Project and Freedom 筹划与自由 http://gawiel.blogbus.com by blogbus.com Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:45:03 +0800 http://public.blogbus.com/profile/7/6/8/1354867/avatar_1354867_96.jpg Project and Freedom 筹划与自由 http://gawiel.blogbus.com Time《时代周刊》十问十答 Lady Gaga 10 Questions Time《时代周刊》十问十答 Lady Gaga 10 Questions
登载于2012年3月12日 Time 116页
问 Belnida Luscombe
答 Lady Gaga

 




译者 我 （非盈利性转载和发表，请联系我）

-你刚刚启动了“生来如此”（Born This Way）基金会。基金会的目标是防止欺凌（bullying）吗？
-这不是一个防止欺凌的基金会。这是一个让青少年更有力量的基金会。它要做的是反对恶毒和残忍，要鼓励青少年和他们的父母、和世界范围内的文化氛围，令大家更勇敢，来努力创造一个更加友善和包容的社会。

-鼓励友善不就是打击欺凌吗？
-我们并不区别对待欺凌者和受害者。每个人都是社会中同样重要和有价值的成员。这个基金会要实现的是一个长期的改变，让整体文化有一种转变。欺凌者也是“生来如此”的。

-你有巨大的文化资本，为什么用在这个问题上？
-很多人觉得是因为我小时候在学校被欺凌，所以现在想致力于这个问题。但事实上，当我发行了《生来如此》这张专辑后，我注意到歌迷表现出一种巨大的热情，想要变得更加勇敢，在社会中更加积极。

-举个例子，一个11岁的小女孩如何能实现你的想法？
-她可以走到班里一个不太合群的孩子面前，说“我喜欢你的T恤”。这可以成为她这一天中一件好事，用行动来表达她的爱和包容。

-“生来如此”这首歌有一些宗教暗示。这个基金会也来源于一些信念吗？
-不。一些宗教暗示是双关和讽刺的。

-你在2008年说过，你了解什么就写什么：“性、色情、艺术、名声、执念、毒品和酒精”。你如何在这些和你现在对于青少年传达的信息找到平衡呢？
-我什么时候说的？

-2008年。
-那是很久以前了。另一张专辑。我作为艺术家的工作和我作为慈善家（philanthropist）的工作是完全分开的。

-你所做的所有的事情，都带有你独有的胆量。这个勇气从何而来？是来自于自己不被接受的感觉，还是来自于“我知道不被接受是什么感觉，我能面对它”？
-事实上，我的勇气和我的胆量是我小时候受欺凌能够的原因之一，有点像是“你以为自己是谁啊”那样。我的勇气不是因为“我是个很受欢迎的孩子，我们都来变勇敢吧”。正相反，做一些并不“酷”的好事，反而会让别人瞧不起你。我现在尽我所能，与专家一起，研究各种数据，想找出一个办法，可以让友善和爱变得很酷很正常。

-保持Lady Gaga的形象一定花去你很多精力。你怎么又精力再来做另一件大事呢？
-我的母亲。我妈妈和我非常亲密。有一件我想让大家记住的事情是，一切，只需要一个相信你的人。

-你和多个机构合作，包括哈佛大学。在Lady Gaga的世界里，你会愿意去哈佛上学吗？
-我不知道。我今天就要去哈佛大学了，这就行了。

-如果你觉得人们应该做自己，为什么你总是穿着复杂的衣服，将自己掩藏在衣服之下呢？
-哎，这就是我自己。不这样的话，我怎么才能每天都保持自己呢？大家可能会觉得，我的创造力是我的努力，不过其实创造力是我最自然的一部分。我觉得我们应该努力不要批判他人的个性。也许人们应该不将此视为掩藏，而视为一种表达。

 


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/204406631.html Gawiel Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:33:00 +0800 始终站在女性主义前沿的诗人——阿德里安•里奇 A Poet of Unswerving Vision at the Forefront of Feminism
始终站在女性主义前沿的诗人——阿德里安•里奇

来源：纽约时报 New York Times 2012/3/29
原作者：Margalit Fox 玛佳丽特•福克斯
译者：我（免费供转载和发表，请联系我）

 


Adrienne Rich, a poet of towering reputation and towering rage, whose work — distinguished by an unswerving progressive vision and a dazzling, empathic ferocity — brought the oppression of women and lesbians to the forefront of poetic discourse and kept it there for nearly a half-century, died on Tuesday at her home in Santa Cruz, Calif. She was 82.
诗人阿德里安•里奇有着极高的名气和极大的愤怒。她的作品引人注目，因为它们都具有坚定不移的激进视野和炫目而动人的狂暴气质。在将近半个世纪中，她的作品将女性和女同性恋者所受的压迫带入诗歌领域。这周二（3月27日），她病逝于加利福尼亚桑塔克鲁兹的家中，享年82岁。

The cause was complications of rheumatoid arthritis, with which she had lived for most of her adult life, her family said.
据她的家人称，她成年后大部分时间都患有类风湿性关节炎，因并发症而逝世。

Widely read, widely anthologized, widely interviewed and widely taught, Ms. Rich was for decades among the most influential writers of the feminist movement and one of the best-known American public intellectuals. She wrote two dozen volumes of poetry and more than a half-dozen of prose; the poetry alone has sold nearly 800,000 copies, according to W. W. Norton & Company, her publisher since the mid-1960s.
里奇的作品被广泛的阅读、编选、教学，她本人也被多次采访。几十年来，她是女性主义运动最有影响力的作家之一，也是最广为人知的美国公共知识分子之一。从1960年代中期就一直出版她的作品的诺顿出版社说，她写有二十四卷诗作和近十卷散文；仅仅诗作就卖出了近八十万册。

Triply marginalized — as a woman, a lesbian and a Jew — Ms. Rich was concerned in her poetry, and in her many essays, with identity politics long before the term was coined.
里奇处于三重边缘：她是女性、女同性恋者，也是犹太人。因此，在“身份政治”这个词被造出来之前，里奇就在她的诗歌和很多文章中表达了相关的想法。

She accomplished in verse what Betty Friedan, author of “The Feminine Mystique,” did in prose. In describing the stifling minutiae that had defined women’s lives for generations, both argued persuasively that women’s disenfranchisement at the hands of men must end.
她的诗歌和贝蒂•弗里丹的《女性之谜》异曲同工：她们都描述世代以来限定女性生命的那些令人窒息的细节，她们都令人信服的证明目前男性所掌握的女性缺乏权利的状况必须结束。

For Ms. Rich, the personal, the political and the poetical were indissolubly linked; her body of work can be read as a series of urgent dispatches from the front. While some critics called her poetry polemical, she remained celebrated for the unflagging intensity of her vision, and for the constant formal reinvention that kept her verse — often jagged and colloquial, sometimes purposefully shocking, always controlled in tone, diction and pacing — sounding like that of few other poets.
对于里奇来说，个人、政治和诗歌是不可分割的。她的作品可以被视为一系列从战斗前线频传的战报。一些评论家认为她的诗歌过于好辩，但人们还是称赞她的诗歌中的毫不松懈的力度和形式上的持续创新。她的诗歌运用口语，有时会故意令人震慑，永远控制者语气、用词和节奏。这些特征使得她的诗歌与别人完全不同。

All this helped ensure Ms. Rich’s continued relevance long after she burst genteelly onto the scene as a Radcliffe senior in the early 1950s.
这些让里奇自从首次亮相，就一直在人们的视野之内。她的出道要算在1950年代初，作为拉德克利夫学院的大四学生。

Her constellation of honors includes a MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant in 1994 and a National Book Award for poetry in 1974 for “Diving Into the Wreck.” That volume, published in 1973, is considered her masterwork.
她所获的奖项灿若群星，其中包括1994年麦克阿瑟基金会的“天才”基金，和1974年的国家图书奖的诗歌奖，授予她的作品《潜水入沉船》。这卷诗歌于1973年出版，被认为是她的代表作。

In the title poem, Ms. Rich uses the metaphor of a dive into dark, unfathomable waters to plumb the depths of women’s experience:
在同名诗作中，里奇使用了潜入幽深的水中这一隐喻，来比喻深入探索女性的经历：

I am here, the mermaid whose dark hair
streams black, the merman in his armored body
We circle silently about the wreck
we dive into the hold. ...
We are, I am, you are
by cowardice or courage
the one who find our way
back to the scene
carrying a knife, a camera
a book of myths
in which
our names do not appear.
我在这里，美人鱼的深色头发
流淌着黑暗，穿戴盔甲的雄人鱼
我们静静的围绕沉船
我们潜入船舱。……
我们，我，你　
出于懦弱或勇气
找寻着我们的路
重回这一幕
带着一把刀，一台相机
一本神话
神话中
从未出现我们的名字。

Ms. Rich was far too seasoned a campaigner to think that verse alone could change entrenched social institutions. “Poetry is not a healing lotion, an emotional massage, a kind of linguistic aromatherapy,” she said in an acceptance speech to the National Book Foundation in 2006, on receiving its medal for distinguished contribution to American letters. “Neither is it a blueprint, nor an instruction manual, nor a billboard.”
里奇深知运动的艰难，她并不认为仅靠诗歌就能改变错综复杂的社会机制。2006年，她凭借对美国文学的杰出贡献，获得国家图书基金会的奖章。在获奖致辞中，她说“诗歌不是药膏，不是情感按摩，不是语言的熏香疗法，也不是一份蓝图，一份指导手册，或者一个公告牌。”

