“醒悟時(shí)刻”：韋恩斯坦丑聞如何引發(fā)了一場海嘯

Forty years ago this month, Ms. magazine put sexual harassment on its cover for the first time. Understanding the sensitivity of the topic, the editors used puppets for the cover image — a male hand reaching into a woman’s blouse — rather than a photograph. It was banned from some supermarkets nonetheless.

40年前的這個(gè)月，《女士雜志》(Ms. magazine)首次將性騷擾放到了自己的封面上。編輯們知道這個(gè)話題的敏感性，沒有在封面圖片中使用真人照片，而是用了木偶——一只男人的手伸進(jìn)一個(gè)女人的襯衫。盡管如此，它還是在一些超市遭禁。

In 1977, the term sexual harassment had not been defined in the law and had barely entered the public lexicon. And yet, to read that Ms. article today, amid a profound shift in discourse, is to feel haunted by its familiarity.

1977年，“性騷擾”這個(gè)詞還沒有法律上的定義，也幾乎沒有進(jìn)入公共詞匯。而如今，雖然相關(guān)討論已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了深刻的轉(zhuǎn)變，但是重讀《女士雜志》的那篇文章，似曾相識(shí)之感依然縈繞不去。

It describes an executive assistant who quit after her boss asked for oral sex; a student who dropped out after being assaulted by her adviser; a black medical administrator whose white supervisor asked if the women in her neighborhood were prostitutes — and, subsequently, if she would have group sex with him and several colleagues.

它描述了一名行政助理在上司要求她給自己進(jìn)行口交后辭職;一名學(xué)生在遭到指導(dǎo)老師騷擾后退學(xué);一名黑人醫(yī)療助理的白人主管問她所在社區(qū)的女性是否賣淫，后來又問她是否愿意和他以及其他幾名同事進(jìn)行群交。

Citing a survey in which 88 percent of women said they were harassed at work, the author said the problem permeated almost every profession, but was particularly pernicious “in the supposedly glamorous profession of acting,” in which Hollywood’s casting couch remained a “strong convention.”

那篇文章還提到了一項(xiàng)調(diào)查，88%的女性表示，她們?cè)诠ぷ髦性獾搅诵则}擾。作者認(rèn)為，這個(gè)問題幾乎滲透到了每一個(gè)行業(yè)中，但在“外表最光鮮的表演行業(yè)”尤為嚴(yán)重，好萊塢的試鏡沙發(fā)依然是一項(xiàng)“深厚的傳統(tǒng)”。

“What we have so far seen,” the article stated, “is only the tip of a very large and very destructive iceberg.”

“我們到目前為止所看到的只是冰山一角，”文章說，“而這座冰山非常龐大、極具破壞性。”

Four decades later, as allegations against Harvey Weinstein and others continue to metastasize, it feels as if we have crashed into the iceberg. Disaster metaphors — tsunami, hurricane, avalanche, landslide — seem to be in endless rotation to describe the moment, but the point is that a great many powerful men have seen their careers disintegrate, and with astonishing speed.

40年后，隨著對(duì)哈維·韋恩斯坦(Harvey Weinstein)等人的指控繼續(xù)擴(kuò)散，感覺就像我們已經(jīng)撞上了這座冰山。人們爭相用各種災(zāi)難隱喻來描述這個(gè)時(shí)刻：海嘯、颶風(fēng)、雪崩、山崩——不過最關(guān)鍵的是，許多有權(quán)勢的男人的事業(yè)以驚人的速度分崩離析。

A great many women — and some men, too — have also spoken out more openly and more forcefully than ever before about what happens behind closed doors or even in the open spaces of studios, newsrooms and other workplaces. Companies have rushed to reassert zero-tolerance policies and whipped together training programs.

很多女性，也有一些男性，比以往任何時(shí)候都更公開、更有力地說出了自己的故事，它們發(fā)生在關(guān)閉的門后，甚至是在工作室和新聞編輯室等工作場所的開放空間里。各個(gè)公司紛紛重申零容忍政策，匆匆組織相關(guān)培訓(xùn)。

We have seen this movie before. Sexual harassment complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission increased 73 percent in the year after Anita Hill’s televised testimony about Clarence Thomas’ behavior in 1991. Still, Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court, while Hill went quietly back to being a law professor in Oklahoma. In the ensuing years, the issue cycled between headlines and whispers in a seemingly endless loop.

