關於 everyday sexism ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

The Language of Misogyny

YB Nurul Izzah Anwar; Member of Parliament Permatang Pauh and Dr.Lai Suat Yan ;Coordinator of and Senior Lecturer, Gender Studies Program, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, from University of Malaya discussing the corrosive nature of patriarchal power structures, a culture of everyday sexism and misogynistic, violent language experienced by all Malaysian women, not just women with political influence- regardless of age, profession and background, moderated by Tehmina.

#TeaWithTehmina

【BBC中文網】女性專用車廂能讓旅程更安全？

喧鬧、色彩明亮且運行快捷的小巴士matatus是肯尼亞首都內羅畢（奈洛比）街上不可能錯過的景色。在這座城市居住的300多萬人口，許多人仰賴這種小巴，但是對於許多女性來說，這種小巴士是性騷擾及侵害的來源。

林恩‧巴拉札女士（Lynn Baraza）護送她的妹妹到小巴站，還是有一群小巴司機試圖強制要求兩人都上車。

她說：「他們開始推我們，並拉我妹妹的手臂，即使我妹妹還把嬰兒背在她的胸前。」

「他們對我們說一些和性有關的話，我叫他們離我們遠一點，當我意識到沒有人來幫助我們時，我開始哭泣。」

「我的妹妹真的很害怕。」

所幸林恩和她的妹妹沒有受到身體傷害，但她們的遭遇並不是特例。內羅畢的保護女性權益團體女性培力連線（Women's Empowerment Link）調查的381名肯尼亞女性中，大部分都表示自己曾經在大眾交通工具上遭受到因性別而引發的暴力事件。

停止街頭性騷擾（Stop Street Harassment）組織也有相似的悲觀發現，研究發現在巴黎，100%的女乘客有至少一次在大眾運輸上遭受性騷擾的經驗。

女性專用車廂能改善？

一些政治人物，包括英國最大反對黨工黨領袖科爾賓（Jeremy Corbyn），都提出設立女性專用車廂做為解決辦法。女性專用車廂在許多國家例如墨西哥、日本、印度都有試行，具有巴士、火車、計程車等不同形式。但有證據支持女性專用車廂真的能夠讓女性更安全嗎？

這是因為一些因素難以計算。在大眾運輸工具上的騷擾行為通常不會被報道，而即使登記有案，很多國家也不會公開此數據。有時候性別隔離是因為文化原因，但大部分採用女性專用車廂的國家是因為有性騷擾問題在先。在這些城市引進性別隔離車廂前，情況可能變得更危險。

唯一能夠做的評量方式就是比較設立女性專用車廂之前與之後的情況差別，但關於這方面的資料很少。目前只有東京能提供這樣的資料。

在2004年，當局開始在一些列車上設立女性專用車廂。一年之後，女性在東京受到猥褻的報道下降了3%，但在設有設立女性專用車廂的兩條鐵路線上，性騷擾的比例上升了15%至20%。但此數據可能因為混合車廂中案例上升而下降，或是舉報率提高。我們確實能得知，許多女性在沒有男性在旁的狀態下出行感覺更安全。

路透社在2014年調查了全球6300名女性，發現其中70%認為她們在性別分離的車廂中感到更安全。調查結果各個國家有所不同。94%的女性在馬尼拉表示認同，紐約市的女性則是35%。同一項調查也為16個世界上的大城市依對女性旅客的危險程度做排名。前五大危險城市中的四個──波哥大、墨西哥城、德里、雅加達──在交通工具上都已有某種程度的女性專區。所以女性專區也許不是讓女性旅客感到安全的方式。

捷徑？

如果性別隔離車廂讓女性在精神上感到安全，它們不該被推廣嗎？雖然遭到性騷擾，但林恩可不這麼認為。相反的，她認為改變肯尼亞社會應該從全社會實行騷擾零容忍著手。她也指出，就算女性在通勤途中感到安全，她們下車後還是可能遭到騷擾，情況甚至會更嚴重。

林恩不是唯一一個認為女性專用車廂是誤用的人。許多學者和政策專家認為，分隔車廂只是一個捷徑，而這反而使女性遭騷擾正常化了。專家學者們指出，這讓女性期待能有一個地方躲避騷擾，而不是從根本去解決加害者騷擾女性的行為，或是施行更有效的政策。

國際汽聯基金會（FIA Foundation）的報告指出，在大眾運輸工具上對女乘客的安全所採取的不同保護措施，包含性別隔離在內，「並沒有強調（騷擾）是無法被接受的行為」，並且「確認了女性不應該被允許自由旅行，她們需要被給予特別關注。」

日常性別歧視（Everyday Sexism Project）項目的創辦人勞拉·貝茨（Laura Bates）也同意，這等於是默認對女性施襲。她對BBC廣播第四台（BBC Radio 4）說：「針對加害者的方案才是打擊性騷擾的正確方式……女性專用車廂傳遞出一個訊息就是──騷擾不可避免，我們應該把女人聚集起來防止騷擾發生。」