But at the same time, as she made resoundingly clear in interviews, in public lectures and in her work, Ms. Rich saw poetry as a keen-edged beacon by which women’s lives — and women’s consciousness — could be illuminated.
但与此同时，她在访谈、演讲和作品中不断重申的是，她将诗歌视为一座灯塔，可以照亮女性的生活和意识。


She was never supposed to have turned out as she did.
她的人生，是一条完全未被预料的道路。

Adrienne Cecile Rich was born in Baltimore on May 16, 1929. Her father, Arnold Rice Rich, a doctor and assimilated Jew, was an authority on tuberculosis who taught at Johns Hopkins University. Her mother, Helen Gravely Jones Rich, a Christian, was a pianist and composer who, cleaving to social norms of the day, forsook her career to marry and have children. Adrienne was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church.
阿德里安•塞瑟尔•里奇于1929年5月16日出生于巴尔的摩。她的父亲阿诺德•赖斯•里奇是世俗犹太人，作为一为医生和结核病方面的权威，他任教于约翰霍普金斯大学。她的母亲海伦•格雷弗里•琼斯•里奇是基督教徒，她原本是一位钢琴家和作曲家，在当时的社会规范中，放弃了事业而结婚育子。阿德里安在主教会受洗。

Theirs was a bookish household, and Adrienne, as she said afterward, was groomed by her father to be a literary prodigy. He encouraged her to write poetry when she was still a child, and she steeped herself in the poets in his library — all men, she later ruefully observed. But those men gave her the formalist grounding that let her make her mark when she was still very young.
出生于书香门第中，阿德里安日后回忆，父亲将她视为文学神童。在她还是个孩子的时候，父亲就鼓励她写诗，她也沉迷于他的书房里收藏的那些诗人——日后她沮丧的发现，都是男人。但正是这些男人给了她严格的格式的基础，而这基础使她日后可以年纪轻轻便脱颖而出。

When Ms. Rich was in her last year at Radcliffe (she received a bachelor’s degree in English there in 1951), W. H. Auden chose her first collection, “A Change of World,” for publication in the Yale Younger Poets series, a signal honor. Released in 1951, the book, with its sober mien, dutiful meter and scrupulous rhymes, was praised by reviewers for its impeccable command of form.
里奇1951年在拉德克利夫学院获得英语文学学士学位。在她在那里的最后一年，奥登选中了她的诗集《世界的改变》作为耶鲁青年诗人系列出版，这是一个显著的荣耀。这本书于1951年出版，之后以其清晰的思路，规范的音步和严格的韵脚备受称赞，评论家们都赞赏它无可挑剔的遵守格式。

She had learned the lessons of her father’s library well, or so it seemed. For even in this volume Ms. Rich had begun, with subtle subversion, to push against a time-honored thematic constraint — the proscription on making poetry out of the soul-numbing dailiness of women’s lives.
看起来她似乎在父亲的书房学得很好。可是，即便在这首次出版的作品中，里奇也已经开始了微妙的颠覆，挑战由来已久的题材限制：女性生活平淡无趣，不应作为诗歌内容。

A poem in the collection, “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers,” depicting a woman at her needlework and reprinted here in full, is concerned with precisely this:
这里全文引用这一诗集中的《詹妮弗阿姨的老虎》，讲述一位女性做针线活的事情，就是这样的例子：
Aunt Jennifer’s tigers prance across a screen,
Bright topaz denizens of a world of green.
They do not fear the men beneath the tree;
They pace in sleek chivalric certainty.
Aunt Jennifer’s fingers fluttering through her wool
Find even the ivory needle hard to pull.
The massive weight of Uncle’s wedding band
Sits heavily upon Aunt Jennifer’s hand.
When Aunt is dead, her terrified hands will lie
Still ringed with ordeals she was mastered by.
The tigers in the panel that she made
Will go on prancing, proud and unafraid.
詹妮弗阿姨的老虎在绣布上跳跃，
明亮的黄色的老虎住在绿色的世界。
对于树下的那些男人它们毫不畏惧；
它们气宇轩昂，迈着坚定的步履。
詹妮弗阿姨的手指在毛线间飞动，
连象牙的绣针都很难摆弄。
叔叔婚礼乐队的巨大负担
重重压在詹妮弗阿姨的指间。
当阿姨死了，她惊恐的双手仍要
环绕着那些主宰她一生的煎熬。
她所绣出的画屏中的老虎
将继续骄傲勇敢，昂首阔步。

Once mastered, poetry’s formalist rigors gave Ms. Rich something to rebel against, and by her third collection, “Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law,” published by Harper & Row, she had pretty well exploded them. That volume appeared in 1963, a watershed moment in women’s letters: “The Feminine Mystique” was also published that year.
一旦掌握了诗歌的严格形式，里奇反而有了反抗的对象。她的第三本诗集，哈珀出版社的《一位儿媳的快照》，就展现了她的反抗。这本诗集出版于1963年，这一年同时出版的还有女性书写的分水岭式著作：贝蒂•弗里丹的《女性之谜》。

In the collection’s title poem, Ms. Rich chronicles the pulverizing onus of traditional married life. It opens this way:
在同名诗作中，里奇记述了传统婚姻生活中令人不堪重负的职责。它的开头如下：
You, once a belle in Shreveport,
with henna-colored hair, skin like a peachbud,
still have your dresses copied from that time. ...
Your mind now, mouldering like wedding-cake,
heavy with useless experience, rich
with suspicion, rumor, fantasy,
crumbling to pieces under the knife-edge
of mere fact.
你，曾是施列夫波特的美人，
有着海娜花般的棕发，桃花苞般的皮肤，
还在按照那时的式样裁剪衣裙。 ...
现在你的心，像结婚蛋糕一样变质，
充满无用的经历，富于
猜疑，谣言，幻想，
破碎成片，只要现实一刀
切下。

Though the book horrified some critics, it sealed Ms. Rich’s national reputation.
尽管这本书让一些评论家感到惊骇，它还是让里奇在全国一举成名。

She knew the strain of domestic duty firsthand. In 1953 Ms. Rich had married a Harvard economist, Alfred Haskell Conrad, and by the time she was 30 she was the mother of three small boys. When Professor Conrad took a job at the City College of New York, the family moved to New York City, where Ms. Rich became active in the civil rights and antiwar movements.
家庭责任的繁重，里奇有亲身体会。1953年，里奇与阿尔弗雷德•哈斯科尔•康拉德，一位哈佛的经济学家结婚，她三十岁那年时已是三个孩子的母亲。当康拉德教授转去纽约城市学院任教时，全家也移居纽约。里奇在纽约的民权运动和反战运动中日益积极。

By 1970, partly because she had begun, inwardly, to acknowledge her erotic love of women, Ms. Rich and her husband had grown estranged. That autumn, he died of a gunshot wound to the head; the death was ruled a suicide. To the end of her life, Ms. Rich rarely spoke of it.
到了1970年，或多或少因为她开始自省的意识到自己对于女性的情欲爱恋，里奇和丈夫分道扬镳。那年秋天，他死于头部中枪，死因被认为是自杀。里奇一生中都很少提及这件事情。

Ms. Rich effectively came out as a lesbian in 1976, with the publication of “Twenty-One Love Poems,” whose subject matter — sexual love between women — was still considered disarming and dangerous. In the years that followed her poetry and prose ranged over her increasing self-identification as a Jewish woman, the Holocaust and the struggles of black women.
里奇在1976年出版的《二十一首情诗》相当于公开了自己的女同性恋身份。这本诗集的主题是女性之间的情爱，被认为是危险的。在这之后，她的诗作和文章越来越多的展示了她对犹太女性，大屠杀和黑人女性的抗争的认同。

Ms. Rich’s other volumes of poetry include “The Dream of a Common Language” (1978), “A Wild Patience Has Taken Me This Far” (1981), “The Fact of a Doorframe” (1984), “An Atlas of the Difficult World” (1991) and, most recently, “Tonight No Poetry Will Serve,” published last year.
里奇的其他诗作包括《共同语言之梦》（1978），《疯狂的耐心让我至此》（1981），《艰难世界的地图册》（1991）和去年出版的《今夜没有诗歌》。

Her prose includes the essay collections “On Lies, Secrets, and Silence” (1979); “Blood, Bread, and Poetry” (1986); an influential essay, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” published as a slender volume in 1981; and the nonfiction book “Of Woman Born” (1976), which examines the institution of motherhood as a socio-historic construct.
她的文集包括《论谎言、秘密和沉默》（1979），《鲜血、面包和诗歌》（1986）；一篇重要文章《强迫异性恋和女同性恋的存在》1981年作为小册子发表；非虚构类作品《生于女人》（1976）探索了社会历史对于母性机制的建构。

