厭女：日本的女性嫌惡

by Chizuko Ueno, 上野千鶴子, 楊士堤 (Translator)

如果你╱妳曾經想過：
女性比較不會開車、情緒化、缺乏邏輯思考
如果女性遭到性侵，她自己也有責任
家裡重男輕女，對女兒的要求卻高於兒子
男性對待女性的態度常取決於她的外表
女性的異性緣太好，很容易被同性排擠
女性都愛高富帥，害許多男性交不到女友
男性上酒店不算對妻子或女友的背叛
學歷、收入太高的女性很難找到結婚對象
沒有結婚的女人終究是「敗犬」

──所有的理所當然與難以啟齒的不快，都是「厭女症」作祟

厭女症，來自英語Misogyny，指指憎惡、仇視女性，對女性化、女性傾向與特質抱持蔑視與厭惡的行為或心理。日本女性主義學者上野千鶴子剖析日本社會「性」與「性別」相關議題，解讀恐同、援交、戀童、家暴、剩男、敗犬、春宮畫、皇室、家庭、企業與女校文化所產生的厭女情結，辛辣直接，一出版便獲各大媒體書評推薦，震驚日本社會，好評不斷。

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Sociology, Japan, Japanese Literature, Womens, Gender

304 pages, Paperback

First published October 6, 2010

About the author

Chizuko Ueno is a Japanese sociologist and Japan's "best-known feminist".

Her research field includes feminist theory, family sociology, and women's history. She is best known for her contribution to gender studies in Japan. As a public intellectual, she played a central role in creating the field of gender studies in Japanese academia. At the same time, her radical tendency and strong character has invited criticism (she described herself as "critical, assertive, and disobedient").

Ueno is a trenchant critic of postwar revisionism and criticizes the whitewashing of Japanese history, which she claims attempts to justify its colonialism, wartime atrocities, and racism both before and after World War II. In particular, she has defended the compensation of Korean comfort women who were forced into prostitution by the Empire of Japan.

Reviews

[Xenora Vibranos · Rating 5 out of 5]

读完后我处于一个更加困惑的心态。这本书读下来，我的一个比较以偏概全的take-away message就是，近代到现代社会对于性别、欲望、性向的定义都是男权社会的厌女文化影响中沉淀下来的，即便是女性对自己的态度也是深受厌女文化影响的，用原文的话说就是，“不被厌女症侵染的女人，恐怕不存在”。那么即使是女性主义者/女权主义者，也是无法避免对自己的这种思维方式的。所以“真女人”（传统意义上拥有女性气质的女人）还是“假女人”（不符合男性欣赏的类型的女性）对自己的定义的都是建立在男性对女性的需求和定义基础上的。所以放到我个人身上，我应该向怎样的方向努力？既已经与“瘦”“大胸”“小蛮腰小细腿”这种“目标”和解了，那么新的目标应该是什么？一部分女性主义者派别的目标可能与传统男性对于自己的要求可能是相似的，所以女性对自己的要求和定义还是在往“传统女性”和“传统男性”靠拢的光谱上。虽然放到个人身上有多样性和复杂性，没有办法用二元的标签去打给每个人，但是男权社会定义的性别框架是暂时没有办法跳出来的。

Edit：最近看迪迪埃的《回归故里》又产生一些随想，他讲到塞吉维克的Epistemology of the Closet中描写异性恋在操控同性恋的定义，而同性恋在不断尝试逃脱异性恋的凝视。让我又回想起《厌女》、男性对女性定义的框架和男性凝视，上野千鹤子也多次引用塞吉维克的作品。在框架存在的时候，一些自我不确定的人，是不是更加容易去适应这个框架；而拥有一个强烈自我（一个不恰当的例子可能是那些更有棱角的人）的人，则会清晰认识到自我和框架的冲突，从而反抗、批判该框架。那么当我们把注意力放在前者身上时（有点羞于承认的是，我个人可能与前者更有共鸣），在这个框架的所有成分被各个击破的时候，新的自我定义从哪里寻求和构成？前者也许能认识到旧框架的局限性并随大流地去批判他，但是也许也会落入虚无、丧失自我定义、落入一盘散沙的陷阱。

[Nora · Rating 5 out of 5]

10+ stars. I’m not a beginner in feminism, yet I still learned a lot from this book. From time to time I had to stop, took a breath, and then tried to resume reading. Otherwise, truth is too painful and it hurts. It hurts not only because I’m an “object” as a female, but I’m also a “subject” as a participant in this entire culture, society, and myth. We need more books like this.

