英語世界文摘:Who Pays for a Date in This ‘Sexually Liberated’ Era?

對于有些小伙伴來說，越是努力背單詞背語法，英語成績越是難看，倒不如去多讀多看些自己喜歡的文章，在文章中培養(yǎng)語感和理解力，下面是小編整理的關(guān)于英語世界文摘:Who Pays for a Date in This ‘Sexually Liberated’ Era?的資料，希望對你有所幫助！

Who Pays for a Date in This ‘Sexually Liberated’ Era?

“性別觀念開放”的時代，誰來為約會買單？

ByMegan Carpentier

文/梅甘·卡彭鐵爾

To many (if not most) women, the idea that our lives should be constrained or singularly defined by a man’s choices is an anathema[1], even when we recognize that institutional norms and some individual acts of discrimination ultimately limit us from the full range of participation in society. But when it comes to dating, even among millennials[2], far too many women continue to play more passive, traditional roles in their own personal lives, far beyond what Zeitgeist[3] might otherwise indicate.

很多女性（如果不是大多數(shù)）即便知道制度規(guī)范和一些個人的性別歧視行為令她們無法全面參與社會生活，但依舊厭惡自己的生活該依男人的選擇而被約束或界定。不過對于約會這件事，即使千禧一代中，也有太多的女性仍繼續(xù)扮演著被動、傳統(tǒng)的角色，遠(yuǎn)不如“時代精神”所展示的那樣。

[1] anathema 可憎的事物；可惡的想法。

[2] millennials 是millennial generation的縮寫，用來描述出生于1980到2000年的一代年輕人。

[3] Zeitgeist 時代精神。

In no area of dating is this more self-evident than when it comes to money, the discussion of which – even in this much more sexually liberated area – remains quite taboo. A recent study by Rosanna Hertz (Wellesley College), David Frederick (Chapman University) and Janet Lever (California State University, Los Angeles) of more than 17,000 unmarried heterosexual[4] women and men showed that, for all that[5] some people like to claim that chivalry is dead or feminism[6] is no longer needed, old fashioned norms about who pays for dates (men) and who respondents[7] thought should pay for dates (men) are alive and well[8].

約會中，在涉及錢的問題上，這一點表現(xiàn)最為明顯，這個話題一直是談?wù)摰慕?，在性別觀念更為開放的約會領(lǐng)域也是如此。韋爾斯利學(xué)院的羅莎娜·赫茲、查普曼大學(xué)的戴維·弗雷德里克和加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校的珍妮特·利弗最近調(diào)查了1.7萬多未婚異性戀男女。盡管有人會說騎士精神已死、不再需要女權(quán)主義了，但調(diào)查顯示，約會時誰（男性）來買單的老規(guī)矩和受調(diào)查者認(rèn)為誰（男性）應(yīng)該買單的舊觀念依舊盛行不衰。

[4] heterosexual 異性戀的。

[5] for all that 盡管如此。

[6] feminism 女權(quán)主義。

[7] respondent 調(diào)查對象

[8] alive and well 安然無恙。

In the study, 84% of male respondents and 58% of female ones self-reported that men still cover most of the dating expenses well beyond the first date (where the numbers are reportedly even higher), though 75% of men and 83% of women report commonly sharing some dating expenses by the six month mark. Around 57% of women in the study report that they pull out their wallets early in dating to split a bill[9], but 39% of those women wanted to be told to put their wallets away, and 44% of all the women in the study were “bothered” that men expected them to pay at all.

調(diào)查中，84%的男性受調(diào)查者和58%的女性受調(diào)查者自述在第一次約會后很長一段時間仍是男性負(fù)責(zé)約會的大部分開銷（第一次約會中男性付賬的人數(shù)則更多）。也有75%的男性和83%的女性說一般會在交往半年關(guān)系穩(wěn)定后雙方共同分擔(dān)一些約會開支。調(diào)查中大約57%的女性說在約會早期就主動分?jǐn)傞_銷，但是其中39%的人希望男友能讓她們收起錢包。對于男性期望她們付賬這件事，所有接受調(diào)查的女性中有44%的人表示“不理解”。

[9] split the bill 平攤費用。

Interestingly, 64% of male respondents say they believe that women should contribute financially to a relationship, and 44% would end a relationship with a woman who never offered to pay, but 76% of men felt guilty when the women did pay.