For Ms. Rich, the getting of literary awards was itself a political act to be reckoned with. On sharing the National Book Award for poetry in 1974 (the other recipient that year was Allen Ginsberg), she declined to accept it on her own behalf. Instead, she appeared onstage with two of that year’s finalists, the poets Audre Lorde and Alice Walker; the three of them accepted the award on behalf of all women.
对于里奇来说，获得文学奖项本身就是一种政治行为。1974年她获得了国家图书奖的诗歌奖，而那年另一位获奖者是艾伦•金斯堡。她拒绝以个人身份领奖，而是与另外两名候选人一起登台，分享这一奖项：她们是Audre Lorde和Alice Walker，她们三人代表所有女性接受这个奖项。

In 1997, in a widely reported act, Ms. Rich declined the National Medal of Arts, the United States government’s highest award bestowed upon artists. In a letter to Jane Alexander, then chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Arts, which administers the award, she expressed her dismay, amid the “increasingly brutal impact of racial and economic injustice,” that the government had chosen to honor “a few token artists while the people at large are so dishonored.”
1997年，里奇的一项举动又广受关注：她拒绝了国家艺术奖章，这是美国政府给予艺术家的最高荣誉。在写给颁奖方国家艺术基金会的时任主席，简•亚历山大，的一封信中，里奇表达了她的不满：“种族与经济的不公所带来的残酷影响与日俱增”，而政府则选择表彰“少数艺术家而忽略大部分人”。

Art, Ms. Rich added, “means nothing if it simply decorates the dinner table of power which holds it hostage.”
里奇还说：艺术“如果只是主顾们权力盛宴上的装饰的话，那么它毫无意义。”

Ms. Rich’s other laurels — and these she did accept — include the Bollingen Prize for Poetry, the Academy of American Poets Fellowship and the Ruth Lilly Poetry Prize.
里奇的其他荣誉——她接受了的那些——包括柏林根诗歌奖，美国诗人学院的奖金和罗斯莉丽诗歌奖。

She taught widely, including at Columbia, Brandeis, Rutgers, Cornell and Stanford Universities.
她在多所高校任教，包括哥伦比亚大学，布兰迪斯大学，罗格斯大学，康奈尔大学和斯坦福大学。

Ms. Rich’s survivors include her partner of more than 30 years, the writer Michelle Cliff; three sons, David, Pablo and Jacob, from her marriage to Professor Conrad; a sister, Cynthia Rich; and two grandchildren.
里奇的家人中现在在世的包括和她共同生活超过三十年的伴侣，作家米歇尔•克里夫；她与康拉德教授的三个儿子，大卫，帕布罗和雅各布；姐/妹辛西娅•里奇；和两个孙辈。

For all her verbal prowess, for all her prolific output, Ms. Rich retained a dexterous command of the plain, pithy utterance. In a 1984 speech she summed up her reason for writing — and, by loud unspoken implication, her reason for being — in just seven words.
尽管拥有她那样的语言表现力和丰富的创作，里奇仍然能够灵活地支配平实而简洁的语言。在1984年的一次演讲中，她总结了她写作的原因，不言而喻，也是她活着的原因，而只用了七个字。

What she and her sisters-in-arms were fighting to achieve, she said, was simply this: “the creation of a society without domination.”
她说，她和她的同袍姐妹们所力争的，正是“没有强权的社会”。


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/201748939.html Gawiel Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:45:00 +0800 人类的性究竟是为了什么？生育还是乐趣？[翻译]桑托勒姆不懂的性——克里斯托弗·赖恩 What Rick Santorum Doesn’t Know About Sex
里克·桑托勒姆（美国共和党总统竞选人）所不知道的性

Published on January 6, 2012 by Christopher Ryan in Sex at Dawn
克里斯托弗·赖恩
（作者克里斯托弗·赖恩博士是心理学家，教师和作家。他与医学博士Caclida Jetha合著的Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality (HarperCollins)是纽约时报畅销书。这本既有考古学内容，也有医学和心理学内容的书，探讨了在农耕文明和历史记载之前，性在人类群体中的方式和作用。）
2012年1月6日

Rick Santorum doesn’t know what sex is for.
里克·桑托勒姆不知道性的目的是什么。
美国共和党总统竞选人桑托勒姆
美国共和党总统竞选人桑托勒姆


In a recent appearance in New Hampshire, he summarized his thoughts on the subject, saying, “God made man and woman, and men and women come together to have a union to produce children, which keeps civilization going and provides the best environment for children to be raised.” While this may seem a common-sense understanding of the function and purpose of sexuality, it doesn’t apply to human beings.
在他最近一次在新罕布什尔周的发言中，桑托勒姆总结了他关于性的想法。他说：“上帝创造了男人和女人，男人和女人在一起结合生孩子，这样文明就得以延续，并为孩子提供最好的成长环境。”这个观点看上去是关于人类性生活的功能和目的的常识，但实际上它并不适用于人类。

What Santorum is missing can be expressed in simple math. The vast majority of species have sex only to reproduce—a function reflected in a very low ratio of sex-acts-to-births. Gorillas, for example, have intercourse at most about a dozen times per birth. And as with good Catholics, gorilla sex is all business: no oral, anal, manual, or any other kind of non-reproductive dilly-dallying. The female of most mammals only has sex when she is ovulating. Otherwise, no go. But the sexuality of human beings—and our closest primate relations, bonobos and chimps—is utterly different. We and our chimp and bonobo cousins typically have sex hundreds—if not thousands—of times per birth, with or without contraception.
桑托勒姆所忽视的，可以用数学来表达。绝大部分物种进行性行为的唯一目的是繁衍——为了实现这一功能，性行为次数和生育的比例非常的低。比如说，大猩猩每一次生育顶多需要十二次性行为。就像虔诚的天主教徒一样，大猩猩的性行为非常的讲求实际：不涉及口腔、肛门、手，或者其他任何和繁衍无关的花头。大部分雌性哺乳动物只在排卵时性交。其他时候？没门。而人类的性生活，和我们的灵长类近亲——倭黑猩猩与黑猩猩——的性生活却完全不同。我们和我们的倭黑猩猩和黑猩猩表亲们每一次生育就有几百次——也许几千次——性行为，无论是否避孕。

人类的欢乐近亲倭黑猩猩bonobo
人类的欢乐近亲倭黑猩猩bonobo


Santorum has argued that contraception is morally wrong because, “It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” But human beings happily experience, witness, imagine, and lament a cornicopia of erotic encounters that couldn’t possibly result in conception. Leaving aside the many “perversions” happily practiced by humans the world over, the human female is available even for Vatican-approved missionary position intercourse—at least theoretically—when she’s menstruating, already pregnant, post-menopausal, or otherwise precluded from conceiving. Is this, too, an abomination? Even Santorum and his wife, who have had more children than most couples, have certainly had a lot more non-reproductive than reproductive sex over the years.
桑托勒姆认为避孕是不道德的，因为避孕是“在性领域为所欲为，这违背了自然”。但是人类快乐地体验、见证、想象和惋惜着丰富多彩的情欲邂逅，而很多这些邂逅并不导致怀孕。就算不提全世界人类热情实践的各种“变态”性行为，即便只能采用梵蒂冈批准的传教士体位，理论上来说，人类女性仍旧可以在月经来潮时、怀孕时、不再排卵时等等各种不可能怀孕的时机做爱。这也要被谴责吗？即便桑托勒姆夫妇儿女众多，他们这么多年来，肯定也是非生育性行为多过生育性行为的。

It’s the nature of the human beast. For Homo sapiens, sex is primarily about establishing and maintaining relationships—relationships often characterized by love, or at least affection. Reproduction is a by-product of human sexual behavior, not its primary purpose.
这就是人类这种动物的天性。对于智人来说，性的首要功能是建立和维系关系——经常是爱的关系，至少也是好感。繁衍是人类性行为的副产品，而不是首要目的。

Another way in which we differ from most mammals is in our complex, multi-male social networks. The gorillas mentioned earlier are polygynous, with one dominant silverback mating with several females (perhaps more akin to Romney’s religious beliefs than to Santorum’s). The only monogamous ape, the gibbon, lives in isolated nuclear family units in the treetops of Southeast Asia, while humans, chimps, and bonobos all live in complex social groups with multiple males in attendance. Of the hundreds of species of primates, there are precisely no monogamous species living in multi-male groups—except humans, if you buy scientific or religious arguments for the naturalness of human monogamy.
我们与大部分哺乳动物还有一点不同，那就是我们的复杂的、多男性的社会网络。我们刚才提到的大猩猩是“一夫多妻”制的，一只银背大猩猩（大猩猩社群中年长、成年、多居统治地位的雄性大猩猩）与多只雌性交配（这个听起来更像罗姆尼的信条，而不像桑托勒姆的[译者注：喂……对共和党候选人的吐槽够了哈……]）猿类中唯一的一种“一夫一妻制”者是长臂猿，而它们组成的核心家庭[译者注：核心家庭，由一夫一妻和未婚子女一起居住组成的家庭]非常独立地住在东南亚的树顶上。人类、黑猩猩和倭黑猩猩则是群居在复杂的社群中，每个社群中有多个雄性。上百种灵长类动物中，多男性群居的物种中，还真只有人类实行单偶制——如果你相信关于人类天生就要单偶制的科学或宗教解释。