[二六 侯 · Rating 4 out of 5]

開頭談幾個作品沒什麼中譯的近代小說家很難消化，分析當代社會的章節較好讀，但最後一章節論稍弱，致使整本書前半彷彿日本版「第二性」，後半卻有種為趕稿急轉直下的感覺。

不一定全都同意她的觀點，但很適合讀了開讀書會，只要別因觀點不同吵起來。

相似的社會案件在東西方均有發生：東電OL的背景讓人想起Brooke Magnanti，但後者似乎挺風光，不知道是不是日英文化差異；至於加藤智大的厭女致殺人說詞，十年後又從多倫多廂型車襲擊案嫌犯鍵盤下敲出。

[Aurora · Rating 5 out of 5]

因为是专栏合集，所以章节之间并无紧密的联系，更像是对系统性厌女症取了几个剖面进行观察；对我个人而言最有进益的当属《母亲与女儿的厌女症》、《“父亲的女儿”的厌女症》以及《女人的厌女症、厌女症的女人》，毕竟我家里正是父女关系极好而父母/母女关系不佳，而小时候的我也会因个性与兴趣“不像女孩”而沾沾自喜自觉不同于“其他女的”。之前一些朋友不理解我作为一个城市高知家庭长大的独生女，基本不曾直面过真正的性别歧视，为什么这两年突然变得非常激进（倒也没有）？答案就是，因为一些事令我突然惊觉这二十多年的岁月静好都是血腥的假象，我自然要以千百倍的怒火反击这些意图愚弄我成为其爪牙的恶魔。女性主义者是什么？女性主义者是意识到了自身的厌女症而与之斗争的人。如何做一名女性主义者？成为那个离开奥梅拉斯的人。

[Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

终于看完了，后面几章内容主题重复的感觉。拖拖拉拉这么久了，果然非虚构还是没有小说一顺读的畅快。这本书可以时不时拿出来翻翻抛砖引玉，我也标记了不少。

为什么男性恐同？因为男人最恐惧的就是“被女性化”，即性的主体地位的失落，变成性欲望的对象（客体），和厌女差不多吧，也是把女性他者化。 ​

说的好犀利辛辣
每一个现实存在的活生生的女人，都有身体有灵魂，有子宫有阴道。可是,“用于生殖的女人”被剥夺了快乐，异化为仅仅为了生殖，“用于快乐的女人”专为快乐服务，异化为远离生殖。带看孩子的娼妓，就是因为扰乱了这个界线而让人扫兴。

[Lucky · Rating 4 out of 5]

总觉得此类批判是否太容易了些，很多问题似乎只要套上其中的概念和理论就算是全部的解释了，这难道真的不是一种懒惰吗？

[nahs · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great book on its messages. Thanks to this book, I got a chance to sort of reevaluate how I look at gender issues nowadays.

A few things like
1) The idea of "the first time" is merely a construct that feeds into patriarchy and heterosexual male fantasy that women can't live without their penis. lol Another example would be foreplay, while women can perfectly reach orgasm at this stage, it somehow is deemed lesser.
2) That porn perpetuates rape culture (of course) but specifically by showing the formula that women, first of all, would always be the one luring the guys in. Second, no matter how much it was forced or what the situation is, the woman will always end up enjoying. This alienates women as almost "monstrous" "other" and also justifies the situation since women enjoying it "anyway".
3) The idea of homosexual and homosocial. Homophobia is a product of people with toxic masculinity in fear of being "mixed" by the "weaks"
4) Women are expected more as modern society advances, with two expectations growing on them. One, to be a caretaker and to have all the feminine traits in you. Second, to be like men, to be career orientated and to have all the manly traits in you.
Etcetc

But it really threw me off when the book is mentioning how she disagrees that porn doesn't encourage violence. Even more, when talking about the murder case, which in my opinion, feels a little contradictory to condone the media commenting on the lady's private life to the public when she in fact is doing it as well. Not to mention the chapters go on longer than the other sections do. It really makes me feel uncomfortable and that's why I stopped reading towards the end when I realized the chapters will all be about the case.

