摘要：我有很多朋友有了孩子后都選擇辭去原來(lái)不錯(cuò)的工作，那是因?yàn)樗齻兿氡M可能地做一個(gè)好媽媽。我也是這樣。我們嫁給成功的男性，是因?yàn)樗麄兒臀覀冊(cè)谥亲R(shí)上一拍即合，而不是傍大款。我們?cè)诤⒆拥膶W(xué)校做志愿活動(dòng)是因?yàn)槟茉诎滋煲部吹胶⒆拥男δ槨?/p>

　　Re “Poor Little Rich Women” (Sunday Review, May17):

　　本文是對(duì)《從老公手里領(lǐng)賢妻獎(jiǎng)金的曼哈頓小婦人》(5月22日)一文的回應(yīng)：

　　To the Editor:

　　致編輯：

　　While Wednesday Martin’s article makes fortantalizing reading, she makes sweepinggeneralizations about a very small subset of womenwhile implying that her observations apply to allwomen in a narrow slice of the Upper East Side. It’smore hype than truth. I say this as a longtime denizen of this particular fish pond, myself ahighly educated, high-achieving woman married to a successful man and now a SAHM (stay-at-home mom). Glam SAHM? I’ve seen them around, but many of us are not.

　　薇妮斯蒂·馬丁(Wednesday Martin)的文章真的很吸引讀者，但她的做法完全是以偏概全，用她所看到的一小部分女性的生活來(lái)暗示上東區(qū)一小片的女性的生活都是這樣。這里頭假想的成分遠(yuǎn)大于事實(shí)。我是以她所描述的那類人的身份來(lái)發(fā)表這些言論的，我自己就是一個(gè)受過(guò)高等教育，成就不錯(cuò)然后嫁給一個(gè)成功人士，最終成了居家媽媽(SAHM, stay-at-home mom)的女人。光鮮的居家媽媽們(Glam SAHM)?我周圍確實(shí)有這種人，但大多數(shù)都并非如此。

　　Many of my friends here chose to step out of their high-profile jobs once they started havingchildren because they wanted to be the best moms they could be. Me, too. We marriedsuccessful men because they are our intellectual peers, not sugar daddies. And we volunteerat our kids’ schools because it gives us a chance to see their smiling faces during the day. Dowe run our homes like C.E.O.’s? Yep. But so did my mom in Ohio, with three kids and no help.So did my grandmother in Pennsylvania, with 10 kids and no money.

　　我有很多朋友有了孩子后都選擇辭去原來(lái)不錯(cuò)的工作，那是因?yàn)樗齻兿氡M可能地做一個(gè)好媽媽。我也是這樣。我們嫁給成功的男性，是因?yàn)樗麄兒臀覀冊(cè)谥亲R(shí)上一拍即合，而不是傍大款。我們?cè)诤⒆拥膶W(xué)校做志愿活動(dòng)是因?yàn)槟茉诎滋煲部吹胶⒆拥男δ?。我們像CEO一樣經(jīng)營(yíng)我們的家庭?沒(méi)錯(cuò)。但我在俄亥俄州的媽媽也這樣，她有三個(gè)孩子，而且沒(méi)人幫她。我在賓夕法尼亞州的外婆也這樣，她有十個(gè)孩子而且身陷貧困。

　　Women-only nights out? Yes, we have them. We share parenting questions and advice fromour uniquely mom perspective. We laugh, too, because between the appendectomies, brokenarms, stomach viruses and miscellaneous other brush fires we’re always extinguishing, we needto share laughter with our mom friends. Hardly the gender segregation that Ms. Martin darklysuggests.

　　閨蜜之夜?沒(méi)錯(cuò)，我們的確會(huì)舉行這樣的活動(dòng)。我們?cè)谝黄鸱窒頁(yè)狃B(yǎng)子女時(shí)遇到的問(wèn)題，并用母親的獨(dú)特視角提出建議。我們也會(huì)大笑，因?yàn)樵陉@尾切除術(shù)、骨折的胳膊、胃部病毒和其他各種各樣需要我們出場(chǎng)的小麻煩里，我們需要和同為母親的朋友們分享歡笑。這恐怕不是作者馬丁所說(shuō)的性別隔離。

　　Wife bonuses? In all my years on the Upper East Side, this is news to me. I’m not saying itdoesn’t happen, I’m just suggesting that it is likely far more rare than Ms. Martin would haveyou believe.

