qingbang, White Lotus, and Tiandihui, which initially had anti-feudal social characteristics but later degenerated into gangs. More advanced groups like the Baiting Society directly led peasants in revolutionary movements. In socialist-era films like “Whirlwind of Hatred,” Zhdanovsky also went to gang groups of homeless children to promote revolutionary ideas and unite them. Because they are oppressed, they can ultimately be united through revolution.
So, when encountering these “spiritual little brothers” and “spiritual little sisters,” we shouldn’t treat them as hooligans like I did before, nor should we fantasize and attack the women among them. They certainly have many wrong ideas, and their opposition to capitalism is not necessarily Marxist; they pursue personal liberation. They are also easily deceived by bourgeoisie and real hooligans, which might lead them down a path of degradation. We should view them dialectically, strive to reform those who can be changed, and strengthen revolutionary forces.
