中文
創(chuàng)造服裝新款式完全是為了對(duì)婦女進(jìn)行商業(yè)榨取
每當(dāng)你看一部老片子的時(shí)候——哪怕它只是在10年前拍的——片中女演員的外表都會(huì)給你留下深刻的印象：發(fā)式和化裝過時(shí)了；裙子要么太長(zhǎng)，要么太短；事實(shí)上，總的說來，她們的外表使人覺得有點(diǎn)滑稽。另一方面，片中男演員看上去卻一點(diǎn)兒也不陌生。單憑他們的外表，我們?cè)趺匆部床怀鏊麄儗儆谝粋�(gè)完全不同的時(shí)代。
這種錯(cuò)覺是由不斷變化的時(shí)裝造成的。多少年來，大多數(shù)男人成功地挫敗了改變他們著裝風(fēng)格的種種企圖。而對(duì)婦女來說情況就不同了。每次，幾位來自巴黎或倫敦的所謂“頂尖設(shè)計(jì)師”定下律條，然后全世界的婦女都趨之若鶩。而設(shè)計(jì)師們的語(yǔ)言不僅專橫，而且鬼神莫測(cè)。今年，他們的時(shí)裝武斷地規(guī)定：裙子要短，腰要高；拉鏈要“藏”，扣子要“露”。明年呢，法令整個(gè)兒顛倒過來了——而人們不僅不加撻伐，連眉毛也不抬一抬。
如果婦女們每年都受到無(wú)情的盤剝，她們也是咎由自取。只要想一想自己穿著過時(shí)的服裝出現(xiàn)在大庭廣眾，她們就不寒而栗，因此她們年復(fù)一年地忍受設(shè)計(jì)師和大商店的訛詐。只是因?yàn)闀r(shí)尚不再，她們才穿過幾次的服裝就被束之高閣。想想看，只有婦女才會(huì)站在滿櫥的衣服前哀嘆自己沒有衣服可穿！
不斷變化的服裝時(shí)尚只不過是一種精心策劃的浪費(fèi)行為。許多婦女每年花費(fèi)大量的金錢添置新衣，取代的卻是一些幾乎沒有穿過的衣服。那些沒有財(cái)力以這種方式淘汰服裝的婦女則花費(fèi)一小時(shí)有一小時(shí)的時(shí)間改造他們現(xiàn)有的服裝。他們將衣服的下擺縮減或者放下，腰圍收緊或者放寬，領(lǐng)口開得更高或者更低，等等等等，不一而足。
沒有人會(huì)認(rèn)為時(shí)裝工業(yè)對(duì)社會(huì)真正作出過什么重要的貢獻(xiàn)。對(duì)于服裝至關(guān)重要的因素，如保暖、舒適、耐用等，服裝設(shè)計(jì)師們很少關(guān)心。他們只對(duì)服裝的外觀感興趣，因?yàn)樗麄兩钪�，只要衣服的式樣不壞，婦女們什么罪都能忍受。幾乎每個(gè)男人在他的一生中都曾經(jīng)面對(duì)這樣的情景而忍俊不禁：一個(gè)婦女在數(shù)九寒天里穿著薄薄的衣衫瑟瑟發(fā)抖，或者穿著精制的鞋子款款地踏過深深的積雪。
如果從服裝方面比較男人和女人，其結(jié)論昭然若揭。人們禁不住要問：婦女們?nèi)招略庐惖姆b款式是否反映了水性楊花、朝秦暮楚這些基本品質(zhì)呢？男人們則比較明智，不至于受時(shí)裝設(shè)計(jì)師的宰割。他們以不變應(yīng)萬(wàn)變的服裝款式是否反應(yīng)了一諾千金、持之以恒這些基本品質(zhì)呢？斷語(yǔ)由你來下。
3. ‘Parents are too permissive with their children nowadays’
Few people would defend the Victorian attitude to children, but if you were a parent in those days, at least you knew where you stood: children were to be seen and not heard. Freud and company did away with all that and parents have been bewildered ever since. The child’s happiness is all-important, the psychologists say, but what about the parents’ happiness? Parents suffer constantly from fear and guilt while their children gaily romp about pulling the place apart. A good old-fashioned spanking is out of the question: no modern child-rearing manual would permit such barbarity. The trouble is you are not allowed even to shout. Who knows what deep psychological wounds you might inflict? The poor child may never recover from the dreadful traumatic experience. So it is that parents bend over backwards to avoid giving their children complexes which a hundred years ago hadn’t even been heard of. Certainly a child needs love, and a lot of it. But the excessive permissiveness of modern parents is surely doing more harm than good。
Psychologists have succeeded in undermining parents’ confidence in their own authority. And it hasn’t taken children long to get wind of the fact. In addition to the great modern classics on child care, there are countless articles in magazines and newspapers. With so much unsolicited advice flying about, mum and dad just don’t know what to do any more. In the end, they do nothing at all. So, from early childhood, the kids are in charge and parents’ lives are regulated according to the needs of their off spring. When the little dears develop into teenagers, they take complete control. Lax authority over the years makes adolescent rebellion against parents all the more violent. If the young people are going to have a party, for instance, parents are asked to leave the house. Their presence merely spoils the fun. What else can the poor parents do but obey?
