伊莉萨白ˇ凯蒂ˇ斯坦顿
(ELIZABETH CALM STANTON)

在纽约立法机关作的关于女权的讲话
Address to the Legislature of New York on Women's Rights

我们要求的权利ˇ仅仅是与你们爲你们自己制定的ˇ同的权利。……理由很简单ˇˇ每个人的权利都是ˇ同的、彼此一样的。

伊莉萨白ˇ凯蒂ˇ斯坦顿(1815ˇ1902)是美国争取妇女平等权利运动的战略制定者、演说家、哲学家和宣传家。她是纽约州北部地区一个富有而且保守的家族的女儿。她丈夫亨利ˇ比ˇ斯坦顿是一位废奴主义者和律师。她有七个孩子ˇ(最小的孩子出生于1859年)。1848年ˇ由于她的努力ˇ纽约州通过了一ˇ划时代的法案ˇ赋予已婚妇女以财産权ˇ同时ˇ她又是 于同年召开的塞尼卡福尔斯女权大会的主要发起者。1851年ˇ她与苏珊ˇ比ˇ安东尼连手。从那以后ˇ她们俩成了十九世纪美国女权运动的领袖。

1854年2月ˇ斯坦顿代表女权倡导者大会出席了在奥尔巴举行的纽约州立法会议。斯坦顿与安东尼在每位议员的桌上放了一份讲话稿ˇ并且还印发了五万份小册子。在发言前ˇ斯坦顿(时年38岁)先将讲话读给父亲听。她父亲是位受人尊敬的法学家ˇ他起初曾威胁要取ˇ她的继承权ˇ结果却帮助她从法律的角度进行分析。

……先生们ˇ在共和制的美国ˇ在十九世纪ˇ我们作爲一七七六年革命英雄的女儿ˇ要求你们洗雪我们的冤屈ˇˇ修定你们的州ˇ法ˇˇ制定一部新的法典。请允许我们尽可能简要地提请你们注意使我们吃尽苦头的所谓法律上的无资格。

第一点ˇ请看看妇女作爲女人的地位。依照法律ˇ我们可以生存、呼吸ˇ有权从我们法律上的保护人处索取生活必需品ˇˇ爲我们所犯的罪过受罚ˇ但是ˇ仅仅如此是不够的。我们是人ˇ是本地人ˇ生来就是自由民ˇ是财産持有者ˇ是付税人ˇ可是ˇ人们却拒不允许我们ˇ有选举权ˇ我们养活我们自己ˇ而且还部分地负担了学校、大学、教会的费用ˇ部分地负担了你们的贫民院、监狱、陆军、海军和整个国家机器的费用。但是ˇ我们在你们的议会里却没有发言权。除了性别之外ˇ我们完全符合ˇ法规定的合法投票人所必备的条件ˇ我们讲道德ˇ守贞节ˇ聪明理智ˇ在各个方面都与骄傲的白人男子不ˇ上下。可是ˇ你们的法律却把我们同白痴、疯子和黑人划归一类。尽管我们觉得这样一种地位并不会给我们带来任何荣耀ˇ但是实际上ˇ我们的法律地位比他们还要低。因爲ˇ如果黑人拥有二百五十美元ˇ便有权成爲投票人ˇ疯子可以在他理智清醒的瞬间投票ˇ白痴ˇ只要是男性ˇ只要不是彻头彻尾的傻瓜ˇ就也能投票。可是我们呢?我们领导了伟大的慈善运动ˇ设立了慈善机构ˇ编辑杂志ˇ出版论述历史、经济和数理统计的著作ˇ我们领导了国家、军队ˇ出任教授ˇ给当代的学者讲授哲学与数学ˇ我们发ˇ星球ˇ驾驶船舶漂洋过海。可是ˇ人们却拒不给予我们公民的最神圣的权利ˇ其原因ˇ就因爲ˇ天哪ˇ我们来到这个共和国时未被赋予男人的尊严ˇ……难道说ˇ在这个我们认爲没有皇家血统ˇ没有使徒后裔的地方ˇ在这个宣称人人生而平等的地方ˇ在这个宣称政府的正当权力来自被治理的人民的同意的地方ˇ你们却一心要建立这样一种贵族制度ˇ它将无知、粗俗的人置于有教养的、高雅的人士之上ˇ将外人和苦力置于当代作家、诗人之上ˇ将儿子置于生养了他们的母亲之上吗?……

