十種對女權主義的誤解(下)

5. Feminism Hates Traditions and Being Girly

5. 女權主義厭棄傳統，排斥女性化

Traditions are crazy-important to human beings. They underpin our cultures, hold societies together. So when a buncha feminists decide to force the world to ditch beloved traditions in the name of progress, it's time to fight back, right?

傳統對於人類來說至關重要。 傳統鞏固我們的文化，凝聚不同的社會團體。所以，當一羣女權主義者以進步之名強迫世界拋棄傳統，我們該反擊了，不是嗎?

As with every single entry on this list, it's waaay more complicated than that. See, feminism doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is plenty of room to be a feminist, while still choosing to embrace traditions you like.

和我們這篇文章上的其他條目一樣，事實情況複雜的多的多。聽着，女權主義不是要把孩子連同洗澡水一同扔出去。在選擇擁抱你喜歡的傳統時，依然有很大的空間成爲一個女權主義者。

Take the whole thing of a woman taking her husband's second name. On some levels, this is clearly the least-feminist thing ever. But on others… well. There are plenty of feminist writers out there who have chosen to take their partner's name, because they wanted to. Just like there are plenty of feminists who argue that being a stay-at-home mom is as personally-empowering as becoming a CEO. Or feminists who are submissive, or who love wearing makeup, or who are down with dating 'traditional' alpha males.

就比如說女性在婚後要使用丈夫的姓氏。在某些層面，這顯然是最不女權主義的事兒。但是在另一些層面……有很多女權主義作家選擇使用伴侶的名字，因爲她們想要這樣做。就像有很多女權主義者認爲成爲一個全職媽媽和成爲一個CEO一樣賦予人力量。又或者有生性柔順的女權主義者，有喜歡化妝的女權主義者，熱衷於與傳統男性約會的女權主義者。

The point is that these women are free to choose whether to take their husband's name, be a housewife, or wear traditionally girly stuff. It's the ability to have that choice that feminism is all about.

重點在於，這些女人可以自由選擇是否接受他們丈夫的名字，或者成爲家庭主婦，或者穿傳統的女性化的服裝。女權主義關乎進行選擇的能力。

4. Feminists All Agree on the Same Facts

4. 女權主義者全部認同同樣的事實

If there's one misconception we really, really wanna bust with this article, it's that feminism is a single thing, and feminists a single group. That's why we keep coming back to the religion analogy. Much as branches of religions interpret their tenets differently, branches of feminism look at certain statistics in wildly different ways. What's fact to one group may well be fiction to another.

這就是爲什麼我們一直回到宗教的類比。宗教不同教派對教義都有不同的理解，女權主義的不同流派也以不同的方式看待特定數據。對一個流派爲真的，對另一個流派來說也許爲是假的。

Take campus sexual assault. Pretty much everyone agrees it's a problem, but that doesn't mean everyone is coming from the same starting point. You might have heard the 1-in-5 or 1-in-4 statistic and assumed all feminists believed it. Not so. Christina Hoff Summers and the Factual Feminist Group, to give one example, claim the number is grossly inflated. Nonetheless, they still campaign for an end to campus assault.

比如說校園性侵犯。幾乎每個人都覺得這是個問題，但這並不意味着每個人的出發點都是相同的。或許你聽到的數據是五分之一或者四分之一，並且認爲所有的女權主義者都相信這個數據。並非如此。舉個例子，克莉絲汀·霍夫·夏默斯和事實女權主義團體相信這個數字被誇張了。然而，他們依然爲了校園性侵現象奔走呼號。

It's like this with most other statistics you see reported. For every liberal-feminist group talking about the wage gap, there's a conservative-feminist group saying the focus should be elsewhere. This doesn't make one group 'liars' or 'fake feminists'. It just means the thing that unites them – believing women shouldn't be discriminated against – is bigger than any single issue.

就像大多數你所看到的其他數據。自由主義的女權主義團體談論收入差距，另一派保守女權主義團體則認爲注意力應該放在別處。這種分歧並不能說明一個團體是“騙子”或者是“虛假的女權主義者”。這隻意味着使他們聯結在一起的是相信女性不應該被歧視，這個事兒比任何事兒都重要。

3. Bra Burning Was an Actual Thing That Happened

3. 燃燒胸罩是真實事件

We recently debunked this one in an unrelated article, but it definitely bears repeating in this new context. The concept of bra burning as we know it, with angry college girls throwing their underwire into a flaming trashcan, simply didn't happen. That's right. The single most-defining mental image many of us have of 1960s feminism is as factually correct as your buddy Blaze's story about the time he totally could've copped off with Scarlet Johansson.

我們不久前在另一篇不相關的文章中駁斥了這一觀點，但是值得在這個語境之下重申一遍。我們所知道的燃燒胸罩的概念，也就是一羣憤怒的女大學生把自己的胸罩扔進熊熊燃燒的垃圾桶，根本就沒有發生過。沒錯！我們大多數人對二十世紀六十年代女權主義的最本質印象就像你的朋友佈雷茲說一度他可能和斯佳麗·約翰遜發生關係一樣，根本荒謬。

The fact that this story exists at all is due to an unfortunate confluence of media inattention and the Vietnam War. At the time, men were burning their draft cards to escape being sent to war. The media reported ceaselessly on these card burnings, but kept on ignoring women's lib protests. One feminist reporter, Lindsy Van Gelder, decided to subconsciously link the two causes in her readers' minds, hoping the symbolic act of burning would make the women's lib movement seem as legit as the anti-War one.