有意思的是，64%的男性受調(diào)查者說他們認(rèn)為女性應(yīng)該在一段交往關(guān)系中有金錢的付出，如果女性從不表示要掏錢，44%的男性會結(jié)束這段關(guān)系；可是如果女性真的掏了錢，又有76%的男性會覺得內(nèi)疚。

Frederick, who spoke to Catherine Pearson at the Huffington Post[10], said “As social roles start to change, people often embrace the changes that make their lives easier, but resist the changes that make their lives more difficult.” They found that, though millennials espouse[11] more egalitarian[12] ideals about dating, their patterns of behavior around who pays and whose supposed responsibility it is to pay remain stubbornly in line with their older peers’ actions.

弗雷德里克在接受“赫芬頓郵報”網(wǎng)站凱瑟琳·皮爾森采訪時說：“男女的社會角色開始變化，人們經(jīng)常會接受讓他們生活更輕松的變化，拒絕讓生活更困難的變化?！彼麄冄芯堪l(fā)現(xiàn)，盡管千禧一代的年輕人贊同約會要更多地體現(xiàn)平等，可在誰來買單和誰應(yīng)該買單的問題上，他們行事作風(fēng)卻跟老一輩當(dāng)年一模一樣。

[10] 美國一家新聞博客網(wǎng)站。

[11] espouse 支持，擁護，贊成（信仰、政策等）。

[12] egalitarian 主張平等的；平等主義的。

Even as Americans are socialized to talk a bit more about sex than we used to – birth control, health status and consent, for starters[13] – we still have an aversion[14] to talking about money, from how much we make to how much to tip. So it’s perhaps unsurprising that women and men of all ages often fall back on[15] the two established rules of dating that survived the sexual revolution[16]: men ask women out, and thus they pay.

即便美國人在社交場合談?wù)撔员纫酝嘁稽c，也可以談避孕、性健康和自愿性行為等話題；但是談錢——大到自己收入多少，小到給多少小費合適——還是令人厭惡。因此，性解放運動之后仍然存在兩個既定的約會法則，任何年齡的男女都常會遵循:由男人首先提出約會，因而也由男人買單。這或許也不奇怪。

[13] for starters〈非正式〉（強調(diào)一系列理由、意見等的第一條或表示首先發(fā)生的事）首先，作為開頭。

[14] aversion 厭惡；憎惡。

[15] fall back on（其他方法行不通時）轉(zhuǎn)而做，轉(zhuǎn)而使用，轉(zhuǎn)而依靠。

[16] the sexual revolution 性解放運動，性革命。

In the case of millennials, for whom “dating” is often something that happens a bit later in a less formal courtship[17] period, the question of who pays is even more fraught[18] by the conundrum[19] of who has the money to pay at all. Studies show only 31% of millennials think they earn enough money to have the lives they want.

就千禧一代來說，經(jīng)常是在一方才剛展開并非很正式的追求不久，兩人就開始“約會”，誰有支付能力還沒搞明白，誰買單的問題就更加令人頭疼。研究表明，千禧一代中只有31%的人認(rèn)為他們掙的錢足以讓他們過上想要的生活。

[17] courtship（男向女）求愛，追求。

[18] fraught 焦慮；擔(dān)憂。

[19] conundrum 謎語；難解的問題。

And despite much ballyhooed[20] talk about the “real” cause of the wage gap, the fact of the matter remains that, no matter how you caveat[21] it, women make less than their peers in the same professions and much less than their male peers if you take into account their differing choices of professions (which some writers have noted are often driven by the experience of sexism in universities and professional settings).

