“WHY DOESN''T SHE LEAVE?”

楼主:春风秋水 时间:2008-06-18 22:29:00 浙江 点击:330 回复:4
脱水 打赏 看楼主 设置

字体:

边距:

背景:

还原:

"WHY DOESN’T SHE LEAVE?"
  by Ann Jones
  她为什么不离开?
  安·琼斯
  Tr. Chunfengqiushui
  
  
   Despite the immense achievements of the battered-women’s movement in the past fifteen years, those who work to stop violence against women - those who staff the hotlines and the shelters and the legal-service centers, those who press to make law enforcement and criminal justice act responsibly, those who lobby for legislative reform - know that the next time a woman is battered in the United States (which is to say within the next twelve seconds) few people will ask: What’s wrong with that man? What makes him think he can get away with that? Is he crazy? Did the cops arrest him? Is he in jail? When will he be prosecuted? Is he likely to get a serious sentence? Is she getting adequate police protection? Are the children provided for? Did the court evict him from her house? Does she need any other help? Medical help maybe, or legal aid? New housing? Temporary financial aid? Child support?
   尽管在过去五十年里反对向妇女施暴的运动取得了极大的成果,然而那些从事于阻止向妇女施暴的社会工作者,受害女性服务热线、庇护所、法律援助中心的工作人员,促使法律实施以使施暴者遭受应有的法律惩处的人,以及那些游说立法机关改革的人都知道,妇女下一次将继续被打(也就是说在接下来的十二秒里),一些人不禁会问:这些男人究竟是怎么了?又是什么使他认为他能逃脱法律的惩罚?他疯了吗?警察为什么不逮捕他?他为什么不坐牢?他什么时候才会被起诉?孩子谁来抚养?法院有将他从她的房子里驱逐出去吗?她需要别的帮助吗?是需要医疗帮助呢还是法律援助?是需要新的的住所吗?还是暂时的财务援助?孩子怎么带呢?
   No, the first question, and often the only question, that leaps to mind is: "Why doesn’t he leave?"
   然而,往往第一个浮现在脑海里也是最恰切的一个问题是:“他为什么不离开?”
   This question, which we can’t seem to stop asking, is not a real question. It doesn’t call for an answer; it makes a judgement. It is mystifies. It transforms an immense social problem into a personal transaction, and at the same time pins responsibility squarely on the victim. It obliterates both the terrible magnitude of violence against women and the great achievements of the movement against it. It simultaneously suggests two ideas, both of them false: that help is readily available to all worthy victims (which is to say, victims who leave),and that this victim is not one of them.
   我们似乎情不自禁地追问的这个问题,并不是一个真问题。它并不要求答案,它需要的只是审判。这真是令人困惑啊。它将庞大的社会问题转化为个人事务,同时直接将其归为受害者的责任。这掩盖了施诸女性的可怕暴力以及反暴力运动所取得的巨大成果。这同时也表明了两个虚假的理念:所有值得帮助的受害者都可以容易地获得帮助(也就是说,受害者离开),该受害人不是他们其中之一。
   So powerful and dazzling is this question that someone always tries to answer it. And the answer given rarely is the simple truth you find in the stories of formerly battered women: She does leave. She is leaving. She left. No, so mystifying is the question that someone always tries to explain why she doesn’t leave even after she has left. This exchange takes place remarkably often on television talk sows and news programs - heavily influencing the way the public thinks about battered women.
   这个问题如此强大、令人炫目,以致总是有些人试图解答这个问题。所给出的答案,几乎是你在所有此前被暴打的女性故事里所发现的简单真理:她应该离开,她准备离开,她已经离开。然而令人困惑的问题是,一些人总是试图解释她为什么不离开,甚至在她离开以后又回到他的身边。很明显,这个交流经常发生在电视的脱口秀和新闻节目上,它严重影响着公众思考有关遭受暴力欺压的女性问题。
   In October 1987, for example, the local New York City affiliate of the CBS television network included in the nightly news a segment on the case of Karen Straw, a twenty-nine-year-old African-American woman about to stand trial for murder. Karen Straw had left her husband, Clifton, in 1984, after a three-year marriage, and moved with her to a welfare hotel. She wanted a divorce, but she couldn’t afford one. For more than two years, her husband continued to harass and beat her, although she obtained orders of protection from the court and tried at least ten times to have him arrested and prosecuted. In December 1986 he broke into her room, beat her, raped her at knife point in front of the children and threatened to kill her. She got hold of a kitchen knife and stabbed him. She was charged with second-degree murder, the heaviest charge the state could bring against her, since New York reserves first-degree murder charges for murders of police officers and prison guards.
