對婦女的偏見 Prejudice Against Women

婦女運動的全部目的就是要推翻婦女有必要服服貼貼的觀念，就是要教會婦女獲得自尊，使她們不聽命於人，教會男人充分理解平等，使他們不強求婦女服服貼貼。

    卡麗‧查普曼‧卡特(1859－1947)出生於威斯康辛州里彭，當過教師，中學校長，愛阿華州梅森城學校督學。卡特籌建有愛阿華婦女參政協會，創立了國際婦女參政聯盟，並改組了全美婦女參政協會，從而加強了其政治作用。第十九號修正案通過後，卡特將婦女參政協會改組為婦女選民聯盟。以下節選自卡特於1902年2月在華盛頓當選為全美婦女參政協會主席時的就職演說詞。

    ……婦女參政是個簡單明瞭的問題。這一要求帶著尊嚴、有禮有節、順理成章。戰勝保守派，獲得男子普選權雖然是一大勝利，但將來獲得女子普選權的勝利則是不可估量的。攻克了許許多多被認為不可攻破的傳統思想的堡壘後，男子才爭取到選舉權。然而，與婦女選舉權面前一排排強大的反對勢力相比，那些保壘充其量不過是唐吉訶德的風車。

    婦女選舉權面臨的正是男子選舉權曾面對的所有反對勢力。可除此之外，婦女選舉權還得與性偏見作鬥爭。這種性偏見是人類最古老、最無理、最頑固的偏執症。何謂偏見? 那就是一種毫無理由的觀點，一種聽不到論證，就作出的判斷，一種不知來處的莫名其妙的情緒。性偏見是剝奪婦女權益、剝奪婦女自由、剝奪婦女機會的一種先驗判斷，毫無根據地認為婦女沒有能力從事她們從未做過的事。女權運動迅速發展到今天，其道路上的最大障礙就是性偏見。這種偏見至今仍然是個巨大的障礙。

    至少在美國，我們不需再為婦女與有識之士一道投票時有關智力、道德及身體方面的合格性作辯解。我們當中最佳公民的道理早巳得到證實，我們論點的正確性也已得到公認，但我們還遠遠沒有戰勝性偏見。

    當一個大教堂主持暴躁地宣佈說，婦女的要求不再那麼有節制時，男人可能重操舊業，溺死女嬰。當一個名聲赫赫的參議員宣佈說，沒有人能為婦女的選舉權找到理由時，當他以個人的地位和影響來反對時，當一個著名女作家將女權運動的代言人說成「尖聲呼叫的女性」時，當一個政治頭面人物說，「反對婦女選舉權就是否定獨立宣言」，而他自己卻希望婦女得不到選舉權時，問題已經完全超越理智範圍，而回到性偏見的領域，邏輯與常識都無法打開的領域……

    有四大原因導致婦女處於受支配的地位。按照男人是一個種族的唯一組成單位的理論，每個原因都是合乎邏輯的推斷。這四大原因是：服從，愚昧，否定個人自由，否定財產和報酬的享有權。這四種因素共起作用，使男人養成自私、霸道的習性，使婦女養成逆來順受的習慣……為了使這些不利條件牢牢地套住婦女，世人的推理是男人代表整個種族，女人只是男人的附屬品，這樣他們的行為便合乎邏輯了。將婦女永遠作為附屬品來監護等於剝奪了婦女思想與行動的全部自由，剝奪了婦女的發展動力，使婦女順理成章地成為世人所希望看到的空虛的弱者。婦女的地位又進一步強化了有關婦女低能的流行觀點。這世界不讓婦女學會任何技巧，卻說她們幹的活一文不值，這世界不許婦女持有個人見解，卻說婦女不善於思考，這世界不許婦女對公眾演講，卻說女性中沒有演說家，這世界不讓婦女上學校，卻說女性中沒有天才，這世界剝奪了婦女的一切責任，卻說女性軟弱無能，這世界要讓婦女明白她們的點滴快樂全是靠男人施捨的。當婦女按照人們所教的，塗脂抹粉，戴上精巧的羽飾，去尋求快活時，人們又說她們圖虛榮。

