I'm going to share with you a paradigm-shifting perspective on the issues of gender violence: sexual assault, domestic violence, relationship abuse, sexual harassment, sexual abuse of children. That whole range of issues that I'll refer to in shorthand as "gender violence issues," they've been seen as women's issues that some good men help out with, but I have a problem with that frame and I don't accept it. I don't see these as women's issues that some good men help out with. In fact, I'm going to argue that these are men's issues, first and foremost. Now obviously --
我要與大家分享 從典範轉移觀點 看性別暴力問題—— 性侵犯、家暴、配偶或同居人虐待 性騷擾、兒童性虐待 這一系列的問題我簡稱為 性別暴力議題 這些被視為「好男人會出手幫助」的婦女問題 但我不懂這樣的思考框架 也無法接受 我不認為這些是婦女問題 而好男人願意幫助的 事實上我要說服大家這件事從一開始 就是男人的問題 (掌聲)
(Applause)
Obviously, they're also women's issues, so I appreciate that, but calling gender violence a women's issue is part of the problem, for a number of reasons.
當然,這也是女人的議題 我瞭解這狀況,但稱 性別暴力為婦女問題 本身就是問題的一部分 有幾點原因
The first is that it gives men an excuse not to pay attention, right? A lot of men hear the term "women's issues" and we tend to tune it out, and we think, "I'm a guy; that's for the girls," or "that's for the women." And a lot of men literally don't get beyond the first sentence as a result. It's almost like a chip in our brain is activated, and the neural pathways take our attention in a different direction when we hear the term "women's issues." This is also true, by the way, of the word "gender," because a lot of people hear the word "gender" and they think it means "women." So they think that gender issues is synonymous with women's issues. There's some confusion about the term gender.
第一,這給男人不理會的藉口 是吧?很多男人一聽到「婦女問題」這個名詞 就把耳朵關上了,我們會想 「嘿,我是男的,那是女孩子的問題。」 或「那是女人的問題。」 結果是很多男人聽完第一句話後 就不再聽下去了 幾乎就像當我們聽到 「婦女問題」這名詞的時候 腦子裡的晶片就被啟動 神經通路把我們的注意力 帶往不同的方向 順帶一提,這同時也應用 在「性別」這個單詞 因為很多人一聽到 「性別」這詞 就認為這是指「女人」 所以他們認為性別問題 是「婦女問題」的同義詞 大家對性別這個名詞有點混淆
And let me illustrate that confusion by way of analogy. So let's talk for a moment about race. In the US, when we hear the word "race," a lot of people think that means African-American, Latino, Asian-American, Native American, South Asian, Pacific Islander, on and on. A lot of people, when they hear the word "sexual orientation" think it means gay, lesbian, bisexual. And a lot of people, when they hear the word "gender," think it means women. In each case, the dominant group doesn't get paid attention to. As if white people don't have some sort of racial identity or belong to some racial category or construct, as if heterosexual people don't have a sexual orientation, as if men don't have a gender. This is one of the ways that dominant systems maintain and reproduce themselves, which is to say the dominant group is rarely challenged to even think about its dominance, because that's one of the key characteristics of power and privilege, the ability to go unexamined, lacking introspection, in fact being rendered invisible, in large measure, in the discourse about issues that are primarily about us. And this is amazing how this works in domestic and sexual violence, how men have been largely erased from so much of the conversation about a subject that is centrally about men.
