当前位置： &
blind dating是什么意思
中文翻译百科解释盲目约会盲人约会:&&&&adj. 1.盲，瞎，失明的；供盲人用的。 2.盲目的， ...:&&&&n. 1.记日期。 2.【商业】(支付的)延期日期。 3 ...
例句与用法1.We met on a blind date .我们是经介绍认识的。2.He says he loves you and is having a blind date他说他爱你，现在却在这里相亲？ 3.You ' ve been turned down by all those blind dates那些来相亲的人都把你拒掉了？ 4.L was minding my own business on a blind date . .我只是去盲约，又没妨碍到你们5.Hey , how about a blind date ? i know someone嗨，随机约会如何，我有几个候选人6.Kelly : i am going on a blind date lunch凯丽：我要跟一个没见过面的人约会吃午餐。 7.L was minding my own business on a blind date . .我只是去盲约，又没妨碍到你们8.Paul ： i ' m not sure . i ' m not a fan of blind dates保罗：我不知道啦。我不喜欢相亲。 9.I ' m sure i could find you a blind date我一定可以替你安排一个“蒙眼约会” 。 10.You can ' t take a blind date to new year ' s . - why新年派对可不能随便找人-为什么？ &&更多例句：&&1&&&&&&&&
相邻词汇热门词汇『Chris·派』粉丝做的Star Trek & Blind Dating系列图_克里斯·派恩吧_百度贴吧
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&签到排名：今日本吧第个签到，本吧因你更精彩，明天继续来努力！
本吧签到人数：0成为超级会员，使用一键签到本月漏签0次！成为超级会员，赠送8张补签卡连续签到：天&&累计签到：天超级会员单次开通12个月以上，赠送连续签到卡3张
关注：17,123贴子：
『Chris·派』粉丝做的Star Trek & Blind Dating系列图收藏
Source: sarahvanaheim.tumblr
这样拼图好美啊！！！———Amazing everyday
登录百度帐号我的游戏推荐游戏
后查看最近玩过的游戏
为兴趣而生，贴吧更懂你。或《blind&dating》
&很久没有看电影了...刚才看了blind
dating，好感人的美国film...喜欢Danny.执着，乐观，善良，义气，幽默..perfect
boyfriend...
没有了视觉..他却用另一种感觉去体味生活，去追求自己的爱情...最感人的是，
当他知道自己的试验失败的时候，当大脑已经感染，不能再用摄像头眼镜的时候，他
好勇敢..种族也好，文化也好...他只想见Leeza，虽然并不能如他所愿，抓住最后
的机会看到心爱的人，可是他的表白
Already saw your face,your
eyes,I saw your mouth,your hair.
我见过你的脸，你的眼睛，你的嘴唇，你的头发
I saw all in you,are beauty.
你的一切我都见到了，非常美
You remember,as spoke,as your Does family understand love?
记得吗？你告诉过我你家族的爱情观？
I will tell you,what I think about love.
我来告诉你我的爱情观
Love,this is which as to me speak.
爱情，对我来说
This something light in your voice
你的轻声诉语
Love,this as crumples dab
你的温柔抚摸
You show me where to bend steps
你为我指路
And when kiss
我们接吻...
接吻的时候
This happens to my soul.
这些都触碰我的灵魂
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。Blind Dating Sparks a Debate Over Public Benefit Events - China Development Brief
Blind Dating Sparks a Debate Over Public Benefit Events
Publications
CDB's publications and a selection of publications from other organizations dealing with development issues in China.
NGO Directory Filter
&Chinese&&&International&&
Begins with
containing&
China Development Brief posts events related to the work of NGOs in China. Website visitors and organizationa can suggest events for consideration.
Contribute
We seek qualified individuals to assist in translating and to serve as interns.
Qualified NGOs may also request membership,allowing them to create and maintain their own entry in our directory.
For questions about membership or any other matters and concerns,submit our general contact form.
You may also suggest NGOs to be included in our directory.