這個故事之所以存在歸根于越戰和媒體疏忽。那個時候，男人燒掉他們的兵役應徵卡逃避戰爭。媒體無休止地報道這些焚燒應徵卡的行爲，卻一直忽視女性婦女解放運動的抗議。一個女權主義記者，林德賽·範·傑爾德, 有意將兩件事聯繫起來，希望焚燒這個象徵性的動作會使婦女解放運動和反戰運動一樣合法。

Unfortunately, her plan totally backfired. The male-dominated media couldn't get enough of these crazy, bra-burning chicks and the story went the 1960s equivalent of viral. It was quoted so widely that it's now the number one thing many of us 'know' about feminism.

不幸地是，她的計劃完全事與願違。男性主導媒體對一羣瘋狂的燃燒胸罩的年輕女性慾罷不能。這個故事病毒一般流傳於20世紀60年代，被廣泛引用，現在成了大多數人知道的關於女權主義頭等事兒。

2. Feminism Lives on Social Media

2. 女權主義存在於社交媒體

Perhaps you come from a small town where few people openly identify as feminists. Perhaps people just aren't that into broadcasting their identities in your area. It might seem reasonable, then, to assume feminism lives on social media. After all, that's how it's always reported, often in conjunction with the words 'activism', 'Twitterstorm', and 'campaign'.

也許你來自一個小鎮，鎮上幾乎沒有人公開承認自己是女權主義者。也許你所在的地區人們只是不喜歡公開宣揚自己的身份。那麼，認爲女權主義存在於社交媒體似乎很合理。畢竟，報道上總是這麼說，經常與“激進主義”、“推特風暴”和“運動”這樣的詞連在一起。

It's true that plenty of feminist-activists work on Twitter. It's also true that many of them spearhead progressive online campaigns. But believing that social media feminism is representative of the whole is like believing snake handlers represent all Christians or Nazi-saluting Alt-Righters represent all Trump supporters.

千真萬確，很多女權主義活躍分子在推特上工作。而且，她們中的很多人帶頭開展線上激進運動。但是相信社交媒體上的女權主義是全部女權主義的代表，就像相信馴蛇者代表所有基督徒，或者相信極右分子代表所有的特朗普支持者。

There's no doubt that plenty of feminists practice in-yer-face online activism. But many, many more don't even have Twitter accounts. It's just that those making noises are naturally the ones who wind up getting the most attention. And, if you happen to be conservative, they can be the ones who you naturally notice. Look at it this way. About 60% of all US women identify themselves as either feminist (43%) or strongly feminist (17%). That's nearly 100 million women in the US alone. Twitter has only 67 million active US users. Even if 100% of them were feminists, that's a heck of a lot of feminists doing their thing away from Twitter.

毫無疑問，很多女權主義者踐行網上激進主義。但是更多人甚至沒有推特賬號。那些動靜最大的人自然獲得最多的注意。而如果你恰巧是個保守的人，那麼你自然而然會注意到那些聲音最大的人。這樣來看待這個問題。大約60%的美國女性要麼視自己爲女權主義者（43%），要麼視自己爲堅定的女權主義者（17%）。單是在美國，就差不多是1億女性。推特只有六千七百萬的美國用戶。即便他們全部都是女權主義者，也還有大量的女權主義者做着自己的工作，和推特不沾邊兒。

1. We No Longer Need Feminism

1．我們不再需要女權主義

Living in the Western world, it can be tempting to think feminism is no longer needed. That women are now on an equal footing with men. Sadly, that's so not true it's gonna break your heart just hearing about it.

生活在西方世界，很容易會認爲女權主義不再被需要。現在女性可以和男性平起平坐了。不幸的是，事實並非如此。聽一聽這些不幸的事實就會讓你心灰意冷。

In parts of the world, it's still totally OK to slice up baby girls' genitals, destroying their ability to pee or feel sexual pleasure in later life. In other parts, it's considered acceptable for pre-pubescent girls to be forcibly married to men in their 50s. Across the planet, over 5,000 women a year are slaughtered in 'honor killings'. Disfiguring acid attacks are on the rise in places like India, but also in the UK. And that's before we get onto the shocking education gap in places like Africa, the reduced lack of healthcare, and the sexual assault of women living in warzones.

在世界的一些地方，切除女嬰的生殖器的行爲仍然被允許，在餘生她們會因此失去小便的能力，也不會再有性快感。在另一些地方，一些青春期的女孩會被強迫嫁給五十幾歲的男人。全球，每年有5000名女性以“家族名譽”的名義被屠殺。在像印度這樣的地方， 硫酸毀容的事例在上漲，英國也是。我們還沒有說在像非洲這樣的地方令人震驚的教育差距；在戰區，女人所經受的匱乏的健康保障和性侵犯。

So, yeah, feminism probably needs to be around for a good while yet. Hopefully, the day will one day come when things are so balanced that we no longer need it at all.

所以說女權主義可能在很長一段時間還是需要的。希望終有一天，事物均衡和諧，我們再也不需要女權主義。