讓我以類比法實際地描繪一下這種混淆 我們來談一下種族 在美國,當我們聽到「種族」這個單詞 很多人會認為是在說非裔美國人 拉丁裔、亞裔美國人、美洲原住民 南亞及太平洋島民等等 很多人聽到「性取向」這個單詞 就認為這是指男同性戀、女同性戀或雙性戀 當很多人聽到「性別」這個單詞時 會認為這是指女人。 在上述每一個例子裡 優勢群體不會注意到這些 對吧?就像白人沒有什麼種族認同的問題 也不會被歸類到一些種族或社會結構 就像異性戀者沒有性取向 男人沒有性別一樣 這是優勢群體維持 及複製優勢的方法之一,就是說 優勢群體極少受到質疑 進而思考自己的優勢地位 因為這是有權有勢的 關鍵特徵之一,就這些主要和我們 有關的問題 能夠未經思索,不需內省反思 事實上還大幅呈現出 視而不見的狀況 而你會很驚異這種思維 如何在家暴及性暴力上作用 在這個以男性為主題的談話中 男性是如何大量地
And I'm going to illustrate what I'm talking about
被抹去其主體性
by using the old tech. I'm old school on some fundamental regards. I make films and I work with high tech, but I'm still old school as an educator, and I want to share with you this exercise that illustrates on the sentence-structure level how the way that we think, literally the way that we use language, conspires to keep our attention off of men. This is about domestic violence in particular, but you can plug in other analogues. This comes from the work of the feminist linguist Julia Penelope.
我現在就要用這個古老的科技 跟各位解釋我的意思 我對於某些基本事項的想法很老式 我工作時──我是拍電影的── 運用很多高科技 但作為教育家,我還是很老派 而我想跟大家分享這段練習 就是以句子結構層級來解釋 我們是如何思考 我們正確地使用語言的方法 圖謀把注意力從男人轉移到別處 這裡特別以家暴來舉例 但你也可以套用在其他相似情況上 這節自女性主義語言學家 朱莉亞‧賓娜羅普 (Julia Penelope) 的研究
It starts with a very basic English sentence: "John beat Mary." That's a good English sentence. John is the subject, beat is the verb, Mary is the object, good sentence. Now we're going to move to the second sentence, which says the same thing in the passive voice. "Mary was beaten by John." And now a whole lot has happened in one sentence. We've gone from "John beat Mary" to "Mary was beaten by John." We've shifted our focus in one sentence from John to Mary, and you can see John is very close to the end of the sentence, well, close to dropping off the map of our psychic plain. The third sentence, John is dropped, and we have, "Mary was beaten," and now it's all about Mary. We're not even thinking about John, it's totally focused on Mary. Over the past generation, the term we've used synonymous with "beaten" is "battered," so we have "Mary was battered." And the final sentence in this sequence, flowing from the others, is, "Mary is a battered woman." So now Mary's very identity -- Mary is a battered woman -- is what was done to her by John in the first instance. But we've demonstrated that John has long ago left the conversation.
從非常基本的英語句子開始: 「約翰打瑪麗。」 這是很好的英語句子 約翰是主詞,打是動詞 瑪麗是受詞。好句子 現在我們來看第二句 說的是同一件事,但以被動態說 「瑪麗被約翰打。」 現在這句裡隱藏了很多東西 我們從「約翰打瑪麗。」 到「瑪麗被約翰打。」 我們已經把這個句子的焦點從約翰轉成瑪麗 你可以看到約翰被放在句子最末 可以說幾乎要從我們的意識裡跑出去了 第三句話,約翰真的不見了 而我們得到「瑪麗被打了。」這句話 所以現在變成只跟瑪麗有關 我們甚至不再想到約翰 所有的焦點都在瑪麗身上 過去這一代,我們用的名詞中 「被打」與「被扁」為同義字 所以我們說瑪麗「被扁了」 而這系列的最後一句話 已經與其它句無關聯了,就是 「瑪麗是個被扁的女人。」 所以雖然瑪麗的真正身份──瑪麗是個被扁的女人 已在第一句話裡交代 即是「被約翰打了的人」 但我們已經示範了約翰早就從句子裡拿掉了
Those of us who work in the domestic and sexual violence field know that victim-blaming is pervasive in this realm, which is to say, blaming the person to whom something was done rather than the person who did it. And we say: why do they go out with these men? Why are they attracted to them? Why do they keep going back? What was she wearing at that party? What a stupid thing to do. Why was she drinking with those guys in that hotel room? This is victim blaming, and there are many reasons for it, but one is that our cognitive structure is set up to blame victims. This is all unconscious. Our whole cognitive structure is set up to ask questions about women and women's choices and what they're doing, thinking, wearing. And I'm not going to shout down people who ask questions about women. It's a legitimate thing to ask. But's let's be clear: Asking questions about Mary is not going to get us anywhere in terms of preventing violence.