　　賢妻獎(jiǎng)金?我在上東區(qū)這么多年還從沒(méi)聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)這種獎(jiǎng)金。我不是說(shuō)肯定沒(méi)有，只是想提醒一下，賢妻獎(jiǎng)金可能比馬丁告訴你們的要少見(jiàn)得多。

　　So it appears that she has allowed a very small sample group to skew her conclusions.Moreover, she has missed out on the rich friendships of the smart, funny, caring neighborhoodmoms I have been blessed to know.

　　所以，她的結(jié)論似乎是被一小部分樣本人群帶偏了。更重要的是，她沒(méi)感受到我所享有的與那些聰明、幽默、友愛(ài)的鄰里媽媽間深厚的友情。

　　LINDA VESTER GREENBERG

　　New York

　　琳達(dá)·韋斯特·格林伯格(Linda Vester Greenberg)

　　紐約

　　To the Editor:

　　致編輯：

　　Bravo to these women! They have figured out that being there for their kids and runningcharities is more valuable to them than being a chief executive, working 12 hours a day andhiring nannies as their replacement. (They are the other moms we love to hate.)

　　我要為這些女性喝彩!她們已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)陪著孩子、做慈善要比擔(dān)任行政主管，每天工作12個(gè)小時(shí)，然后雇一個(gè)保姆替她們照顧孩子要好得多(我們比較討厭這樣的母親)。

　　The most upsetting truth is that we women continue to be our own worst enemies —constantly judging what other mothers choose in order to affirm our own decisions. I realizenow that every mother has difference circumstances, options, demands, resources and limits.And we make our choices the best we can for ourselves and the people we love within thoseparameters. My grandmother used to say, “Your way is not their way.” Women should standproud of their own choices to construct the lives they want for themselves and their familieswithout judgment or apology. That is the new feminism!

　　最可悲的事情在于我們女性最惡毒的敵人依然是女性自己——不斷地通過(guò)對(duì)其他媽媽們的選擇品頭論足來(lái)說(shuō)明自己的選擇是多么正確。我現(xiàn)在意識(shí)到了每個(gè)媽媽都面臨著不同的境遇和選擇，有著不同的需求、資源和限制。在這些因素的控制下，我們都盡可能地為自己和所愛(ài)做出最佳的選擇。我的祖母過(guò)去常說(shuō)，“你的方式不是他們的方式。”女性為了構(gòu)建理想中的自己和家庭做出了選擇，她們不該為這些選擇受到評(píng)判或感到歉意，而應(yīng)為這些選擇感到驕傲。這是新一代的女性主義!

　　MICHELE HELOU

　　Hamden, Conn.

　　米歇爾·埃洛(Michele Helou)

　　康涅狄格州哈姆登

　　To the Editor:

　　致編輯：

　　As a fellow social scientist, I applaud Wednesday Martin for her insightful analysis of genderinequality among the elite tribe of Manhattan’s Upper East Side. The rich and privileged usuallyescape the ethnographic eye, leaving them as the unstudied, unquestioned category whilethe poor and disempowered are subject to the scrutiny of the sociological lens.

　　作為一個(gè)社會(huì)科學(xué)家，我很贊賞薇妮斯蒂·馬丁關(guān)于上東區(qū)精英階層性別不平等現(xiàn)象的精辟分析。富人和特權(quán)階層通常會(huì)逃過(guò)實(shí)地研究，使他們成為自然的、無(wú)可爭(zhēng)議的那一群人，而窮人和被剝削者卻要遭受社會(huì)學(xué)透鏡的審查。

　　I have long argued that in the interest of fairness, the American Museum of Natural Historyshould add a diorama next to those for its other North American peoples — one depictingvarious modern tribes of the United States: “Wall Street man,” “West Coast bobo,” andperhaps now Ms. Martin’s tribe of glamorous, highly educated, nonworking Manhattan moms.

　　我一直認(rèn)為，為了公平起見(jiàn)，美國(guó)自然歷史博物館(the American Museum of Natural History)應(yīng)該在其他北美民族陳列室旁加一個(gè)陳列室——用來(lái)展示各種美國(guó)現(xiàn)代群體：“華爾街男性”、“西海岸中產(chǎn)群體”，或許現(xiàn)在應(yīng)該加上馬丁所說(shuō)的“迷人的、受過(guò)高等教育的、沒(méi)有工作的曼哈頓媽媽”群體。

　　DALTON CONLEY

　　New York

　　道爾頓·康利(Dalton Conley)

　　紐約

　　The writer is a professor of social sciences at New York University.