   例如,在1987年10月,哥伦比亚广播公司所属纽约电视台每天都播报卡伦·斯托一案的夜间新闻片段,该案中29岁的非洲裔女子因为谋杀亲夫而受审。卡伦·斯托在婚后三年,也就是1984年就已经离开了他的丈夫克里夫顿,搬到福利旅馆生活。她想离婚,但是她没办法养活自己和孩子。两年后,尽管她获得了法院的保护令,并不少于十次想让他被抓、被告,然而她的丈夫继续骚扰、殴打她。1986年12月,丈夫闯进她家、殴打她、当着孩子的面强奸她,并威胁要杀了她。她操起一把菜刀,向丈夫砍去。她被判二级谋杀罪,这也许是自纽约州仅对杀害警官和狱警而适用一级谋杀罪以来国家对她最严重的惩处。
   On WCBS, reporter Bree Walker recapitulated this story and pointed out that Karen Straw was only "one of many battered wives" recently compelled to defend themselves when a "weak criminal justice (system) again and again failed them."
   在纽约WCBS电视台的报道中,记者布莉·沃克概述了整个故事,并指出,卡伦·斯托只不过是“多次遭受殴打的妻子中的一员”,当“疲软的刑罚体系再三没法让她们免于受害”时,她才不得以自卫。
   At the end of Walker’s prerecorded report, anchorman Jim Jensen leaned toward reporter Walker, sitting beside him in the studio, and asked the standard question, the one everybody always asks: Why didn’t she leave? Jensen phrased it this way: "Why would one murder her husband instead of just walking away?" The question was particularly remarkable, for it didn’t match Bree Walker’s report or the circumstances of Karen Straw’s life at all.
   在记者沃克的事先录音报道的结尾,节目主持人吉姆·杰森也倾向于坐在他身旁的记者记者沃克,并提问了这个每个人都会问的标准问题:她为什么不离开?杰森的表述如下:“她为什么要杀害亲夫,而不是离他而去?”这个问题非常值得注意,因为它根本就没有弄清楚沃克的报道或不清楚卡伦·斯托的生活。
   But even more remarkable was reporter Walker’s reply. As though the facts lay not in her own report but in the anchorman’s irrelevant question, Bree Walker began to explain why Karen Straw, a woman who had walked away, had not. "There are a lot of different reasons psychologists say - helplessness, dependence, a lot of different reasons. A lot of women feel..." Jensen interrupted: "Well, if they’re dependent on them, when they kill’em, they’ve lost their dependence, haven’t they?" He sounded angry, as if he were scolding Walker for her point of view. Walker, looking startled, responded, "Well, certainly. Yes. It’s an ugly, ugly confusing problem." There was a moment’s awkward airspace before anchorwoman Carol Martin jumped in. "Well, from that subject, we’ll move on." she said. "Still ahead, we’ll talk about the rain..."
   然而更加值得注意的是记者沃克的回答。尽管事实上这并不是她的亲自报道,但是为了应对节目主持人不切题的提问,布莉·沃克开始解释为什么卡伦·斯托作为一个已经离开的女人却不能摆脱厄运。“心理学家说,有太多的原因——无助感、依赖感以及其他诸种原因。许多妇女觉得……”杰森打断道,“如果她们依赖他们的话,当她们杀害他们的时候,她们就失去了依赖,这又是为什么呢?”他很生气地说,就像他责备沃克的观点一样。而沃克,非常震惊地看着他,回应道,“当然,这是一个很难、很难回答的复杂问题。”在另一位节目主持人卡罗尔·马丁参与进来之前,有好一阵子尴尬。“我们还是换个话题,说点别的吧。”她说,“接下来,我们就爱你过讨论下雨的事情……”
   But Jensen’s question still hung in the air: "Why would one murder hr husband instead of just walking away?" It enveloped the story in a fog of mystification. Clifton Straw’s violence and terrorism disappeared in that puff of rhetoric, utterly overlooked. Vanished, too, was the public issue reporter Walker had presented, magically replaced by the personal problem of another dumb woman. Viewers did not have to question the failure of the police and courts to protect this woman; they could think instead that Karen Straw might simply have walked away. Just when viewers were beginning to feel indignant on her behalf, they could say to themselves instead: "How stupid of her. Why didn’t she think of that?"
   但是杰森的问题仍然悬而未决:“她为什么要杀害亲夫,而不是离他而去?”笼罩这个问题的迷雾挥之不去。克里夫顿·斯托的暴力和恐怖行为在花言巧语中消失,并完全被搁置一边。记者沃克所表述的公共问题也隐匿无踪,并被另一个沉默的妇女的个人问题魔法般地取而代之。电视观众并没有怀疑警察和法院对于妇女保护的失灵,他们反而认为卡伦·斯托应该离开。当电视观众开始对其代表表示愤怒,他们自言自语道,“她真傻。她为什么不考虑这个问题?”
   Karen Straw was acquitted of all charges against her, by jurors who heard the whole story; and she was released to gather up the tatters of her life. But that familiar, trivializing question - the question that obscures both the extent of violence against women and the immense individual and collective efforts of women to overcome it - doesn’t go away.
   当陪审员听了她的故事后,针对卡伦·斯托的所有控告均不成立,她被无罪释放,重新做人。但是那个非常熟悉的、琐碎的问题——这个问题模糊了施诸妇女的暴力程度以及大量的妇女克服暴力的个人和集体努力——并没有离开。