Announcements
Promote your organization\'s events,open positions,and calls for proposal by submitting forms for our consideration.
Blind Dating Sparks a Debate Over Public Benefit Events
This article by CDB Senior Staff Writer, Guo Ting, follows the controversy and discussion over a public benefit blind dating event in Beijing. The public benefit nature of the event, and controversy over its depiction of gender norms, is yet another illustration of the growing pains involved as the public interest, NGO sector makes further inroads into the mainstream of society.
Editor’s Note: In recent years, following the diversification and development of civil society, differentiation among various NGOs has become more pronounced.
In the first half of 2012, a public benefit blind dating event was held involving NGO workers and supporters.
How does one define public benefit? The Chinese term “gongyi” is a difficult term to translate into English. Throughout this article, we translate it as “public benefit” or “public service”.
It has also been translated as “public interest”, “public welfare” and “charity”. ] Are events like these a waste of resources?
What values should NGOs hold?
What should “crossovers” (跨界), so popular in the sector today, be focusing on? The term “crossovers” refers to events and activities involving collaboration between different sectors of society.] From the Internet to reality, from one-on-one communication to public discussions, debates over topics which had previously been ignored have begun rising to the surface over the past three months.
On what level should the dialogue be conducted?
What knowledge can be gleaned from it? How should dialogues between NGOs take place?
These are questions worth investigating.
The Public Benefit Blind Dating Event
One of the happiest events of 2012 was “The Little Match Girl,” where men from NGOs tried to find partners for their female colleagues.
But this event was more than just blind dating.
Young, handsome candidates from all social circles were gathered together.
Here, you could become acquainted with public service, make friends, and embrace “the new ideology of happiness.”
“If you work for the public benefit, please encourage your single lady friends to apply!
If you’re a single woman and work in an NGO, tear off your veil and apply yourself, 2012 is here!
If you like compassionate girls, what are you waiting for?
Sign up now!”
In early February 2012, this message appeared on several NGO websites and Weibo accounts, originating from Non-Profit Incubator’s (NPI) (恩派公益组织发展中心(or‘恩派’for short)) call-to-arms in its magazine Social Entrepreneurs (《社会创业家》).
According to the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Chen Yingwei (陈迎炜) and copy editor, Zhou Danwei (周丹薇), the blind dating event’s main theme–“The new ideology of happiness”–originated from a collective wedding for five couples from the outskirts of Beijing. This wedding was organized by Social Entrepreneurs and the LSM Rural Reconstruction Center (梁漱溟乡村建设中心).
Catering to those in the sector, Social Entrepreneurs believes that it is a happy sector to work in even though the income of NGO workers is low.
To quote from the article promoting the blind dating event, “People from NGOs go to the most remote and poorest areas, carrying the burden of public service as their personal duty.
It’s common for them to take home a meager salary, work much harder than the average person, and not have any free time for their personal life.
But at the same time, these young people from NGOs represent an emerging set of values and optimism: plain and tough, serving the masses, with the courage to pay the price.”
From here, the magazine goes on to explain “the new ideology of happiness,” stating that NGO workers have dreams and aspirations, but in today’s society, the majority of people lack such happiness.
“The new ideology of happiness” hopes that through its blind dating event, the happiness of NGO workers can be spread to other sectors.
Aside from spreading happiness, the blind dating event has many goals.
Firstly, NGOs have many older single women, and the event aims to provide those who wish to get married more opportunities to meet a potential spouse.
Secondly, through using popularly accepted formats like the hit dating TV show “Serious Inquiries Only” (《非诚勿扰》), female NGO workers can be more effectively put on display, allowing more people to become familiar with the faces behind civil society.
Lastly, Social Entrepreneurs hopes to promote their “Match Head” project.
In 2011, in an effort to increase its influence and distribution, Social Entrepreneurs collaborated with the Shanghai United Foundation (上海公益事业发展基金会) to launch the Match Head Special Fund Project (“火柴头”专项基金计划).