那麼,我們這些處理家暴及性暴力的人 都知道責備受害者 是這領域裡普遍存在的現象 也就是說,大家都責備受害者 而不是施暴者 我們會說這樣的話 為什麼這些女人要跟這種男人出去? 為什麼她們會受這種男人吸引? 為什麼她們還要回去?她在派對上穿什麼? 做這個多蠢啊!為什麼她要跟 那群男人在那個旅館房間裡喝酒? 這就是責備受害者,而這麼做的理由很多 但其中一個理由是 我們建立了整個認知結構 去責備受害者,而這是完全不自覺的 我們建立了整個認知結構,去問一些關於 女人本身、女人的選擇及 她們正在做的事情 想什麼、穿什麼 我不是要用口水 把那些問女人問題的人淹死 好嗎?這些問題很合理 但讓我們澄清一點: 從預防暴力的角度看,發問一些 關於瑪麗的問題根本起不了作用
We have to ask a different set of questions. The questions are not about Mary, they're about John. They include things like, why does John beat Mary? Why is domestic violence still a big problem in the US and all over the world? What's going on? Why do so many men abuse physically, emotionally, verbally, and other ways, the women and girls, and the men and boys, that they claim to love? What's going on with men? Why do so many adult men sexually abuse little girls and boys? Why is that a common problem in our society and all over the world today? Why do we hear over and over again about new scandals erupting in major institutions like the Catholic Church or the Penn State football program or the Boy Scouts of America, on and on and on? And then local communities all over the country and all over the world. We hear about it all the time. The sexual abuse of children. What's going on with men? Why do so many men rape women in our society and around the world? Why do so many men rape other men? What is going on with men? And then what is the role of the various institutions in our society that are helping to produce abusive men at pandemic rates?
我們必須問不一樣的問題 你瞭解我接下來想說什麼,對吧? 這些並不是瑪麗的問題 這些問題是關於約翰的 這些問題包括了許多事情 例如為什麼約翰要打瑪麗? 為什麼家暴在美國以致全世界 仍然是個大問題? 這是怎麼回事?為什麼這麼多男人要在 心理上、情緒上、話語上 或以其他方法虐待 女人及女孩,男人及男孩 他們宣稱那些仍愛的人? 男人是怎麼了? 為什麼這麼多男人要性虐待 小女孩及小男孩? 為什麼這個問題今天普遍 存在我們的社會及全世界? 為什麼我們一再聽到 有名的大機構爆發新醜聞 如天主教會或賓州州大美式足球隊 或美國童子軍等等? 還有在全國各地及全世界的 地方社區組織,對吧?我們一直聽見 「兒童性虐待」這種事 男人是怎麼了?在我們的社會及全世界 為什麼這麼多男人要強暴女人? 為什麼有這麼多男人要強暴其他男人? 男人到底怎麼了? 還有我們社會裡的各種機構 正在以流感傳播的速度一樣 幫助產生虐待傾向的男人
Because this isn't about individual perpetrators.
究竟這些機構扮演著什麼角色?
That's a naive way to understanding what is a much deeper and more systematic social problem. The perpetrators aren't these monsters who crawl out of the swamp and come into town and do their nasty business and then retreat into the darkness. That's a very naive notion, right? Perpetrators are much more normal than that, and everyday than that. So the question is, what are we doing here in our society and in the world? What are the roles of various institutions in helping to produce abusive men? What's the role of religious belief systems, the sports culture, the pornography culture, the family structure, economics, and how that intersects, and race and ethnicity and how that intersects? How does all this work?