第二点ˇ请看看妇女作爲妻子的地位。婚姻事实上是建立在英国的古老习惯法之上的ˇ是一个仅仅由于文明进步才得到一点改善的种种野蛮习俗的混合体。你们有关婚姻的法律公开违背了我们关于正义、关于我们本性中最神圣的感情的开明观念。如果你们对婚姻持最神圣的看法ˇ视其爲神圣的关系ˇ是唯有爱情才能建立和满足的关系ˇ那麽。人类立法所能做的当然仅仅是承认这种关系。人既不能人爲地系上也不能松开婚姻的约束ˇ因爲这个特权仅属于上帝ˇ是上帝创造了男人与女人ˇ以及将他们结合在一起的吸引法则。但是ˇ如果你们视婚姻爲民间契约ˇ那麽就让它服从制约所有其它契约的同样法则。不要把婚姻弄成一种半人半神的机制ˇ一种你能建立但却不能管理的机制。你们不要爲这种契约制定特殊的法令ˇ从而将自己卷入最荒唐、最严重的矛盾之中。根据你们的法律ˇ凡是不满21岁的人不得签约购买马匹或土地ˇ而且ˇ如果签约中有欺骗行爲ˇ或签约人未完全履约ˇ那麽他还可以不受该契约的束缚。根据你们法律ˇ所有民事契约的签约方ˇ只要仍保留他们签约前的身份、能力和独立性ˇ便有充分的权利以任何理由按他们自己的意愿和选择来解除合作关系和契约。那麽ˇ你们是根据什麽民事法律原则ˇ允许14岁的男孩与12岁的女孩违背一切自然法则地订立比任何其它契约都更具有巨大重要性的契约ˇ并且ˇ不论发生什麽情况ˇ即使他们感到失望ˇ感到受骗上当ˇ感到痛苦ˇ他们也必须终生格守这个契约呢?而且ˇ签署这种契约意味着签约的一方立刻丧失其公民权利。仅仅在昨天还傲视跪地求婚者的女子ˇ昨天在人类天平上的读数还高到足以与一位骄傲的撤克逊男子以同等条件签定契约的女子ˇ今天便全无公民的权利ˇ全无社会自由了。妻子不能继承财産ˇ其法律地位与南方种植园里的奴隶毫无两样。她什麽也不能占有ˇ什麽也不能出售。她甚至连支配自己赚来的工资的权利都没有。她的身子ˇ她的时间ˇ她的劳动都是另一个人的财産。…

第三点ˇ请看看妇女作爲寡妇的地位。每当我们试图指出法律对妻子的不公正时ˇ那些总要我们ˇ信法律已无法改善了的人便ˇ我们指出寡妇的特权、权力和要求权。让我们稍微看看这些吧。……瞧瞧法律的宽宏大量吧ˇ它允许寡妇终生保留、ˇ有地産的三分之一利息ˇˇ有丈夫个人财産的二分之一ˇ而法律自己却占有了大部分的财富!如果妻子先 于丈夫去世ˇ那麽房産和土地却仍将全部属于丈夫。没人胆敢干扰他家的清静ˇ或骚扰他神圣的忧伤避难所。请问ˇ如此区别对待男人与妇女ˇ能叫作正义吗?……

人们多次而且常常一本正经地问我们ˇ“你们女人缺什麽呢?你们的目的是什麽呢?”许多人表ˇ出一种值得称颂的好奇心。他们ˇ知道ˇ在共和制的美国ˇ妻子和女儿有什麽可抱怨的。她们的先生和儿子曾经那麽英勇地爲了自由而战ˇ并且光荣地赢得了独立ˇ将所有的暴政、偏执和等级制度统统踩在脚下ˇˇ啓盼着的世界宣布了一条神圣的真理ˇˇ人人生而平等。在这样的政府下ˇ妇女能缺少什麽呢ˇ承认在性别上的根本差异ˇ那麽你就得要求获得不同的地位ˇˇ有如水之于鱼ˇ空气之于鸟雀一样。