The project had a special contribution format, wherein benefactors would pay 360 RMB per year in order to purchase two subscriptions to Social Entrepreneurs.
One subscription would be their own, and the other would be given to a social entrepreneur of their choice.
The public benefit blind dating event and the Match Head Project are being jointly promoted, in the hope that those who sign up for the event will partici this is also the reason the event was christened “The Little Match Girl.”
After the recruitment process, Social Entrepreneurs had 200 male and female contestants, as well as relationship consultants, videographers, and many other volunteers.
They received wedding gifts from various merchants (for free or at a discounted rate), and even received 5000 RMB in start up funds from the Narada Foundation (南都公益基金会).
Tencent and Sina’s public benefit departments also helped promote the competition, along with NGO Development Exchange Online (NGO发展交流网).
On the night of April 15th, 2012, the blind dating event was held at a cafe near Beijing’s Central Business District.
Lasting around 3 hours, 52 contestants participated in the event which resulted in 8 new couples.
Aside from the host, contestants, and volunteers, many of the benefactors, media, and representatives from companies were also present on the set.
Of course, there were also many suspicious and uninvited guests.
The Voice of Doubt
Since its inception, the blind dating event has drawn criticism from netizens.
On February 5th, Zhou Danwei (周丹薇) made a post on his Weibo saying “Oppose the little match which is organized prostitution.”
The same day, some netizens expressed concern, opposing several aspects of the event. These included pairing the women of NGOs with men from other sectors (e.g. finance and IT), the article stereotyping female NGO workers as ‘pure,’ and the fact that making marriage the goal of the blind date was supremacist.
Below are some of those posts:
@waiting呀呀: Why are the women of NGOs being paired up with men from other sector, and not men from their own sector?
Are we just trying to build bridges between different sectors?
@Luna呀: Why separate the sectors by sex?
Women from other sectors can’t find men in NGOs?
Intellectual, pure, compassionate – these are
you could apply the same ones to teachers, nurses, etc.
@火犁花723: Marriage is
for most people it adds more pressure rather than providing liberation.
Just throw a party and let couples form naturally.
Since they all believe in the same cause, NGO people work together, but the way they choose to live their life or how they find love is completely irrelevant to their job.
Mixing up NGO workers with these marriage ideals will only lead to alienation.
@麦子家: Pardon me, but has NPI provided a similar service for lesbians and gays?
I feel like women are be are you saying it’s a disgrace to be single?
In the wee hours of February 6th, women’s rights activist Lu Pin (吕频) also expressed criticism.
She pointed out that many of the words used in the article were stereotypical or sexist, such as “selling women,” “bride kidnapping,” “shy,” and “pure,” and that the article’s definition of mainstream thought and the “new ideology of happiness” were not thought through.
She pointed out that a similar event in other circumstances would be understandable, but applying it to public benefit organizations is inappropriate.
Throughout the life of his post, Zhou Danwei actively responded to the thread which received over 400 comments and 800 retweets. Zhou responded to each and every new idea, saying, among other things, that a similar blind dating convention should be held for male NGO workers, and that marriage should just be between two people.
After this, the criticism temporarily decreased, and was limited to a few websites and Weibo posts.
But the opposition towards the blind dating convention never left the mind of Lu Pin.
Three days before the convention was held, she published a lengthy article titled “Is the Happiness of the Public Benefit Blind Dating Event a Myth?” (相亲非公益 “幸福”是迷思). The article strongly criticized the event and “the new ideology of happiness.”
Her article put forth the following six main points:
1. The event served only the interests of a few NGO workers, not the int
2. Blind dates should be taken care of by indiv public service should focus its resources on goods the m
3. The event’s format was designed only for female-to-male relationships, leaving out the minority in favor of the majority, which goes against the spir
4. The article promoting the blind dating event duplicates mainstream society’s portrayal of men as active and women as passive.
Matching “men from finance and IT,” with women of NGOs has undertones of classism for couples.