Although the nuclear family has been promoted like a soft-drink in recent decades, it’s clear that we are the most social species on the planet, interacting with and depending upon each other in ways that extend far beyond Mom, Dad, and Junior. We intermingle in ways no other creature could imagine—or tolerate. We do not raise our children in isolated treetops. We drop them off at school, where they satisfy their instinctive hunger for community, under the protection of adults whose names we’ll never know. When sick, we take them to doctors we’ve never met in hospitals built and maintained by utter strangers.
近几十年来，核心家庭就像软饮料一样被大力推广，但是无法否认的是，我们是地球上最具社会性的物种，我们与人交往和相互依赖的网络远远超出了“妈妈爸爸和孩子”的结构。我们相互往来的方式之多，其他物种根本无从想象——也无法忍受。我们不住在孤零零的树顶上抚养孩子。我们带孩子去学校，而在学校里孩子们如饥似渴的享受他们本能中的社会性，那些保护他们的成年人，我们可能根本就不会认识。孩子生病时，我们带他们去陌生人建造和维持的医院，交给我们从来没见过的医生。

If you still doubt that humans are deeply social creatures, consider that our greatest punishment is solitary confinement. Anyone who’s experienced it will tell you that any human companionship—even that of murderers, rapists, and Washington lobbyists—is better than isolation. Sartre got it wrong: Hell is the absence of other people.
如果你仍旧怀疑人类是一种具有深刻社会性的物种，就想想我们人类如何惩罚吧——单独监禁。任何经历过单独监禁的人都会说，比起孤独，什么样的人类陪伴都可以，哪怕是谋杀犯，强奸犯，或者华盛顿的说客[译者注：前文吐过槽的罗姆尼，就因为曾经做过说客而大受非议]。萨特搞错了：他人不在，才是地狱。

Santorum is inadvertently correct that sex “keeps civilization going.” But he’s wrong to credit only heterosexual reproductive sex. Sex of all kinds comes naturally to our species, and most of it has little to do with reproduction, and a great deal to do with loving one another. Sex and love hold communities—not just families—together. And in the end, it is our communities, as much as our families, we ask to raise our children, protect us from disaster, and offer us some measure of comfort in our final days.
关于性让“文明得以延续”，桑托勒姆倒是无心插柳说对了。但是他的错误在于，把这仅仅归功于异性间以生育为目的的性行为。对于我们人类来说，各种性行为都自然而然信手拈来，而其中的大部分与生育并无关系，大部分与爱有关。性与爱不仅将家庭联系在一起，更将社群联系在一起。说到底，我们也不仅仅依靠家庭来养育子女，我们同样依靠社群来养育我们的孩子，保护我们免受灾祸，以及提供我们晚年所享受的关怀。

————————————————
原文地址：http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201201/what-rick-santorum-doesn-t-know-about-sex
译者按：美国共和党的总统候选人竞选，在我所能接触到的大众媒体（全是liberal）看来就是妙趣横生。罗姆尼、桑托勒姆和金里奇三个人轮流爆出各种奇闻怪谈，让另一边的众多看客每天都有无数吐槽文应运而生。我的同学推荐的这篇小文，针对的是桑托勒姆在避孕和同志权益方面的极端观点（这家伙当年坚决反对废除“不问不说”的，理由是“军队里应该不提到性，为什么同性恋可以有特权”；看得我逻辑崩坏……喂直男军人难道没有张女朋友或者其他美女照片吗？同性恋军人可是提一句自己的伴侣就可能被扔出去的啊），我觉得对于大家讨论性别与性问题都可以提供一些想法，所以草草翻译过来，如果有错，烦请指出，谢谢。如果转载请豆邮告知。


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/199815335.html Gawiel Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:18:00 +0800 “我们都有点神经症“——用精神分析理论看《危险方法》  

“我们都有点神经症“——用精神分析理论看《危险方法》

 

http://movie.douban.com/subject/4221515/

 

今天和同学一起看了这部我们期待已久的电影。我们几个都是哲学系学生，但是对于弗洛伊德、荣格、拉康等人的精神分析理论有很大兴趣。我这学期第一次系统读了点弗洛伊德和拉普朗虚（Laplanche，台译），所以看这部电影觉得像看侦探片一样，充满了值得琢磨的细节。虽然自己并不是专业的心理学学生，还是愿意把自己的一些想法抛砖出来，希望更多的精神分析学朋友可以指正和讨论。片中弗洛伊德与荣格的分歧越来越大的时候，荣格曾写信让弗洛伊德正视自己的神经症（neurosis）和对他人的控制欲，而弗洛伊德回信说：“我们每个人都有点神经症。“需要说明的是，在接下来的分析中，我讨论的更多是电影中的角色，以及电影中的故事所具有的典型意义，而不是历史中的人物。

（不知道有哪些敏感词，实在是发不出来，只好截屏做成图片发了……）

 


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/186241222.html Gawiel Mon, 09 Jan 2012 01:44:00 +0800 未曾想到爱  

 

未曾想到爱
I NEVER THOUGHT OF LOVE

杰奎琳•艾普尔比
Jacqueline Applebee
(翻译：我)

 

我的女朋友凯特琳曾跟我讲英国人和美国人的区别。很显然，美国人觉得一百年很长，而英国人觉得一百英里很远。我是典型的英国人。我住在伦敦，凯特琳住在北边很远的地方。运气好的话，我们一个月能见上一次面。一个月见一次实在不够，我只能希望什么时候运气会好一点。

我第一次去她那里那天晚上，我们一起躺在床上的时候，我就想告诉凯特琳我爱她。那时我们在一起有一段时间了，但是我还没有见过她家。当我吻凯特琳的腿时，她嘴唇微启。我如果那时吻她的嘴唇，一定可以将那句话直送入她内心。我亲吻她的全身，凯特琳睁着眼盯着我看，她棕色的瞳孔因为兴奋而几乎扩大成黑色的。她比我所见过的任何人都要美。可是那话我还是说不出口，尽管它已经梗在我的喉咙。它踟蹰着，等待着，不愿轻易冲出。我的吻继续向下，直到她的脚踝和脚趾。她咯咯笑着，求我停下，这声音美极了。

我从未想到我会喜欢凯特琳这样的女人。她很聪明，读过很多书，和我完全不一样。她肤色白皙，戴一副眼镜，尽管她没有书呆子样的T恤，我觉得她穿那样的T恤会很合适。她波浪般的长发勾勒出一张美丽而严肃的脸。第二天早上我抱她在怀里时，她的长发绕在我棕色的手指上。当她在床上扭动，让床单扭曲凌乱时，她的长发被我紧抓在手里。第一次高潮总是很强烈的。

我也曾经爱过，但是爱上凯特琳是不一样的感觉。爱浸透了我的皮肤，在我的体内奔涌。直到我每次躺在她怀中，便呼吸颤抖，我才发现自己已经被爱淹没。

凯特琳有五个孩子。当她告诉我的时候，我吃了一惊。我不知道自己要如何面对这事。一开始，我开些玩笑，躲在我可怜兮兮的盾牌之后，想要逃避现实。其实在那时，我大概已经意识到自己终将爱上凯特琳，和所有她所爱的人。过了一段时间后，我发现我每次想到凯特琳，都一定会想到几张粉嫩的、开心的小脸蛋围绕着她。很难说出口，其实我害怕这一场景。但是我怕。我真的恐惧了。

 

如果你很想知道为什么的话，我就告诉你。曾经，也有一群小孩在我身边。我的侄子侄女们，曾是我生命中的重要部分。他们虽不是我亲生的孩子，但是我像亲生母亲一样抚养他们。不幸的是，我的家庭并不能带来幸福。在家里，我的日常生活充满了对我的威胁和羞辱，而这些都是因为我的性取向。他们说我只是在模仿白人和他们的古怪生活，他们说真正的黑人才不会是同性恋，我肯定出了什么问题。我的家庭让我越来越痛苦，终于有一天，无法承受的我收拾行囊，不告而别。当我逃离的时候，我不得不抛下了我的孩子们。我也抛下了自己的一部分：那个从前的我会心血来潮做点巧克力蛋糕，也会在碗里故意留下一点粘粘的巧克力糊，我的孩子们就会用他们的小手指把碗抹的干干净净。

我放弃了有自己的孩子的想法，连可能性都不去想。但是生活自有它的办法，让不可能的事情成真，就在你眼前，在早上六点钟大叫着要看动画片。

 

凯特琳的四儿子艾伦第二天早上拥抱了我。他爬上了一个餐桌旁的椅子，用他的小胳膊抱住了我的腰。我拿来一本厚厚的电话黄页，把他放了上去，这样他就可以坐得高高的，可以看见桌子上的东西了。他边吃麦片边哼着一首童谣；我认出来这首歌，我的侄子侄女们还在摇篮里的时候，我也曾给他们唱过。我猛然停住，喝了一口我的浓黑咖啡。

凯特琳的小女儿哈茜尔伸手去够一把剪刀。我把它挪开，放到书架的顶端。

“我恨你，詹妮！”她撅着嘴说：“走开！”

我笑着说：“那可真可惜，因为我很喜欢你呀！”哈茜尔冲我皱皱眉头，吐吐舌头，继续画她的蜡笔画了。我关心哈茜尔，因为我爱她的妈妈。而且如果凯特琳知道我让她的小女儿玩尖锐的东西，非得疯了不可。

