為什麼許多歷史上偉大的男性也支持女權運動？

最新 07-07

女權主義適合所有人——「所有認同平等和人性的完整性的人，都是女權主義者，不論男女。」

——葛羅莉亞·瑪麗·斯坦能

（Gloria Marie Steinem）

在回答標題這個問題以前，我想先回答一下，為什麼我會選擇寫這麼一個標題……

首先是因為我發現了這麼一個非常有趣的現象，那就是每次我發完文以後，朋友圈幫忙轉發擴散的幾乎清一色都是女生。

在大多數男性看來，女權運動就應該是由女性發起、女性擁護、女性爭取最終達到造福女性自身的運動，而和男性沒有太大關係。

從歷史上的女權運動來看，似乎是這樣的沒錯，女性從各大女權運動里爭取到了和男人一樣的受教育權、參政權、以及同工同酬權等等，無疑是最明顯的最大受益者。

但，難道這些運動的受益者果真只有女性嗎？

當然不是

歷史發展到今天，我們可以很清楚的看到，受益的是：

全人類

不相信沒關係，我們可以倒推一下，如果現在的女性沒有得到解放，我們的社會是什麼樣子。

先不說你想和女神聊尼采和弗洛伊德卻發現她只可以讀四書五經背詩詞歌賦，你還會發現，就連現在這樣的天氣里，大街上也不會有一個穿弔帶短褲的小姐姐讓我們賞心悅目。

再正經一點說，我們的文明不會跨越進步，經濟不會飛速發展。（認真臉）

經濟學人雜誌也曾寫過一篇報道，標題為「性別預算」，文章主要闡述了性別歧視是如何阻礙社會經濟發展的。

「It iseasy to be cynical about government—and rarely does such cynicism go unrewarded. Take, for instance, policy towards women. Some politicians declare that they value women』s unique role, which can be shorthand for keeping married women at home looking after the kids. Others create whole ministries devoted to policies for women, which can be a device for parking women』s issues on the periphery of policy where they cannot do any harm. Still others, who may actually mean what they say, pass laws giving women equal opportunities to men. Yet decreeing an end to discrimination is very different from bringing it about.

對政府冷嘲熱諷很容易，而且花在這方面的功夫很少會白費。以針對女性的政策為例。有些政客宣稱自己重視女性獨一無二的角色，簡言之，就是讓已婚女性在家帶孩子。其他一些政客專門為制定女性政策成立了完整的部門，這麼做可將女性問題推到大政方針的邊緣擱置起來，如此便不會招來任何麻煩。還有一些人或許可算真心誠意，他們通過了法律，給予女性和男性同等的機會。然而，歧視的產生可不是頒布政令就可以終止的。

Amid this tangle of evasion, half-promises and wishful thinking, some policymakers have embraced a technique called gender budgeting. It not only promises to do a lot of good for women, but carries a lesson for advocates of any cause: the way to a government』s heart is through its pocket.

在這一片閃爍其詞、虛與委蛇以及一廂情願構成的紛亂之中，一些政策制定者欣然採納了一個名為性別預算的方法。不僅女性有可能因此得到莫大的好處，為實現任何其他目標而努力奔走的人也可得到啟發：要抓住政府的心，就得把手伸進它的錢袋子里。

What counts is what』s counted

At its simplest, gender budgeting sets out to quantify how policies affect women and men differently. That seemingly trivial step converts exhortation about treating women fairly into the coin of government: costs and benefits, and investments and returns. You don』t have to be a feminist to recognise, as Austria did, that the numbers show how lowering income tax on second earners will encourage women to join the labour force, boosting growth and tax revenues. Or that cuts to programmes designed to reduce domestic violence would be a false economy, because they would cost so much in medical treatment and lost workdays.

被計數的才作數。

簡單來說，性別預算的目的在於量化各種政策對女性和男性的不同影響。這一看似無關緊要的步驟卻可將公平對待女性的殷切勸導轉變為政府的財務考量：成本與收益，投資與回報。一個人即使不是女權主義者，也能和奧地利那樣，承認有數據顯示降低伴侶中收入較低者的所得稅會鼓勵女性就業，從而刺激增長並增加稅收；或者，削減對減少家暴項目的投入看似會省錢，實際上卻得不償失，因為這會導致大筆的醫療支出，還會耽誤工作。

As well as identifying opportunities and errors, gender budgeting brings women』s issues right to the heart of government, the ministry of finance. Governments routinely bat away sensible policies that lack a champion when the money is handed out. But if judgments about what makes sense for women (and the general good) are being formed within the finance ministry itself, then the battle is half-won.