Lastly, using words like “shy, intelligent and warm,” stereotypes the women of NGOs.
5. Today’s society is obsessed about marriage.
Many people who choose not to get married, such as homosexuals and older unmarried women who get called “leftovers (剩女)”, feel the pressure of this disease.
Throughout this event, public benefit organizations are jeopardizing the freedom of unmarried individuals, and obstructing their goal of being innovative and transformative.
6. The dreams of love promoted by the new ideology of happiness can make it easy for people to abandon reality.
Using organized methods to promote happiness could mean ignoring social inequalities, and the elimination of equality, rights and transformation – the core values of NGOs.
The article was posted to the CDB website on April 13th, as well as the site’s official Weibo, @NGO招聘.
The aforementioned criticism that had been on the
some NGO workers began posting polarizing comments and reposts on the issue.
This was the beginning of the debate over the blind dating event.
In contrast to the period when the first critical responses were aired, Social Entrepreneurs kept its mouth shut during this critical time.
Later Zhou Danwei explained that this all took place two days before the actual event.
Since this was an extremely busy time, there was absolutely no time to respond.
The silence of the hosts was not mirrored by its critics.
On April 15th, the night of the event, two volunteers came wearing shirts bearing slogans which included: “Public benefit resources should not be wasted,” “Blind dating is not public service and new happiness is a myth,” and “One must be careful of blind dates, love cannot be bought.” They also distributed leaflets criticizing the event.
The volunteers came from a Beijing women’s rights organization called “The Little Mask Squad (口罩小分队).”
The organization was founded in the beginning of 2012, often holding public protests and using overblown strategies to express appeals and attract media attention.
A few months earlier it worked with director Xu Tong (徐童) to make a film called Wheat Harvest (《麦收》), a protest against the sex worker industry.
It also participated in the infamous “Occupy the Men’s Room (占领男厕所)” and “The Wounded Bride (受伤的新娘)” protests. [Editor’s Note: These two events use street performances to call attention to gender bias. See the article “How to Effectively Carry Out Public Interest Performance Art” (如何有效开展街头工艺行为艺术) in CDB’s Spring 2012 issue.]
Han Hongmei (韩红梅), moviemaker for Leimin Studios (雷民影像工作室) was another to arrive on the scene.
Leimin Studios films and publicizes videos of protestors to help protect their rights.
Han Hongmei filmed some of the protesters that night and also interviewed contestants and audience members.
This short video became a key prop in the public debate over the event, and was spread widely on the internet.
A One-sided Public Dialogue
On May 17th at 7pm, 20 NGO workers gathered at a Xizhimen cafe to participate in a salon titled “Was the Public Benefit Blind Dating Event a Waste of Resources?”
This event was hosted by third party Internet group “Keep NGOs Fresh (NGO保鲜沙龙),” which strives to provide a platform for NGOs to communicate.
However, participants were not informed until after they had arrived that the event had been postponed.
This was one of many bumps along the road for the organizers of the blind dating convention who were attempting to create a dialogue to discuss the event.
Aside from this, a more important reason the two sides failed to come to an agreement was that neither side could agree on how they should engage in dialog.
Lu Pin believes that this is a public matter, and that the dialogue should be carried out in a public place and allow for the participation of the masses.
Social Entrepreneur on the other hand believes there has been a misunderstanding between both sides that should be cleared up before opening the conversation to the public.
Too busy to involve a large number of people, and with the benefits of the blind dating event possibly taking time to be realized, it hopes to wait things out in order to prove its civic-minded nature.
Zhou Danwei and Chen Yingwei really are busy.
Before the dialogue organized by Keep NGOs Fresh, Social Entrepreneur was preparing to publish its next edition.
Three days before the event, Zhou and Chen tried to explain to the organizers that they would not be able to participate, but would personally like to invite Lu Pin and Han Hongmei to engage in a face-to-face dialogue after their meeting to select topics for the next edition on May 18th.
