性、謊言和代溝

Students at Oxford university traditionally have tutorials in their tutors’ “rooms”. Sometimes that just means an office but often he (the tutor is usually a he) hangs out a lot there. In short, the teaching space is also a private space. Add on the power imbalance between tutor and student, and Oxford in my student days (1988-1992) might have been designed for sexual harassment.

牛津大學(xué)(Oxford university)的學(xué)生們以往都在導(dǎo)師“房間”里接受輔導(dǎo)。有時(shí)房間就是一間辦公室，但導(dǎo)師(一般是男性)往往很多時(shí)間都在那里呆著?？傊?，教學(xué)場(chǎng)所也是一種私密空間。另外，導(dǎo)師和學(xué)生之間的權(quán)力并不對(duì)等，而且我念書的時(shí)候(1988年—1992年)，牛津也許就是為性騷擾設(shè)計(jì)的。

Students swapped harassment stories. There was the tutor who emerged from his shower wearing only a towel to greet a female tutee. Another tutor, who often discussed his interest in young men, once (probably when fogged by his sherry) groped a female student’s knee. When someone overdid it at one Oxford college, he was usually quietly shunted to another. Written rules about sex would have been considered humourless, even “American”.

學(xué)生們交談著性騷擾的傳聞。有個(gè)導(dǎo)師只裹著一條毛巾就從浴室出來見一位女生。另一個(gè)經(jīng)常說自己喜歡年輕小伙子的導(dǎo)師，有一次(大概因?yàn)楹攘它c(diǎn)雪利酒)摸了一名女生的膝蓋。如果某人在牛津某個(gè)學(xué)院做得太過份，通常會(huì)被悄悄地調(diào)到另一個(gè)學(xué)院。有關(guān)性的成文規(guī)定會(huì)被認(rèn)為太一本正經(jīng)，甚至有點(diǎn)“美國”。

It was a different world. But most of us who inhabited it — and grew up thinking its codes were normal — are still around today. The sexual revolution of 2013-17 — gay marriage, transgender rights, and now the uprising against harassment — has been a wonderful thing. But I fear that many men and even some women of my age and older will spend the rest of their lives fighting the new codes.

那會(huì)兒的情況跟現(xiàn)在完全不同。但我們這些從那時(shí)候過來的人大多數(shù)都還活著——并且我們?cè)诔砷L過程中都對(duì)那時(shí)候的行為規(guī)范習(xí)以為常了。2013年至2017年的性革命——同性婚姻、跨性別人士權(quán)益以及當(dāng)下輿論對(duì)性騷擾的激烈聲討——令人拍手稱快。但我擔(dān)心很多與我年齡相仿、或稍年長于我的男性，甚至部分女性，都將用余生與各種新的行為規(guī)范作斗爭(zhēng)。

My generation reached adulthood with scarcely even a concept of sexual harassment. During my last year at university, Anita Hill made her accusations against her former boss Clarence Thomas, who had been nominated for the US Supreme Court. I watched the hearings on TV, and remember fellow students mocking her, but I struggled to understand exactly what she was alleging. She wasn’t accusing Thomas of physical attack, so what did “harassment” mean? My ignorance wasn’t unique. A contemporary tells me that at the time she was trying to help write her college’s first-ever legal code on harassment.

我們這代人直到成年時(shí)對(duì)性騷擾都沒有一點(diǎn)概念。我大學(xué)畢業(yè)的前一年，安妮塔•希爾(Anita Hill)對(duì)其前上司克拉倫斯•托馬斯(Clarence Thomas)提出指控，那時(shí)托馬斯已被提名為美國最高法院的法官。我在電視上觀看了聽證會(huì)，我還記得我的同學(xué)們嘲笑希爾，但我努力想弄明白她到底在控訴什么。她并沒有指控托馬斯對(duì)她實(shí)施了身體攻擊，那么“騷擾”指的是什么呢?無知的并不止我一個(gè)人。一位同齡朋友告訴我，當(dāng)時(shí)她正試著協(xié)助他們學(xué)院撰寫第一部關(guān)于騷擾的法律規(guī)則。

Over the next two decades, western countries progressed a bit. Codes got written. A new moral rule emerged: relationships ought to be equal. That meant that homosexuality was OK, whereas unequal relationships — such as paedophilia and sexual harassment — were taboo. Slowly, people’s behaviour changed. Harassment probably declined, from a very bad base. In 2002, 6.5 per cent of American respondents to the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey said they had been sexually harassed on the job in the previous 12 months. The figure fell to 3.6 per cent by 2014.

接下來的20年，西方國家進(jìn)步了一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)。有了一些相關(guān)的成文法規(guī)。新的道德規(guī)范出現(xiàn)了：人與人之間的關(guān)系應(yīng)當(dāng)平等。這意味著同性戀也沒有問題，而不平等關(guān)系——如戀童癖及性騷擾——則是禁忌。慢慢地，人們的行為發(fā)生了改變。相較于以往極其惡劣的情形，騷擾或許減少了。2002年，在芝加哥大學(xué)(University of Chicago)所做的《綜合社會(huì)調(diào)查》(General Social Survey)中，6.5%的美國受訪者表示在過去12個(gè)月他們?cè)诠ぷ髦性獾叫则}擾。到了2014年，這個(gè)數(shù)字下降為3.6%。

Meanwhile, a group of new movements bubbled up in the US, most of all on campuses. From Black Lives Matter, through transgender activists, to It’s On Us (“to stop sexual assault”), they had different origins but shared a basic idea: our group has always been violated by others. In particular, the white patriarchy has hurt us, and stamped on our identity. Our duty is to speak out. In this battle, it’s sometimes OK to deny the other side free speech.