因為這與個別施暴者無關 就這麼樣去理解更深層更系統化 的社會問題,真的很天真 你知道,施暴者並不是那些 沼澤裡爬行的怪物 跑到鎮上來,幹幾件壞事 然後又躲回黑暗處 這種想法非常天真,好嗎? 施暴者比那些怪物較為正常 也較日常了 所以我提出的問題是,在社會及世界裡 我們正在做什麼? 各種機構在助長產生 暴力傾向的男人上扮演什麼角色? 宗教信仰體系 體育文化、色情文化 家庭結構、經濟,又扮演著什麼角色? 這些又如何與之交錯? 還有種族和族裔, 這些又如何與之交錯? 這些問題怎麼串起來的?
And then, once we start making those kinds of connections and asking those important and big questions, then we can talk about how we can be transformative, in other words, how can we do something differently? How can we change the practices? How can we change the socialization of boys and the definitions of manhood that lead to these current outcomes? These are the kind of questions that we need to be asking and the kind of work that we need to be doing, but if we're endlessly focused on what women are doing and thinking in relationships or elsewhere, we're not going to get to that piece.
然後,一旦我們開始把這些關聯串起來 並發問一些大哉問 然後我們才能談及應該如何變革 換句話說,我們如何才能夠 以不同的方式做些事情? 我們如何能夠改變習性? 我們如何能夠改變男孩的社會化過程 及男子氣概的定義 而這過程和定義導致現在結果的? 這些是我們需要問的問題 我們需要做的工作 但如果我們只是永無止盡地 聚焦在女人在男女關係 或其他關係裡做了什麼或想了什麼 我們絕對無法成功
I understand that a lot of women who have been trying to speak out about these issues, today and yesterday and for years and years, often get shouted down for their efforts. They get called nasty names like "male-basher" and "man-hater," and the disgusting and offensive "feminazi", right? And you know what all this is about? It's called kill the messenger. It's because the women who are standing up and speaking out for themselves and for other women as well as for men and boys, it's a statement to them to sit down and shut up, keep the current system in place, because we don't like it when people rock the boat. We don't like it when people challenge our power. You'd better sit down and shut up, basically. And thank goodness that women haven't done that. Thank goodness that we live in a world where there's so much women's leadership that can counteract that.
那麼,我知道有很多女人 試著在現在及過去提出這些議題 但過去這麼多年 她們的努力往往被喝止 她們被冠上汙名像「強腳」 「恐男」 以及既噁心又無禮的「女權納粹」。對吧? 而你知道這一切代表什麼嗎? 這叫殺了來使 這是因為這些挺身而出的女人 這些為了自己或別的女人 或為了男人或男孩 而大聲疾呼的女人 這是給她們的下馬威 要她們坐下閉嘴,保持現有的狀態 因為我們不喜歡人家惹事生非 我們不喜歡別人挑戰我們的權力 你最好坐下閉嘴,就是這樣 而謝天謝地女人還沒有對女人這麼做 謝天謝地我們活在一個世界 是有很多婦女具領導地位可以與之抗衡的 但男人在這件事上可以扮演的一個強大角色
But one of the powerful roles that men can play in this work is that we can say some things that sometimes women can't say, or, better yet, we can be heard saying some things that women often can't be heard saying. Now, I appreciate that that's a problem, it's sexism, but it's the truth. So one of the things that I say to men, and my colleagues and I always say this, is we need more men who have the courage and the strength to start standing up and saying some of this stuff, and standing with women and not against them and pretending that somehow this is a battle between the sexes and other kinds of nonsense. We live in the world together.
