No one can claim that the fashion industry contributes anything really important to society. Fashion designers are rarely concerned with vital things like warmth, comfort and durability. They are only interested in out ward appearance and they take advantage of the fact that women will put up with any amount of discomfort, providing they look right. There are hardly be a man who hasn’t at some time in his life smiled at the sight of a woman shivering in a flimsy dress on a wintry day, or delicately picking her way through deep snow in dainty shoes。
When comparing men and women in the matter of fashion, the conclusions to by drawn are obvious. Do the constantly changing fashions of women’s clothes, one wonders, reflect basic qualities of fickleness and instability? Men are too sensible to let themselves be bullied by fashion designers. Do their unchanging styles of dress reflect basic qualities of stability and reliability? That is for you to decide。
中文
创造服装新款式完全是为了对妇女进行商业榨取
每当你看一部老片子的时候——哪怕它只是在10年前拍的——片中女演员的外表都会给你留下深刻的印象：发式和化装过时了；裙子要么太长，要么太短；事实上，总的说来，她们的外表使人觉得有点滑稽。另一方面，片中男演员看上去却一点儿也不陌生。单凭他们的外表，我们怎么也看不出他们属于一个完全不同的时代。
这种错觉是由不断变化的时装造成的。多少年来，大多数男人成功地挫败了改变他们着装风格的种种企图。而对妇女来说情况就不同了。每次，几位来自巴黎或伦敦的所谓“顶尖设计师”定下律条，然后全世界的妇女都趋之若鹜。而设计师们的语言不仅专横，而且鬼神莫测。今年，他们的时装武断地规定：裙子要短，腰要高；拉链要“藏”，扣子要“露”。明年呢，法令整个儿颠倒过来了——而人们不仅不加挞伐，连眉毛也不抬一抬。
如果妇女们每年都受到无情的盘剥，她们也是咎由自取。只要想一想自己穿着过时的服装出现在大庭广众，她们就不寒而栗，因此她们年复一年地忍受设计师和大商店的讹诈。只是因为时尚不再，她们才穿过几次的服装就被束之高阁。想想看，只有妇女才会站在满橱的衣服前哀叹自己没有衣服可穿！
不断变化的服装时尚只不过是一种精心策划的浪费行为。许多妇女每年花费大量的金钱添置新衣，取代的却是一些几乎没有穿过的衣服。那些没有财力以这种方式淘汰服装的妇女则花费一小时有一小时的时间改造他们现有的服装。他们将衣服的下摆缩减或者放下，腰围收紧或者放宽，领口开得更高或者更低，等等等等，不一而足。
没有人会认为时装工业对社会真正作出过什么重要的贡献。对于服装至关重要的因素，如保暖、舒适、耐用等，服装设计师们很少关心。他们只对服装的外观感兴趣，因为他们深知，只要衣服的式样不坏，妇女们什么罪都能忍受。几乎每个男人在他的一生中都曾经面对这样的情景而忍俊不禁：一个妇女在数九寒天里穿着薄薄的衣衫瑟瑟发抖，或者穿着精制的鞋子款款地踏过深深的积雪。
如果从服装方面比较男人和女人，其结论昭然若揭。人们禁不住要问：妇女们日新月异的服装款式是否反映了水性杨花、朝秦暮楚这些基本品质呢？男人们则比较明智，不至于受时装设计师的宰割。他们以不变应万变的服装款式是否反应了一诺千金、持之以恒这些基本品质呢？断语由你来下。
3. ‘Parents are too permissive with their children nowadays’
Few people would defend the Victorian attitude to children, but if you were a parent in those days, at least you knew where you stood: children were to be seen and not heard. Freud and company did away with all that and parents have been bewildered ever since. The child’s happiness is all-important, the psychologists say, but what about the parents’ happiness? Parents suffer constantly from fear and guilt while their children gaily romp about pulling the place apart. A good old-fashioned spanking is out of the question: no modern child-rearing manual would permit such barbarity. The trouble is you are not allowed even to shout. Who knows what deep psychological wounds you might inflict? The poor child may never recover from the dreadful traumatic experience. So it is that parents bend over backwards to avoid giving their children complexes which a hundred years ago hadn’t even been heard of. Certainly a child needs love, and a lot of it. But the excessive permissiveness of modern parents is surely doing more harm than good。
Psychologists have succeeded in undermining parents’ confidence in their own authority. And it hasn’t taken children long to get wind of the fact. In addition to the great modern classics on child care, there are countless articles in magazines and newspapers. With so much unsolicited advice flying about, mum and dad just don’t know what to do any more. In the end, they do nothing at all. So, from early childhood, the kids are in charge and parents’ lives are regulated according to the needs of their off spring. When the little dears develop into teenagers, they take complete control. Lax authority over the years makes adolescent rebellion against parents all the more violent. If the young people are going to have a party, for instance, parents are asked to leave the house. Their presence merely spoils the fun. What else can the poor parents do but obey?