凯特琳下楼来吃早餐，穿着学校老师的衣服。她上班穿的衣服颜色偏深，一条长裙搭配一件庄重的深色衬衫。她的大儿子芬巴尔把牛奶洒在了校服领带上。凯特琳镇定的冲洗了他的衣服，而他正坐在台阶上帮哈茜尔穿鞋。我的眼角余光看到二儿子凯文正在把我的旅行包拖到厨房。他在里面翻翻捡捡，终于找到了我留着的一块单品[1]黑巧克力。他做做鬼脸，咬了一小口。

“不好吃！”他叫到，用手使劲挖着嘴里。我笑得肚子疼。谁能想到，我为自己筑起的心防，会被这个美丽的女老师和她热闹的家庭完全瓦解？我应该能够告诉凯特琳我爱她，因为那是我心底最真实的感觉。

 

“你知道，我们可以什么都不做。”那天晚上，凯特琳轻轻说，似乎她感觉到了我的害怕和犹豫。

“和你呆在一起就很好。”我撒谎了。我想要爱抚她的全身，感受她的一切。她的气味让我想要将自己融入她。但我只是有点紧张的说：“我们可以什么都不做。”凯特琳亲了亲我。她的嘴唇一碰到我的，我的全身力气就都没了。我们开始做爱，做了两个小时。

那晚我想告诉她我爱她，在她的嘴唇微张的时候。那是她第四次或者第五次高潮。我的手指在她身体深处触摸着，爱抚着。但是她的孩子们都在楼上睡觉，所以她得尽量压低声音。

“啊。”她的肌肉放松下来的时候，她轻轻的叹息着。我爱这个坚强而美妙的女人。她的头向后垂下，她的手也放松，不再抓紧我。我的手指还深埋在她的温热里。我永远都不想离开她。我想让她靠着我的肩膀尖叫。我想听到她的叫声。我自己紧紧闭住嘴。我不敢开口，我怕自己一开口就说得太多。我知道自己想说什么。我知道自己的感觉。但是那些话就是说不出口。它们就在那里，等着我开口，只要我的气息就可以赋予它们生命。我太懦弱了。

睡觉时凯特琳紧搂着我。我很害怕，直到我闭眼的时候都还在害怕。我从未想到过爱，可现在我的心里只有爱。

 

两周后我坐在伦敦一间酒吧里。凯特琳的密友潘妮坐在我对面。她一直冲我微笑，因为她有一眼看透人的本事。她一眼看出我完完全全的爱着凯特琳。潘妮刚刚感冒痊愈，声音沙哑，她说这让她特别精挑细选自己要说的话。那天晚上她没怎么说话，但是随着夜色渐深，她喝的红酒将她的脸颊染红。在那个喧嚣繁忙的酒吧里，我满脑子想着自己要对凯特琳说些什么。我想要告诉她我爱她，但是不想用那些郑重的字眼。潘妮像是会心灵感应，她动了动眉毛，提起包打算离开。我送她去火车站，脑子里都是凯特琳高潮时的柔软的声音，和她靠在我身上的急促呼吸。

我送别她的时候，潘妮微笑了一下。她沙哑着说：“给凯特琳打个电话”，然后就跑向火车。我的嘴几次张开又合上。我看起来就像一条愚蠢的金鱼，在火车站台上跌跌撞撞。

 

按下拨号键的时候，我的手指在抖。拨号音在我耳中响起，房间仿佛都变小了挤在我身上。然后凯特琳接了电话。我房间里的每个灯泡都一下子亮了。她的声音那么明亮，我不得不眯起眼睛。

“上次见你的时候有话想跟你说。”

“嗯？”凯特琳听上去很困。我听见三儿子爱德华在大喊大叫。现在是晚上八点多了，他应该乖乖上床睡觉了。

“我爱你”，我平静地说。

三秒钟的安静之后，我听到高声尖叫和笑声。

“我爱你，”我重复说，“我爱你，我爱你。”我深呼吸一口气：“我爱你，凯特琳。”我的嘴停不下来，我像疯了似的开始笑。

“我也爱你，亲爱的。”凯特琳停下尖叫，上气不接下气的说：“爱德华有话对你说。”

我听着爱德华兴奋的讲他今天在学校得到一颗金色星星[2]，讲啊讲啊，最后他终于把电话还给他妈妈。我闭上眼睛，看到我的侄子和侄女都在仰着脸冲我笑，开心的棕色小脸，和咧开的嘴露出的小牙。一阵难过涌出，和喜悦交织着，但是我对着电话听筒笑了，想到我要拥抱我的未来。我爱凯特琳。我从未想到过会爱她，但是我现在能跨越距离感到她也爱我。我抚摸着电话听筒，亲吻着话筒。

“我爱你。”

“你下次什么时候过来？”我可以听出她突然凑近了电话。

“很快，亲爱的。”我们之间的距离突然消失不见。“我下个周末就过去。我爱你。”我突然觉得自己像是个美国人了——下周末还有好久。

 


[1] 单品：single-estate 指该巧克力的原料巧克力豆来自同一个庄园或种植地。

[2] 英国学校惯例，发给小学生金色星星作为奖励，类似于我国的小红花。

选自：Best Lesbian Romance 2010, Radclyffe (Editor), Cleis Press, January 13, 2009

 

 


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/185654323.html Gawiel Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0800 英国人在纽约 An Englishman in New York

http://movie.douban.com/subject/3607877/

　　变老的过程是慢慢失去能力（disabled, disempowered）的过程，而在这样的无力下，孤独显得无比可怕。 
　　 
　　这部电影对于衰老这个话题，无比诚实。Quentin Crisp慢慢的变老了，他的王尔德式的俏皮话似乎也要用尽了（事实上他关于“真正的男人不会喜欢同性”的论断是如此的不符合我们这个时代，以至于我刚听到的时候几乎要被激怒了），他错误的判断着时代，去错误的地方，说着会激怒别人，甚至伤害别人感情的话：简单的说，他与时代脱节了。 
　　 
　　如果这部电影讲述一个老人如何努力学习新的技术和流行文化，最终在时间面前立于不败之地，那就太假了。好在有Philip Steele的出现，让一切变得可以接受——是的，事情不再是我们所想象的那么残酷了。除了婚姻、子孙以及孤独而无法自理之外，我们看到了别的衰老的可能性。 
　　 
　　电影对于Philip Steele和Quentin Crisp的关系的处理，有很多父子关系的类比：因为Quentin Crisp而重新开始（I moved to New York, I started to live——似乎I started to live这句话前面往往都是I moved to New York/SF/LA）；又因为他的混杂着自负和傲慢的自我保护而疏远；再到简单而必须的日常照顾，最终终于煽情的意识到原来“他现在是如此的依赖我了”。 
　　 
　　Quentin Crisp叫出Philip的时候，我还是被感动到了。他是完全不经意的叫出他的名字的，他大概在心里默默的这样叫过。放下自己一直拿捏的style（limey politeness，那个直白的美国人说）对他来说也是不容易的，我想那一刻，他大概也放弃了自己的一贯立场，开始相信爱了。 
　　Philip Steele告诉他他是如何的激励过他也是让我很感动的地方。一个人的故事感动过你，让你觉得我也可以像他一样，他的勇气可以给你勇气，这样的激励在同志社群里相当重要，可以让我们重新思考自己的生命和别人的生命的各种可能性，想去出于理想主义作出点改变（无论是对自己还是对他人），可以说这样的激励对于同志的社群和文化是最重要的正面力量之一。这是很多人做社群活动/运动的原初的动力。（同时，同志社群的边缘化位置是重要的反面力量，对处境的反抗也是一个重要的动力。） 
　　 
　　我的朋友们设想过一个“彩虹养老院”，那将是一个充满了友爱和相互激励的社群，在那里，老去的同志们并不抗拒时间，他们在朋友和/或爱人的理解和爱的帮助下，迈出艰难的那一步：接受生命的节奏，面对真实的衰老，在身体失去健康和力量的时候，还能和他人分享自己的思维和心灵。 
　　 
　　（波伏瓦1970年写了The Coming of Age http://book.douban.com/subject/1855709/ 我很想抽空读一下） 
　　 
　　一些影片相关的信息 
　　 
　　1）扮演Quentin Crisp的John Hurt，曾在1984年拍摄的《1984》中演温斯顿（也曾在整个《哈利波特》系列里面演奥利凡德先生，也曾在BBC Wales魔幻电视剧Merlin中给那头龙配音……）； 
　　 
　　2）扮演Arcade的Cynthia Nixon，是电视剧Sex and City中Miranda的扮演者，其本人是公开的女同志； 
　　 
　　3）那部Quentin Crisp回英国拍的电影，正是Tilda Swinton那部1992年的Orlando （http://movie.douban.com/subject/1301895/），原著Virginia Woolf，Quentin Crisp（http://movie.douban.com/celebrity/1014452/）在其中扮演伊丽莎白一世； 
　　 
　　4）片尾曲，也是影片名字的来源，是英国歌手Sting1987年的一首歌An Englishman in New York (http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/_xQwiX8igWE/). 