    這就是文學作品所記奉的婦女形象，歌謠與傳說使之不朽，騎士為之說盡發瘋般的甜言蜜語。正如狄德羅說的，「當女性是主題時，筆頭需浸滿彩虹，而紙張需用蝴蝶翅膀來擦乾。」人們讓婦女罩上這種神秘的光環，讓她們相信自己是受寵愛的。世人眼中理想的婦女形象是：漂亮，風流，多情，順從，謹卑，時而柔弱，時而激動得暴跳，但從來是愚昧無知，軟弱無能的。

    當新的女性終於出現，高舉真理的火炬，有理有節，帶著尊嚴，要求分享這世上的教育、機會與責任時，難怪那些缺乏訓練，軟弱無能的婦女害怕地往後退，也難怪男人竟站出來為傳統婦女說話，因為他們已習慣於自己所鍾愛的女性。他們欣賞的正是婦女的軟弱與依賴性。他們喜歡把婦女想像成柔軟的攀援籐，而把自己看作粗壯的橡樹。男人打從騎士時代起，就崇拜女性的理想，似乎她們是女神，但卻一直控制她們，似乎女人又是白癡。男人根本沒有意識到，自己的這兩重地位是如何不協調，而錯以為這種關係正符合上帝的旨意…。．

    婦女運動的全部目的就是要推翻婦女有必要服服 貼貼的觀念，就是要教會婦女獲得自尊，使她們不聽命於人，教會男人充分理解平等，使他們不強求婦女服服貼貼。正如約翰‧斯圖亞特‧穆勒談到男子獲得選舉權之前的情況所說的，「高貴者在社會階梯上一步步往下走，普通人一步步往上攀，每過五十年，他們就彼此更加靠近。」因此我們也可以說，在過去一百年裏，男性作為世界的主導力量一直往下降，女性一直往上攀，每過十年，他們都彼此更加靠近。反對婦女爭取選舉權是舊理論的最後一道防線。這種理論認為，只有男性才是種族的創造者，因此女性必須服服 貼貼……

    過去，婦女運動的全部努力在於推翻女性在家庭中的隸屬地位。這一目的已基本達到。一般受過教育的女子，在父親家中、在丈夫家中、在兒子家中，都享有個人自由的權利。一個女子不必再順從一個男子。在家裏以及在社會中，女子都享有自主權，現在的問題是：作為整體的女性是否應順從作為整體的男性? 能否允許在生活的各個部門享有自治權的女子，在國家政治生活中也享有自治權? 一個男子支配一個女子是不對的，整個男性支配整個女性也同樣不對。一個男子支配其他男子是不對的，男性支配女性也同樣是不對的….

...The question of woman suffrage is a very simple one. The plea is dignified, calm and logical. Yet, great as is the victory over conservatism which is represented in the accomplishment of man suffrage, infinitely greater will be the attainment of woman suffrage. Man suffrage exists through the surrender of many a stronghold of ancient thought, deemed impregnable, yet these obstacles were the veriest Don Quixote windmills compared with the opposition which has stood arrayed against woman suffrage.

      Woman suffrage must meet precisely the same objections which have been urged against man suffrage, but in addition, it must combat sex-prejudice, the oldest, the most unreasoning, the most stubborn of all human idiosyncracies. What is prejudice? An opinion, which is not based upon reason; a judgment, without having heard the argument; a feeling, without being able to trace from whence it came. And sex-prejudice is a pre-judgment against the rights, liberties and opportunities of women. A belief, without proof, in the incapacity of women to do that which they have never done. Sex-prejudice has been the chief hindrance in the rapid advance of the woman's rights movement to its present status, and it is still a stupendous obstacle to be overcome.