盡管男女薪酬差距的“真實”原因有冠冕堂皇的說法，可是不管你怎么提示，事實依舊是：女性比同行業(yè)男性掙得少，如果還考慮到男女在選擇職業(yè)上的不同（有些作者指出這種差異源自女性在大學(xué)和職場中遭受的性別歧視），女性的收入則更要少得多。

[20] ballyhoo 大肆宣傳。

[21] caveat（為防止誤解而）說明；知會備忘。

So when it comes time to pull out one’s wallet at the end of the date for people under 30, the sad truth is that there might not be much money in either, but it’s statistically probable that there is less in the woman’s. Is it any wonder that, from a strictly financial perspective, some women prefer to be taken out to dinner rather than to join someone for it? Or that the men for whom earning money is a struggle prefer (but feel guilty about) a woman who participates in the traditional financial transactions (dinner, drinks, movies, etc) that still underpin[22] the modern dating environment?

因此，可悲的是，當(dāng)不到30歲的兩個人約會結(jié)束該付賬時，大概各自都沒什么錢，而女性很可能錢更少。那么，僅從財務(wù)角度來看，有些女性更愿意被約出去就餐而不是和某人一起拼餐，這有什么好奇怪的呢?而那些掙錢不易的男性更希望（但也心存愧疚）女方能分擔(dān)吃飯、喝茶、看電影等傳統(tǒng)交往活動的開銷，這同樣正常，畢竟這些活動目前仍是現(xiàn)代人戀愛交友的主要方式。

[22] underpin 加強，鞏固；構(gòu)成（......的基礎(chǔ)等）。

In 2013, history professor Stephanie Coontz wrote about the seemingly anti-egalitarian choices women and their families seem to increasingly make as the economic conditions of modern life impinge on[23] their personal ideals.

2013年，歷史學(xué)教授斯蒂芬妮·孔茨曾寫道，現(xiàn)代生活的經(jīng)濟狀況對女性個人理想造成了沖擊，女性及其家庭的選擇似乎越來越多地違反男女平等觀。

[23] impinge on 沖擊；撞擊。

“This behavior is especially likely if holding on to the original values would exacerbate[24] tensions in the relationships they depend on,” she concluded. Most people, especially men and women in their 20s, want to find life partners, long-term relationships or even somewhat short-term ones. But between the economics of their lives, the ones of dating and the pressure everyone feels to make dating “work” for them or dating partners “t” in their lives, it’s not hard to see why many women and men might sacrifice their egalitarian values when a server sets a check down at the dinner table.

“尤其是如果堅持原來的觀念會使關(guān)系更緊張，他們更有可能做出這種選擇?！彼@樣總結(jié)道。大多數(shù)人，特別是20多歲的青年男女，都想尋找人生伴侶、擁有長期穩(wěn)定的戀愛關(guān)系，甚或找個短期的男女朋友?？墒且环矫嫠麄兩畹慕?jīng)濟狀況、約會的經(jīng)濟能力不佳，另一方面每個人又都有讓約會“成功”、讓約會的人能“走進(jìn)”自己生活的壓力。因此就不難理解當(dāng)服務(wù)生把賬單放到餐桌上時，很多男性和女性會選擇犧牲男女平等的價值觀。

[24] exacerbate 惡化，加重；激怒。

Traditions like who pays, sexist though they are, give heterosexual men and women the last existing bit of the dating script to follow in an emotionally and economically fraught interaction. It always seems easier to go along with the norm than risk rejection by the other person by forgoing one’s lines[25] in the script.

誰來買單的傳統(tǒng)盡管有性別歧視，卻為情感和經(jīng)濟雙重窘迫的異性戀男女交往提供了最后一點可供遵循的約會腳本。按傳統(tǒng)出牌似乎總要比忘記腳本臺詞而冒被拒的風(fēng)險來得更加輕松容易。

[25] forgo one’s lines 忘記臺詞。

（譯者曾獲第四屆“《英語世界》杯”翻譯大賽優(yōu)秀獎）