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/173260246.html Gawiel Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:06:00 +0800 Sexual Instinct and the Other in Freud and Laplanche http://book.douban.com/subject/2556907/

 

　　In my reading Freud, I always feel the lack of the other, that is, the other people, who stand clearly different from my person, seem not having an irreducible role in my mental life. In this essay, I’ll examine the role of the other in Freud’s and Laplanche’s understanding of instincts, especially sexual instincts, and argue that while Freud gives primary role to auto-eroticism and thus cannot give a full account of the role of the others in sexual instinct, Laplanche’s theory of primary seduction and source-object can be seen as a way out. 
　　 
　　In “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes”, Freud defines the object of instincts as “the thing in regard to which or through which the instinct is able to achieve its aim.” (SE, XIV, 122) The object, as to an instinct, is not essentially connected to the latter, is prone to change however frequently, and is not necessary “something extraneous: it may equally well be part of the subject’s own body”. (SE, XIV, s122) The source of an instinct is strictly somatic, and the aim of an instinct is, in accordance, also somatic, “the attainment of ‘organ pleasure’”. (SE, XIV, 126) This implies that even when external object is needed or used, the source and the aim of instincts are still not external, independent from the other, and fundamentally belonging to the self. 
　　 
　　The self-referring tendency of instincts in Freud may be explained that his claim that the ego has went through an early developmental phase of “auto-erotic”, or “narcissism”. The distinction between self and the other, is therefore reduced to the relation between subject and object, active and passive, and is further reducible to that between the narcissistic subject and narcissistic object. Even in those passive forms of instincts (for example, masochism and exhibitionism) that by definition require another as the acting role (respectively, sadism and scopophilia), Freud claims that here the “narcissistic subject … through identification, replaced by another, extraneous ego”. (SE, XIV, 130) The primal narcissistic state cannot transform and develop if it were not for the primal dependent state of human, “during which his pressing needs are satisfied by an external agency and are thus prevented from becoming greater” (SE, XIV, 134, fn2) Though the others are on whom we depend, they constitute a part of the impenetrable and inaccessible external world for us, there is no way to distinguish them from other things; the arbitrariness of whether they decide to fulfill my needs might seem to me as impenetrable as the arbitrariness of weather. 
　　 
　　The “leaning-on”, as Laplanche would call it, of sexual instincts to ego-instincts seems to make the sexual instincts more self-referring. “To begin with, sexual activity attaches itself to one of the functions serving the purpose of self-preservation and does not become independent of them until later.” (SE, VII, 181-2) To Freud, sexual instincts, like its earlier leaning on self-preservation, always seeks the repetition of the satisfaction that is enjoyed in the early age. While it requires the external world to provide this satisfaction, the satisfaction itself is ultimately my own. It is hard to detect when in Freud the other human agents are distinguished from the overarching notion of “external world”. Therefore, it leaves open where Laplanche can bring in his theory of instincts and his notion of source-objects. 
　　 
　　Laplanche considers it as a problem that in Freud’s biological notion of instincts (drives), “the contingency of the object is total”, and this theory treats both the outside world and the others as something to anchor the floating energy, without endowing them with a sense of necessity on their part. (EO, 124) For Laplanche, rather, the drive comes from two sources: apart from the endogenous, somatic source that Freud acknowledges, Laplanche points out that “an adult cultural world in which the child is totally immersed from the outset”, which should also be considered as an antecedence of drive. (EO, 126) This is the world, full of sexualized messages and significations, which no child or adult can escape being overwhelmed by, nor can anyone fully grasp. To Laplanche, what is lacking in Freud is the fact that infants and adults are at the same time existent, and are all in a cultural environment where unconscious sexualized messages are sent with any seemingly non-sexual gestures. Thus, the adults’ unconscious gestures to the infants constitute what Laplanche calls “the primal seduction”, which causes the bifurcation of sexual instinct and self-preservation instinct to happen. For Freud, it is because we are dependent on the others for our subsistence that we develop out of the narcissistic state, and the autoerotic narcissism is explained by the infants’ incapability of controlling the external world. For Laplanche, the seduction from the other is primary; the adults’ gestures, carrying unconscious sexualized messages with them, cause auto-erotic activity. “The obligatory vehicle of auto-eroticism … is the intrusion and then repression of the enigmatic signifiers supplied by the adult.” (EO, 129) The unconscious messages received but not decoded by the infant will remain as mental presentations of things, and will then constitute the id. And these “thing-presentations” are ultimately the “source-object” of the drive. The drive is neither fully mental nor fully biological; it is the impact from these repressed source-object to the ego. 
　　 
　　In Laplanche’s account of sexual drive, the role of the other human (rather than a mere “external world”) is clearer than that in Freud’s theory of instinct. As human beings also immersed in the whole of unconscious significance and communications, they make gestures and send messages to infants while they themselves can never fully understand, and this unknown communication has a central influence in the development of sexual drive. 
　　 
　　 
　　 
　　Freud, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Standard Edition, Volume VII, 123-246. 
　　 
　　Instincts and Their Vicissitudes, Standard Edition,Volume XIV, 109-140. 
　　 
　　Laplanche, The Drive and its Source-Object, Essays on Otherness, 117-132.


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/173259721.html Gawiel Fri, 28 Oct 2011 06:03:00 +0800 Encountering Heidegger -- Irigaray's reading of Being and Time http://book.douban.com/subject/6058861/

　　Luce Irigaray’s The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger 
　　 
　　(This presentation is not quite clear; you won’t find enough Heidegger; I don’t get all the ideas because it requires a theory context of Irigaray’s own oeuvre and other resources, for example, Lacan and Derrida.) 
　　 
　　The first difficulty of reading this book is the style of writing. It is an experimental attempt of writing philosophy in a poetic language, which makes it very vague and impenetrable. It does not contain arguments, commentaries or even quotations as to our expectation. Fragments of sentences, sentences that go against grammatical rules, metaphors and even allegories, juxtaposed phrases with a rhythm of their own, and word play, constitute most part of this book. However, Irigaray is very aware of, and actually draws our attention to the fact that she is using these rather heterodoxical way of writing, she said: 
　　 
　　“Do not think I am amusing myself with wordplay. I haven’t come to that. I have not yet found the place from which I could begin to say anything whatsoever. Here and now. I am trying, rather, to go back through all those places where I was exiled-enclosed so he could constitute his there. To read his text to try to take back from it what he took from me irrecoverably.” (FA, 29) 
　　 
　　Here, Irigaray claims that “I” am not using the standard, rigorously logical, academic language, precisely because, and indicates the fact that, “I” have been exiled as well as enclosed in this language – the language of “his”. I retain the pronouns because the “I” is not Irigaray, nor is the “he” Heidegger; rather, the “I” here should be understood as speaking for the “she”, which Irigaray uses in this context, to indicate what she considers to be lost in man’s appropriation of everything related to him in his being, and in his logos. 
　　 
　　Irigaray uses the “she” (elle) in this context to cover a lot of words that are feminine in French, including the woman, the mother, the nature, the “elle” in “elle donne”, the region, and the things – in a word, almost everything that is opposed to the notion of “man”. And the man, the “he” that Irigaray is addressing and critiquing at the same time, is Heidegger sometimes; but more oftentimes, it is Heidegger as well as the man who is the subject of the logos, the one who is, who has names and being. In this sense, the “she” and the “he” cannot be understood as any concrete woman or man, or according to the biological or social sense of woman or man. 
　　 
　　(The symbolic structure which excludes women as living body.) 
　　 
　　“She gives – first – air, and does so irrecoverably, with the exception of the unfolding, from and within her, of whoever takes air from her. While this air is – first – fluid matter carried by the blood she gives, it can also be understood as voice and phenomenon.” 
　　 
　　“She gives first. She gives the possibility of that beginning from which the whole of man will be constituted. This gift is received with no possibility of a return. He cannot pay her back in kind.” (FA, 28) 
　　 
　　He takes from her an “unpaid” and “unpayable” “debt of life” (FA, 28). And with this debt, he starts to form logos, which leaves the debt in the state of not being able to be addressed. It is, in other words, “closed up – folded up in an unthinkable beginning of Being.” (FA, 30) Irigaray plays around the notion of fluid gift or debt, the blood from a pregnant woman to a fetus, the milk from a mother to an infant, and the air from the nature to human, and maybe much more. However, this is a gift destined to go through metamorphosis: “the gift of her body in fluid form having become, in and through him, that which now stand solidly raised up – erected.” (FA, 35) This gift is given in silence and before all speech, thus it is never spoken of; it is also given in fluid form and before all possibilities of solidification. 
　　 
　　Air is “the whole of our habitation as mortals”; nothing can be “more vast, more spacious, or even more generally peaceful”. (FA, 8) Using Heidegger’s terminology, Irigaray claims that “no other element is as originarily constitutive of the whole of the world”. (FA, 8) As for our being, air is a necessary condition, by every sense of the word. Air is the condition for our talking, too: we breathe in and out air in order to make a sound. However, thinking seems to require different air, Irigaray defines it as ether. The reason is that for Irigaray, the beginning of thought in western philosophical tradition is a circle, in which air is not ideally fluid anymore. A controllable amount of air in an enclosed circle, that is a symbol of this tradition, as much as free air would be a challenge, symbolizing the impossibility of thinking about a “fluid truth” in this tradition. (FA, 12) Living, which needs air, and thinking, which needs ether, are thus from the outset separated. Air is presupposed and suppressed at the same time. Therefore, not only air lets itself to be ignored by senses, to be forgotten while all around, but also thinking rules out air. 
　　 
　　[“Would his most radical intervention in nature be to transform it into a mirror for himself? Is not air the element that is most resistant to this operation? How could air, the mediation of all reflection, reflect itself?” (FA, 13)] 
　　 
　　To go back to the question of style: the style itself constitutes a critique of Heidegger, and even more writings in the western philosophical tradition. It is a style that employs Heidegger’s terminology (to name but a few, Being, being-there, encounter, set-forth, dwelling, care, clearing, opening, etc.), and thus more or less Heidegger’s structure of analyzing, but does not follow Heidegger in his path; rather, by always pointing to where Heidegger does not go, by suggesting the points in Heidegger’s terminological map where we can go astray from Heidegger, Irigaray uses his language to make her claim. Therefore, this book is changing the structure of what commentary would look like. Instead of either criticizing or agreeing with the author who is read here, Irigaray reads Heidegger, speaks to Heidegger, and asks Heidegger – she is encountering Heidegger, if I may say so. She offers a different background against which Heidegger can be seen, and within her background she depicts his limits and boundaries. 
　　 
　　However, encounter might not be the right word here. Irigaray questions the notion of encountering. 
　　 
　　“It … lets ‘things’ appear and meet, but always in the mode of a face-to-face encounter that excludes interpenetration and mixture. ‘Things’ go to meet each other, but they remain about-to-meet, facing each other. ” (FA, 40) 
　　 
　　“No gap, breach, spacing, or distancing is possible between the living organism and the blood that has always already nourished it, including with the oxygen. Nor is there any more of a gap between it and the ambient air it continuously breathes once born.” (FA, 84) 
　　 
　　Encountering, to Irigaray, is not sharing, thus is not enough for living. Our taking in beings that do not have boundaries, and our taking them into our bodies, Irigaray would say, is already forgotten here in the notion of encountering. (Metabolizable, non-metabolizable, Laplanche) In encountering, the distance always remains there, as Heidegger has already noted; but Irigaray reminds us that if we only encounter, we cannot be nourished. We assimilate, as he assimilates her into his being; we assimilate liquid for subsistence, as a primordial debt. This assimilation is a process of interpenetration, instead of encountering. This is a process of “sharing, this relation of indivisible proximity”, (FA, 84) and Irigaray considers it to be “prior to the constitution of Being-in-the-world” (FA, 83). 
　　 
　　 “Free air would thus be the material substratum of the region.” (FA, 41), says Irigaray. However, here is a statement that I found suspicious. If we assume the translation is accurate, then the “sub-” calls for our attention. If it is air that Irigaray wants to remind us of, why is it possible to be “sub-”? Why not another prefix, which is actually quite frequent in Heidegger, that is, “circum-” (“um-”)? This further leads us to ask, in trying to establish the place for air, is Irigaray doing the same thing as her predecessor metaphysicians? Or rather, to reverse the question, is Heidegger not responsible for what Irigaray blames? After all, for Heidegger, Dasein encounters beings in its taking care. Like the road under our feet and passing beneath our soles is phenomenologically further than our friends we meet “twenty steps away on the street” (BT: 104/SZ: 107), is air, for Heidegger, quite remote to Dasein, for Dasein never needs to take care of air? It might make sense, if we can convince ourselves that we do not take care of air all the time, we are not attentive to air in the way we are to water, sunlight, and we take care of odor, or the lack of air, or our running nose, but not air itself. Irigaray reminds Heidegger of the debt he owes to air, the debt of his own life and the very possibility for him to talk; however, Heidegger might be able to reply that air is something he does not encounter in the way of taking care of, it is not part of the useful things. 

