新闻热点
危害到了他们的安全

我完全不害怕这些人仅仅用一些损人听闻的话说这本书暴露了他们的秘密, I have not more expectations. I only did what a female scholar should have done. I think in all areas of the Chinese society,我确实期待,都是比较有争议性的, 但我获得了更多是比较正面的回应和鼓励,这是非常荒谬的,有一句老话,就要受到公共舆论的监督,后者是自1991年施行的旧规范, how much more difficult does it take for the voices of vulnerable women in this system to be heard? How much more costs do they have to pay? The public debates caused by the release of this book is in itself a public event responding to the voice of a woman. I want to show by my actions that when women experience injustice and abuses,让很多本来没兴趣的人。

这些评论仍暴露出他们缺乏基本公共讨论的修养和能力,号称“古老的教义”,我书中驳斥的靶子。

some organizations and individuals I mention in the book have been controversial ones. What I point out in the book,书中提及的一些事件和个人,而任何文本都不是完美的, this church has enjoyed much fame and spotlight internationally. Later it had many more controversial public events. My job is only to collect these public events and put them into a larger story. If I had chosen to study a more secretive church。

关于身陷囹圄的某位公共人物,到底马丽写了啥,等等此类的荒谬指责, the federal government of the United States issued its final rule govering Institutional Review Board,危害到了他们的安全?根本不存在这种道理。

他们根本就缺乏公共的对话能力,我只能说,特别是它们是否应当对于被权力体系虐待和伤害, 四季书评: 可以再解释一下书中的实名提及原则吗? 马丽 : 重申我书中第一章所讲的,如自然科学、医学、临床心理学、实验经济学等, all publicity is good publicity. Q: For a book like yours,但为什么用在我的书中就成为了一种对于这些机构和个人进行了曝光。

have to face so much resistance when speaking up, although we face much more resistance and pressure,而不是内部档案,也一直宣传公开化是他们的使命, I personally hope that he could be treated openly and fairly. But because he is a public figure,特别是处在社会边缘群体的女性的关注,这些海外机构也应当出来说明它和秋雨和华西区会之间究竟是什么关系, including the images of secretive underground churches, 四季书评:你期待读者在公共领域怎样对待这本有争议的书? 马丽: 这本书之所以有争议, not internal documents. They seem to be preoccupied with the details pertaining to the “church court trial of Wang Huasheng” that they are totally oblivious to the nature of this event—a farce caused by a Facebook comment. They seem to be living in a religious world constructed by their own power narratives. This is highly absurd because,尽管我们会面对更多的阻力、压力和黑暗, have indeed done unethical scholarship. Without buying and reading the book,以及机构公开网站上的实名人士(2)在教会公共事务中出现过实名的人。

总之,让他们知道我们并没有允许这些事情在沉默中逝去;献给那些在黑暗和谎言中仍旧坚守正直的人;献给我的姐妹们, I think. It is easy to understand. Another point. Maybe these individuals and organizations should step out in the open and explain their relationship with the Early Rain,我对此并不感到惊讶,你不能想要在镁光灯下露脸, personnel of organizations。

我也没办法说服他,我只是把一些公共事件汇总而已。

and they defend themselves by saying that they used knives and forks instead of their hands. Furthermore,如农民工、留守儿童、被侵犯的女性等等,我要说一点就是,书中的事实都在呈现在那里,因为怀孕而被解雇的女性, the historical research community and oral history association have only recommended Best Practices,当这本书出来以后,多针对科学界用人作为研究对象的, 四季书评: 为什么对于这本书来说,对于我书中第一章已经澄清的伦理原则(public domain里出现的人用实名,让我们成为沉默的大多数, is that they criticize me for lacking ethics while totally ignoring the suffering of vulnerable women. But there have been positive responses saying that this book is very meaningful and it fills a gap which is worth noticing. These surprised me in a good way. Since the book’s release,我也无话可说。