就是我們可以說出 女人有時候說不出口的事情 或更重要的是 我們說的時候人人都會注意聽 但女人說的時候經常被忽略 那麼,我意識到這是個問題是性別歧視 但這是事實所以我對男人及同事 說的事情之一,我總是這麼說 就是我們需要更多有勇氣及能力的男人 開始挺身而出為這件事發聲 與婦女持相同立場而不是反對她們 並假裝在某種程度上這只是 兩性之間的戰爭和另一種無聊事罷了 我們在這世界共生共存 順帶一提有一件真的很困擾我的事
And by the way, one of the things that really bothers me about some of the rhetoric against feminists and others who have built the battered women's and rape crisis movements around the world is that somehow, like I said, that they're anti-male. What about all the boys who are profoundly affected in a negative way by what some adult man is doing against their mother, themselves, their sisters? What about all those boys? What about all the young men and boys who have been traumatized by adult men's violence? You know what? The same system that produces men who abuse women, produces men who abuse other men. And if we want to talk about male victims, let's talk about male victims. Most male victims of violence are the victims of other men's violence. So that's something that both women and men have in common. We are both victims of men's violence. So we have it in our direct self-interest, not to mention the fact that most men that I know have women and girls that we care deeply about, in our families and our friendship circles and every other way. So there's so many reasons why we need men to speak out. It seems obvious saying it out loud, doesn't it? Now, the nature of the work that I do and my colleagues do in the sports culture and the US military, in schools, we pioneered this approach called the bystander approach to gender-violence prevention.
就是有些言論,是反女性主義 反重建受虐婦女 及反對世界各地強暴危機意識運動的 就是像我之前說的說他們有點反男性 那麼那些因他們的母親、他們本身 他們的姐妹被成年男子蹂躪 而深受負面影響的男孩要怎麼辦? 那些男孩子怎麼辦? 那些因成年男子施暴 而精神受創的年輕男子及男孩又怎麼辦? 你知道嗎?會產生對婦女施虐的男人的系統 同樣也會產生對其他男人施虐的男人 如果我們想談男性受害者 我們就來談談男性受害者 大多數男性暴力受害者都是 其他男人暴力行為的受害者 所以這是女性男性的共同點 我們兩性都是男性暴力的受害者 所以這與我們有直接利害關係 更別提這一事實就是 我所認識的大多數男人 在家庭朋友圈及其他各處 都有我們深深關愛地女人及女孩 所以有這麼多的理由 我們需要男人挺身而出 很明顯我們應該大聲疾呼,不是嗎? 那麼,我與我同事在體育圈 及美國軍隊、學校裡的工作性質 我們是首先使用旁觀者處遇模式 來防止性別暴力的人
And I just want to give you the highlights of the bystander approach, because it's a big thematic shift, although there's lots of particulars, but the heart of it is, instead of seeing men as perpetrators and women as victims, or women as perpetrators, men as victims, or any combination in there. I'm using the gender binary. I know there's more than men and women, there's more than male and female. And there are women who are perpetrators, and of course there are men who are victims. There's a whole spectrum. But instead of seeing it in the binary fashion, we focus on all of us as what we call bystanders, and a bystander is defined as anybody who is not a perpetrator or a victim in a given situation, so in other words friends, teammates, colleagues, coworkers, family members, those of us who are not directly involved in a dyad of abuse, but we are embedded in social, family, work, school, and other peer culture relationships with people who might be in that situation. What do we do? How do we speak up? How do we challenge our friends? How do we support our friends? But how do we not remain silent in the face of abuse?
在此我只提旁觀者模式的幾項重點 因為這是很大的主題轉移 雖然有很多詳情 但中心思想是不要只把男人看作加害者 女人看作受害者 或女人是加害者,男人是受害者 或以上任何排列組合 我現在使用兩性二元法我知道不應 只是男人女人男性女性這樣的二分法 而且的確有女人是加害者 當然也有男人是受害者 要全方位看 但與其用二元法來看待兩性問題 我們該把焦點放在 我們整體這些所謂旁觀者上 旁觀者的定義是在特定情況下 既非加害者亦非受害者的人 也就是說像朋友、隊友、同事 同工、家人這些 與虐待二元體沒有直接關聯的人 但我們都在社會家庭工作學校 及其他同儕文化關係上 與虐待有關的人緊密相連那我們該怎麼做? 要怎麼挺身而出?要如何質問朋友? 要怎麼給予朋友支持?尤其是在面對虐待時 要如何不保持沈默?
