马金瑜家暴事件刷屏！这个TED演讲告诉你，人们总在责备家暴中的受害者，这只会助长家暴！（附视频&演讲稿）
2月6日，前记者马金瑜的一封自述信引发关注并迅速上了热搜。在这封名为《另一个“拉姆”》的自述信里，马金瑜称在与丈夫生活的过程中，曾多次遭遇家暴，还发现丈夫有出轨行为。在没法保护自己和孩子的情况下，她选择带着三个孩子逃离。在这些事情发生之后，警方表示：马金瑜始终没有报警。
2月7日，其丈夫谢德成向媒体表示，他没有家暴，没有用皮鞭抽打孩子，也没有出轨。在他的讲述里，唯一算得上“家暴”的是在2011年端午节，马金瑜与其父亲发生争执，他夹在中间很为难，于是给了妻子一巴掌。他只打过马金瑜一次，马金瑜也打过他，他认为马金瑜此举是想炒作，而且妻子“三次走红”都和自己有关。
家暴这一恶劣行为再次成为大家议论的焦点。今天恰好看到了一个和家暴有关的TED演讲《为什么人们总在责备家暴中受害者？》
演讲者Jackson Katz在演讲中说：在家庭暴力中，受害者是很容易被责备的。但要搞清楚的是，追问受害者这些问题不会防范任何暴力问题。因为问题的关键根本不在受害者，而是加害者。如果我们不断只是关注女人做了什么，我们无法解决问题。“我们的目的是要创造一个不接受暴力行为的文化”。
人们总在责备家暴中的受害者
这只会助长家暴
↓↓↓ 上下滑动，查看演讲稿 ↓↓↓
I'm going to share with you a paradigm-shifting perspective on the issues of gender violence: sexual assault, domestic violence, relationship abuse, sexual harassment, sexual abuse of children. That whole range of issues that I'll refer to in shorthand as "gender violence issues," they've been seen as women's issues that some good men help out with, but I have a problem with that frame and I don't accept it. I don't see these as women's issues that some good men help out with. In fact, I'm going to argue that these are men's issues, first and foremost. Now obviously --
Obviously, they're also women's issues, so I appreciate that, but calling gender violence a women's issue is part of the problem, for a number of reasons.
The first is that it gives men an excuse not to pay attention, right? A lot of men hear the term "women's issues" and we tend to tune it out, and we think, "I'm a guy; that's for the girls," or "that's for the women." And a lot of men literally don't get beyond the first sentence as a result. It's almost like a chip in our brain is activated, and the neural pathways take our attention in a different direction when we hear the term "women's issues." This is also true, by the way, of the word "gender," because a lot of people hear the word "gender" and they think it means "women." So they think that gender issues is synonymous with women's issues. There's some confusion about the term gender.
And let me illustrate that confusion by way of analogy. So let's talk for a moment about race. In the US, when we hear the word "race," a lot of people think that means African-American, Latino, Asian-American, Native American, South Asian, Pacific Islander, on and on. A lot of people, when they hear the word "sexual orientation" think it means gay, lesbian, bisexual. And a lot of people, when they hear the word "gender," think it means women. In each case, the dominant group doesn't get paid attention to.
As if white people don't have some sort of racial identity or belong to some racial category or construct, as if heterosexual people don't have a sexual orientation, as if men don't have a gender. This is one of the ways that dominant systems maintain and reproduce themselves, which is to say the dominant group is rarely challenged to even think about its dominance, because that's one of the key characteristics of power and privilege, the ability to go unexamined, lacking introspection, in fact being rendered invisible, in large measure, in the discourse about issues that are primarily about us. And this is amazing how this works in domestic and sexual violence, how men have been largely erased from so much of the conversation about a subject that is centrally about men.
And I'm going to illustrate what I'm talking about by using the old tech. I'm old school on some fundamental regards. I make films and I work with high tech, but I'm still old school as an educator, and I want to share with you this exercise that illustrates on the sentence-structure level how the way that we think, literally the way that we use language, conspires to keep our attention off of men. This is about domestic violence in particular, but you can plug in other analogues. This comes from the work of the feminist linguist Julia Penelope.
It starts with a very basic English sentence: "John beat Mary." That's a good English sentence. John is the subject, beat is the verb, Mary is the object, good sentence. Now we're going to move to the second sentence, which says the same thing in the passive voice. "Mary was beaten by John." And now a whole lot has happened in one sentence. We've gone from "John beat Mary" to "Mary was beaten by John."