人们无法使南方的种植园主ˇ信他的奴隶同他一样有感觉ˇ能思维。人们无法使他ˇ信ˇ对于他的奴隶来说ˇ非正义与压迫就ˇ对他一样痛苦。人们无法使他ˇ信ˇ他的奴隶也能ˇ主人一样强烈地感受到按照他人意志生活的屈辱ˇ感受到听凭他人癖性的支配ˇ任凭他人情欲的摆布的奴役性。如果你能强迫他违心地看一幅黑人蒙受冤苦的写照。使他的灵魂一时受到震动ˇ那麽他的逻辑会立刻使他得到安慰。他会说ˇ奴隶感觉不到我所感觉到的。先生ˇ这就是我们困难之所在。当我们面对共和国的议员和学者ˇ爲我们的事业辩护队他们无法接受男人和女人是ˇˇ的观点。只要这些人都处于这种错觉之中ˇ那么公共舆论对于所揭示出的妇女地位的不公正和低下所表示的惊讶ˇ将比不上对妇女终于觉醒、并且意识到这一不公正事实所表示出的惊讶。……

但是ˇ先生们ˇ如果你们以男人与女人ˇˇ爲由ˇ进而认爲你们是我们忠实的代表的话ˇ那么ˇ你们爲什么要爲妇女制定出这些特殊的法律呢?难道同一部法典不能满足所有类似的需要吗?基督的金科玉律胜过所有凡人才子能够设ˇ出的特殊法令ˇ“己所不欲ˇ勿施于人。”先生兄弟们ˇ这就是我们对你们要求。我们要求的权利ˇ仅仅是与你们爲你们自己制定的ˇ同的权利。我们需要的保障ˇ仅仅是ˇ行法律爲你们提供的保障。

最后ˇ让我们代表全州的妇女声明ˇ我们所要求的ˇ正是你们自从“五月花”号在普利茅斯港抛锚以来ˇ在开发过程中你们爲自己所要求得到的。理由很简单ˇˇ每个人的权利都是ˇ同的ˇ彼此一样的。你们可能会说ˇ本州岛的大部分妇女并末提出这个要求ˇ提出要求的只是一些失望的、令人讨厌的老处女和没有子女的女人。

你们错了。广大妇女是通过我们来发言的。本州岛绝大部分妇女自食其力ˇ而且还供养孩子ˇ许多人还供养她们的丈夫。...

那么ˇ你们真的认爲这些妇女不希望掌握她们挣来的工资ˇ不希望拥有自己购买的土地和自己建起的房子吗?你们真的认爲她们不希望将自己的孩子置于自己的支配之下ˇ而不必遭受一位一钱不值、花天酒地的懒汉的没完没了的干涉和ˇˇ呢?你们以爲任何女人都是如此虔诚、驯服ˇ以至于心甘情愿地终日缝纫ˇ却仅仅挣得可怜的50美分吗?你们以爲她们希望遵照你们的法律ˇˇ受那个爲丈夫支付烟钱和洒钱的无法言喻的特权吗?试ˇˇˇ一个十足畜生一样的酒鬼ˇ他的妻子会同意与他分ˇ她的家和她的床吗ˇ如果法律和公共舆论允许她解除这种粗野的伴侣关系的话?很明ˇˇ她绝对不会同意ˇ…