Now, when it comes to men and male culture, the goal is to get men who are not abusive to challenge men who are. And when I say abusive, I don't mean just men who are beating women. We're not just saying a man whose friend is abusing his girlfriend needs to stop the guy at the moment of attack. That's a naive way of creating a social change. It's along a continuum, we're trying to get men to interrupt each other. So, for example, if you're a guy and you're in a group of guys playing poker, talking, hanging out, no women present, and another guy says something sexist or degrading or harassing about women, instead of laughing along or pretending you didn't hear it, we need men to say, "Hey, that's not funny. that could be my sister you're talking about, and could you joke about something else? Or could you talk about something else? I don't appreciate that kind of talk." Just like if you're a white person and another white person makes a racist comment, you'd hope, I hope, that white people would interrupt that racist enactment by a fellow white person. Just like with heterosexism, if you're a heterosexual person and you yourself don't enact harassing or abusive behaviors towards people of varying sexual orientations, if you don't say something in the face of other heterosexual people doing that, then, in a sense, isn't your silence a form of consent and complicity?
現在,在說到男人及男性文化時 目標是讓不施暴的男人 挑戰質問施暴的男人 這裡說的施暴,不單是指 打女人的男人 我們不單是指一個男人看到朋友 正在打他的女友,所以需要 立刻停止這傢伙施暴 想以這種方式造成社會變遷很幼稚 這需要長期經營 如果我們試著要讓男人 互相干預彼此 所以,舉個例 如果你是個男的而且你與一群男人 玩撲克聊天一起混,沒有女人在場 有個男的說了一些歧視或貶低 或騷擾女人的話 除了隨之大笑或假裝沒聽到 我們需要男人能說:「嘿!這不好笑 你知道嗎,你說的可能是我的姊妹 你可不可以說些別的笑話? 或者談點別的事? 我不喜歡那種對話。」 就像如果你是白人聽到另外一個白人 發表種族歧視評論我希望能看到 你會期待有白人能打斷 另一個白人同胞所做的種族歧視 就像在談異性戀時如果你是異性戀 雖然你本身不會去騷擾或虐待 跟你不同性取向的的人 但如果你不在別的異性戀騷擾別人時挺身而出 那麼在某種意義上來說難道你的沉默 不也是一種形式的同意及共謀嗎?
Well, the bystander approach is trying to give people tools to interrupt that process and to speak up and to create a peer culture climate where the abusive behavior will be seen as unacceptable, not just because it's illegal, but because it's wrong and unacceptable in the peer culture. And if we can get to the place where men who act out in sexist ways will lose status, young men and boys who act out in sexist and harassing ways towards girls and women, as well as towards other boys and men, will lose status as a result of it, guess what? We'll see a radical diminution of the abuse. Because the typical perpetrator is not sick and twisted. He's a normal guy in every other way, isn't he?
是的,旁觀者模式的確試著給人們方法 來干預虐待過程及挺身而出 以創造同儕文化的氣氛 讓虐待行為被視為不可接受 不僅是因為這違法,更因為這是錯的 在同儕文化中不能被接受 如果我們能做到當男人 表現出性別歧視時會失去社會地位 年輕男人及男孩表現出性別歧視 並騷擾女孩及女人時 或是騷擾其他男孩及男人時 會因此失去社會地位猜猜看會怎樣? 我們會看到虐待現象急遽減少 因為典型的加害者不是有病或人格扭曲 他是個在每一方面都很正常的傢伙。不是嗎?
Now, among the many great things that Martin Luther King said in his short life was, "In the end, what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends." In the end, what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. There's been an awful lot of silence in male culture about this ongoing tragedy of men's violence against women and children, hasn't there? There's been an awful lot of silence. And all I'm saying is that we need to break that silence, and we need more men to do that.