 

　是我上的Being and Time课的presentation。我在找更多的可以连接这两本书的地方。Encounter，region，sexuated Dasein，希望能勾勒出来一个Irigaray对于Being and Time的解读。 
　　FA是Forgetting of Air的缩写，BT是Being and Time的缩写（Stambaugh版本http://book.douban.com/subject/5934046/），SZ是Sein und Zeit。


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/173263471.html Gawiel Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:19:00 +0800 西安(未完待续)  

西安是一座没有什么精英感的城市，我总觉得。她吸引人的招牌总是那些街头巷尾的小吃，并且只能在街头巷尾才能保持应有的样子，但凡登堂入室就会变味到令人不屑。她自我标榜的艺术流派也大多是草根的、底层的、反精英的，或者土地的、民族的、寻根的。
于是在西安，想要消费的时候，会感觉自己享乐的想象力变得贫乏，却也觉得享乐的门槛一再走低，一直低到无需消费。古典音乐是几乎没有的，我表姐抱怨说她好不容易附庸风雅一次，却在音乐会前两天被电话告知门票预售太少，音乐会取消。白领话剧不成氛围，除了艺术节可以张张声势，其他时候也不会光临这座古城。古城就这样被现代商业文明的娱乐形式抛下了，抛给了她的古韵，是城中随处可闻的秦腔——尤其是日落时分，华灯初上，你若是不怕蚊虫，大可以走进西安的任何一个公园，总有人三三两两凑起，草台都不曾搭得，就施施然唱起来，身段做足，有板有眼，无论是无人驻足还是众人围观，似乎都不能改变那歌者的自我陶醉。
有人说秦腔是吼，是呐喊，是黄土映出的血汗。我看公园里那些双眼亮晶晶，腰杆挺直开唱的大妈似乎也没有什么大悲大喜，秦腔更像是她们每日从早说到晚的陕西话的艺术化。快起来嘈嘈切切，错落又直率，其实和早场菜场中看似挑剔实为满足的讨价还价声最为相和；慢起来一咏三叹，嘹亮有力，听起来总像是理直气壮又拿腔捏调地数落着什么人。我虽是生长在西安，其实家里并不说陕西话，也听不太懂秦腔，只是那音韵、调门、抑扬和节奏感，听着听着就混淆了语言和音乐的界限。豫剧也是同样，河南话怎么说，豫剧便是怎么唱。
当然，专业的秦腔也是到处都有的听，戏剧艺术研究所，易俗大剧院，Google知道的比我更多，而且本文也不是西安攻略，就不提了。
西安的吃更是门槛低。凉皮，街头巷尾，家家味道都不同，家家都正宗，涨价后三块五一碗，可以当作一顿饭，也可以当作一点零食。我表弟喜欢去金康路的云老四，认为店面虽小而难找，味道却是最好。那里的凉皮有很多凉皮和调料水分开打好包的，随手一拿就可以外带，俨然一爿小店也大规模产业化起来了。我则喜欢我家后面每天六点出来推三轮车卖凉皮的大叔的手艺，辣椒不那么浓厚，却有足够的醋味，有一种绵然的美感，大叔也戴着眼镜，并不是一般小贩街头老油条的样子，而显得有点天然呆。他总是撑着一把大大的红色遮阳伞，大概作为“我出来了，卖完就走”的信号树，久而久之，小区里的人都认得这位大叔，却除了“红伞凉皮”外也不知道别的称法。回民街的凉皮自有另一种吃法，加上麻酱，出了回民街是没有的。

（未完待续）

 


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/173260884.html Gawiel Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:10:00 +0800 [巴基斯坦] 五人被指控轮奸现无罪释放 轮奸受害者麦依面临危险

英国卫报：http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/21/pakistan-gang-rape-mukhtaran-mai
英国BBC中文网：http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/simp/world/2011/04/110421_pakistan_gang_rape.shtml
（Gawiel 综合编译）

巴基斯坦最高法庭今天对一起曾引起世界关注的轮奸案做出判决，六名被告中有五人无罪释放，一人从死刑改为无期徒刑。人权组织表达强烈抗议。

受害人穆哈塔兰·麦依（Mukhtaran Mai）将自己在2002年被强暴的遭遇公之于众，成为巴基斯坦妇女权益运动的标志性人物。现在她害怕自己和家人的生命将受到威胁。

2002年，麦依所在村的长老组成部落法庭，下令14人强奸麦依，之前曾有指称说，麦依当时12岁的弟弟与一个地位更高的家族的一名女子发生性关系。部落长老下令姐姐代弟弟受罚。麦依遭到轮奸。在今天的判决中，麦依被强奸的事实被法院承认，但是这14人中只有Abdul Khaliq被判有罪，并且从最初的死刑改为终生监禁。她说：“我担心这13个人会来到我的村庄，威胁我和我的家人。我对法庭已经失去信心，我现在将自己的案件交托给神的法庭，相信神的法庭会惩罚那些对我作恶的人。”

麦依没有按照传统的要求，在被强奸后自杀以恢复家族荣誉，而是将自己的遭遇公之于众，并且开始了漫长的司法抗争。除此之外，她还开办了一个女童学校，并且成立了一个非政府组织，旨在促进当地女性的教育状况。她表示虽然为自己和家人感到担心，但是她不会离开村庄，还将会继续自己的工作。