We've shifted our focus in one sentence from John to Mary, and you can see John is very close to the end of the sentence, well, close to dropping off the map of our psychic plain. The third sentence, John is dropped, and we have, "Mary was beaten," and now it's all about Mary. We're not even thinking about John, it's totally focused on Mary. Over the past generation, the term we've used synonymous with "beaten" is "battered," so we have "Mary was battered." And the final sentence in this sequence, flowing from the others, is, "Mary is a battered woman." So now Mary's very identity -- Mary is a battered woman -- is what was done to her by John in the first instance. But we've demonstrated that John has long ago left the conversation.
Those of us who work in the domestic and sexual violence field know that victim-blaming is pervasive in this realm, which is to say, blaming the person to whom something was done rather than the person who did it. And we say: why do they go out with these men? Why are they attracted to them? Why do they keep going back? What was she wearing at that party? What a stupid thing to do. Why was she drinking with those guys in that hotel room?
This is victim blaming, and there are many reasons for it, but one is that our cognitive structure is set up to blame victims. This is all unconscious. Our whole cognitive structure is set up to ask questions about women and women's choices and what they're doing, thinking, wearing. And I'm not going to shout down people who ask questions about women. It's a legitimate thing to ask. But's let's be clear: Asking questions about Mary is not going to get us anywhere in terms of preventing violence.
We have to ask a different set of questions. The questions are not about Mary, they're about John. They include things like, why does John beat Mary? Why is domestic violence still a big problem in the US and all over the world? What's going on? Why do so many men abuse physically, emotionally, verbally, and other ways, the women and girls, and the men and boys, that they claim to love? What's going on with men? Why do so many adult men sexually abuse little girls and boys? Why is that a common problem in our society and all over the world today?
Why do we hear over and over again about new scandals erupting in major institutions like the Catholic Church or the Penn State football program or the Boy Scouts of America, on and on and on? And then local communities all over the country and all over the world. We hear about it all the time. The sexual abuse of children. What's going on with men? Why do so many men rape women in our society and around the world? Why do so many men rape other men? What is going on with men? And then what is the role of the various institutions in our society that are helping to produce abusive men at pandemic rates?
Because this isn't about individual perpetrators. That's a naive way to understanding what is a much deeper and more systematic social problem. The perpetrators aren't these monsters who crawl out of the swamp and come into town and do their nasty business and then retreat into the darkness. That's a very naive notion, right? Perpetrators are much more normal than that, and everyday than that. So the question is, what are we doing here in our society and in the world? What are the roles of various institutions in helping to produce abusive men? What's the role of religious belief systems, the sports culture, the pornography culture, the family structure, economics, and how that intersects, and race and ethnicity and how that intersects? How does all this work?
And then, once we start making those kinds of connections and asking those important and big questions, then we can talk about how we can be transformative, in other words, how can we do something differently? How can we change the practices? How can we change the socialization of boys and the definitions of manhood that lead to these current outcomes? These are the kind of questions that we need to be asking and the kind of work that we need to be doing, but if we're endlessly focused on what women are doing and thinking in relationships or elsewhere, we're not going to get to that piece.
I understand that a lot of women who have been trying to speak out about these issues, today and yesterday and for years and years, often get shouted down for their efforts. They get called nasty names like "male-basher" and "man-hater," and the disgusting and offensive "feminazi", right? And you know what all this is about?
It's called kill the messenger. It's because the women who are standing up and speaking out for themselves and for other women as well as for men and boys, it's a statement to them to sit down and shut up, keep the current system in place, because we don't like it when people rock the boat. We don't like it when people challenge our power. You'd better sit down and shut up, basically. And thank goodness that women haven't done that. Thank goodness that we live in a world where there's so much women's leadership that can counteract that.
But one of the powerful roles that men can play in this work is that we can say some things that sometimes women can't say, or, better yet, we can be heard saying some things that women often can't be heard saying. Now, I appreciate that that's a problem, it's sexism, but it's the truth. So one of the things that I say to men, and my colleagues and I always say this, is we need more men who have the courage and the strength to start standing up and saying some of this stuff, and standing with women and not against them and pretending that somehow this is a battle between the sexes and other kinds of nonsense. We live in the world together.
And by the way, one of the things that really bothers me about some of the rhetoric against feminists and others who have built the battered women's and rape crisis movements around the world is that somehow, like I said, that they're anti-male. What about all the boys who are profoundly affected in a negative way by what some adult man is doing against their mother, themselves, their sisters? What about all those boys? What about all the young men and boys who have been traumatized by adult men's violence? You know what? The same system that produces men who abuse women, produces men who abuse other men.
And if we want to talk about male victims, let's talk about male victims. Most male victims of violence are the victims of other men's violence. So that's something that both women and men have in common. We are both victims of men's violence.