Nevertheless it's a great book but depending on people's interests, some will have different degree of interests reading each chapter of the book since it talks about a complete different topic every time.

[Sunny Chang · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was able to think about misogyny within the society, but in a deeper context. Kinda depressing to realize that generally in a love-relationship, there are certain roles that are provided to a male and a female, in which is just misogynic. Most insightful part for me personally, was when the book uncovered misogynic part of prostitution in relation to dad-daughter relationship. Difficult to understand so I’ll probably give another read later.

[Seike Liu · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't think there would be anyone who read this book and does not feel offended by what is revealed in it. But that's in some extent true and dominant in our society and that's exactly why we should shed light on the problems and work on a better understanding for others.

[Tone · Rating 4 out of 5]

絕不僅限於日本的普世現象，非常犀利深刻的文化、歷史、心理分析。

[W.M.]

其實拖拖拉拉，整個閱讀時間拉得很長，這次終於把最後幾章看完了。其實我並不完全同意書中的論點，但想像那是日本社會，又覺得作者的結論會這樣走有其必然。

[Della · Rating 4 out of 5]

非常好多，可以作为入门读物。一针见血地指出了性别下的权力关系。

[Ke · Rating 5 out of 5]

文章以日本厌女症为主展开讨论，其中也提及了中国的谚语，这更相当于是亚洲范围内的英语中，讨论一开始涉及日本文学，以及日本的男性作家的厌女症，对我来说比较晦涩难懂。后文从不同角度提及各种人的厌女症，论述了厌女症的普遍性。
正如作者所述，读这本书的过程中有不愉快的情绪，不过这确实是我们不能闭目不见的现实，只要我们知道了这个现实就有改变它的可能性。

[Turtleduck · Rating 5 out of 5]

看完对整个文化或者背景里的厌女气氛有了更多察觉，被上野那种很有女性主体性的解释折服。比如性工作者是通过伤害自己身体的方式来蔑视男人，性工作的标价也是女人对男人性欲的标价。

[sinner 江 · Rating 3 out of 5]

2010年出版，現在讀起來有點斷裂，一方面是書內主要探討日本現象，和台灣的情況有所差異；另一方面是10多年來男女的社會關係已經大幅改變，某些觀念已無法完全解釋當代的性別結構

但內文還是能為「厭女」的概念、何以厭女深根於每人心中等問題帶來啟發

[Yuki Kudo · Rating 2 out of 5]

看这本书我的感觉就和读经一样。“阿弥陀佛阿弥陀佛”“安拉胡阿克巴”“子曰子曰子曰”“厌女厌女厌女”“祂祂祂”（怕在豆瓣被霸凌所以发这里了）

[Haidan39]

书很有启发，也解答了很多疑惑，让我发现世界有多不公平。

第二章男性集团中的成员资格。
确实有男的称之为，the man card，一般是I'm about to lose my man card的时候。一直以为他们开玩笑的说法。为什么叫 man card，现在感觉理解了。

第二章“歧视需要三个人”。
意思是群体歧视不合群的个体吗？

第四章 我觉得迎合女人很土气、很没风度。”（27岁，公司正式职员）〔三浦，2009:68—69〕
书中摘取的这些男士发言，真的很low。这个有点自欺欺人。我解读为 “我觉得我很土气没有风度,所以没能力迎合女人”。 这人把因果搞反了吧。

第五章 可如果表演会给表演者留下精神创伤，则不可等同论之。
任何真人的色情，怎么可能没有精神创伤。只要有钱赚，就会有人想赚这个钱，然后去诈骗等等。色情什么的，自己学画画吧。

第十二章 她的堕落之路太笔直太专一，那种怪物般的纯粹，甚至闪 烁着神圣的光彩，我的心为之难以形容地颤抖起来。〔佐野（真）， 2003a:321〕[1]
吐。这家伙是写小说吗，还是动漫看多了？黑化之类的写作手法。

第十六章“作为一个男人，明明在恋爱、性爱、性等方面伤痕累累，却要装作什么痛感也没有”〔フリーターズフリー，2010:157〕
这个观念我上学的时候接触过，老师给我们看了个电影，叫 Tough Guise，讲的就是这个意思。而且标题也取得好，guise/guys 一语双关，核心观念一个标题全部出来了，很厉害。