However, since all the event organizers were volunteers and had regular jobs as well, they were unable to notify participants in time.
After realizing the event would be postponed, Lu Pin issued an open letter questioning the organizers and decided to continue her dialogue with Han Hongmei.
Both felt that even though Social Entrepreneur was unable to participate, the event was a public forum and could proceed without them.
Following their decision to proceed with the event, Han Hongmei showed her short video to the twenty or so spectators. This shared the same sentiments as Lu Pin’s earlier article.
During the process, one person supported the blind dating event and another was neutral. However the vast majority of participants was critical of the blind dating event.
…………………….
On May 18, Lu Pin and Han Hongmei went to NPI’s Beijing office to continue the dialogue over gender equality with the staff of Social Entrepreneurs, Chen Yingwen and Zhou Danwei. The substance of their dialogue centered on further explanation, and clearing up misunderstandings, regarding the staff’s response to Lu Pin’s critical comments of the event, and the event’s value to the idea of public benefit.
Lu Pin stated that she felt the public nature of the event and the discussion and controversy that followed was healthy, but believed the public benefit value of the event was compromised by promoting mainstream, traditional views of gender. The event thus was not helpful in promoting gender equality which should not be a choice, but a principle followed by all public benefit organizations.
相亲会背后：一场事关公益的争议与对话
中国发展简报2012年夏季刊