我們以前就見識(shí)過這一幕。1991年，安妮塔·希爾(Anita Hill)在電視上就克拉倫斯·托馬斯(Clarence Thomas)的騷擾行為作證后，美國公平就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)委員會(huì)(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)收到的性騷擾投訴增加了73%。盡管如此，托馬斯還是被任命為最高法院大法官，而希爾則悄然回到俄克拉荷馬州擔(dān)任法律教授。在之后許多年里，性騷擾問題依然不斷出現(xiàn)在新聞報(bào)道和私下議論之中，仿佛一個(gè)無休無止的循環(huán)。

But this sequel seems to have a surprise ending, or at least a plot twist: The public outrage is deeper and more sustained, and the dominoes continue to fall.

不過，這次的續(xù)集似乎有了一個(gè)出人意料的結(jié)局，或者至少有了一個(gè)情節(jié)轉(zhuǎn)折：公眾的憤怒更深、更持久，多米諾骨牌不斷倒下。

Maybe it’s that the accusers this time were famous, media-savvy and mostly white actors with more star power than the accused (unlike, say, Paula Jones vs. Bill Clinton). Maybe it’s reflective of a specific period in U.S. history, in which working women of a new generation — those who had grown up with working mothers — decided that enough was enough.

也許是因?yàn)檫@次的控訴者大多是熟悉媒體的著名白人演員，她們的明星影響力比被控訴者更大(這么說吧，和葆拉·瓊斯[Paula Jones]與比爾·克林頓[Bill Clinton]之間的力量對(duì)比是不同的)。也許，它還反映出，在當(dāng)今這個(gè)美國歷史上的特定時(shí)期，新一代職場女性——她們由職場母親撫養(yǎng)長大——認(rèn)為自己受夠了。

Certainly the endlessly expanding power of social media plays a role: The #metoo hashtag has been used in millions of posts over the past few weeks; been translated into Italian (#QuellaVoltaChe, or “that time when”) and French (#BalanceTonPorc, or “out your pig”); and inspired a congressional spinoff.

當(dāng)然，社交媒體不斷膨脹的力量也起了作用：在過去幾周里，有數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的帖子使用了#metoo(我也是)這個(gè)標(biāo)簽，它還衍生出了意大利版(#QuellaVoltaChe，意思是“那個(gè)時(shí)候”)和法國版(#BalanceTonPorc，意思是“揭發(fā)那頭豬”);這場網(wǎng)絡(luò)運(yùn)動(dòng)甚至蔓延到了國會(huì)。

Several experts likened it to a dam breaking, the cumulative effect of harassment claims over decades and especially the last few years. Some see it as the other shoe dropping after Donald Trump’s taped boasting about offensive behavior did not block his path to the presidency: He may have gotten away with it, but women were no longer going to let that boss, that mentor, that colleague get away with it, too.

有幾位專家將這比作大壩決堤，認(rèn)為這是近幾十年來，特別是近幾年的性騷擾指控所產(chǎn)生的累積效應(yīng)。也有人認(rèn)為，唐納德·特朗普在錄音中吹噓自己的侵犯行為，卻沒有阻止他問鼎白宮。發(fā)生這樣的事之后，如今的局面是人們期待已久的必然結(jié)果：特朗普可能沒有為之付出代價(jià)，但女人們不會(huì)再讓那個(gè)上司、那個(gè)導(dǎo)師、以及那個(gè)同事也像他那樣逃脫罪責(zé)。

“There is no doubt that having an accused sexual predator in the White House is hanging over this,” said Jaclyn Friedman, author of “Unscrewed: Women, Sex, Power, and How to Stop Letting the System Screw Us All,” scheduled for publication this month. “People feel like they can’t do anything about that right now, but at least they can do something about this.”

