僱主憑什麼讓女員工穿得性感

On my first day in my first Saturday job at a clothes chain popular with office workers, I was told to pluck an outfit off the rails and wear it. As sales assistants, we were selling the office dream.

我是在一家深受上班族喜愛的服裝連鎖店打的第一份週六零工。上班第一天，我被告知從衣架上取下一件衣服並穿上它。作爲銷售助理，我們銷售的是“辦公室夢”。

I was 15, had never worked in an office, my mother worked from home and I had no concept of appropriate attire for personal assistants and junior executives. So I pulled out a floral top with a matching bilge-green skirt.

我當時15歲，從未在辦公室工作過，我的母親在家工作，我完全不知道個人助理和初級管理人員應該穿什麼衣服。於是，我拿了一件有着花卉圖案的短袖上衣，搭配一條暗綠色裙子。

Half way through the day, my manager pulled me aside and told me to change into something tailored and slightly revealing because, in her words, I “looked frumpy”.

那天過了一半的時候，經理把我拉到一旁，要我重新挑一套考究一些、略微暴露一些的服裝，因爲用她的話說，我“看起來有些古板”。

Even as a young teen, I knew what she meant. She was after sexy secretary. All these years later I still feel a prickle of quiet fury at the boss who felt she had the right to tell me to look sexually alluring. I was young, junior and timid. So I found a blouse and undid a few buttons.

即便那時我只有十幾歲，我明白她想說什麼。她想讓我穿得像是性感的祕書。這麼多年後，我仍對這位自以爲有權利告訴我要擺出性感迷人形象的老闆耿耿於懷。我當時是個年輕的小職員，而且有點懦弱。於是我找了一件短上衣穿上，並解開了幾個鈕釦。

It was an arresting introduction to the world of work. But as it turns out, my former boss’s attitude has not gone the way of the shoulder pads we were punting. And at least I was not forced into stilettos.

那是一堂讓我大開眼界的職場入門課。但後來的事實表明，我的第一個老闆的態度並未像當年流行的肩墊那樣消失。再說我至少沒有被迫穿上細高跟鞋。

Unlike Nicola Thorp, the British woman who caused controversy last year when she launched an online petition to look into discriminatory dress codes, after she was sent home from her job as a temporary receptionist at PwC’s Embankment office for refusing to wear high heels. Portico, the outsourced reception services company, which hired her later said it had dropped the requirement that “female employees wear heels between two and four inches high” and announced a broader review of its uniform guidelines.

這與去年引發爭議的英國女士妮古拉?索普(Nicola Thorp)的遭遇有所不同。索普在普華永道(PwC)倫敦堤岸區(Embankment)辦公室擔任臨時前臺接待員時，因拒絕穿高跟鞋而被打發回家，於是她在網上發起請願，呼籲議會審查歧視性的着裝要求。僱傭索普的前臺服務外包公司Portico後來表示，它廢除了要求“女性僱員穿鞋跟在2英寸到4英寸之間的高跟鞋”的規定，並宣佈全面審查其着裝指引。

Today, after hearing evidence from hundreds of women in response to the petition, the joint petitions committee and the women and equalities committee published the House of Commons report on high heels and workplace dress codes. Ms Thorp’s case was far from isolated.

如今，在聽取了迴應請願的數百名女性提供的證據之後，聯合請願委員會(joint petitions committee)以及婦女和平等委員會(women and equalities committee)發表了有關高跟鞋和工作場所着裝要求的下議院(House of Commons)報告。索普的遭遇遠非孤立個案。

Women described “the pain and long-term damage caused by wearing high heels for long periods in the workplace, as well as from women who had been required to dye their hair blonde, to wear revealing outfits and to constantly reapply make-up”.

女性們描述了“長時間在辦公場所穿高跟鞋導致的疼痛和長期損害，此外還有被要求將頭髮染成金黃色、穿暴露服裝以及經常補妝的案例”。

The report said women found such dress codes to be “humiliating and degrading”, “demeaning”, while some felt “sexualised” by their employers’ insistence.

該報告稱，女性發現此類着裝規定“帶有羞辱和貶低意味”、“有損人格”，同時一些人感覺僱主執意讓她們“性感化”。

Men might complain that being told to wear a suit and tie is the equivalent. But high heels are impractical and uncomfortable. Today’s House of Commons report found that women who have to wear them for extended periods of time are “damaging to their health and wellbeing in both the short and the long term”.

男性可能抱怨，他們被要求穿西服打領帶也是一樣的。但高跟鞋不實用、不舒服。上述下議院報告指出，不得不長時間穿高跟鞋的女性“無論是長期還是短期都有損她們的健康和幸福感”。

It was not just the physical repercussions that were demoralising. Women who gave evidence to the committees felt that dress codes were often tilted towards sexualising women while the premium for men was to be smart and tidy — something that I knew at 15.

不僅僅是身體上的影響令人沮喪。向兩個委員會作證的女性覺得，着裝要求往往傾向於讓女性變得性感，而對男性的要求只是西裝筆挺、整潔——我在15歲的時候就知道這一點。

Dress codes, such as the one imposed on Ms Thorp, are discriminatory and breach the 2010 Equality Act. Yet often employees feel vulnerable about speaking out, as I discovered in my first job. The House of Commons report recommended reviewing the equality laws, raising awareness on discrimination, for example at schools and universities, and imposing harsher penalties on employers that break the rules.

着裝規範，比如要求索普遵守的那種要求，具有歧視性，違反了2010年出臺的《平等法》(Equality Act)。然而，正如我在第一份零工中發現的那樣，僱員們往往覺得自己的地位脆弱，因此不敢說出來。下議院報告建議審查《平等法》，提升防範歧視行爲的意識（例如在學校和大學中），並對違規僱主進行更嚴厲的處罰。

Such cases were reported by women who were junior and sometimes in insecure positions, employed by temporary work agencies, who felt incapable of speaking up — rather than partners in law firms or senior bankers. Ms Thorp’s move has helped to bring the issue to the surface. Hopefully it will have the effect of making women aware of their rights and able to speak up.

此類案例是由處於初級職位、有時就業無保障的女性報告的，她們被臨時就業機構僱傭（而不是律所合夥人或高級銀行家），因此不敢勇敢地說出來。索普的請願幫助讓這一問題浮出水面。但願它會讓女性意識到自己的權利並能夠大膽地說出來。

Clothing might seem frivolous but these things matter. A report last year by the Social Mobility Commission found that managers placed as much importance on soft skills such as speech, accent, dress and behaviour as qualifications.

着裝似乎是件瑣碎小事，但它們其實非常重要。去年社會流動委員會(Social Mobility Commission)的一份報告發現，經理們對資歷和談吐、口音、服裝以及舉止等軟技能一樣看重。

Being told to look attractive by your employer is quite different to choosing to harness your “erotic capital” — the term Catherine Hakim, the UK sociologist, described seven years ago. “In the labour market, erotic capital can be more important than economic or social capital,” she wrote.

被你的僱主告知要顯得有吸引力，完全不同於選擇駕馭你的“性感資本”——後者是英國社會學家凱瑟琳?哈金(Catherine Hakim)在7年前提出的概念。她寫道：“在勞動力市場，性感資本可能比經濟或社會資本更加重要。”

Wearing high heels should be a matter of choice. Being ordered to look ornamental by your boss holds no allure.

穿高跟鞋應該是一種選擇。奉老闆之命打扮得性感是沒有吸引力的。