近年来，随着公民社会的多元化发展，许多不同领域NGO在理念与工作方式上的分化愈发明显。2012上半年，围绕一起公益相亲会的举办，众多 NGO从业者、关注者争议颇多。什么是公益？相亲是在浪费公益资源吗？NGO应当具有什么样的价值观？业内流行的“跨界”需要注意什么？……从网络到现 实、从面对面沟通到有公众参与的公开讨论，持续两三个月的争论让许多被忽视的问题在一定程度上浮出水面；而对话应当在何等层面进行，对话应当具备什么样的基本共识等问题的引入，也对NGO之间应当如何对话进行了有益的探索。
公益相亲会缘起与举行
2012公益圈兄弟姐妹第一件欢天喜地的大事儿，就是争当“卖女孩的小火柴”,纷纷要为身边NGO女生找到伴侣。
这，又不仅仅是一场相亲会。各界青年才俊将会云集，在这里，您可以亲近公益，跨界交友，感受“新幸福主义”。
如果您是公益界的人士，请踊跃推荐和鼓动身边的NGO单身女生！
如果您是NGO的单身女孩，赶快摘下面纱勇敢自荐，2012都来啦！
如果您喜欢有爱心的女孩，还等什么？还不报名来“抢亲”?
2012年2月初，一则招募启事出现在多家公益网站和新浪微博上，由恩派公益组织发展中心（以下称“恩派”）旗下《社会创业家》杂志主办的公益相亲会拉开帷幕。根据杂志主编陈迎炜和内容总监周丹薇介绍，相亲会的主题——“新幸福主义”起源于2009年底《社会创业家》与北京梁漱溟乡村建设中心联手在北京郊区为5对NGO新人举办的“新幸福主义”集体婚礼。
作为一本为从业者服务的行业杂志，《社会创业家》认为，很多NGO从业者虽然收入不高，但大多认为NGO是一个幸福的行业，用相亲会宣传文案中的话来 说，“NGO人奔走在最偏远、贫困的地区，以增进社会公益为己任。他们经常拿着低廉的薪金，做几倍于常人的工作，无暇顾及自己的私人生活。但同时，这些 NGO年轻人也正代表着新兴的价值观与幸福观：朴素艰韧、服务大众、勇于付出”。由此，杂志提出“新幸福主义”的理念，认为NGO从业者具有梦想、爱、信 仰和希望等信念，并指出，当前社会问题频出，大多数人幸福感缺失。“新幸福主义”希望能借由相亲这种跨界的形式，将NGO行业中的幸福感传递到其他社会行业和领域之中。
除了传播“幸福”理念之外，相亲会还有多重目标。其一，NGO从业者中有较多大龄未婚单身女性，相亲会以跨界的形式开展，可以为希望进入婚姻的女性提供更多选择渠道；其二，以主流社会认同的类似《非诚勿扰》的商业方式举办相亲会，更有效地对女嘉宾从事的公益项目进行展示，让更多人了解公益；其三，推广《社 会创业家》的“火柴头”计划。
2011年，《社会创业家》杂志为扩大影响力和发行量，与上海公益事业发展基金会合作推出“火柴头”专项基金计划，推广捐赠购买模式，即捐赠者一年捐出 360元，将获得两套12期《社会创业家》杂志，一套归自己，一套赠阅给捐赠者选定的NGO创业者。此次公益相亲会与“火柴头”计划进行合作，建议报名相 亲会的嘉宾参与该计划，这也是宣传文案中“卖女孩的小火柴”一词的由来。
相亲会招募启动之后，《社会创业家》先后收到二百多位男女嘉宾的报名，招募了包括专业情感咨询师、专业摄像等在内的数十位志愿者，从几家商业公司获得婚庆用品、礼品和场地赞助（免费或减少费用），并得到南都公益基金会的5 000元启动资金和腾讯公益、新浪公益、NGO发展交流网、中国发展简报等行业内外媒体的报道。
日晚，筹备两个多月的公益相亲会在北京CBD附近的一家咖啡馆举办，历时3个多小时，52位嘉宾参与，牵手8对。现场除主办方、嘉宾、志愿者之外，也有众多来自资助方、媒体、商业公司的代表参与，当然，还有几位前来发出质疑的“不速之客”。
质疑的声音
自相亲会招募启动，质疑的声音即在网上出现。
2月5日，周丹薇在个人新浪微博上以“争当小火柴，组团‘卖女孩’”为标签，发出一条长微博，招募相亲会的参与者和支持者。当日，部分网友即在微博回复中提出质疑，反对相亲会的多项设定，如将NGO从业女性与其他行业（如金融、IT）的男性配对，未向性少数群体提供参与渠道，指出宣传文案提到的NGO女性 具有“单纯”等特质属于刻板印象，以婚姻为目的的相亲会是一种霸权意识的推广等，如以下微博摘编：
@waiting呀呀：为什么是NGO的女孩和其他行业的男孩，而不是NGO业内的男女，或者说直接是搭建NGO与其他行业的桥梁。