“毫無疑問，白宮的主人是一名遭到指控的性侵者，這一直縈繞在人們心頭，”計(jì)劃于本月出版的《拒受摧殘：女人、性和權(quán)力，以及如何阻止這個(gè)體系繼續(xù)摧殘我們所有人》(Unscrewed: Women, Sex, Power, and How to Stop Letting the System Screw Us All)一書的作者杰克琳·弗里德曼(Jaclyn Friedman)說。“人們覺得，眼下他們或許對(duì)此無能為力，但他們至少可以做些力所能及的事。”

An Army of Voices

聲音的洪流

“In the women’s movement of the 1970s we had this phrase ‘the click moment,'” Barbara Berg, a historian and author of the 2009 book “Sexism in America: Alive, Well and Ruining Our Future,” said. “This is the click moment. It’s like, ‘Enough.’ And then there’s a snowball effect: Once you see women speaking truth to power and not being told, ‘This is just what you have to put up with,’ then it encourages other women to stand up.”

“在1970年代的女性運(yùn)動(dòng)中，有一個(gè)詞叫‘醒悟時(shí)刻’，”史學(xué)家芭芭拉·伯格(Barbara Berg)說。她是2009年出版的《美國的性別歧視：依然活躍，正在毀滅我們的未來》(Sexism in America: Alive, Well and Ruining Our Future)一書的作者。“現(xiàn)在就是醒悟時(shí)刻。就像是說，‘夠了’。然后就會(huì)產(chǎn)生雪球效應(yīng)：一旦你看到女性對(duì)權(quán)力說出真相，而不是被告知，‘這就是你必須忍受的’，那么其他女性也會(huì)受到鼓勵(lì)，挺身而出。”

With Weinstein, the accusers were on the record, poised, and more of them seem to emerge each day, so no individual had to bear the burden alone, as Hill had. “When you have Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow in the same sentence, well, people take note,” sociologist Michael Kimmel said.

在韋恩斯坦的案例中，原告?zhèn)冩?zhèn)定自若地站了出來，而且似乎每天都有更多的人站出來，所以沒有人必須像以前的希爾那樣獨(dú)自承受重?fù)?dān)。“如果一個(gè)句子里包含安吉麗娜·朱莉(Angelina Jolie)和格溫妮絲·帕特洛(Gwyneth Paltrow)，那么它一定會(huì)引起人們的注意，”社會(huì)學(xué)家邁克爾·基梅爾(Michael Kimmel)說。

But behind these famous faces was an army of ordinary voices, too, using social media to collectively tell their stories — but also for action. In the case of Bill O’Reilly, remember, it was a coordinated effort, by groups that included the organizers of the Women’s March, that urged advertisers to #DropOReilly. They, and Fox News, ultimately did.

不過，在這些著名面孔的背后，還有一群普通的聲音，她們通過社交媒體集體講述自己的故事，并且采取行動(dòng)。要知道，推倒比爾·奧萊利(Bill O’Reilly)靠的是多個(gè)團(tuán)體的共同努力，包括女性大游行(Women’s March)的組織者們，他們用“#DropOReilly”(放棄奧萊利)的標(biāo)簽敦促廣告商。他們和福克斯新聞(Fox News)最終做成了這件事。

A Look Back

回首往事

If this is a moment of historical social change, it is worth looking at what led us here.

如果說現(xiàn)在是一個(gè)具有歷史意義的社會(huì)變革時(shí)刻，那么我們值得回頭看一看，我們是怎么走到今天的。

It was two years after that Ms. magazine cover, in 1979, that Catharine A. MacKinnon published a groundbreaking legal argument: that sexual harassment was a form of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was based on a legal theory she had developed while in law school.

1979年，也就是《女士雜志》發(fā)布性騷擾封面兩年后，凱瑟琳·A·麥金農(nóng)(Catharine A. MacKinnon)發(fā)表了一個(gè)開創(chuàng)性的法律觀點(diǎn)：根據(jù)1964年通過的《民權(quán)法案》(Civil Rights Act)第7條，性騷擾是一種歧視形式。這是她依據(jù)在法學(xué)院讀書期間形成的法律理論提出的。

That legal argument was tested with Mechelle Vinson, one of a number of African-American women who were involved in early sexual harassment lawsuits — this one a bank teller who said she was repeatedly raped by her married boss. In 1986, her case, with MacKinnon’s help, was part of a Supreme Court ruling that enshrined the harassment-as-discrimination theory into law.