金恩博士在他短暫的一生 曾說過的名言之一是 「到最後,傷害我們最深的 不是敵人的言語 而是朋友的沉默。」 到最後,傷害我們最深的不是敵人的言語 而是朋友的沉默 男性文化對於持續不斷的男性 對女性及兒童施暴的悲劇 已經有太多的沉默,不是嗎? 太多的沉默 而我想說的是我們需要打破沉默 而且我們需要更多男人這麼做
Now, it's easier said than done, because I'm saying it now, but I'm telling you it's not easy in male culture for guys to challenge each other, which is one of the reasons why part of the paradigm shift that has to happen is not just understanding these issues as men's issues, but they're also leadership issues for men. Because ultimately, the responsibility for taking a stand on these issues should not fall on the shoulders of little boys or teenage boys in high school or college men. It should be on adult men with power. Adult men with power are the ones we need to be holding accountable for being leaders on these issues, because when somebody speaks up in a peer culture and challenges and interrupts, he or she is being a leader, really. But on a big scale, we need more adult men with power to start prioritizing these issues, and we haven't seen that yet, have we?
但是說的比做的容易 因為現在我可以在此大放厥詞 但我告訴你這真的很難 在男性文化裡讓男性挑戰彼此 這也是原因之一為甚麼 要產生典範轉移,不僅必須瞭解 這些議題不但是男人的問題 還是男人領導能力的問題 因為最終要挺身而出為此議題 負責任的不該落在小男孩 或高中青少年 或大學男生的肩上 這應該落在成年有權力的男人上 有權力的成年男性才是需要 為此負上責任領導解決問題的人 因為會在同儕中挺身而出 挑戰並阻止事件發生的人,無論男女 才是真正的領袖,不是嗎? 但大規模看,我們需要更多有權力的成年男性 開始把這些議題放在優先 但我們還沒看到這發生,對吧? 多年前我在一個晚餐上
Now, I was at a dinner a number of years ago, and I work extensively with the US military, all the services. And I was at this dinner and this woman said to me -- I think she thought she was a little clever -- she said, "So how long have you been doing sensitivity training with the Marines?"
我與美國各種軍隊有很多合作 我在一個晚宴上有個女人對我說 我猜她認為她有一點聰明——她說 「所以你對美國海軍陸戰隊做這個敏感性訓練 有多久了?」
And I said, "With all due respect, I don't do sensitivity training with the Marines. I run a leadership program in the Marine Corps."
我說,「恕我直言, 我不是對海軍陸戰隊作敏感度訓練 我是在海軍陸戰隊裡辦領袖課程。」
Now, I know it's a bit pompous, my response, but it's an important distinction, because I don't believe that what we need is sensitivity training. We need leadership training, because, for example, when a professional coach or a manager of a baseball team or a football team -- and I work extensively in that realm as well -- makes a sexist comment, makes a homophobic statement, makes a racist comment, there will be discussions on the sports blogs and in sports talk radio. And some people will say, "He needs sensitivity training." Other people will say, "Well, get off it. That's political correctness run amok, he made a stupid statement, move on." My argument is, he doesn't need sensitivity training. He needs leadership training, because he's being a bad leader, because in a society with gender diversity and sexual diversity --
我當然知道我的回答有點誇大 但這是很重要的區別,因為我不認為 我們需要的是敏感度訓練 我們要的是領袖訓練,因為舉個例 當一位棒球隊或足球隊的專業教練或經理 我在這領域也有很多合作經驗 講了性別歧視的話 講了反同性戀的話 講了種族歧視的評論 那麼在體育部落格 及體育廣播台都會討論這句話 有些人會說,「嗯,他需要敏感度訓練。」 另外一些人會說,「嘖,莫名其妙。 你知道,這就是政治正確太超過 他說了句蠢話。不要理他。」 我的論點是他不需要敏感度訓練 他需要的是領袖訓練 因為他是個很糟的領袖 因為在這個 性別多元及性向多元
(Applause)
(掌聲)
and racial and ethnic diversity, you make those kind of comments, you're failing at your leadership. If we can make this point that I'm making to powerful men and women in our society at all levels of institutional authority and power, it's going to change the paradigm of people's thinking.