與此同時(shí)，美國出現(xiàn)了一系列新的維權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)，其中大多數(shù)發(fā)生在校園里。從“黑人的命也是命”(Black Lives Matter)，跨性別活動(dòng)者，到It’s On Us (“抵制性侵”)，這些活動(dòng)有著不同的緣起，但都基于一種理念：我們的群體總受到別人的侵犯。特別是，白人父權(quán)制傷害了我們，踐踏了我們的身份。我們的責(zé)任就是大膽發(fā)聲。在這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)斗中，有時(shí)可以否認(rèn)對(duì)方言論的自由。

When these groups spoke out against violation, they were often mocked. However, they have been startlingly influential. The moment that their worldview went mainstream was in September, when the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was exposed as a sexual predator. Women the world over began speaking out against violation. That has changed gender relations.

當(dāng)這些群體高聲反抗侵犯時(shí)，常常遭到人們的嘲笑。然而，他們的影響力卻不容小覷。他們的世界觀成為主流是在今年9月，其時(shí)好萊塢制片人哈維•韋恩斯坦(Harvey Weinstein)被曝性騷擾。世界各地的女性開始公開反對(duì)侵犯。這改變了性別關(guān)系。

This will infuriate lots of people. In male-dominated societies, rules against sexual harassment won’t easily triumph. Rebecca Traister, who is writing a book on female anger around politics, says in a podcast: “I fully believe that a backlash to this moment of exposure, and this conversation, is imminent.”

這會(huì)激怒很多人。在男性主導(dǎo)的社會(huì)中，反對(duì)性騷擾的規(guī)則不會(huì)輕易取勝。麗貝卡•特雷斯特(Rebecca Traister)正在寫一本書，講的是女性對(duì)權(quán)術(shù)的憤怒。特雷斯特在播客上說：“我完全相信，此次曝光和這場(chǎng)談話很快就會(huì)遭到強(qiáng)烈反彈。”

Most people now in middle age and older learnt to live their intimate lives by the old standards: gays were bad, transsexuals absurd, women should be seen not heard, and harassment was never discussed. Men policed the public space, through practices like wolf-whistling, “slut-shaming” or plain assault. Sexual codes existed chiefly to regiment women.

目前，大多數(shù)中年人及年紀(jì)更大點(diǎn)的人都學(xué)會(huì)了墨守成規(guī)地過自己的小日子：同性戀不好，變性更是荒謬，婦女應(yīng)當(dāng)噤聲，騷擾不應(yīng)該被討論。男人掌管著公共空間，他們慣用的手段有吹狼哨、“羞辱蕩婦”或直白地侵犯。性守則主要是用來嚴(yán)格管制女性的。

Now those generations are being told they lived wrong. The two harassing tutors I mentioned are dead. But there’s another man I recall who made so many moves on his female students that the college finally did something: he was barred from tutoring women one-to-one. That man is now an emeritus professor. He won’t want new sexual codes to regiment him. When a single accusation of harassment anywhere is shown to be false, or an attempt at blackmail, he’ll be crying foul.

如今這些人被告知他們的活法不對(duì)。我在上文提到的兩個(gè)騷擾女學(xué)生的導(dǎo)師都已不在人世。但我記得還有另一個(gè)男導(dǎo)師多次對(duì)其女學(xué)生動(dòng)手動(dòng)腳，學(xué)院最后不得不采取措施：他被禁止一對(duì)一指導(dǎo)女生。此人現(xiàn)在是位名譽(yù)教授。他不歡迎新的性規(guī)范來約束自己。每當(dāng)哪有一起性騷擾指控被證明是誣告，或企圖敲詐，一準(zhǔn)兒會(huì)激起他的強(qiáng)烈抗議。

Even some older women have shown little enthusiasm for new sexual codes. It’s notable that weeks after Donald Trump was caught boasting about sexual assault, he beat Hillary Clinton by a double-digit landslide among white women aged 45 and over. The US now has a generational divide unprecedented since the 1960s sexual revolution.

甚至一些上年紀(jì)的女性也對(duì)新的性規(guī)范沒多大熱情。值得注意的是，就在唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)鼓吹性侵犯的幾周后，他在45歲以上的白人女性選民中，以兩位數(shù)的絕對(duì)優(yōu)勢(shì)擊敗了希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)。目前美國存在著一條自上世紀(jì)60年代性革命以來未曾見過的代溝。

Both sides agree rape is criminal but, beyond that, there’s no consensus. What about a pass at a colleague after work? Or complimenting someone’s looks? Or a surreptitious ogle? Every organisation will now write strict codes, but what happens if these butt up against stubborn everyday practices? The genders and generations will be fighting about this for years to come.

雙方都承認(rèn)強(qiáng)奸是犯罪，但對(duì)于除此之外的行為，卻沒有任何共識(shí)。下班后撩一下同事可以嗎?或者恭維一下別人的長相行嗎?又或者偷偷拋個(gè)媚眼呢?每個(gè)組織現(xiàn)在都要編寫嚴(yán)格的行為準(zhǔn)則，但如果這些準(zhǔn)則與頑固的日常習(xí)俗相抵觸又會(huì)怎樣?未來許多年里，兩性、各代人都將為此斗爭(zhēng)不已。