我不會為平等去送死雙語散文

　　I Won‘t Die for Equality

　　The army is slammed for sexism, but do we want a Mum‘s Army？

　　軍隊因為性別歧視而受指責(zé)，但難道我們需要一支娘子軍嗎？

　　Seventy-five years ago all British women were finally given what all British men had been granted 10 years earlier ——the right to vote. First of f the blocks to mark the occasion has been, oddly, the Sun (that same organ, ironically, mostly ‘celebrates‘ women‘s emancipation with a naked interest in their bulging breasts and shapely bums).

　　That no one else has yet seemed to notice reflects the fact that the winning side in the equality war doesn‘t want to waste precious time crowing. They want to get on with dealing the most humiliating defeat upon the remaining enemy: foes such as those employers who pay women less than comparable men; the corporations with an all-male hierarchy at the top; and of course the men who tiresomely persist in sexist words or behaviour.

　　Like the military. A report last week slammed the Army for sexism, complaining that women are called ‘girls‘ ——quite different, the authors said, from referring to the troops as ‘our boys‘. ‘Boys‘, it seems, is a good, encouraging, matey kind of word. ‘Girls‘, by contrast, is derogatory and demeaning. This was only to be expected, the authors pointed out, from an institution that enjoys ‘partial‘ exemption from equal opportunities legislation ?nbsp;and thus can exclude its ‘girls‘ from some direct combat positions. How chauvinist can you get?

　　But hold on: do women really want to turn Dad‘s Army into Mum‘s Army, a posse of latter-day Amazons braving the front line, cheek by jowl with their male counterparts? We don‘t want to stand beside the boys and fire rifles into the whites of Iraqi eyes. Nor are we gasping for a chance to be blasted to smithereens by a cluster bomb. I may not be crazy about being called ‘girl‘, but that doesn‘t mean I want to be mowed down with the ‘boys‘ in the killing fields.

　　Yet this kind of job-equalising ——if Jack can do it, Jill sure as hell can do it better ——has long been cherished by social planners, feminist or not. For decades, men-only enclaves gave women their battle cry: let me in there! The xclusion zone in those days ranged from clubs, manual work, the Church of England and the armed forces.

　　Now it has shrunk to a few moth-eaten armchairs in clubland; the golfers‘ paradise——the Royal and Ancient Club of St Andrews; the Roman Catholic priesthood; and front-line combat.

　　The head of the Stock Exchange is a woman, female plumbers are growing in numbers (including that Oxford graduate, Nicola Gillison, who made headlines recently because she ditched her consultancy job for a mole wrench), and one in 12 of the Army is female. As for women lorry drivers, that should be no surprise. Women drivers have such a sterling record that insurance companies now offer cheaper premiums in return for the promise that no man will come anywhere near the four wheels of their car.

　　Given such progress, only rabid equalisers would argue that they cannot rest until women have the right to be wind bagged by some old geezer reading Horse and Hound by the fire; or risk death or a war wound through their rightful place on the front line.

　　Social engineering that fixes men and women in the same post, at all costs, makes no sense. As the foreigner chewed his dumplings at some dire Intourist restaurant in the Soviet Union, his (or her) surprised gaze might alight upon the workers outside in their drab overalls. Who were those stocky muscular figures clambering up the scaffolding with buckets of primrose yellow paint to freshen up the crumbling facades of the surrounding buildings? Women. Who was heaving the garbagecontainers into the dilapidated rubbish truck? Women. Who was shovelling up the piles of dirt and grit left in the melted snow by the side of the road? Women.

　　And what of the Israeli army, which believes women sabras as well as men should face enemy fire? That idea has proved a disaster ?nbsp; with men behaving suicidally to protect the women, casualties mounting, and the government now considering legislation to keep women away from the front. It‘s been a dire tale in the American military too, with physical strength tests rigged to accommodate women soldiers who with the best will in the world cannot throw a hand grenade to a safe distance.

　　There‘s nothing wrong with a handful of super-tough modern-day GI Janes being hooked on Jane‘s Guide to Extra Lethal Infantry Weapons, or wasting their weekends playing war games; the modern military needs women to boost its flagging recruits, and if supply now matches demands, I am sure we can all rest more easily in the shadow of the Axis of Evil.

　　But a woman does not need to be in the firing line to feel as good as a man. That is an equality too far.