第十六章概念只是概念,不是现实,但概念能够成为说 明和解释现实的有力武器。
第十六章可同时,如果这个理论露出了破绽裂隙,我们 便可从中看到新的变化的可能性。
作为一个学者，却最希望自己的理论是有破绽的，这一点值得佩服。


书评本应到这里就结束了，但是觉得，书里面有些地方讲的不够通顺，总结出三个需要继续思考的题目。
1）二性观念
2）个人和群体
3）同在男权主义下的女人和男人

1）我觉得有二性观念并非如此根深蒂固。我认为有第三性的存在：不参与性 non-participatory。性为性质。
不参与或不支持用“性别”来区分人，把人当作男女，或者lgbtq。
non-participatory与 non-binary 不同，non-binary仍然在把人变成符号，是一种对男女二性观念划分的反对。但不参与性就是, 我不跟你们玩了。我要先做一个独立的人，然后选择如何归纳自己。

non-participatory是我乱编的词，不过网上似乎有人称之为 agender，看了几篇文章，但是感觉和我说的不一样。agender还是在“性别”里面找答案，但我觉得答案不在群体的符号中，而是反求诸己。

2)我觉得书里有一个假设，直到最后才被提出来。那就是，书里的男女理论，都是用比较典型和具有代表性的个体例子，来巩固作者对群体的认知。（但我不反对这样的做法，因为人文社会不是科学，需要但不寻求逻辑，寻求的是观众内心的共鸣。如果我够胆子，我甚至会说出“人文社会里面最辉煌的是小说，而不是那些谈理论的”之类的话，哎呀呀。）

她的理论是否正确，只在于各个读者是否产生了共鸣。对我而言，她的理论一大半产生了共鸣。剩下的，用男群体，女群体这些概念来阅读，就读的通顺了。她有这么一句话，真希望这句话早些出现。

第十六章 女性主义否定的是“男性特性”，而不是个体的“男性存在”。

我认为可以这么解读这句话：认可个体，高于认可特性。本书说过，圣女和娼妓的转换和“堕落”，其实都是男人的幻觉。都是演技和幻想出来的[十二章男人们的解释]。还有一个人持类似的观点，就是李敖[虽然他不会承认，还要用“真就是幻，幻也未必不真”的方式说这是幻想，看 李敖访谈：脱了裤子谈思想（一）]。我这个观点可能会找骂，但是我还是得说。在我的解读下，李敖作为一个自由主义者，很不情愿的也是很婉转的否定了其他人的大男人主义，也很直接的否定了其他人的大女人主义，他唯一肯定的是自我的大李敖主义。也就是否定群体对自己的标签，坚持个体的自由。我用不那么委婉的方式告诉你，在我看来，对于争取言论自由和精神独立，李敖教授和上野千鹤子教授是一脉相承的，都会支持，我的身体我做主，这个说法。

个人观点个人观点，看着好玩就好。对于男权女权的讨论，跟我的个人没什么关系，更多的是开开眼界，活动一下大脑，满足求知欲和表达欲。


3）同在男权主义下的女人和男人，都是受害者。男权如何形成的？权力怎么形成的？权力的根源是什么？

第十六章 不是将婚姻视为一对男女的纽带，而是视为通过女人的交换建立起来的两个男人（两个男人集团）之间的纽带，女人只是男人之间的纽带的媒介物。
但是何止男人的集团，也有长辈的集团，权力的集团。作为受害者，我们要争取身体自由，言论自由，精神自由。

第十六章 那么，就像为“得到完整的肯定”而与厌女症斗争的女人一样，男人也必须与自己的厌女症格斗。对于女人，女性主义是与自我和解之途。对于男人，与自我和解的道路不应该完全没有吧。和女人一样，那应该是与“自我厌恶”的斗争。不过，为男人指出道路的任务，已经不该由女人来承担了。

为了响应作者的号召，我觉得有必要思考权力是什么。

在学校讨论权力 ，一般是政府与人民之间的权力 Authority 和 权利 Rights。但是人和人之间的权力关系也值得讨论。

权力Authority 到底是什么？从何而来？

权力 也没有实体 没有说哪个山里产了权力
权力 不是 与生俱来的 性本善恶 没有 性本权
权力 应该是 被附加的 被追逐的
实行千年的君权神授 被 宪法代替了 但是 权力本身 没有改变 只是 被重新 分配了 所以 神仙君主臣民也好 宪法政府人民也罢 都不是 权力的来源