米歇爾·文森(Mechelle Vinson)對(duì)這個(gè)法律理論進(jìn)行了試驗(yàn)。她是早期提起性騷擾訴訟的幾位非裔美國女性之一。她是一名銀行柜員，稱自己多次遭到已婚上司強(qiáng)奸。1986年，在麥金農(nóng)的幫助下，她的案子被納入最高法院裁定，該裁定讓“騷擾即歧視”理論進(jìn)入了法律。

Then came Hill, whose televised testimony about Thomas, her former boss — at the EEOC, of all places — was, Berg said, in effect “home-schooling a generation of Americans in what sexual harassment was.” Almost immediately, the phone hotline for 9to5, a support group for working women, began ringing off the hook.

然后就是希爾。伯格稱，希爾在電視上指證自己在公平就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)委員會(huì)(偏偏是這個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu))的前上司托馬斯，這個(gè)行為實(shí)際上“教育了一代美國人，讓他們知道了什么是性騷擾”。支持職業(yè)女性的團(tuán)體“早九晚五”(9to5)的熱線電話幾乎立刻被打爆了。

“People were almost bewildered,” the group’s director told The New York Times in 1992. “You mean this is sexual harassment? You mean I could do something about this?”

“人們幾乎覺得有點(diǎn)困惑，”該團(tuán)體的負(fù)責(zé)人1992年接受《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》采訪時(shí)說。“你是說這是性騷擾?你是說我可以為此做點(diǎn)什么?”

From ‘I Believe’ to #metoo

從“我相信”到#metoo

It’s worth noting that the campaign slogan back then, on buttons and bumper stickers rather than Facebook and Twitter, was not “Me Too” but “I Believe Anita” — a message of solidarity, not self-exposure.

值得注意的是，當(dāng)時(shí)的運(yùn)動(dòng)口號(hào)(不是寫在Facebook和Twitter上，而是寫在徽章和保險(xiǎn)杠貼紙上)不是“我也遇到過這種情況”，而是“我相信安妮塔”，這是一個(gè)表示團(tuán)結(jié)的訊息，而不是自我暴露。

After Hill came Jones, whose lawsuit against Clinton was dismissed. Others won in court but struggled in the aftermath: Paula Coughlin, a Navy lieutenant who was sexually assaulted by drunken officers, was sidelined and ultimately quit her job. Rena Weeks, a law secretary who was harassed by a partner, never worked again.

希爾之后是瓊斯，她對(duì)克林頓的起訴被駁回。還有些人雖然在法庭上勝訴，后來卻陷入困境：海軍上尉葆拉·庫格林(Paula Coughlin)被幾名醉酒軍官性侵，她后來遭到排擠，最終只得辭職。遭到律所合伙人騷擾的律師秘書蕾內(nèi)·威克斯(Rena Weeks)后來再也沒有工作過。

“I think for a long time it shut women up, at least publicly,” Kimmel said.

“我覺得，在很長一段時(shí)間里，這導(dǎo)致了女性閉上嘴巴，至少是不再公開揭發(fā)，”基梅爾說。

In her 2017 book, “Butterfly Politics,” MacKinnon adapts a concept from chaos theory in which the tiny motion of a butterfly’s wings can trigger a tornado half a world away. Under the right conditions, she posits, small actions can produce major social transformations.

麥金農(nóng)在自己2017年出版的《蝴蝶政治》(Butterfly Politics)一書中引用了混沌理論中的一個(gè)概念，那就是，蝴蝶翅膀的微小振動(dòng)可以引發(fā)半個(gè)地球之外的龍卷風(fēng)。她認(rèn)為，在適當(dāng)?shù)臈l件下，小小的舉動(dòng)可能引發(fā)重大社會(huì)變革。

“Ashley Judd is the butterfly of this moment,” MacKinnon said of the actor who began the recent groundswell of accusations against Weinstein. “She is the one who broke it open, who has made this possible for so many other women. And so you have an explosion of it because it’s for so long been suppressed.”

“現(xiàn)在，艾什莉·賈德(Ashley Judd)就是那只蝴蝶，”麥金農(nóng)指的是最近引發(fā)對(duì)韋恩斯坦大量指控的那位演員。“她就是那個(gè)打破沉默的人，讓其他許多女性的指控成為可能。之所以會(huì)出現(xiàn)爆發(fā)，是因?yàn)檫@已經(jīng)被壓抑了很久。”