　　不平等，毋寧死？

　　七十五年前，全體英國女性最終獲得了全體英國男性早十年就已獲得的選舉權(quán)。奇怪的是，第一個讓這條消息見報的是《太陽報》（具有諷刺意味的是，同樣是這份報紙，大多數(shù)情況下“慶祝”婦女解放時都毫不掩飾對女性高聳的胸脯和形狀優(yōu)美的臀部的興趣）。

　　這一點似乎并未引起他人注意，這反映了這場平等之戰(zhàn)的贏家并不想浪費寶貴的時間去歡呼。她們要繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗，給殘敵以沉重打擊：這些敵人包括那些讓男女同工不同酬的業(yè)主；最高決策層為清一色男性的公司；當(dāng)然還有那些堅持性別歧視語言或行為且樂此不疲的男性。

　　就說軍隊吧。上周的一個報告指責(zé)部隊搞性別歧視，抱怨說女兵被叫作“姑娘們”——說，這跟把軍隊稱作“小伙子們”完全不同�！靶』镒觽儭彼坪跏莻�好的、鼓舞人心的、表示友好的詞。而相比之下“姑娘們”就是貶義的，有辱人格。還指出，只有在一個享受部分免除機(jī)會均等立法束縛的機(jī)構(gòu)，才會發(fā)生這種事，而且他們因此可以不讓“姑娘們”進(jìn)入最前沿陣地。性別沙文主義是多么猖狂！

　　但且慢：女性真的想把爹爹軍變?yōu)槟镒榆妴�？一支�?qiáng)悍剛勇的現(xiàn)代娘子軍要在前線與她們的男同胞們并肩沖鋒陷陣？我們并不想與小伙子們并肩站著，用槍射入伊拉克人的眼睛。我們同樣不會渴望被集束炸彈撕成碎片。我可能并不在意被稱作“姑娘”，但這并不意味著我想在血腥的沙場跟那些“小伙子們”一起成片地倒下。

　　但這種就業(yè)的機(jī)會均等——如果男的能做，女的肯定能做得更好——長期以來被不論男女的 社會計劃者們奉為頭等大事。幾十年來，對那些原先由男人壟斷的地方，女人們就吹起號角，發(fā)起沖鋒，高呼：讓我們進(jìn)來！那時的禁區(qū)有時髦俱樂部、體力勞動、英國國教和軍隊。

　　而今這些禁區(qū)已縮小到倫敦俱樂部區(qū)最為保守的幾個、高爾夫俱樂部（如圣安德魯皇家和古典俱樂部）、羅馬天主教的神職人員和前線作戰(zhàn)人員。股票交易所的負(fù)責(zé)人是位女性，女性管道工人數(shù)量也在增加（包括那位叫尼古拉·吉利森的牛津畢業(yè)生，最近她由于放棄了咨詢公司的工作去當(dāng)一名下水道鉗工而成為頭條新聞），軍隊里12個士兵中就有一個是女的。至于女貨車駕駛員，那應(yīng)該一點也不奇怪。女性駕駛員有著非常優(yōu)秀的安全行駛記錄，結(jié)果現(xiàn)在只要她們允諾不會有任何男性碰她們的車，保險公司就可以讓她們少交保險費。

　　在獲得如此進(jìn)步的情況下，只有狂熱的機(jī)會均等主義者才會振振有詞地說，直到女性有權(quán)選擇她們是愿意在爐火旁聽一個怪老頭喋喋不休地讀《馬與獵犬》還是上前線冒生命危險或受傷，她們才會歇著。

　　千方百計讓男女干同樣工作的社會工程毫無意義。外國人在蘇聯(lián)沉悶的.國際旅行社餐廳里嚼著團(tuán)子時，他（或她）驚訝的目光可能會停留在餐廳外面穿著灰褐色工裝褲的工人身上。那些滿身粘乎乎、體形粗壯，提著一桶桶淡黃色油漆艱難地攀上腳手架去刷新周圍建筑物凹凸不平門面的都是些什么人？是女性。是誰用力舉起垃圾箱并搬進(jìn)破舊不堪的垃圾車？是女性。又是誰把融化了的雪里的一堆堆爛泥和沙礫鏟到路邊？是女性。

　　以色列的軍隊認(rèn)為不管土生土長的女性還是男性都應(yīng)該面對敵人的槍口，情形又是怎樣呢？這種觀念已被證明是一場災(zāi)難：男性為了保護(hù)女性奮不顧身，結(jié)果傷亡人數(shù)攀升，政府現(xiàn)正考慮立法讓女性離開前線。美國軍隊的有關(guān)情況同樣慘淡， 體能測試被做了手腳，讓那些盡最大力量也不能把手榴彈擲到安全距離的女兵得到“照顧”。

　　少數(shù)幾個超英勇的現(xiàn)役女性對《簡氏超大殺傷力步兵武器指南》愛不釋手，或把周末泡在戰(zhàn)爭游戲里，這沒有什么錯�，F(xiàn)代軍隊需要女性來補(bǔ)充其低落的兵源，若這方面供需平衡，我肯定在“邪惡軸心”的陰影下我們可以睡得更安穩(wěn)些。

　　但女性不必非要匍匐在前沿陣地上才會像男性那樣感覺良好。那是太牽強(qiáng)的平等。

【我不會為平等去送死雙語散文】相關(guān)文章：

不我愛的人是你雙語散文08-21

去走走,韶華不逝散文05-26

愛是平等的散文12-07

人人都是平等的散文01-12

我所追求的生活雙語散文08-21

散文：我去哪兒了07-03

時間會為你療傷散文12-18

雙語散文：春雨03-20

雙語散文The Smile03-21