生在 寒冷地方的古代人 不知道 暖和舒适的地方吧，当人知道了 还有更舒适的地方，是否忽然觉得 “这什么破天气 我一刻都不想留下了”。寒冷没变 但是 人对寒冷的态度变了。通过人们对于“大自然有权力让我们过的更好”的想法，人们开始了 祭祀，将大自然神明化。大自然被赋予了 权力。

古代小说什么神通 可以解释为 对权力的向往，希望某天，能够不被自然支配，不用面朝黄土背朝天。但权力不是大自然的产物，也不是人与生俱来的特性。权力是被人赋予的。

人和人之间，权力是否也是被赋予的？
有权力就能支配别人，这是权力的体现。就算违背了他人本来规律，还是得服“我”，那么“我”的权力是被赋予的，是被认可的(legitimate) 。例如 皇帝的新衣。那么，权力与现实无关，是凭空捏造的。只要有人自行认可，可以被支配，那么权力就产生了。

对没穿衣服的皇帝阿谀奉承，对自己的利益没怎么损害。
那如果假设，有两组持不同意见的人，除了数量的多寡，其他处在平等地位。但是制度由多数人定制，就算少数人不愿意，还是必须服从多数,甚至加入了多数的阵营。
继续假设，剩下更多的少数人，仍然不愿意做出违背自己利益的事情。就算利益被多数人
破坏，逼迫就范，但还是不改其行，不做任何违背自己利益的事情...
但这个就矛盾了：为了不违背自己的利益，所以不得不向多数人妥协，难道，无论少数人怎么做，只要权力在多数人手里，少数人的利益还是被违背了吗？

我想，这就是权利的诞生吧。因为，权力没有被认可啊，为什么皇帝没穿衣服呀？为了让权力 Authority被认可，权利Rights就诞生了。一定程度上的给与权利，以保证权力被认可。权利既然是从权力诞生的，那么权利其实也是被赋予的，是一个灵活变动的指标，随着以保证权力的正统性为目的，不断在变化。

但我还是不知道，权力哪里来的。倒也不急写个什么万用公式，又不是数学题。无需作茧自缚。人文嘛 就要开放性思维 。

但至少，权力需要有人相信。

我编了个类似皇帝的新衣的故事，一个恶作剧。同桌有天被告知，你其实是火星的大王，而我们作为你的同学，其实是追随大王多年的难民，辗转来到了地球，今后一切听大王吩咐。然后这人就说，你当我傻呀。但是捡橡皮擦时，同学毕恭毕敬的交出5个橡皮擦，大王您想要什么样的，我推荐这个还是带香味的。这不会触动人的欲望吗？逝试就逝试。结果第二天发现是恶作剧。寄了喂
权力不需要真实的被认可，只需要拥有权力的人，认为自己的权力是被认可的，就可以当 火星大王。这正好说明，权力需要被认可的脆弱性。人们认识到这个所谓的权力，竟然有人相信！那就拿来利用呗。

可是如果说，欲望是权力的根源，那么没有欲望的人，就没有权力了吗？但是权力是被赋予的，我管你有没有欲望，你以后就是老大了。这不就是权力吗？你被认可了。

另一种可能，权力没有起源，它是一个人造的工具。为了维持社会，需要分配岗位。权力被作为资源一样，被分配了。不管是否被认可，入乡随俗，我们火星人就这么做事的，你来就得遵守我们规矩。

最后一种可能，权力与资源，与利益，与正统性，与被认可性都不相关？权力只是一种人和人之间的认知方式？
也许，权力的根源其实是人与人之间的相互信赖吧。当这种对等的信赖关系被扰乱，就要欠债还钱。

[Mei · Rating 5 out of 5]

素敵な本だった。痛いと思う時もあって、言葉が借りられて怒ったが怒りの方法が知らなかったことがこれから言えるようになって、快感と共にフェミニズムの戦いの重さを感じつつけた。中にも重く感じたのが、前の人が戦ってきたことが受け継がれなかったせいで一から再スタートの辛さ。けどこれを繰り返さないように、声をあげ、公衆権力の前に立て、被害者（女であれ、少数派であれ、動物であれ）を助けたらと思うようになった。

[infinitemayo · Rating 5 out of 5]