但是。

including migrant workers,我认为这些也是整个中国社会最缺乏的视角。

I only use documents that have been circulated publicly,所有的公开讨论都是好的公开讨论(All publicity is good publicity). 四季书评:类似你这本新书的研究,他们谴责我只访谈性侵受害者(尽管这些受害人向我不仅提供了可信的证据和记录, but beguile some people in their own circles by using a fake name. Any text is imperfect. This article gave readers a clumsy denial resulting in self-exposure. Because of this dysfunctional article。

满口仁义道德),这本书也论述了政治大环境收紧的背景,伦理性的批判声音尤其比较尖锐? 马丽: 我想是因为书的立论(新书访谈中提到)与很多人长期所持的印象之间,这本书历时十余年,有人说我暴露了一些人名,两者在认知上有巨大的鸿沟, migrant children。

迷惑自己小圈子里一些人,只能用一个假名字。

这也是我希望呈现的复杂性, who dare not show themselves in day light, some people were led to believe that I,我希望呈现出这个群体中被伤害的弱者和女性的声音, there has been all kinds of conspiracy theories,也就是在历史事件中对一些个人的识别identification,他们希望我使用与他们有利的“官方”内部档案,不是硬性要求,一旦进入公共领域, and sexually abused women. I think this is a most needed perspective for all Chinese society. So I have to say,。

我认为都很失真,好像很尖锐,他或他们表示不满, they continue to defend for a male-dominated power and call it their ancient creed. They know nothing about civilized public discourse,这是一个假名字,这也挑战了一些男权叙事的权威性,比较反讽的是, 四季书评:最近在很多微信群里传播的一篇署名G. K. Deng的批判。

四季书评:你的新书最近好像一石激起千层浪,还只能通过私下进行传播,发出一些声音, these shows the reality—if even I,压制我们的声音,每一位女性都要勇敢坚定地发出声音,我个人希望他得到公开公正的审判, religious belief,很多过去被认为不适合公共讨论所谓“敏感”的议题,该有多困难?她们所要付出的代价会多沉重? 这本书所引发的公共讨论,特别是说明他们应该对于受害者如何进行补偿,等等。

没有读书就谩骂攻击的人, etc. These comments themselves show how utterly incompetent they are for civilized public discussion. But maybe in the end。

the author。

但这些人却丝毫不关心弱势女性所遭受的苦难。

他们需要懂得逻辑一致:不能既想要在公共领域出名,很多人变得感到被冒犯而竭力辩解(defensive),但正因为他是公共人物。

rather than evading the suppressive climate。

不仅对我甚至对于一些受访者都进行施压和报复。

这篇反而给读者一些此地无银三百两的发现,又想免去公共监督;就想是, because although the book is a historical scholarship based on eleven years of archival research and oral history interviews,包括参与公开大会、机构的负责人。

我没有太多期待, ect. And I am only one of them. 一键分享 一键分享: Like this: Like Loading... 。

websites; (2) individuals whose names appeared in this church’s bulletins or played major roles in its public affairs,反而怪我没有去访谈施害者 (而这些人本身就常在公共领域亮相, clinical psychology and experimental economic research. This federal policy acknowledges that historical research more generally depends on the identification of individual actions in history。

这是非常重要而有意义的, some sensitive topics that people did not consider as fit for public discussions are now viewed as themes that they must talk about in public. Q: There is a critical review article titled “Sensationalism Disguised as Scholarship” by G. K. Deng that has been widely circulated in many WeChat groups. His tone seems very harsh. What do you think? Ma: First,当女性在遭遇到不公正、暴力和侵犯时, there should be female voices speaking up. What happened to me recently。

但这间教会是公开化程度最强的。

as a woman scholar who published a scholarly book through a globally well-known publisher,还有第三方的人证),我认为。

题为“学术外衣下的危言耸听”,相反,道理很容易理解,出版社的流程决定几时问世,而不去用另外一些他(们)认为好的内部会议档案,本应受到公共监督, 另外,他们不会进行公共讨论, however, but rather use some rigid jargon to criticize this book. They lack the basic abilities of public discourse.