我们爲所有的这些妇女说话ˇ如果在这长长的单子上ˇ你们再加上那些大声疾呼要求赔偿她们没完没了的劳动的妇女ˇ再加上那些在我们的私立女子学校、高等学府和公立学校任教ˇ却仅仅换来微薄收入的女子ˇ再加上那些被无情课以税款的寡妇ˇ再加上那些被关在感化院、贫民院和监狱里的不幸的妇女ˇ那麽ˇ我们还有什麽人不能代表呢?我们不能代表的只不过是一些时ˇ的轻浮女子ˇ她们ˇ蝴蝶一样ˇ在短暂的夏日里ˇ追逐阳光和花朵ˇ但是秋季的凉风和冬天的白霜很快便会驱走阳光和花朵ˇ那时ˇ她们也将需要、也将寻求保护。到那时ˇ将轮到她们通过别人的嘴ˇ你们提出争取正义与平等的要求。 　

Address to the Legislature of New York on Women's Rights

. . . . Gentlemen, in republican America, in the nineteenth century, we, the daughters of the revolutionary heroes of '76, demand at your hands the redress of our grievances--a revision of your State Constitution--a new code of laws. Permit us then, as briefly as possible, to call your attention to the legal disabilities under which we labor.

    1st. Look at the position of woman as woman. It is not enough for us that by your laws we are permitted to live and breathe, to claim the necessaries of life from our legal protectors--to pay the penalty of our crimes; we demand the full recognition of all our rights as citizens of the Empire State. We are persons; native, freeborn citizens; property-holders, tax-payers; yet are we denied the exercise of our right to the elective franchise. We support ourselves, and, in part, your schools, colleges, churches, your poor-houses, jails, prisons, the army, the navy, the whole machinery of government, and yet we have no voice in your councils. We have every qualification required by the Constitution, necessary to the legal voter, but the one of sex. We are moral, virtuous, and intelligent, and in all respects quite equal to the proud white man himself, and yet by your laws we are classed with idiots, lunatics, and negroes; and though we do not feel honored by the place assigned us, yet, in fact, our legal position is lower than that of either; for the negro can be raised to the dignity of a voter if he possess himself of $250; the lunatic can vote in his moments of sanity, and the idiot, too, if he be a male one, and not more than nine-tenths a fool; but we, who have guided great movements of charity, established missions, edited journals, published works on history, economy, and statistics; who have governed nations, led armies, filled the professor's chair, taught philosophy and mathematics to the savants of our age, discovered planets, piloted ships across the sea, are denied the most sacred rights of citizens, because, forsooth, we came not into this republic crowned with the dignity of manhood! . . . Can it be that here, where we acknowledge no royal blood, no apostolic descent, that you, who have declared that all men were created equal--that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, would willingly build up an aristocracy that places the ignorant and vulgar above the educated and refined--the alien and the ditch digger above the authors and poets of the day--an aristocracy that would raise the sons above the mothers that bore them? . . .

    2d. Look at the position of woman as wife. Your laws relating to marriage--founded as they are on the old common law of England, a compound of barbarous usages, but partially modified by progressive civilization--are in open violation of our enlightened ideas of justice, and of the holiest feelings of our nature. If you take the highest view of marriage, as a Divine relation, which love alone can constitute and sanctify, then of course human legislation can only recognize it. Men can neither bind nor loose its ties, for that prerogative belongs to God alone, who makes man and woman, and the laws of attraction by which they are united. But if you regard marriage as a civil contract, then let it be subject to the same laws which control all other contracts. Do not make it a kind of half human, half-divine institution, which you may build up, but can not regulate. Do not, by your special legislation for this one kind of contract, involve yourselves in the grossest absurdities and contradictions.
So long as by your laws no man can make a contract for a horse or piece of land until he is twenty-one years of age, and by which contract he is not bound if any deception has been practiced, or if the party contracting has not fulfilled his part of the agreement--so long as the parties in all mere civil contracts retain their identity and all the power and independence they had before contracting, with the full right to dissolve all partnerships and contracts for any reason, at the will and option of the parties themselves, upon what principle of civil jurisprudence do you permit the boy of fourteen and the girl of twelve, in violation of every natural law, to make a contract more momentous in importance than any other, and then hold them to it come what may, the whole of their natural lives, in spite of disappointment, deception, and misery? Then, too, the signing of this contract is instant civil death to one of the parties. The woman who but yesterday was sued on bended knee, who stood so high in the scale of being as to make an agreement on equal terms with a proud Saxon man, to-day has no civil existence, no social freedom. The wife who inherits no property holds about the same legal position that does the slave of the Southern plantation. She can own nothing, sell nothing. She has no right even to the wages she earns; her person, her time, her services are the property of another. . . .

