→ s20953:我覺得在戰場上保存性命是無關性別的 因此用性別來看兵事存 08/14 01:41 → s20953:廢 過於偏頗 08/14 01:41 ... since biography shows that differences of opinion are many, it is plain that there must be some one reason which prevails in order to bring about this overpowering unanimity. Shall we call it, for the sake of brevity, "patriotism"? What then, we must ask next, is this "patriotism" which leads you to go to war? Let the Lord Chief Justice of England interpret it for us: Englishmen are proud of England. For those who have been trained in English schools and universities, and who have done the work of their lives in England, there are few loves stronger than the love we have for our country. When we consider other nations, when we judge the merits of the policy of this country or of that, it is the standard of our own country that we apply... Liberty has made her abode in England. England is the home of democratic institutions... It is true that in our midst there are many enemies of liberty—some of them, perhaps, in rather unexpected quarters. But we are standing firm. It has been said that an Englishman's Home is his Castle. The home of Liberty is in England. And it is a castle indeed—a castle that will be defended to the last... Yes, we are greatly blessed, we Englishmen. That is a fair general statement of what patriotism means to an educated man and what duties it imposes upon him. But the educated man's sister—what does "patriotism" mean to her? Has she the same reasons for being proud of England, for loving England, for defending England? Has she been "greatly blessed" in England? History and biography when questioned would seem to show that her position in the home of freedom has been different from her brother's; and psychology would seem to hint that history is not without its effect upon mind and body. Therefore her interpretation of the word "patriotism" may well differ from his. And that difference may make it extremely difficult for her to understand his definition of patriotism and the duties it imposes. Cited from Virginia Woolf, "Three Guineas," Part I. 吳爾芙在上述段落中討論「愛國情操」，一種透過軍隊國防來進行衛國的 戰爭行動背後的理念或態度，到底是什麼？以及到底從何而來？ 並且引述了一段英國首席大法官對「愛國情操」的解釋。解釋了英國的人 民為了英國這個國家對他們的栽培和照顧，應該對自己的母國自然而然地 生產出一種偉大的愛，而這種對母國的愛，將引領民眾對抗外侮、保衛英 國這個民主的堡壘…… 吳爾芙在這段文字裡看見了性別的差異，因為如果對祖國的愛，以及不惜 以戰爭來保衛國家的「愛國情操」，是自然而然地由祖國對他們的栽培與 照顧之中生出來的，顯然英國的女人們不會像她們的兄弟般「愛國」，因 為英國並未如照顧其轄下的男人們般照顧女人們。 你或許會質疑這是一個「歷史的事實」，而如今已不復存在，或者宣稱在 台灣，國家對女人的照顧與對男人的照顧一樣好（甚至更好）。如果有任 何人這樣認為，我不會想要浪費時間與力氣爭辯這個題目。 但不能否認的事實是，至少就「在戰場上保存性命無關性別，因此用性別 來看兵事的存廢是偏頗的」這個全稱命題而言，吳爾芙這段歷史的描述卻 是一個大大的反例了。 在戰場上保存性命當然關乎性別，如果女人不像男人一樣有充份地理由為 了這個國家做戰，那麼她們自然沒有理由拿自己的性命在戰場上當成兩個 國家之間的籌碼來交鋒。 當然，吳爾芙提出這個事實並不是打算主張女人不用當兵，這種愚蠢的看 法不用這個板上的任何人提醒，吳爾芙自己都能夠明白。 她想要表達的是一種女性反戰的性別觀點，是針對她兄長寫信問她要如何 止戰的意見，她回信（約六萬字）中的一小段罷了。 而我提出這一段來供人參考，也不是打算說明軍事問題（或徵兵問題）必 然和性別有關，只打算主張，「性別觀點確實在某些情況下，被拿來考慮 軍事問題並不顯得偏頗」。 所以如果有人想要質疑，吳爾芙的描述不適用於台灣，我也不會打算與之 爭辯。因為適用性不是只有「一一符應」才能適用，往往依賴於個人的抽 象能力，才能看出兩個不同的時空環境，如何能夠在同一個觀點之下考慮 其不同的處境。 處境不同，不表示觀點就「必須」改變。如果不同意這一點的話，我當然 也不會與之爭辯。　:) （這麼說來，我還會爭辯任何事嗎？我也不知道。） --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.45.215.106 ※ 編輯: nominalism (124.9.192.232), 09/16/2015 00:10:07