So we have it in our direct self-interest, not to mention the fact that most men that I know have women and girls that we care deeply about, in our families and our friendship circles and every other way. So there's so many reasons why we need men to speak out. It seems obvious saying it out loud, doesn't it? Now, the nature of the work that I do and my colleagues do in the sports culture and the US military, in schools, we pioneered this approach called the bystander approach to gender-violence prevention.
And I just want to give you the highlights of the bystander approach, because it's a big thematic shift, although there's lots of particulars, but the heart of it is, instead of seeing men as perpetrators and women as victims, or women as perpetrators, men as victims, or any combination in there. I'm using the gender binary. I know there's more than men and women, there's more than male and female. And there are women who are perpetrators, and of course there are men who are victims. There's a whole spectrum.
But instead of seeing it in the binary fashion, we focus on all of us as what we call bystanders, and a bystander is defined as anybody who is not a perpetrator or a victim in a given situation, so in other words friends, teammates, colleagues, coworkers, family members, those of us who are not directly involved in a dyad of abuse, but we are embedded in social, family, work, school, and other peer culture relationships with people who might be in that situation. What do we do? How do we speak up? How do we challenge our friends? How do we support our friends? But how do we not remain silent in the face of abuse?
Now, when it comes to men and male culture, the goal is to get men who are not abusive to challenge men who are. And when I say abusive, I don't mean just men who are beating women. We're not just saying a man whose friend is abusing his girlfriend needs to stop the guy at the moment of attack. That's a naive way of creating a social change. It's along a continuum, we're trying to get men to interrupt each other.
So, for example, if you're a guy and you're in a group of guys playing poker, talking, hanging out, no women present, and another guy says something sexist or degrading or harassing about women, instead of laughing along or pretending you didn't hear it, we need men to say, "Hey, that's not funny. that could be my sister you're talking about, and could you joke about something else? Or could you talk about something else? I don't appreciate that kind of talk." Just like if you're a white person and another white person makes a racist comment, you'd hope, I hope, that white people would interrupt that racist enactment by a fellow white person.
Just like with heterosexism, if you're a heterosexual person and you yourself don't enact harassing or abusive behaviors towards people of varying sexual orientations, if you don't say something in the face of other heterosexual people doing that, then, in a sense, isn't your silence a form of consent and complicity?
Well, the bystander approach is trying to give people tools to interrupt that process and to speak up and to create a peer culture climate where the abusive behavior will be seen as unacceptable, not just because it's illegal, but because it's wrong and unacceptable in the peer culture. And if we can get to the place where men who act out in sexist ways will lose status, young men and boys who act out in sexist and harassing ways towards girls and women, as well as towards other boys and men, will lose status as a result of it, guess what? We'll see a radical diminution of the abuse. Because the typical perpetrator is not sick and twisted. He's a normal guy in every other way, isn't he?
Now, among the many great things that Martin Luther King said in his short life was, "In the end, what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends." In the end, what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. There's been an awful lot of silence in male culture about this ongoing tragedy of men's violence against women and children, hasn't there? There's been an awful lot of silence. And all I'm saying is that we need to break that silence, and we need more men to do that.
Now, it's easier said than done, because I'm saying it now, but I'm telling you it's not easy in male culture for guys to challenge each other, which is one of the reasons why part of the paradigm shift that has to happen is not just understanding these issues as men's issues, but they're also leadership issues for men. Because ultimately, the responsibility for taking a stand on these issues should not fall on the shoulders of little boys or teenage boys in high school or college men. It should be on adult men with power.
Adult men with power are the ones we need to be holding accountable for being leaders on these issues, because when somebody speaks up in a peer culture and challenges and interrupts, he or she is being a leader, really. But on a big scale, we need more adult men with power to start prioritizing these issues, and we haven't seen that yet, have we?
Now, I was at a dinner a number of years ago, and I work extensively with the US military, all the services. And I was at this dinner and this woman said to me -- I think she thought she was a little clever -- she said, "So how long have you been doing sensitivity training with the Marines?"
And I said, "With all due respect, I don't do sensitivity training with the Marines. I run a leadership program in the Marine Corps."
Now, I know it's a bit pompous, my response, but it's an important distinction, because I don't believe that what we need is sensitivity training. We need leadership training, because, for example, when a professional coach or a manager of a baseball team or a football team -- and I work extensively in that realm as well -- makes a sexist comment, makes a homophobic statement, makes a racist comment, there will be discussions on the sports blogs and in sports talk radio. And some people will say, "He needs sensitivity training."
Other people will say, "Well, get off it. That's political correctness run amok, he made a stupid statement, move on." My argument is, he doesn't need sensitivity training. He needs leadership training, because he's being a bad leader, because in a society with gender diversity and sexual diversity --
and racial and ethnic diversity, you make those kind of comments, you're failing at your leadership. If we can make this point that I'm making to powerful men and women in our society at all levels of institutional authority and power, it's going to change the paradigm of people's thinking.