及種族及族裔多元的社會,你做出 這種評論,就是在領導力上不及格 如果我們可以讓 這個社會上各個機關權力階級 有權勢的男人女人都瞭解到這點 我們一定會改變,一定會改變 人的思考模式典範
You know, for example, I work a lot in college and university athletics throughout North America. We know so much about how to prevent domestic and sexual violence, right? There's no excuse for a college or university to not have domestic and sexual violence prevention training mandated for all student athletes, coaches, administrators, as part of their educational process. We know enough to know that we can easily do that. But you know what's missing? The leadership. But it's not the leadership of student athletes. It's the leadership of the athletic director, the president of the university, the people in charge who make decisions about resources and who make decisions about priorities in the institutional settings. That's a failure, in most cases, of men's leadership.
你知道,舉個例,我跟北美許多 學院及大學的運動單位合作 我們非常瞭解如何防止 家暴及性暴力,對吧? 所以學院或大學沒有任何藉口 不辦家暴及性暴力防治訓練 讓所有體保生、教練及行政經理人必修 成為他們教育學程的一部分 我們非常清楚我們可以輕易做到 但你知道我們缺少什麼嗎?領導力 我不是指體保生的領導力 我是指體育主任的領導力 大學校長的領導力,這些掌權的人 這些可以在資源上做決策的人 還有那些可以決定機構單位的優先權的人 大部分情況下這就是失敗的男性領導力
Look at Penn State. Penn State is the mother of all teachable moments for the bystander approach. You had so many situations in that realm where men in powerful positions failed to act to protect children, in this case, boys. It's unbelievable, really. But when you get into it, you realize there are pressures on men. There are constraints within peer cultures on men, which is why we need to encourage men to break through those pressures.
看看賓州州大。賓州州大是 所有旁觀者處遇模式的借鏡 在那裡有太多情況是 有權勢的男人不採取行動 以保護孩童,在這個例子是男孩 這簡直不可置信,真的但你深入去看 你才瞭解男人身上也有很多壓力 同儕文化在男性身上加諸許多限制 這也是為什麼我們需要鼓勵男人 突破這些壓力
And one of the ways to do that is to say there's an awful lot of men who care deeply about these issues. I know this, I work with men, and I've been working with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of men for many decades now. It's scary, when you think about it, how many years. But there's so many men who care deeply about these issues, but caring deeply is not enough. We need more men with the guts, with the courage, with the strength, with the moral integrity to break our complicit silence and challenge each other and stand with women and not against them.
而方法之一是宣告 有非常多的男人很深刻地在乎這些議題 我很清楚。我跟男人共事許久 過去幾十年來我已經 與成千上萬的男人合作過 想到已經這麼多年了就覺得恐怖 但的確有很多男人非常深刻地關心這些議題 但是深刻地關心還是不夠 我們需要更多有膽量的男人 有勇氣和力量還有道德誠信 來打破這共謀的沉默並能提出質疑 與女人肩並肩而不是背對背
By the way, we owe it to women. There's no question about it. But we also owe it to our sons. We also owe it to young men who are growing up all over the world in situations where they didn't make the choice to be a man in a culture that tells them that manhood is a certain way. They didn't make the choice. We that have a choice, have an opportunity and a responsibility to them as well.
再說,這是我們欠女人的 我們不能否認 但這也是我們欠我們兒子的 這也是我們欠全世界年輕男人的 他們在不能選擇的情況下 只能依從文化教養,長成能被 社會接受的男子漢大丈夫 他們無從選擇 我們有選擇的人可以給他們機會 對他們也有責任
I hope that, going forward, men and women, working together, can begin the change and the transformation that will happen so that future generations won't have the level of tragedy that we deal with on a daily basis.
往前看,我希望男人女人 能一同合作,開始改變 產生轉化 所以下一代不會再看到這種 我們每天都在對付的悲劇
I know we can do it, we can do better.
我知道我們做得到 我們能做得更好
Thank you very much.
謝謝大家(掌聲)