性是一种权力手段。
性侵犯者往往自我评价很低。
杀人是一种占有形式的终极体现。

[Wayne Liberty · Rating 5 out of 5]

日本社会的厌女完全可以放到东亚儒环境来说，中国的情况也是一样具有很多共性，所以这本书还是能引起很多共鸣的。
个人感想是：
我们可以通过自我教育来剔除身体里的厌女成分么？我觉得挺难的，难的地方在于厌女既是意识上的也是社会建构上的，很多社会规则的制定就内化了厌女的逻辑，而我们不得不在这些规则下生活的时候，我们的意识没办法反抗社会制度，当然在一个健康的社会了社会意识是可以慢慢影响社会制度的但是显然中国很难。但是自我教育仍然是重要的，它能在一定程度上影响我们的行为，而且我们还可以努力去寻找周围的不厌女的社群。

[Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Myself being not too familiar with the concept of feminism before reading, I have picked up this book out of curiosity about the author as I have heard about her. The fact that after reading it, many of the concepts and points resonated with me greatly and are easily understandable, showed that misogyny is indeed deeply embedded in the culture I grew up in. Like the author said, when the content of this becomes non-sense, it is when we have finally achieved social equality.

A few key concepts and points of the book struck me especially, I will focus on the main ones that can be applied directly to my daily life. The concept of the objectification of sex, especially the definition of when someone truly becomes a 'woman' brought an existing perception inside me to surface. Someone (usually a girl) becomes a 'woman' when they realise their body is the sexual desire of men. From this point on, 'women' may act in certain ways when men are present and dress in certain ways. To a more serious extent, 'women' start to internalise men's gaze, start to value men's opinions and praise, and potentially tie them to self-value.

The above point struck me particularly, because I feel this is exactly what I have thought and experienced. I think maybe the latter points don't apply to all 'women', but especially apply to those who are more sensitive but are also lacking self-confidence and esteem. During my primary school year, I have not felt about the objectification of sex, and from my current knowledge, I think I am relatively undamaged in relation to the idea of gender difference either (in the academic sense that I did not feel boys are for certain subjects etc.). I did have contact with misogynistic views in the broader cultural and historical background though. For example, when learning about Chinese history, the concept of only male line inheritance and the rule of surname inheritance. There was also a primary school teacher (female), whose name, when translated literally, is 'let's have a younger brother'. Although these features surrounded me, I do not think they have influenced my life decisions in a negative ways, perhaps because I was valued within my family just the same. But the fact that I also did not question these features, also shows firstly a lack of awareness of the issue, and secondly a sense of acceptance.

The point when the idea of the objectification of sex started to sink into me, was when I was 16 turning 17. I went to an all girls secondary school, but transferred to a mixed high school. The experience of the all girls secondary education did the good thing that it did not sabotage my feeling of rights in doing science, but it also made me completely ignorance of boys. When I started high school, I felt a sense of awkwardness around boys (whether this is because of social or hormonal influence, I cannot yet tell). It was also at this point that I knew a boy had a crush on me, but I didn't like him. Thinking back now, I think I might have done a good job in ignoring him to a given capacity. But a sense of the inequality between the two sexes also began to surface, because although I didn't like him, I secretly cherished and was glad that he liked me, and had a tendency in showing this off to my girlfriends. But maybe this experience of being liked by the opposite sex, without having some more male contacts and friends first, also did a bad job on me. It accelerated the consolidation of the definition of a 'woman' idea in me, and it made it harder for me to approach boys, and believe in friendship-only relationships between the opposite sexes.

My mother also had influence on me in consolidating the definition of a 'woman', but I wouldn't say she has sole responsibility, because she is also the product of a misogynistic society, and my personality also contribute. All started with fashion. My mother often told me, how she dresses, is for her own sake and own amusement, it is not for the others to look at. I want to agree with this, but to my current knowledge, I also have doubts about it. On a personal level, whenever I dress well, I do have a desire for others to look at me. When one says dressing well is for 'one's own sake', but is it for your own sake because you have internalised others' values (or men's desires)? I am also thinking about the idea of being alone in the house, dressing well. How often do people do this? And when they do do these, and if it gives them a sense of order and higher confidence, what is this confidence based on? Why would one (eg females) feel more confident when they are dressed well?