You know, for example, I work a lot in college and university athletics throughout North America. We know so much about how to prevent domestic and sexual violence, right? There's no excuse for a college or university to not have domestic and sexual violence prevention training mandated for all student athletes, coaches, administrators, as part of their educational process. We know enough to know that we can easily do that. But you know what's missing? The leadership. But it's not the leadership of student athletes. It's the leadership of the athletic director, the president of the university, the people in charge who make decisions about resources and who make decisions about priorities in the institutional settings. That's a failure, in most cases, of men's leadership.
Look at Penn State. Penn State is the mother of all teachable moments for the bystander approach. You had so many situations in that realm where men in powerful positions failed to act to protect children, in this case, boys. It's unbelievable, really. But when you get into it, you realize there are pressures on men. There are constraints within peer cultures on men, which is why we need to encourage men to break through those pressures.
And one of the ways to do that is to say there's an awful lot of men who care deeply about these issues. I know this, I work with men, and I've been working with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of men for many decades now. It's scary, when you think about it, how many years. But there's so many men who care deeply about these issues, but caring deeply is not enough. We need more men with the guts, with the courage, with the strength, with the moral integrity to break our complicit silence and challenge each other and stand with women and not against them.
By the way, we owe it to women. There's no question about it. But we also owe it to our sons. We also owe it to young men who are growing up all over the world in situations where they didn't make the choice to be a man in a culture that tells them that manhood is a certain way. They didn't make the choice. We that have a choice, have an opportunity and a responsibility to them as well.