   In a classic analysis published in 1966, psychologist William Ryan examined the way America typically approached "solutions" to "social problems" that seemed to afflict "oppressed groups" - problems of education, health care, housing, crime, unemployment and the like. Because we "cannot comfortably believe that we are the cause" of social problems, Ryan said, we’ve developed a habit of locating the problem in the peculiar "vulnerability" and "deviance" of those it harms. He called his book Blaming the Victim.
   在1966年的经典分析中,心理学家威廉·赖安审视了美国从“解决方案”到看起来折磨着“受压抑的群体”的“社会问题”——教育问题、健康医疗、住房、犯罪、失业以及诸如此类的问题的典型处理方式。因为我们“不能安逸地相信我们是社会问题的原因。”赖安说,我们发展了这样一种习惯,即将问题置于特殊的“弱点”和“偏离”上。他称他的书责备受害者。
   Ryan was certainly not thinking of battered women. It was still possible in 1966 to write about targets of discrimination in America without thinking of women at all, but already the search for the "vulnerability" and "deviance" was underway. In 1964 one of the first American studies of battered women, conducted by three men and significantly entitled "The Wifebeater’s Wife: A Study of Family Interaction," studied women in Framingham, Massachusetts, who had charged their husbands with assault, and found the women "castrating," "aggressive" "masculine," "frigid," "indecisive." "passive" and "masochistic." What’s more, the authors concluded, the husband’s assaultive behavior served "to fill a wife’s need even though she protests it."
   赖安肯定没有想到那些被殴打的妇女。他仍然有可能在根本没有考虑妇女问题的情形下在1966年写下美国的歧视目标,但是对于“弱点”和“偏离”的研究却开始了。1964年美国对于被殴打妇女的第一项研究是由三位男性开展的,这项研究被冠以这样的标题:“殴妻者之妻:家庭行为研究”。被研究者都是麻州福雷明罕(Framingham)的妇女,她们遭受着丈夫的暴打。此项研究发现,妇女是“被阉割的”、“泼辣的”、“男性化的”、“不性感的”、“次要的”、“被动的”、“受虐狂”。更甚者,研究者断定,丈夫的暴打行为适合于“满足妻子的需求,尽管她拒绝这样。”
   Today such sexist "reasoning" in the scientific literature is better concealed but it’s often thee nonetheless, lurking about the premises. The conclusions of the Framingham study are repeated without qualification in a recent book of pop "scholarship" on the subject, Intimate Violence, billed as "The Definitive Study of the Causes and Consequences of Abuse in the American Family." The authors are Richard Gelles and Murray Straus, two sociologists who have turned the dispassionate, objective, scientific, mathematical inspection of victims and the superficial statistical survey into a busy, profitable academic industry. They conclude that "There is not much evidence that battered women as a group are more masochistic than other women." These authors are the most prominent of the band of academic researchers who, after nearly twenty years of government- supported research, have still not turned their attention from the victims to the violence of men. No wonder this "reasoning" still dominates popular thinking about women who are battered.
   今天一些科学文献中男性主义的“推理”已经被较好地隐藏了起来,但是其前提是你对此袖手旁观。福雷明罕的研究结果,被一本名为《美国家庭虐待的因果之权威研究》通俗“学术”著作无条件地被再三引用。该书的作者理查德·盖乐斯和莫里·斯特劳斯都是社会学家,他们对受害人进行了冷静、客观、科学、精确地审视,并对繁忙、有利可图的学术产业进行了粗浅的统计调查。他们总结道,“没有足够的证据表明,被暴打的妇女相对于其他女性来说更有受虐狂倾向。”这些作者是学术队伍中的佼佼者,他们进行受政府资助的研究长达二十年,但是仍然没有将其研究视角从受害人转移到男人的暴力方面。这个“推理”不足为奇,并且在大众关于被暴打妇女的思考中仍然占有优势。
   If the problem is her fault and the solution her responsibility, then neither the criminal-justice system, which we might expect to come to the aid of crime victims, nor other social institutions can do anything about it. And that’s exactly what they’ve been saying all along.
   如果问题是她的错、她的责任,而不是我们期望刑事受害者获得援助的刑罚体系,也不是能够有所改变的社会制度。确切地说,他们一直都是这么说的。
  
  
  
  ource:http://www.womynkind.org/whyno.htm)
  

打赏

0 点赞

主帖获得的天涯分:0
举报 | 楼主 | 埋红包
楼主发言:1次 发图:0张 | 添加到话题 |
楼主春风秋水 时间:2008-06-18 22:30:41 浙江
  past fifteen years
  是过去十五年,而不是五十年
  又看错了,汗颜中……
作者:调查调查查找 时间:2008-06-19 04:59:55 广东
  好哦
作者:Harry1028 时间:2008-06-19 05:33:01 广东
  ...few people will ask: What’s wrong...
  一些人不禁会问:这些男人究
  ======
  few,不是 a few~
发表回复

请遵守天涯社区公约言论规则,不得违反国家法律法规