　　作者是紐約大學(xué)(New York University)社會(huì)科學(xué)教授。

　　To the Editor:

　　致編輯：

　　There is nothing “poor” about these women. Running a home — or two or three — is similar torunning a corporation. You must be organized and proactive and follow up on everything.These women have degrees and know they have a choice. They can be their own executive intheir home or outside the home. They choose to run their own empire in their home, whichrevolves around their children. They groom them and do their best to turn out an excellent“product.” They hire people, they fill out paperwork, they are alert about when to file forschools and camps, and they meet with many people to make it all happen.

　　這些女人并沒(méi)有什么“可憐”的。經(jīng)營(yíng)一個(gè)家——或者兩三個(gè)——跟運(yùn)營(yíng)一家公司很相似。你必須組織有序、積極地跟進(jìn)一切。這些女人擁有學(xué)歷，也有選擇的權(quán)利。她們既能對(duì)內(nèi)照料家庭也能在外呼風(fēng)喚雨。她們自己選擇了在家中經(jīng)營(yíng)自己以子女為中心的帝國(guó)。她們培養(yǎng)孩子，并盡全力使其成為一個(gè)優(yōu)秀的“產(chǎn)品”。她們雇傭別人，填寫(xiě)文書(shū)，在申請(qǐng)學(xué)校和夏令營(yíng)時(shí)變得機(jī)警，她們要接觸很多人才能實(shí)現(xiàn)這一切。

　　I would say give it up for these women! They are honest about and know what they are doing.

　　我想說(shuō)別再揪著這些女人不放了!她們知道自己在做什么而且并不會(huì)對(duì)此加以掩飾。

　　ZELDIE C. STUART

　　Delray Beach, Fla.

　　澤爾蒂·C·斯圖爾特(Zeldie C. Stuart)

　　佛羅里達(dá)州德?tīng)柪缀?/p>

　　To the Editor:

　　致編輯：

　　I have no doubt that there are some women exactly as depicted in this article. However,relegating all of them to a “tribe” is an unsubstantiated generalization hardly befitting ananthropologist engaged in a scientific study. Even more unwarranted is Wednesday Martin’sultimate determination that all educated, wealthy SAHM mothers are “disempowered,” as isher suggestion that women are squandering their talents staying home with their children.

　　我絲毫不懷疑文中描述的這種女人的存在。然而，把他們?nèi)抠H為一個(gè)“群體”顯然是毫無(wú)根據(jù)的歸類，和作者在做科學(xué)研究的人類學(xué)家的身份極不搭調(diào)。更荒謬的是作者薇妮斯蒂·馬丁的終極結(jié)論：所有受過(guò)教育且富有的居家媽媽們都是“沒(méi)什么權(quán)力的”。她認(rèn)為女人們?cè)诩依锱愫⒆泳褪菍?duì)自己才華的暴殄天物。

　　Clout and cash are seemingly synonymous for Ms. Martin. Perhaps that should be the focus ofher next anthropological “work”: why people equate power with money. Clearly the women whomake the choice to stay at home with their children do not agree. For many of them, it is aprivilege to be with their children, and there are plenty of women who would give up all theearning potential in the world to have that opportunity.

　　馬丁似乎將影響力和金錢混為一談了。也許這應(yīng)該作為她的下一項(xiàng)人類學(xué)“研究”：為什么人們會(huì)認(rèn)為權(quán)力就是金錢。顯然這些選擇在家里陪孩子的女人并不這么想。對(duì)她們中的很多人來(lái)說(shuō)，權(quán)力是能陪伴在孩子身邊的機(jī)會(huì)，而且世界上有很多女人愿意為了這種機(jī)會(huì)放棄一切可能的收入。

　　TARA KANTOR

　　Scarsdale, N.Y.

　　塔拉·坎特(Tara Kantor)

　　紐約州斯卡斯代爾

　　To the Editor:

　　致編輯：

　　Thank goodness we don’t all have anthropologists following us around to document ourfoibles. I imagine that most of us wouldn’t come off looking much better than these Upper EastSide matrons.

　　謝天謝地，我們不都由人類學(xué)家來(lái)跟著記錄我們的弱點(diǎn)。我想我們大部分人都不比這些上東區(qū)的主婦好到哪里去。

　　DANIEL REIFMAN

　　Yad Binyamin, Israel

　　丹尼爾·萊弗曼(Daniel Reifman)

　　以色列雅德本雅明