I hope that, going forward, men and women, working together, can begin the change and the transformation that will happen so that future generations won't have the level of tragedy that we deal with on a daily basis.
I know we can do it, we can do better.
Thank you very much.
我今天要与你分享 一个看待性别暴力问题的全新视角。
性侵扰，家庭暴力，男女关系暴力， 性虐待，儿童性虐待。我将这一系列的问题简短称为 “性别暴力问题。” 这些问题常被看作为需要男性帮助解决的女性问题， 但是我觉得这个看法有问题， 并且我不认可它。我不认为这是一个需要男性助阵的女性问题。我认为这些本质上 就是男人的问题。
显然，这些问题也有女性的， 这我也理解， 但是将性别暴力问题称为女性问题 是问题之一。原因如下：
首先这给了男性一个不关注的借口，对吧？很多男人听见“女性问题”这个词， 就不以为然，觉得 “嘿，我是个男人，这些是女孩子的问题”， 或者“这些是女人的问题。” 因此，很多男人在听到性别暴力这个词语的时候 就变得漠然了。就好像我们大脑中的一个芯片被激活了， 然后神经系统把我们的注意力带到其他方向， 每当我们听到“女性问题”这个词的时候。对于“性别”这个词也是一样。因为很多人听到“性别”这个词 他们觉得它表示“女人”。所以他们觉得“性别问题”和“女性问题“是同义词。我们对”性别“这个词存在着一些误解。
让我来用一个例子解释这个误解。让我们来聊一下种族。在美国，当我们听到“种族”这个词 很多人觉得它代表非裔美国人， 拉丁美洲人，亚洲籍美国人，美洲原住民 南亚人，太平洋岛人，等等。当很多人听到“性取向”这个词， 他们觉得这代表同性恋和双性恋。还有很多人听到“性别”这个词， 他们觉它代表着“女人”。
在这些情况下，主流群体都没有被包括在内。不是吗？这就好像白人没有某种意义上的种族身份 好像属于某个种族类别或构造， 好像异性恋者没有性取向， 好像男人没有性别。这是一种主流群体自我维持与自我繁育的方式。也就是说主流群体很少受挑战的去思考他们的主流地位。这就是所谓权利与特权的一个重要特点， 拥有不被审查的能力，缺乏反省。事实上，我们喜欢假装自己是透明人 虽然这些都是与我们本身有关的问题。令人吃惊的是这“自我无视”的心理 在家庭性暴力和性暴力中扮演的角色。男人的角色变得可有可无， 虽然这明明是在一个主要关于他们的话题。
在此我将用些老手法 来解释我刚才说的话。在一些基础的问题上我是很传统的。虽然我会制作电影， 并且与高科技工作， 但是作为一个教育者我还是传统的， 在此我想与大家分享一个 解释句子构造上的练习。真的就是我们思考的方式。当我们使用语言的方式去表达时， 在我们自己不知情的情况下间接地撇开了男人的注意力。这特别是关于家庭暴力的问题， 但是你可以使用类似的例子。
这来自于著名的女权运动者和语言学家朱利亚佩内洛普。
就是一个很简单的英语句子。
“约翰打了玛丽。” 这是一个正常的英语句子。
约翰是主题。击败是动词 玛丽是对象。好句子。
让我们继续第二个句子， 基本就是同样的东西，但是是用被动式语气：“玛丽被约翰打。” 这句话里就发生了很大的一个变化。
我们从“约翰打玛丽。” 换成“玛丽被约翰打。” 我们转移我们的注意力从约翰变成玛丽， 还有你可以注意到约翰是位于句子的尾端。
现在让我们把某些东西从我们的思想移走。
第三句，把约翰移走， 我们就会有，“玛丽被打” 现在就只有玛丽了。
我们压根都没想到约翰。将我们的注意力完全集中在玛丽上。
在之前的年代，我们一直把“被打”这词 当作成"被虐待"。
然后我们就有“玛丽被虐待。” 如此推测，最后的句子 就会演变成为 “玛丽是个被虐待的女人。” 现在玛丽有个很明确的身份--玛丽是个被虐待的女人-- 这是和第一句被约翰打是一样的。
但是我已经论证约翰很久以前已经离开句子了。
现在，那些探讨于家庭与性别暴力的人 必须知道受害者是很容易责备的， 换句话说，就是责备受害者 而不是加害人。
然后我们会问，“为什么这些女人会和这些男人约会? 为什么她们会被这些男人吸引? 为什么她们要回去?她会穿什么出席宴会? 这是多么愚蠢的行为?为什么她要 和一群男人在一间酒店房间喝酒?” 这是责备着受害者。这存在着很多个因素， 其中一个是因为我们的认知构造 是设定于责备受害者。这全都是因为潜意识。