@Luna呀:为什么把行业都性别化了，其他行业的女生不能来找NGO单身男么？知性、单纯、有爱心也是一种行业化的刻板印象，特别适用于老师啊、护士啊等等。
@火犁花723：婚姻是一种霸权，对大多数人都是压迫而非解放。建议你们纯粹搞交友Party，鼓励男男、女女，一对多，多对多。NGO人是因对社会利益的共同诉求而走在一起，他们各人选择什么样的生活、婚恋方式，与他们从事NGO没有任何关系，把公益人士的“好生活”与婚姻目的论绑定，是对前者的一种异化。
@麦子家：请问恩派是否提供，NGO内部的女同性恋、男同性恋人士的相亲会捏？怎么感觉这话说得女人就是泼出去的水！嫁不出去就是丢人一样啊！
2月6日凌晨，妇女权利工作者吕频也在个人微博上发出质疑，指出招募用词中含有大量社会性别刻板印象，如“卖女孩”、“抢亲”、“嫁”、“佳人”、“害羞”、“单纯”等，并认为文章提倡的主流生活观、幸福观未经反思。她提出，类似活动可以以个人名义进行，以公益机构名义实行不妥。
应当说，周丹薇在面对这些质疑时，进行了积极地回应。招募微博发出后，共收到400余条评论、800多次转发，周对其中质疑的内容一一进行了回应和解释， 如以后可能举办NGO男性从业者专场，性少数群体专场，婚姻对愿意接受的人来说是一种需求等等。此后质疑暂缓，且局限在少量网络微博转发之中。
但对公开举办相亲会的质疑一直存在于吕频心中。相亲会开始前三天，她连夜写出一篇名为《相亲非公益 “幸福”是迷思？》的长文，希望在活动即将举办之际，全面表达对“公益相亲会”和“新幸福主义”的反对，该文系统提出六大观点
1. 相亲属于一部分NGO从业者的个人需求，而非公共利益；
2. 相亲可通过个人渠道或市场服务满足，公益资源应当满足市场无法满足的需求；
3. 公益相亲会的报名对象设定对性少数群体、丧偶离异群体存在排斥，暗含多数人优先、主流群体优先、更有机会者优先的规则，不是公益精神；
4. 公益相亲会的广告文案复制主流社会中男性主动、女性被动的互动模式；提倡“金融男、IT男”与NGO女性配对暗含阶级、等级相匹配的婚配标准，以“害羞、知性、温暖”等词语刻板定义NGO女性形象；
5. 当前社会存在一种婚姻强迫症。许多选择不结婚的群体实际上受到婚姻强迫症的压迫，如同性恋群体面临婚姻压力、大龄未婚女性往往被贬称为“剩女”等。公益组织公开提倡婚姻不利于不婚群体争取自由，同时会妨碍公益的创新与变革取向；
6. 新幸福主义提倡的梦想、爱等理念容易让人们脱离现实，拒绝思辨特别是进行社会批判；以组织化的方式来推崇“幸福”，很可能意味着消解对不平等的认识和社会关怀，消解平等、赋权、变革等等公益理念。
文章于4月13日发表于中国发展简报网站，其官方微博招聘”同时发布。之前隐没在网络中的质疑声音再度引发，一些微博中活跃的公益人士也参与转发和评论之中，并分化出支持与反对两大阵营，就公益相亲会的是非展开论战。
与早期的积极回应不同，对于这次兵临城下的质疑，《社会创业家》表现沉默。后来周丹薇解释说，这是因为在相亲会前两天才看到质疑，当时是最忙的时候，实在抽不出时间回应。
主办方的沉默并没有让质疑停止。4月15日相亲会举办当晚，两名志愿者身背“公益资源不可滥用”、“相亲非公益，幸福是迷思”、“相亲需谨慎，爱情不能买”等字条来到活动现场，向嘉宾和观众散发了质疑相亲会的传单。她们是北京地区的女权主义小组——“口罩小分队”的成员。该小组成立于2012年初，常常 以公开抗议、行为艺术等方式凸显议题，表达诉求，以引起抗议对象乃至媒体和公众的重视。数月以来，小组成员多次向导演徐童。有关性工作者的纪录片《麦收》提出抗议，并参与了2012年2月在北京举行的“受伤的新娘”和“占领男厕所”街头公益行为艺术（《中国发展简报》2012年春季刊曾有报道）。
同时来到现场的还有民间影像小组“雷民影像工作室”的制片人韩红梅，该工作室的定位是拍摄和发布民间行动视频，通过有视角、有立场的影像发声，为行动者赋权。韩红梅当晚拍摄到相亲会现场的一些场景，并采访了多位嘉宾、观众，制成的短片后来成为公开讨论中的主要道具，并在互联网中流传。
漫长的沟通历程与一方缺席的公共对话