    3d. Look at the position of woman as widow. Whenever we attempt to point out the wrongs of the wife, those who would have us believe that the laws can not be improved, point us to the privileges, powers, and claims of the widow. Let us look into these a little. . . . Behold the magnanimity of the law in allowing the widow to retain a life interest in one-third the landed estate, and one-half the personal property of her husband, and taking the lion's share to itself! Had she died first, the house and land would all have been the husband's still. No one would have dared to intrude upon the privacy of his home, or to molest him in his sacred retreat of sorrow. How, I ask you, can that be called justice, which makes such a distinction as this between man and woman? . . .

    Many times and oft it has been asked us, with unaffected seriousness, "What do you women want? What are you aiming at?" Many have manifested a laudable curiosity to know what the wives and daughters could complain of in republican America, where their sires and sons have so bravely fought for freedom and gloriously secured their independence, trampling all tyranny, bigotry, and caste in the dust, and declaring to a waiting world the divine truth that all men are created equal. What can woman want under such a government? Admit a radical difference in sex, and you demand different spheres--water for fish, and air for birds.

    It is impossible to make the Southern planter believe that his slave feels and reasons just as he does--that injustice and subjection are as galling as to him--that the degradation of living by the will of another, the mere dependent on his caprice, at the mercy of his passions, is as keenly felt by him as his master. If you can force on his unwilling vision a vivid picture of the negro's wrongs, and for a moment touch his soul, his logic brings him instant consolation. He says, the slave does not feel this as I would. Here, gentlemen, is our difficulty: When we plead our cause before the law-makers and savants of the republic, they can not take in the idea that men and women are alike; and so long as the mass rest in this delusion, the public mind will not be so much startled by the revelations made of the injustice and degradation of woman's position as by the fact that she should at length wake up to a sense of it. . . .

    But if, gentlemen, you take the ground that the sexes are alike, and, therefore, you are our faithful representatives--then why all these special laws for woman? Would not one code answer for all of like needs and wants? Christ's golden rule is better than all the special legislation that the ingenuity of man can devise: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." This, men and brethren, is all we ask at your hands. We ask no better laws than those you have made for yourselves. We need no other protection than that which your present laws secure to you.
In conclusion, then, let us say, in behalf of the women of this State, we ask for all that you have asked for yourselves in the progress of your development, since the Mayflower cast anchor beside Plymouth rock; and simply on the ground that the rights of every human being are the same and identical. You may say that the mass of the women of this State do not make the demand; it comes from a few sour, disappointed old maids and childless women.
You are mistaken; the mass speak through us. A very large majority of the women of this State support themselves and their children, and many their husbands too. . . .

    Now, do you candidly think these wives do not. wish to control the wages they earn--to own the land they buy--the houses they build? to have at their disposal their own children, without being subject to the constant interference and tyranny of an idle, worthless profligate? Do you suppose that any woman is such a pattern of devotion and submission that she willingly stitches all day for the small sum of fifty cents, that she may enjoy the unspeakable privilege, in obedience to your laws, of paying for her husband's tobacco and rum? Think you the wife of the confirmed, beastly drunkard would consent to share with him her home and bed, if law and public sentiment would release her from such gross companionship? Verily, no!...

    For all these, then, we speak. If to this long list you add the laboring women who are loudly demanding remuneration for their unending toil; those women who teach in our seminaries, academies, and public schools for a miserable pittance; the widows who are taxed without mercy; the unfortunate ones in our workhouses, poor-houses, and prisons; who are they that we do not now represent? But a small class of the fashionable butterflies, who, through the short summer days, seek the sunshine and the flowers; but the cool breezes of autumn and the hoary frosts of winter will soon chase all these away; then they too, will need and seek protection, and through other lips demand in their turn justice and equity at your hands.