我们的认知构造是设定于询问 关于女人和女人的选择和她们在做什么， 想什么，穿什么。
请搞清楚我不是在呼应人们不问 女人的问题。这问题是合理的。
但是我们要搞清楚：询问玛丽的问题 不会防范任何暴力问题。
我们必须问几项问题。
你可以明白我在如何应付这问题，对吗? 问题不在于玛丽。这都是因为约翰。
问题包括，为什么约翰会打玛丽? 为什么家庭暴力依然是严重的问题? 在美国和全世界? 这世界怎么啦?为什么那么多男人施暴， 于身体上，精神上，言语上，等等。
女人和女生，男人和男生- 他们之间的爱呢?到底男人是怎么啦? 为什么那么多成年男人性侵小女孩和小男孩? 为什么这是一个普通的问题?在我们的社会里 和全世界? 为什么?为什么我们重复的听到 新的丑闻发生在主要机构? 例如天主教教堂或者宾夕法尼亚州立大学的橄榄球节目? 或者美国的男童军，还有等等? 然后在全国的本地社区 和全世界，对吗?我们时常听到这问题。
性虐待小孩子。男人到底怎么啦?为什么那么多男人强奸女人? 在我们的社会和全世界? 为什么那么多男人强奸男人? 男人到底怎么啦? 然后不同的机构的角色是什么? 在我们的社会不断生产施虐者的男人， 而且在很高的机率? 因为这不是肇事者个人的行为。
这是很单纯的了解一个很深入 和很有系统化的社会问题。
肇事者不是那些从沼泽爬出来的妖怪， 来到城镇做些坏事，然后撤退回黑暗。这是很单纯的想法，对吗? 肇事者比这更正常，更普通。
现在的问题是，我们到底在这社会和世界做着什么? 不同的机构在生产施虐男人这个过程中的角色是什么? 信仰的角色是什么? 运动文化，色情文化， 家庭机构，经济，这些都如何影响? 还有种族有何影响? 这全部是如何运作? 然后，当我们开始思考这些连接性， 和问些重要的宏观问题， 我们才可以探讨如何改变。
换句话说，我们如何运作些不同的东西? 我们如何改掉行为? 我们要如何改变男生们的交际? 还有男人的定义如何造成现在的成果? 这些都是我们必须问的问题 和我们必须做的工作， 但是如果我们不断的关注女人在做什么，在想什么 然后再去考虑这些事件， 我们无法解决问题。
现在，我明白很多女人 已经在尝试说出这问题， 在今天，昨天，还有很多年很多年， 但是她们的努力常常被压制。
她们得了不雅的名称，如“攻击男人者” 和“憎恨男人者” 然后恶心和厌恶的女人主义，对吗? 然后你这到这是为了什么吗? 这叫抹杀我们的“信使”。
就是因为女人抗护她们自己的时候， 在为其他女人和其他男人和小男孩说话的时候， 这就是在命令她们停下，闭嘴。
这就是在维护现在的系统， 因为不喜欢当有人砸船。我们不喜欢有人对抗我们的权力。你最好坐下来和闭嘴。
很幸运的，女人没那么做。很幸运的，我们存在一个很多女人领袖 可以互动的世界。但是有一个角色我们男人可以做的， 那就是我们也可以说些什么 女人不能说的东西。更好的是，别人可以听到我们说一些 别人不愿意听女人说的话。
现在，我很珍惜这个是一个问题。这是性别歧视。
但这就是事实。然后有件事我时常对男人说， 我和我的同事常这么说， 是我们需要更多有勇气和力量的男人， 站起来说这些问题， 然后与女人并肩作战而不是对抗她们， 或当作这是个 性别之间的战斗或其他无稽的东西。
我们活在同一个世界里。然而，最令我头痛的一件事是 那些花言巧语反对女权运动。将那些在世界各地帮助被虐女人 提倡反强奸的活动的女性 讲成好比她们在对抗男性。
想想看那些受负面影响的小男孩， 受年纪大的男人们对 他们的妈妈，姐姐和他们做出不良行为? 这些小男孩怎样呢? 这些年轻的小男孩 受到男人暴行影响所受到的创伤呢? 你知道吗?造就虐待女人的 和造就虐待男人的是同一个系统。
还有如果我们要谈男性受害者 -让我们谈谈男性受害者- 很多男性受害者被施暴于其他男性。
所以如果男性和女性有些共同点， 我们都是男性暴力下的受害者。所以我们都有各自的目的。事实上不得不说，我们知道很多男人拥有 我们关心的女人和女孩子。在我们的家庭，我们的朋友圈子还有其他的。所以有很多原因解释为什么我们需要男人提出这问题。
这看起来很明显的需要说出来。不是吗? 现在，我和我的同事正在做的是， 在传统的运动和美国军事和在学校， 我们带领着这方略名为“旁观者策略” 来防止性别暴力。
还有我要特别给你们提出这策略的要点， 因为这是很大的主题改观， 虽然有很多详细的要点， 但这中心点是，不仅仅将男人看作施虐者， 女人是受害者， 或女人是施虐者，男人是受害者， 或者任何一个组合。
我在用着性别两极化。我知道的我们有的不仅仅是 男人和女人。这世上不仅仅有男性和女性。
还有很多女人是施虐者， 当然还有很多男人是受虐者。
这都是一系列的。
