性騷擾者的拙劣道歉
#MeToo(我也是)運動震撼了整個2017。女性——還有一些男性——打破沉默，如火山爆發(fā)般發(fā)出控訴，這股怒火席卷硅谷、好萊塢、媒體、餐飲行業(yè)以及政治圈。他們講述了很多關(guān)于性騷擾的故事。
In their wake came statements of regret from the accused. Upon scrutiny these crumbled into dust.
在這些故事曝光后，被指控的人作出了表達悔意的自白。但他們的話經(jīng)不住仔細推敲。
And so 2017 was marked by a series of terrible apologies by Goliaths who had been exposed, this time unwillingly, as harassers. This year has shown that there is no perfect way to apologise for inappropriate requests, gropes or assaults. But there are plenty of wrong ways.
于是，2017年將被銘記為這樣一年：一連串大人物在被曝(這一次并非自愿)為騷擾者之后，做出拙劣的道歉。這一年的經(jīng)歷表明，對于無理要求、猥褻或騷擾行為，沒有完美的道歉方式。但卻有的是錯誤的道歉方式。
Harvey Weinstein produced a model of the bad apology. His opening declaration set the tone for an onslaught of wrongness.
哈維•韋恩斯坦(Harvey Weinstein，見文首照片)樹立了一個糟糕道歉的典型。他的開場白就為大量錯誤奠定了基調(diào)。
“I came of age in the ’60s and ’70s when all the rules about behaviour and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.” This is a common line of defence by men who claim to be hopeless dinosaurs, out of touch with changing sensibilities. First, that excuse only works if all men of the same age think it is OK to ruin a woman’s career if she refuses their advances. Second, while some women might have put up with it in the past, that does not mean they liked or wanted it. Quite the opposite.
“我成長于20世紀60和70年代，那時關(guān)于行為和職場的規(guī)則與現(xiàn)在截然不同。這是那時的文化。”這是那種自稱是無可救藥的古董、全然不知世事變化的人所慣用的臺詞。首先，除非那個年代的所有男人都認為，如果女性拒絕他們的咸豬手，他們就可以毀掉她們的事業(yè)，否則這個借口就不成立。其次，盡管一些女性過去可能忍受這種行為，但這并不意味她們喜歡或者想要這種行為。事實恰恰相反。
Yet there is also a kind of selective evolution at play here. Harassers, particularly ones who are proud of their professional acumen, manage to stay attuned to so many developments in the business world — the arrival of disruptive technologies, say, or of new overseas markets. Yet they are blind to changes in workplace behaviour. Such blindness seems wilful.
不過，這里還有一種選擇性的演化。騷擾者、特別是對自己的專業(yè)才華感到自豪的騷擾者，成功適應(yīng)了商業(yè)界的諸多發(fā)展——比如顛覆性技術(shù)的到來或者海外新市場的出現(xiàn)。但是他們對職場行為的變化視而不見。這種視而不見似乎是故意的。
Mr Weinstein’s apology also included the pledge that he was embarking on therapy. This is a trope that has been reiterated by numerous other apologists. Being caught becomes “a voyage of self-discovery”, as if lunging at a colleague is the first step on the path to enlightenment.
韋恩斯坦的道歉還包括他開始接受心理治療的承諾。這成為了其他眾多道歉者不斷重申的套路。被揭露成了“自我發(fā)現(xiàn)的旅程”，彷佛把魔爪伸向同事就是啟蒙之路的第一步。
Charlie Rose, the journalist and talk show host, who lost his job in November after he was accused of harassment, said he had “learnt a great deal as a result of these events”. Then he turned it into a generous gift — a teachable moment for everybody else, as he wrote that he hoped that “others will [learn] too”. He continued: “All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”
記者兼脫口秀主持人查理•羅斯(Charlie Rose)在被指控騷擾后，于11月丟掉了工作。他稱自己“因為這些事件學(xué)到了很多”。之后他把這些教訓(xùn)變成了一份慷慨的禮物——讓其他所有人受益的教材——他寫道，他希望“其他人也將(學(xué)到教訓(xùn))”。他繼續(xù)寫道：“我們所有人，包括我自己在內(nèi)，更深刻地重新認識到了過往行為造成的痛苦，并對女性及其人生產(chǎn)生了全新的由衷敬意。”
The common denominator in all these apologies is narcissism. That these men were so entitled that they thought they could behave as they wished was always the problem. These apologies are self-indulgent me-pologies: all about the perpetrator not about the victims.
所有這些道歉的共同特征是自戀。這些男性如此位高權(quán)重，以至于他們認為可以隨心所欲——這從來就是問題所在。這些道歉都是以“我”為中心的自我放縱式道歉：一切都圍繞加害者，而不是受害者。
I picked a few me-pologies to see how many times they used the word “I”. Harvey Weinstein’s count was 37 times in 26 sentences; Charlie Rose used the word 14 times in eight sentences, and Louis CK, the comedian who was accused of harassment in November, 36 times in 26 sentences (although one was in the title of his new film, I Love You, Daddy, which is now shelved).
我挑選了一些以我為中心的道歉，來看看他們用了多少次“我”。哈維•韋恩斯坦在26句話里用了37次;查理•羅斯在8句話里用了14次;而11月被控騷擾的喜劇演員路易斯•CK(Louis CK)在26句話里用了36次(盡管其中一次是他新電影的片名《我愛你，爸爸》(I Love You, Daddy)，目前該片已經(jīng)暫停上映)。
I talked to a friend about her most recent experience of harassment, at a small company that employed no newsworthy stars. It was not a headline-grabbing assault. It was a drip, drip, drip of unwanted emails about her appearance, sent to her work and personal accounts, supplemented by texts at weekends.
我和一位朋友聊了她最近一次被騷擾的經(jīng)歷，那是在一家小公司，沒什么值得報道的明星人物。具體的騷擾行為也不足以成為頭條新聞。只是關(guān)于她外表的騷擾郵件一封封不斷寄到她的工作賬戶和個人賬戶中，周末還會有短信。
She caught her harasser surreptitiously taking pictures of her. Colleagues joked about his shrine to her at home. When she told the human resources department, they just warned her to be careful. In the end, she left the company.
她發(fā)現(xiàn)騷擾者偷偷拍她的照片。同事們開玩笑說，他在家里供著她的神龕。當(dāng)她把此事告訴人力資源部門時，他們只是警告她要小心。最后，她離開了那家公司。
A few months later, her former employer got back in touch — inevitably her harasser had started on other women.
數(shù)月后，她的前雇主和她聯(lián)系——不可避免地，她的騷擾者開始騷擾其他女性了。
After she heard that he had left, I asked whether she wanted him to apologise. No. She had heard enough from him — she just wanted to be heard herself.
在她聽說那人已經(jīng)離開公司后，我問她是否希望他道歉。不。她已經(jīng)煩透了那個人——她只是希望別人能聆聽她的話。
That made me think of two bright spots in Louis CK’s apology. These were simply: “These stories are true” and “I will . . . take a long time to listen.”
這讓我想起了路易斯•CK道歉的兩個亮點。很簡單：“這些故事是屬實的”以及“我將……花很長時間去傾聽”。
[email protected] 譯者/馬柯斯