5月17日晚7点，20多位NGO从业者和关注者来到北京西直门附近的一家咖啡馆，参加名为“公益相亲会是否在浪费公益资源？”的沙龙，这次活动由独立的第三方——致力于为NGO提供沟通交流平台的网络组织NGO保鲜沙龙主办。
然而许多人到了现场才知道，活动于两个小时前被主办方宣布推迟举办。这是自相亲会以来双方持续了一个多月的试图对话历程中的曲折之一，其他不成功的对话尝试还包括：
除了上述这些细枝末节的冲突或者说分歧之外，对话未能实现更重要的原因是，双方在对话应当在什么层面进行未能达成一致。
吕频认为，此番争议是一桩公共事件，对话应当在公众的参与之下，在公共空间进行，引入公众的讨论；《社会创业家》则认为，双方在沟通过程中尚存误会，应当先把误会澄清，至于公开对话，她们也愿意参加，但是工作实在太忙，短期内抽不出时间，此外相亲会在公益方面的收益要一段时间才能展现出来，可以用时间证明 其公益性。
周丹薇和陈迎炜确实很忙。NGO保鲜沙龙的对话举办之前，正值《社会创业家》出刊排版期，她们在之前两三天就和主办方说明不能参与，而且也计划在5月18 日的选题会后，邀请吕频和韩红梅进行面对面对话。但由于主办方组织沙龙纯属志愿工作，组织者本职工作也十分忙碌，阴差阳错之下，未能及早发出推迟通知，因而出现本节开始的一幕。
看到推迟通知后，吕频一方面发出公开信问责主办方，一方面与先期到达会场的韩红梅沟通后决定继续这次讨论。她们认为，虽然《社会创业家》不能出席，但讨论空间是公共的，有这么多的参与者，完全可以继续话题讨论。
随后，韩红梅在咖啡馆放映了相亲会当晚和后来采访拍摄的视频，围绕吕频质疑文章的主旨“相亲是否属于公益”，现场的二十多位参与者进行了讨论。从过程来 看，有个别参与者支持公益相亲会，也有个别人提出完全中立的观点，但大多数参与讨论者都对相亲会和主办方的缺席提出了批评。
有人说，一场对话或辩论的参与双方往往很难达成一致，但在公共空间举行的讨论会让议题更加凸显，成功表达出自己理念和观点的一方，更容易吸引到旁观者的注意与支持，这才是公共对话最大的意义。
面对面对话
5月18日，吕频和韩红梅来到恩派北京办公室，在《社会创业家》关于性别平等专题的选题会后，与陈迎炜和周丹薇进行了面对面对话。
对话基本集中在《社会创业家》认真解释、澄清误会上，包括前文述及的多次对话尝试未成功的原因，也包括她们回应吕频质疑文章中提到的相亲对性少数群体和边缘群体进行排斥、复制主流价值观等问题上以及阐述这次公益相亲会想要展现的公益理念和公益收益上。
两个小时的对话中，唯一略有澄清的是相亲会对当晚上场嘉宾是否进行了筛选进而有所排斥的事实：
周丹薇最初遇到质疑时就表示未来可能计划举办同性恋专场和NGO男性专场，同时说明该次相亲会本身也有离异者参与，而上场嘉宾的选择由专业情感咨询师根据报名者的性格特质和择偶要求决定。
但吕频也认为在辅助相亲会的一次在线调查的选项设置里体现了对离异丧偶者的排斥，并对情感咨询师的筛选过程表示怀疑。
而对其他解释，吕频认为并不存在误会。
首先，在对话的层面上，她自始至终都希望公开的对话与辩论，两三个人对话不成功的原因不构成误会。她表示，作为个人，很感激《社会创业家》花这么多时间解释这么多的细节。如果是一个企业、政府部门可能完全不会理会；但是，她代表的是一群要反思主流价值观的人的诉求，《社会创业家》代表的也是一群赞同新幸福 主义人士的声音，因此话题具备公共性，让更多人看到讨论的过程、参与对公益的反思比双方的辩论更重要。
其次，在《社会创业家》对相亲会要体现的价值观、公益理念的解释上，吕频表示并非不清楚相亲会传播公益理念的出发点和能达成的效果。她要质疑的是相亲会代表的这种传统社会性别观念的公益理念本身。比如，她提出，相亲会代表的公益理念是不符合社会性别平等的，而社会性别平等不是一个可以选择的价值，应当被所 有的公益组织遵从。
CDB Senior Staff WriterTranslated by Eric CouillardReviewed by Peta Heinrich
Related Content:
Further Reading}