評論
打印
In this case, revulsion against a sexual felon – the revulsion that also appears to have fuelled his own desire – and the law were on the same side. But time and again we see the legal struggle for redress against sexual assault brought up against the most stubborn forms of resistance and sidelining. This seems to be due, at least in part, to the fact that human subjects can be roused by what disgusts them; that licentiousness, even in the political order that is meant to tame and subdue it, can be a draw. This certainly seems to have played a part in the 2016 election of Donald Trump, when his ugly misogyny was either dismissed as mere masculine playfulness, or else championed, and positively fired up his base, as it continues to do to this day.
在該案件中，對性罪犯的厭惡——這種厭惡似乎也助長了他自己的欲望——和法律是站在同一條船上的。但是，我們一次又一次地看到，為獲得對性侵犯的賠償而進行的法律斗爭是針對最頑固形式的抵抗和排斥。這似乎是由于，至少在一定程度上，人類實驗對象可以被他們厭惡的東西喚醒；淫亂，即使在意在馴服和壓制它的政治秩序中，也可以是一種平局。這似乎在2016年唐納德·特朗普的大選中發揮了一定作用，當時他丑陋的厭女癥要么被斥為純粹男性化的玩笑，要么得到支持，積極激發他的基礎選民，這種情況一直持續到了今天。
Chelsea Clinton has described such misogyny as "the gateway drug", a soporific that lulls the senses and opens the door to greater nastiness to come. Permission is granted to a vicarious frisson of erotic pleasure and rage, so often directed towards women, which no one is in a hurry to admit to.
切爾西·克林頓曾將這種厭女癥描述為“入門毒品”，一種催眠藥，它會麻痹人的感官并為更大的惡行敞開大門。允許的是一種性愉悅和性憤怒下間接感受到的強烈興奮感，通常針對女性，但沒人愿意承認這一點。
By common assent, Trump is a law-breaker: two rape accusations, one made and then withdrawn by his first wife, Ivana, and one from the journalist E Jean Carroll, who has sued Trump for defamation on the grounds of his denials and aspersions; multiple cases of sexual harassment, by his own boastful acknowledgment; numerous exploitative hiring and financial practices swept under the carpet or settled out of court, but still publicly known; not to mention the grounds for his impeachment in 2019 – abuse of power for political gain (passed by the House of Representatives and then blocked in the Senate).
人們普遍認為，特朗普是一個違法分子：兩項強奸指控。一項來自他的第一任妻子伊萬娜，之后又被撤銷。另一項來自記者E·讓·卡羅爾，她以特朗普的否認和誹謗為由起訴特朗普誹謗；多起性騷擾案件，他自吹自擂地承認；大量的剝削性雇傭和財務行為被掩蓋或庭外和解，但仍為公眾所知；更不用說他在2019年被彈劾的理由了——濫用權力獲取政治利益（在眾議院被通過，之后在參議院被阻止）。
Likewise Boris Johnson. There is evidence that in 1990, he agreed to provide the address of a journalist to a friend who wanted to arrange for the journalist to have his ribs cracked as revenge for investigating his activities.
鮑里斯·約翰遜也一樣。有證據表明，1990年他同意向一位朋友提供一名記者的地址，這位朋友想安排打斷這名記者的肋骨以報復他調查自己的活動。
In the case of Trump's first impeachment, it was not that his supporters even necessarily agreed with him that the charges were a "hoax", as he repeatedly claimed in the face of mounting evidence against him, or even that he could do no wrong. Rather, it was that he was adulated in direct proportion to the wrong that he clearly could do. It is because he was transgressive – because, in the words of US TV host Rachel Maddow, he could be relied upon to do something "shocking, wrong or unbelievably disruptive" – that it became "a rational newsworthy assessment to put a camera on him at all times".
就特朗普的第一次彈劾而言，并不是說他的支持者們必然同意他的觀點，認為這些指控是一場“騙局”，正如他在面對越來越多指控他的證據時他反復宣稱的那樣，即便是這樣他也不可能做錯什么。相反，他所受的奉承與他所犯的錯誤成正比，這顯然是他可以做到的。正因為他越軌了——因為，用美國電視節目主持人雷切爾·瑪多的話來說，他是可以信賴的，會做出“令人震驚、錯誤或難以置信的具有破壞性”的事情——所以，“讓攝像機隨時對著他拍是一種有新聞價值的合理評估”。