Children are hardy creatures (far hardier than the psychologists would have us believe ) and most of them survive the harmful influence of extreme permissiveness which is the normal condition in the modern household. But a great many do not. The spread of juvenile delinquency in our own age is largely due to parental laxity. Mother, believing that little Johnny can look after himself, is not at home when he returns from school, so little Johnny roams the streets. The dividing-line between permissiveness and sheer negligence is very fine indeed。
The psychologists have much to answer for. They should keep their mouths shut and let parents get on with the job. And if children are knocked about a little bit in the process, it may not really matter too much. At least this will help them to develop vigorous views of their own and give them something positive to react against. Perhaps there’s some truth in the idea that children who’ve had a surfeit of happiness in their childhood emerge like stodgy puddings and fail to make a success of life。
中文
如今的父母太娇惯孩子了
关于如何对待孩子，没有人会以为维多利亚式态度辩护。但是，如果你那时为人父母，你至少知道自己所处的地位：对孩子们该用眼睛看着，而不是用耳朵听着。是弗洛伊德之流葬送了这一切，而且从此以后父母们就陷入一派迷茫之中。心理学家说孩子的幸福至关重要，那么孩子父母的幸福呢？当孩子们嬉戏追逐、把家里闹个底朝天的时候，父母们忍受着恐惧和负疚的折磨。想仿效前人狠狠地揍他一顿屁股是根本不可能了：现代的育儿指南决不会允许这种野蛮行径。麻烦的是，你甚至连大声嚷嚷都不可以。谁知道你嚷一句会给孩子的心灵造成多么深刻的创伤？可怜的孩子恐怕一辈子都不能从这种可怕的精神创伤中恢复过来哩！结果，父母们只得拼命避免给孩子造成这样或那样的“情结“——100年前人们闻所未闻的东西。孩子们诚然需要爱，需要许多爱，但是现代父母过度的娇惯肯定是弊多利少的。
心理学家已经成功地打击了父母对自己权威的自信心。对此，用不了多久孩子们也就心中有数了。除了那些非凡的现代育儿经典，报章杂志上也充斥了类似的文章。有这些不请自来的建议满天飞舞，父母们简直不知道该做什么好了——到头来他们什么也没做。这样，孩子们自幼便大权在握，父母的生活则完全围绕着子女的需要转。当这些小宝贝长成少男少女的时候，他们更是当家做主了。由于父母多年来威望不高，作为青少年的这些孩子的反叛就愈加激烈了。例如，当年轻人要举行派对的时候，就会将他们的父母请出家门。他们在场只会败坏大家的玩兴。可怜的父母除了乖乖地听命还能做什么？
小孩子是一种强壮的动物(远比心理学家告诉我们的要强壮)。在现代家庭，过分娇惯孩子已经成为一种普通现象，只是大多数孩子居然能够克服它的不良影响。但是，也有相当多的一部分人未能幸免。当今时代，青少年犯罪的日益猖獗在相当大的程度上是由于父母管教不力所致。母亲相信小约尼自会照料自己，因此在他放学回家的时候她出去了。于是小约尼就在街头闲逛。其实，娇惯和疏于管教之间的界限是很微妙的。
心理学家还应当为许多别的事情负责。他们应当闭上嘴，把管教孩子的事交给父母来做。如果在这个过程中，他们对孩子们稍微粗暴了一点，那也没什么大不了的。至少，这有助于他们积极培养他们自己的观点，并且给他们提供了一些确定的事情让他们作出反应。有人认为，如果孩子们在童年时代过于幸福，长大以后就会像味浓的布丁一样，不会创造出成功的人生。此话或许不无道理。