      In the United States, at least, we need no longer argue woman's intellectual, moral and physical qualification for the ballot with the intelligent. The Reason of the best of our citizens has long been convinced. The justice of the argument has been admitted, but sex-prejudice is far from conquered.

      When a great church official exclaims petulantly, that if women are no more modest in their demands men may be obliged to take to drowning female infants again; when a renowned United States Senator declares no human being can find an answer to the arguments for woman suffrage, but with all the force of his position and influence he will oppose it; when a popular woman novelist speaks of the advocates of the movement as the "shrieking sisterhood;" when a prominent politician says "to argue against woman suffrage is to repudiate the Declaration of Independence," yet he hopes it may never come, the question flies entirely outside the domain of reason, and retreats within the realm of sex-prejudice, where neither logic nor common sense can dislodge it. . . .

      Four chief causes led to the subjection of women, each the logical deduction from the theory that men were the units of the race－ obedience, ignorance, the denial of personal liberty, and the denial of right to property and wages. These forces united in cultivating a spirit of egotism and tyranny in men and weak dependence in women. . . . In fastening these disabilities upon women, the world acted logically when reasoning from the premise that man is the race and woman his dependent. The perpetual tutelage and subjection robbed women of all freedom of thought and action, and all incentive for growth, and they logically became the inane weaklings the world would have them, and their condition strengthened the universal belief in their incapacity. This world taught woman northing skillful and then said her work was valueless. It permitted her no opinions and said she did not know how to think. It forbade her to speak in public, and said the sex had no orators. It denied her the schools, and said the sex had no genius. It robbed her of every vestige of responsibility, and then called her weak. It taught her that every pleasure must come as a favor from men, and when to gain it she decked herself in paint and fine feathers, as she had been taught to do, it called her vain.

      This was the woman enshrined in literature. She was immortalized in song and story. Chivalry paid her fantastic compliments. As Diderot said: "when woman is the theme, the pen must be dipped in the rainbow, and the pages must be dried with a butterfly's wing." Surrounded by a halo of this kind of mysticism woman was encouraged to believe herself adored. This woman who was pretty, coquettish, affectionate, obedient, self effacive [sic], now gentle and meek, now furious and emotional, always ignorant, weak and silly, became the ideal woman of the world.

      When at last the New Woman came, bearing the torch of truth, and with calm dignity asked a share in the world's education, opportunities and duties, it is no wonder these untrained weaklings should have shrunk away in horror. . . . Nor was it any wonder that man should arise to defend the woman of the past, whom he had learned to love and cherish. Her very weakness and dependence were dear to him and he loved to think of her as the tender clinging vine, while he was the strong and sturdy oak. He had worshiped her ideal through the age of chivalry as though she were a goddess, but he had governed her as though she were an idiot. Without the slightest comprehension of the inconsistency of his position, he believed this relation to be in accordance with God's command. . . .

      The whole aim of the woman movement has been to destroy the idea that obedience is necessary to women; to train women to such self- respect that they would not grant obedience and to train men to such comprehension of equity they would not exact it. . . . As John Stuart Mill said in speaking of the conditions which preceded the enfranchisement of men: "The noble has been gradually going down on the social ladder and the commoner has been gradually going up. Every half century has brought them nearer to each other;" so we may say, for the past hundred years, man as the dominant power in the world has been going down the ladder and -woman has been climbing up. Every decade has brought them nearer together. The opposition to the enfranchisement of women is the last defense of the old theory that obedience is necessary for -women, because man alone is the creator of the race.

      The whole effort of the woman movement has been to destroy obedience of woman in the home. That end has been very generally attained, and the average civilized woman enjoys the right of individual liberty in the home of her father, her husband, and her son. The individual woman no longer obeys the individual man. She enjoys self-government in the home and in society. The question now is, shall all women as a body obey all men as a body? Shall the woman who enjoys the right of self-government in every other department of life be permitted the right of self-government in the State? It is no more right for all men to govern all women than it was for one man to govern one woman. It is no more right for men to govern women than it was for one man to govern other men. . . .