但是，然而将之当作是性别两极化， 我们注重在于我们就好比称之为旁观者， 在这旁观者的意思是任何人在任何情况下， 如果不属于施虐者或被虐者， 换句话说就是朋友，队友，同事， 一起工作的，家庭成员， 甚至是不间接有关系的人们， 但是我们在社交，家庭，工作，学校 和其他同辈传统关系中与受虐者 都是有所关联的。我们能做什么? 我们该说什么?我们如何挑战我们的朋友? 我们如何支持我们的朋友?我们如何能够 在暴力面前不保持沉默? 现在，当我们面对男性的传统， 我们的目的是不暴力男人也要去 挑战那些施虐的男人。
还有当我说暴力倾向，我不是只说打女人的男人。我们不是只说一个男人的朋友 正在对他女友施暴然后他需 阻止他朋友的施暴行为。这是很幼稚的改变社会的方法。这是个长远的过程， 我们在尝试让男人们互相影响。
所以，比方说，如果你是个男人然后和一班男人在 玩扑克牌，谈天，逛街，没有女人在， 然后一些男人说一些性别歧视或贬低 或侮辱女人的话， 与其加入取笑或当做没听见， 我们须要男人说：“Hey，这一点都不好笑。
你知道吗，你可能是在说着我的姐姐妹妹， 你们可说些别的笑话吗? 或你们可以说其它话题吗? 我不赞成这类的话题。“ 就好象你是白人和另外一个白人 说个种族歧视的话题，你希望，我也希望， 有个白人会打岔那个话题， 是要来自个白人。
就好象你和异性恋的人一起，如果你是异性恋的人， 即使你不会对拥有不同性取向的人们 做出些骚扰或暴力行为， 如果你不在其他异性恋说些东西时即使打断， 那么，照理来说，你的沉默是不是 代表着同意? 好的，旁观者的方法是尝试给于人们一个工具 来打岔这个过程和发言， 是创造出一个 不接受暴力行为的文化。
不是只是因为暴力是违法的，而是因为这是错的， 是不能被我们的文化所接受的。
然后如果我们能够到达一个 男人做出性别歧视会失去地位的境界， 年轻男人和小男孩做出性别歧视的时候， 当他们对女人和女生， 和对其他小男生和男人骚扰的时候， 他们就会会失去地位会造成，猜猜看结果会如何? 我们会看到有效的缩减性别暴力行为。
因为普通的作犯者不是生病或性格扭曲， 在任何角度他都是个普通的男人。不是吗? 在马丁路德今短短的一生中所说过所有伟大的话语， 其中有一句是：“最后，最令人痛心的不是 敌人的话语 但是我们朋友的沉默。” 最后，最痛心的不是敌人的话语 而是我们朋友的沉默。
现在在男人文化中已经有足够多的沉默 面对这个不断的男人对女人和孩子施暴的悲剧 不是吗? 已经有足够的沉默了。
我只想说出的是我们需要打破这个沉默， 同时我们需要更多的男人这样做。
说是比做的容易。因为我现在这样说，但我可以跟你说这不容易。要在男人的文化中去挑战其他的男人。
这也解释了， 所谓转移的发生 不是只是要明白男人的问题， 同时也要理解这是男人的领袖问题。
因为最终的，在这些话题拥有立场 的责任不应该落在 小孩子身上，或是在高中和大学里的年轻男孩身上。这应该落在有权力的男人。有权力的男人是我们必须考虑的责任人， 在这个领导层面的问题上。
因为当有人要对我们的文化发言， 挑战和打岔，他或她 是在作为一个领袖，对吗? 但是在于更大的事件，我们需要更多有权力的男人 开始提起这些话题， 但是我们还没有看到，对吗? 当我在很多年前用晚餐时， 我和美国士兵有近距离工作接触。
然后我在这个晚餐然后一个女人对我说， -我觉得她自认为自己有点小聪明- 她说， “那么你已经和士兵们做了感性 练习有多久了?” 然后我说，“对全部人尊敬的， 我对士兵不做感性练习 我对士兵们实行着领袖方案。” 现在，我知道有点浮夸，我的回应， 但是这是个很大的分别，因为我不相信 我们做的是感性训练。
我们需要的是领袖训练，因为，比方说， 当一个有经验的揽球队或足球队的教练或经理 --我在满长工作在这范围-- 提出性别歧视的评语，或者歧视同性恋的话题， 说些种族歧视的评论，那就会有这些讨论 登播在部落格和运动频道 然后有人就会说，“他需要感性训练。” 然后有人就会说，“不要说这些。
你知道吗，有个政治人物疯狂了， 然后他说了些傻话，继续。“ 我的论点是，他不需要感性训练。他需要领袖训练。
因为他是个坏领袖，因为在社会中 有性别多元化，性取向多元化， - 还有种族的多元化，你做出 那些评论，你的领导能力已经失败了。
如果我们能够做出这些论点，我说这些， 是对于全部有权力的男人和女人在我们的社会中， 在各阶层的有权力人物， 这将会改变，这将会改变 人们的想法。
你知道吗，比方说，我和很多 北美的学校和大学的运动员做过工作， 我们知道很多防止 家庭和性别暴力，对吗? 没有借口可以给学校和大学说， 不做防止家庭和性别暴力的训练 给全部运动员学生，教练，工作人员 作为他们一部分的教育系统。
我们已经知道很多，我们可以很容易的做。你知道缺少什么吗?领导能力。
但是这不是学生运动员的领导能力 这是运动教练的领导能力， 大学会长的领导能力， 做资源决定的负责人， 和做校园决定的负责人。
这是一个失败，在很多的例案，在男人的领导能力 看看宾州州立大学。宾州州立大学是很多旁观者方法可以学习的母亲。你会发现很多真实的情况中， 很多有权力的男人无法保护 他们的儿子，在这案子中，小男孩。