Children are hardy creatures (far hardier than the psychologists would have us believe ) and most of them survive the harmful influence of extreme permissiveness which is the normal condition in the modern household. But a great many do not. The spread of juvenile delinquency in our own age is largely due to parental laxity. Mother, believing that little Johnny can look after himself, is not at home when he returns from school, so little Johnny roams the streets. The dividing-line between permissiveness and sheer negligence is very fine indeed。
The psychologists have much to answer for. They should keep their mouths shut and let parents get on with the job. And if children are knocked about a little bit in the process, it may not really matter too much. At least this will help them to develop vigorous views of their own and give them something positive to react against. Perhaps there’s some truth in the idea that children who’ve had a surfeit of happiness in their childhood emerge like stodgy puddings and fail to make a success of life。
中文
如今的父母太嬌慣孩子了
關(guān)于如何對(duì)待孩子，沒有人會(huì)以為維多利亞式態(tài)度辯護(hù)。但是，如果你那時(shí)為人父母，你至少知道自己所處的地位：對(duì)孩子們?cè)撚醚劬粗�，而不是用耳朵聽著。是弗洛伊德之流葬送了這一切，而且從此以后父母?jìng)兙拖萑胍慌擅悦Ｖ�。心理學(xué)家說孩子的幸福至關(guān)重要，那么孩子父母的幸福呢？當(dāng)孩子們嬉戲追逐、把家里鬧個(gè)底朝天的時(shí)候，父母?jìng)內(nèi)淌苤謶趾拓?fù)疚的折磨。想仿效前人狠狠地揍他一頓屁股是根本不可能了：現(xiàn)代的育兒指南決不會(huì)允許這種野蠻行徑。麻煩的是，你甚至連大聲嚷嚷都不可以。誰(shuí)知道你嚷一句會(huì)給孩子的心靈造成多么深刻的創(chuàng)傷？可憐的孩子恐怕一輩子都不能從這種可怕的精神創(chuàng)傷中恢復(fù)過來哩！結(jié)果，父母?jìng)冎坏闷疵苊饨o孩子造成這樣或那樣的“情結(jié)“——100年前人們聞所未聞的東西。孩子們誠(chéng)然需要愛，需要許多愛，但是現(xiàn)代父母過度的嬌慣肯定是弊多利少的。
心理學(xué)家已經(jīng)成功地打擊了父母對(duì)自己權(quán)威的自信心。對(duì)此，用不了多久孩子們也就心中有數(shù)了。除了那些非凡的現(xiàn)代育兒經(jīng)典，報(bào)章雜志上也充斥了類似的文章。有這些不請(qǐng)自來的建議滿天飛舞，父母?jìng)兒?jiǎn)直不知道該做什么好了——到頭來他們什么也沒做。這樣，孩子們自幼便大權(quán)在握，父母的生活則完全圍繞著子女的需要轉(zhuǎn)。當(dāng)這些小寶貝長(zhǎng)成少男少女的時(shí)候，他們更是當(dāng)家做主了。由于父母多年來威望不高，作為青少年的這些孩子的反叛就愈加激烈了。例如，當(dāng)年輕人要舉行派對(duì)的時(shí)候，就會(huì)將他們的父母請(qǐng)出家門。他們?cè)趫?chǎng)只會(huì)敗壞大家的玩興。可憐的父母除了乖乖地聽命還能做什么？
小孩子是一種強(qiáng)壯的動(dòng)物(遠(yuǎn)比心理學(xué)家告訴我們的要強(qiáng)壯)。在現(xiàn)代家庭，過分嬌慣孩子已經(jīng)成為一種普通現(xiàn)象，只是大多數(shù)孩子居然能夠克服它的不良影響。但是，也有相當(dāng)多的一部分人未能幸免。當(dāng)今時(shí)代，青少年犯罪的日益猖獗在相當(dāng)大的程度上是由于父母管教不力所致。母親相信小約尼自會(huì)照料自己，因此在他放學(xué)回家的時(shí)候她出去了。于是小約尼就在街頭閑逛。其實(shí)，嬌慣和疏于管教之間的界限是很微妙的。
心理學(xué)家還應(yīng)當(dāng)為許多別的事情負(fù)責(zé)。他們應(yīng)當(dāng)閉上嘴，把管教孩子的事交給父母來做。如果在這個(gè)過程中，他們對(duì)孩子們稍微粗暴了一點(diǎn)，那也沒什么大不了的。至少，這有助于他們積極培養(yǎng)他們自己的觀點(diǎn)，并且給他們提供了一些確定的事情讓他們作出反應(yīng)。有人認(rèn)為，如果孩子們?cè)谕陼r(shí)代過于幸福，長(zhǎng)大以后就會(huì)像味濃的布丁一樣，不會(huì)創(chuàng)造出成功的人生。此話或許不無(wú)道理。
相關(guān)推薦：
攻克2010年考研英語(yǔ)完形填空之解題技巧篇 專家指點(diǎn)：輕松應(yīng)對(duì)2010年考研英語(yǔ)翻譯題 專家指導(dǎo)：剝洋蔥式考研英語(yǔ)閱讀解題方法