非政府组织“巴基斯坦Human Rights委员会”（The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan）在2010年共记录了791起针对女性的“荣誉处决”（honour killings，女性因行为被认为不当，或遭受性暴力，被认为令家人或社群蒙羞，而被家人或部族成员处决，或强迫自杀）；其中至少26名女性在被杀前被强奸或轮奸。而强奸、荣誉处决等针对女性的暴力，在巴基斯坦常常得不到警方的认真调查和法庭的审判。

-------------
看到这条新闻，是好友推荐的，她说“Sometimes the bravest souls are found in the most humiliated and insulted”。翻译这条新闻，出于义愤填膺，更出于对于这样一位勇敢的女性的敬意。我敬佩她的勇气与决心，同时也希望她能够保证自己和家人的人身安全，也希望巴基斯坦的Human Rights组织可以持续关注她的工作和安全。巴基斯坦的女性处境是复杂而具体的，我希望我翻译的这条新闻，不要被理解为简单的指责一个民族或者一种文化，而是可以提醒大家关注世界上更多女性的处境和奋斗。

 

===========

转贴一些豆瓣上的讨论过来：

2011-04-23 01:30:02: Gawiel (嘉薇尔|philosophically aroused)
　　@阿修罗
　　
　　我的意思是
　　1）我不是在“简单的指责一个民族或者一种文化”（相反，我希望做到的是对于她们具体处境的理解）
　　2）提醒大家的关注，是因为我默认这是豆瓣大部分读者仅能做的事情，并不意味着我不提倡建立在关注和理解基础上的行动。其实我本来后面还写了一段关于女性主义运动跨国界联盟的东西，后来删掉了，觉得和这条新闻关系不大。
　　3）我反对的正是“泛泛之谈”，比如“伊斯兰女性受压迫”这样的，我认为我们要看到各个族群的女性都有各自的处境和各自的努力，伊斯兰女性并不是全都受着同样的压迫，也不是全都没有能力做出自发的努力；而我们与她们的结盟，必须建立在我们理解和认同她们自发的努力的基础上。

2011-04-23 19:47:40: 希罗美德 (吾生有崖，而知无崖。)
　　很多英文维基条目都没有相应的中文版，或者只解释成了一句话。但这些都是普及性的常识。这让我知道在一个固定语言环境下你的知识是非常有限的，这甚至让我隐约感到不安——

2011-04-24 23:48:37: Lin
　　还有，honour killing到底是怎么回事，一下这段摘自wikipedia:
　　The perceived dishonor is normally the result of one of the following behaviors, or the suspicion of such behaviors: (a) dressing in a manner unacceptable to the family or community, (b) wanting to terminate or prevent an arranged marriage or desiring to marry by own choice, (c) engaging in heterosexual sexual acts outside marriage, or even due to a non-sexual relationship perceived as inappropriate, and (d) engaging in homosexual acts. Women and girls are killed at a much higher rate than men.
　　也就是说，honour killing主要针对的是“着装不合规矩”、“不接受包办婚姻”、“婚外性行为”和“同性恋行为”这四大所谓“让家族蒙羞”的行为，当事人必须自杀或被家庭成员杀死、以便挽回家族名誉。
　　有一点是显然的：honour killing只被用来防止以上这些行为，而真正严重的其他罪行却并非它所处罚的对象。

   
2011-04-24 23:53:18: Lin
　　换句话说，honour killing并不能起到bugz所说的“小环境里的秩序维护”、“村里自治”功能，因为它只是处理关于婚姻和性关系的“不合适行为”。至于村子里的偷盗啊人身伤害啊之类真正关涉到秩序和自治的问题，并不是由honour killing所承担的。

2011-04-26 11:45:44: Amélie (I love Google, I do.)
　　查了一下巴基斯坦的刑法。
　　发现他们的很好玩的，除了条文还带举例子的……
　　
　　巴基斯坦最高法院这个判决之所以有问题，在于它从逻辑上是自相矛盾的。
　　1、 有一个人被判有罪，——可见有证据证明他是确实实施了强暴，即至少有一个人实施了强暴，并且他被定罪，即他的行为没有被认为是经由部落法庭的授权而“合法”的；
　　2、 有五个人被判无罪，——因为没有充分的证据证明他们实施、教唆、或以其他方式参与了gang rape。但这五个人当中有两人是部落法庭的成员，即做出部落法庭判决的人。
　　
　　也就是说，问题在于，在巴基斯坦最高法院看来，部落法庭的判决（要求14人去强暴受害人，也许不是所有人都能证明实施了强暴行为，但至少有一人的强暴行为是能被证明的）究竟是否是合法的？
　　
　　如果部落法庭的判决是合法的，那么即便这一个人也不应当有罪，因为他是在“合法地执行（部落法庭的）判决”（Pakistan Penal Code, Chapter IV General Exceptions,76. “Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law”，78.” Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court”，——手头没有blue book，引用格式请勿计较……）；
　　
　　如果部落法庭的判决是不合法的，那么作为部落法庭成员，做出了要求强暴受害人的判决并且导致了至少有一个人直接犯罪，是构成“教唆”的（Abetment）。而对于教唆的惩罚，在Pakistan Penal Code,109 “Punishment of abetment if the Act abetted committed In consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment: Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code, for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence…” 于是在构成教唆的情况下，这五个人当中至少有两个是不可能“无罪”的啊。
　　
　　所以，巴基斯坦最高法院究竟认为部落法庭的判决合法，还是不合法呢？……
　　
　　
　　另外就是，Pakistan Penal Code，375 Rape对于强暴的定义还是很明确的。在Explanation里面也注明了“Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.”插入即构成性交，不需要射精的。
　　

2011-04-27 09:49:43: 陳老財 (there is no sin,)
　　　　honour killing
　　　　
　　　　1 是跨文化、跨宗教的，不光穆斯林才有
　　　　
　　　　2 但都普遍針對女性，事件中女人被當做財物對待
　　　　
　　　　3 通常得到受害者家庭女性成員的支持
　　
　　　　
　　　　Reports submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights show that honour killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda. In countries not submitting reports to the UN, the practice was condoned under the rule of the fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan, and has been reported in Iraq and Iran.
　　　　
　　　　But while honour killings have elicited considerable attention and outrage, human rights activists argue that they should be regarded as part of a much larger problem of violence against women.
　　　　
　　　　In India, for example, more than 5,000 brides die annually because their dowries are considered insufficient, according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Crimes of passion, which are treated extremely leniently in Latin America, are the same thing with a different name, some rights advocates say.
　　　　
　　　　"In countries where Islam is practiced, they're called honour killings, but dowry deaths and so-called crimes of passion have a similar dynamic in that the women are killed by male family members and the crimes are perceived as excusable or understandable," said Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.
　　　　
　　　　The practice, she said, "goes across cultures and across religions."
　　　　
　　　　Complicity by other women in the family and the community strengthens the concept of women as property and the perception that violence against family members is a family and not a judicial issue.
　　　　
　　　　"Females in the family—mothers, mothers-in-law, sisters, and cousins—frequently support the attacks. It's a community mentality," said Zaynab Nawaz, a program assistant for women's human rights at Amnesty International
　　　　
　　　　原文 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html

   
2011-04-27 13:23:07: Gawiel (嘉薇尔|philosophically aroused)
　　@bugz，我没有试图引起“自怜自弃”的情感，也没有试图“加深对男人的敌意”，如果给你这样的感觉，我感到很抱歉。
　　我认为我们可以在讨论和关注中，增加我们对于世界其他地区社会性别情况的了解，从而不断的修正和增进我们对于社会性别和文化的理解，而在这个过程中，着急的价值判断总是应该被警惕的，尽管最终我们可能还是会形成价值判断，但是也应该是审慎的。
　　尽管我们现在的关注和讨论，可能对于更多的实际困境没有帮助，但是我相信这样的思考对我们自己是有好处的，并且也可以作为未来可能的结盟的基础。
　　
　　最后，关于女性主义这个问题，我认为说女性想要50%还是60%的权利不是一个很妥当的比喻，而是应该我们每个人都享有100%的权利。我认为我们的社会性别结构不是一个简单的男性压迫女性的结构，而是一个复杂的、有历史的、因地而异的、牵涉到社会中所有人的结构，与其认为女性主义的目标是争取女性权利，不如说女性主义的目标是反思社会性别结构，以及与之相关的更多社会权力结构。然而，在资本主义社会中，很多女性现今仍旧在受着多重压迫（并不是说很多男性不受到压迫，也不是说女性受到的压迫全部来自于男性），所以争取女性权利（不是从男性那里争取，而是从结构那里争取，比如说女性不是要拿男性的钱，而是说大家应该同工同酬），仍旧是女性主义运动的主要内容之一。
　　
　　最后，作为一个女性主义者，更确切的说，一个以女性主义作为职业的人，我还想补充一下，女性主义现在的发展非常丰富，以至于要找到一个各个学派和运动的最小公约数都已经很困难，更不要提那些相互矛盾的理论和行动。所以其实我自己在说女性主义怎样怎样的时候，也很犹豫，希望大家能够理解，我所说的女性主义，并不是女性主义的全部，也不是女性主义的唯一可能性。


收藏到：Del.icio.us


博客大巴，你的个人传媒早班车


]]> http://gawiel.blogbus.com/logs/122200726.html Gawiel Sat, 23 Apr 2011 01:14:00 +0800