我們擁有的資料顯示，女性認為在隔離車廂中旅行讓她們感到安全，但隔離車廂無法將騷擾的根源解決：社會接受度、權力不平衡，且對加害者缺乏懲罰。

#社會 #生活 #運輸

我問美國友人Mark，他要我做做功課，就會知道為什麼是這個結論了「Trump, Clinton and the Culture of Deference」
By。Shelby Steele。Nov. 7, 2016 7:23 p.m. ET

The current election—regardless of its outcome—reveals something tragic in the way modern conservatism sits in American life. As an ideology—and certainly as a political identity—conservatism is less popular than the very principles and values it stands for. There is a presumption in the culture that heartlessness and bigotry are somehow endemic to conservatism, that the rigors of freedom and capitalism literally require exploitation and inequality—this despite the fact that so many liberal policies since the 1960s have only worsened the inequalities they sought to overcome.
In the broader American culture—the mainstream media, the world of the arts and entertainment, the high-tech world, and the entire enterprise of public and private education—conservatism suffers a decided ill repute. Why?
The answer begins in a certain fact of American life. As the late writer William Styron once put it, slavery was “the great transforming circumstance of American history.” Slavery, and also the diminishment of women and all minorities, was especially tragic because America was otherwise the most enlightened nation in the world. Here, in this instance of profound hypocrisy, began the idea of America as a victimizing nation. And then came the inevitable corollary: the nation’s moral indebtedness to its former victims: blacks especially but all other put-upon peoples as well.

This indebtedness became a cultural imperative, what Styron might call a “transforming circumstance.” Today America must honor this indebtedness or lose much of its moral authority and legitimacy as a democracy. America must show itself redeemed of its oppressive past.

How to do this? In a word: deference. Since the 1960s, when America finally became fully accountable for its past, deference toward all groups with any claim to past or present victimization became mandatory. The Great Society and the War on Poverty were some of the first truly deferential policies. Since then deference has become an almost universal marker of simple human decency that asserts one’s innocence of the American past. Deference is, above all else, an apology.
One thing this means is that deference toward victimization has evolved into a means to power. As deference acknowledges America’s indebtedness, it seems to redeem the nation and to validate its exceptional status in the world. This brings real power—the kind of power that puts people into office and that gives a special shine to commercial ventures it attaches to.

Since the ’60s the Democratic Party, and liberalism generally, have thrived on the power of deference. When Hillary Clinton speaks of a “basket of deplorables,“ she follows with a basket of isms and phobias—racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamaphobia. Each ism and phobia is an opportunity for her to show deference toward a victimized group and to cast herself as America’s redeemer. And, by implication, conservatism is bereft of deference. Donald Trump supporters are cast as small grudging people, as haters who blindly love America and long for its exclusionary past. Against this she is the very archetype of American redemption. The term “progressive” is code for redemption from a hate-driven America.
So deference is a power to muscle with. And it works by stigmatization, by threatening to label people as regressive bigots. Mrs. Clinton, Democrats and liberals generally practice combat by stigma. And they have been fairly successful in this so that many conservatives are at least a little embarrassed to “come out” as it were. Conservatism is an insurgent point of view, while liberalism is mainstream. And this is oppressive for conservatives because it puts them in the position of being a bit embarrassed by who they really are and what they really believe.

Deference has been codified in American life as political correctness. And political correctness functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life. We resent it, yet for the most part we at least tolerate its demands. But it means that we live in a society that is ever willing to cast judgment on us, to shame us in the name of a politics we don’t really believe in. It means our decency requires a degree of self-betrayal.

And into all this steps Mr. Trump, a fundamentally limited man but a man with overwhelming charisma, a man impossible to ignore. The moment he entered the presidential contest America’s long simmering culture war rose to full boil. Mr. Trump was a non-deferential candidate. He seemed at odds with every code of decency. He invoked every possible stigma, and screechingly argued against them all. He did much of the dirty work that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to do.

Thus Mr. Trump’s extraordinary charisma has been far more about what he represents than what he might actually do as the president. He stands to alter the culture of deference itself. After all, the problem with deference is that it is never more than superficial. We are polite. We don’t offend. But we don’t ever transform people either. Out of deference we refuse to ask those we seek to help to be primarily responsible for their own advancement. Yet only this level of responsibility transforms people, no matter past or even present injustice. Some 3,000 shootings in Chicago this year alone is the result of deference camouflaging a lapse of personal responsibility with empty claims of systemic racism.

As a society we are so captive to our historical shame that we thoughtlessly rush to deference simply to relieve the pressure. And yet every deferential gesture—the war on poverty, affirmative action, ObamaCare, every kind of “diversity” scheme—only weakens those who still suffer the legacy of our shameful history. Deference is now the great enemy of those toward whom it gushes compassion.

Societies, like individuals, have intuitions. Donald Trump is an intuition. At least on the level of symbol, maybe he would push back against the hegemony of deference—if not as a liberator then possibly as a reformer. Possibly he could lift the word responsibility out of its somnambulant stigmatization as a judgmental and bigoted request to make of people. This, added to a fundamental respect for the capacity of people to lift themselves up, could go a long way toward a fairer and better America.

Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).