除了識別機遇與失誤，性別預算還會將女性問題直接帶至政府的核心部門：財政部。政府在撥款時歷來都對那些缺少強力支持者的明智政策不予理會。但怎樣做才符合女性利益（也會符合社會整體利益）的判斷如果是在財政部內部做出，那麼就已取得了一半的勝利。

Gender budgeting is not new. Feminist economists have argued for it since the 1980s. A few countries, such as Australia and South Africa, took it up, though efforts waxed and waned with shifts in political leadership—it is seen as left-wing and anti-austerity. The Nordic countries were pioneers in the West; Sweden, with its self-declared 「feminist government」, may be the gold standard. Now, egged on by the World Bank, the UN and the IMF, more governments are taking an interest. They should sign on as the results are worth having.

性別預算並不是新鮮事物。女權主義經濟學家自上世紀80年代以來就在為之呼號。一些國家例如澳大利亞和南非等已採納這種方法，不過為之付出的努力因權力更迭而遭遇起伏——性別預算被視為一種左派和反緊縮的行為。在西方，北歐國家是這方面的先行者，其中自詡「女權主義政府」的瑞典也許堪稱典範。在世界銀行、聯合國以及國際貨幣基金組織的鼓動下，如今已有更多的政府對性別預算產生了興趣。它們確實應該參與到這一實踐中，因為它帶來的成果會非常值得。

Partly because South Korea invested little in social care, women had to choose between having children, which lowers labour-force participation, or remaining childless, which reduces the country』s fertility rate. Gender budgeting showed how, with an ageing population, the country gained from spending on care. Rwanda found that investment in clean water not only curbed disease but also freed up girls, who used to fetch the stuff, to go to school. Ample research confirms that leaving half a country』s people behind is bad for growth. Violence against women; failing to educate girls properly; unequal pay and access to jobs: all take an economic toll.

從前，某種程度上因韓國在社會照護方面投入甚少，該國女性不得不在生與不生孩子之間做選擇；前者會降低勞動力參與度，後者則會降低國家的生育率。性別預算表明，這個人口日趨老齡化的國家因對社會關懷的投入而獲益。盧安達政府發現，投資於潔凈水不僅可以遏制疾病，還可將女孩們從取水的勞動中解放出來，讓她們去上學。有充足的研究證實，不顧任何一國的一半人口、將她們拋諸腦後，都會對經濟增長產生負面影響。女性遭受暴力對待、女孩未能獲得像樣的教育、薪酬與工作機會不均等——這些問題都會造成經濟損失。

Inevitably there are difficulties. Dividing a policy』s costs and benefits between men and women can be hard. Sometimes, as with lost hours of school, the costs have to be estimated. Redesigning the budgeting process upends decades of practice. If every group pressing for change took the same approach, it would become unmanageable. In a way, though, that is the point. Governments find it easy to pay lip-service to women』s rights. Doing something demands tough choices.

困難在所難免。將一項政策的成本與收益依據性別分別計算會是一道難題。有時，類似耽誤上學這樣的情況要付出多大的代價，只能估算出個大概。重新設計預算流程也會顛覆已執行數十年的實踐。如果每一個積極尋求改變的團體都採用了這樣的手段，情形就會變得難以駕馭。不過，在某種程度上，這也是意義所在。因為對政府來說，面對女性權益問題時開開空頭支票太容易了。要成就某些事，就必須要做出艱難的抉擇。"

所以，歷史上總會有一些具有遠見的男性和女性一起，投入到女權運動中，從而在一定程度上塑造和定義了社會的平等進步。因為他們看得到，這一場場的女權運動，推進的不僅僅是性別平等的發展，更是人類文明的發展。其實我們也不難看出來，文明程度越高的國家對待女性就越尊重，而這些國家的女性的獨立意識和自主意識也越強。這也就不難理解為什麼大多數女權運動都是由歐美國家發起的。

而在崇尚男尊女卑，女性要遵從三從四德的國度，談女權，怎麼聽都像是笑話。

但就是有這麼一些人，不怕被笑話。這些人里，有女人，也有男人。

比如說，胡適。