这是很难被相信的，真的。但是当你深入了解时， 你会发觉有很多压力施于男人。
有些束缚发生在于男人的文化中 所以我们必须鼓励男人 去突破这些压力。其中一个方法是说有很多男人真的关心这些话题。我知道这。我和这些男人一起工作。还有我已经和一万个，十万个男人工作了很多很多年代。
其实停恐怖的，当我想想已经多少年了， 但是还有很多男人真的关心这些话题。但是仅仅关心是不够的。
我们需要有勇气的男人， 有胆量，有能力，有道德的 去破解这些沉默然后挑战他们。
然后和女人站在同一阵线，不是对抗她们。但是，我们欠女人的。这是无可否认的。但我们也欠我们的孩子。我们也欠成长中的男孩， 在世界各地的男孩，那些没有得选择的男孩， 作为一个男人在一个文化中告诉他们 男子气概是肯定的。
他们没得做选择。我们有机会做这个选择。同时我们也对他们有责任。我希望，往前看，男人和女人， 一起工作，可以开始做出改变， 然后转变会发生。然后未来的时代不会有同样的悲剧， 就好像每天在我们的生活情况下发生。我知道我们可以做到。我们可以做得更好。谢谢。
01
《另一个“拉姆”》刷屏
前媒体人自述“为爱远嫁”被丈夫家暴
2月6日，文章《另一个“拉姆”》刷屏，作者马金瑜的名字登上热搜，她是一位曾在一线城市工作的媒体人，曾经自称为了爱情远嫁到青海贵德县，为蜂农丈夫扎西生儿育女，称丈夫的心“像山上的泉水一样”，他们养蜂养花、世外桃源般的生活，曾被传为美谈。
马金瑜《另一个“拉姆”》
上下滑动查看全文
而在发布的文章中她控诉，现实是，她遭遇了丈夫长期的家暴和出轨，为了孩子她多次隐忍，从未报警。如今，她已经逃离了危险地，并决心面对一切。
马金瑜在前述文章中称，2015年一次酒醉之后，“暴打突然开始，我的眼睛登时模糊了，拳头不断砸在我的头……头被击打的瞬间，我的小便失禁了。”
文中写道，当时的殴打“一直打到早晨，我没有报警（也许这是最糊涂的，一次也没有报警）”。
“我终于决心带孩子离开，就是沦落到要饭，也要把人带在身边。”文中马金瑜用自述口吻称，她最终决心带着三个孩子离开青海，从2017年7月开始，她和三个孩子“总吃挂面，被不同的房东赶出来过两次”。
02
丈夫发声
家暴出轨都是没有的事情
据楚天都市报极目新闻报道，7日凌晨，极目新闻记者联系到扎西，他介绍自己原名谢德成，今年40岁，汉族人。他已经看到马金瑜公开发布的文章，文章中提到的几次家暴与出轨“都是没有的事情”。
“我确实在2011年端午时伸手打过她一巴掌，因为那天我父亲喝了酒，她一直喳喳哇哇骂我爸爸，我夹在中间很为难。”谢德成说，伸手打人的事情发生在2011年端午节，那时他们还未遭遇车祸。但是马金瑜被打得鼻青脸肿，是没有发生过的事。
而对于出轨，谢德成说：“这个可能是她误会了，当时她看见我跟另一个干活的女工在喝酒，并不是出轨。”
“我也不知道什么原因，她偷偷摸摸把三个孩子带走，那天我正在发货。”谢德成说，2018年7月，自己发现三个孩子被母亲带走后，至今与他们没有取得联系。
“目前不管她有没有证据，我特别希望她现在能给我一个合理的解释，为什么不辞而别？”谢德成说，目前两人尚未离婚，他留在当地养蜂，此前未结清的民工工资及房租都需要他来支付。
万商天勤（武汉）律师事务所吴良涛律师认为，当前能否认定家暴，需由马金瑜本人提供相关证据并起诉。如果要追究男方刑事责任，家暴属虐待罪范畴，属于自诉案件，一般是不告不理；如果她在受伤害时及时报警，公安机关应及时出警对其保护，如果达到重伤以上的，公安机关也应立案侦查，构成犯罪的可以提起公诉。从民事的角度来说，如果能证明家暴，根据民法典1079条判决离婚，男方也可能因为家暴失去对孩子的抚养权。
03
中央政法委评金瑜被家暴：
家暴不是“家务事”，全社会都应“零容忍”！
一线城市的女记者金瑜嫁给青海蜂农，做助农电商，近期却撰文自述长期被暴打，带子出逃。如何看待为爱远嫁藏区却遭家暴？安哥有三句话要说：
1、法律，永远是受害者的靠山。
婚恋自由，情如饮水冷暖自知，对个人选择，我们不应多加苛责。但发生在家门里的违法行为，同样是违法。《中华人民共和国反家庭暴力法》已从2016年3月开始实施。婚姻不是乌托邦，当遇到家暴，也要拥有止损的勇气和退出的自由。
2、法治中国，一个也不能少。
家暴作为一种违法行为，在全世界范围内存在，需要社会各界共同谴责、抵制、发现、惩处、救助。经济发展水平、乡风民俗也不是家暴的“挡箭牌”。被声讨追责的是“家暴”，而不是哪一个地区、哪一个民族。
3、错的永远是施暴者，不是受害者。
被家暴不敢说的原因很复杂，如何避免、走出家暴受害者在亲密关系之中的“习得性无助”，需要全社会的援手和共识。我们的确不能盲目出发，但也不该由此否定一切“诗和远方”的美好愿望。与其嘲笑，不如敏锐关注，不如热心帮助！
最后想对每一位勇敢生活的女性说，请不要放弃爱自己的权利，你值得一切美好！