For the two chapters in the extended edition, the author talked about sexual harassment and ugly women. Though I don't think I have experienced sexual harassment, but the danger or imminent prospect of it is within my consciousness. I have been very conscious of dressing too exposed (this is one female rule stemmed from my own family or culture perhaps) in public, and can feel awkward walking on the street when I have dressed well. I feel it is wrong to make reducing the risk of sexual harassment women's responsibility, but I feel this is exactly what I have done, and maybe many women have been doing given what the society is like.

The author talked about many stages of an ugly women (or 'uncomfortable women'), and like the author said, there is perhaps no females who don't resonate with any of the stages. The idea of if I am not pretty, I don't deserve being loved, is a critical one that match up with the sexual subjectification of male. My mother used to say my skin is too rough and needs polishing. And I remember thinking to myself, secretly, if my skin is rough, then no men would want to make love to me.

The last few pages of the book is attributed to going forward. Recognising misogyny is the first step, misogyny around us, within us. One can only become a feminist because one has misogynistic views. But given the long standing and strong foundation of the patriarchal society, and many women has established their self based on this societal system, it is extremely difficult to break free of the definition of a 'women', and to do so cannot be without pain.

For me, breaking free of the misogynistic views is one of the same with many of the other life lessons. For example, of living on your own standard (but what are these standards based on?), have a sense of subjectivity. A very important concept is that my value of myself does not change, whether I be liked, loved or not by others. Falling in love, getting married or have children are not the defining moments of my life. I am just the same, before and after.

The author pointed out that it is useful to investigate more of the misogynistic views present in different cultures. For example, Thailand has a higher tolerance of homosexuality, Korea has a mandatory conscription system. By understanding these different misogynistic views, one may find a way to break free. Because if we combine all of these different nonsenses together, when the social norms of one culture may seem absurd to another, one realises the artificiality of it all.

There are still some unresolved or at least not explicitly explained points in the book, such as how transgender people come into all of this, what are the nature of the relationship between homosexuality and misogyny.

[Maverick Mo · Rating 4 out of 5]

【2021Book16】看完了豆茶姐推荐的《厌女：日本的女性嫌恶》。这本书分析了在男性主导的社会中女性受到轻视与伤害的心理与文化根源。个人觉得读完之后打开了我之前的一些心结，也让我认真地思考了什么是真正的尊重。

【2021Book16】``ONNA GIRAI-NIPPON NO MISOGYNY” (Misogyny in Japan, Chinese Edition) by Chizuko Ueno. Ms. Ueno analyzes the cultural and psychological causes of the contempt for females and why females often get hurt in a society dominated by men. This book helped me to clear some confusion in my cognition bothering me for a long time, and taught me what is real respect.

[Chen Qiangpan · Rating 5 out of 5]

What Chizuko Ueno argued and discussed in this book is not limited in the boundary of Japanese society or culture but within a broader spectrum of east Asia, such as China and Korea. To understand or even try to see the world from women's perspective, is the starting point of a man's journey to know himself and the long way to liberate.

[Wen · Rating 4 out of 5]

简单粗暴，血淋淋地把当今亚洲文化里的厌女情节描述在我们眼前。最喜欢《女校文化》以及《东电职员》部分。思来想去，原来我也有厌女症。想通过被喜欢，被”男人认可”来证明我自己的价值。可这不就恰恰反射了，我认可”男人的认可是高于女人的认可”吗？读完又不禁感叹在现代作为一个女人好难，又要达成“男女机会平等后”可以达到的成功（即社会、职场上的成功），但同时又还要去面对“只有男人认可的女人才是成功”的标准。不可否定的是，不管是过去和现在，男人认可的标准仍然是要可以引起男人的欲望。

作者在后记说，这是一本会引起人的不快的一本书。她也说，希望有朝一日成为令读者感叹“天呐怎么还有过这么荒谬的时代”的一本书。我们还要走多远，这样的感叹才能到来呢？

[Jenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book that analyzes misogyny within the context of Japanese society. Feel like I learned a lot.

[Elaine · Rating 5 out of 5]

我们还有很长很长的一段路要走。

[Yutong Cai · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's necessary to go through the distress provoked by this work

[Bella · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm woke.

[Dumbo · Rating 5 out of 5]

勉強になりました！

[Mae · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good time to re-read this book. Need to reflect if my new character inherits my misogyny or not.