请你和我在一起:美貌的好處

原文标题：美貌的好处（查看原文推荐）

原文链接：http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/19/the-beauty-advantage.html

原文作者：Jessica Bennett

双语对照

Most of us have heard the story of Debrahlee Lorenzana, the 33-year-old Queens, N.Y., woman who sued Citibank last month, claiming that, in pencil skirts, turtlenecks, and peep-toe stilettos, she was fired from her desk job for being “too hot.” We’ve also watched Lorenzana’s credibility come into question, as vintage clips of her appearance on a reality-TV show about plastic surgery portray a rambling, attention-obsessed twit, stuffed to the brim with implants and collagen. (“I love plastic surgery,” she coos. “I think it’s the best thing that ever happened.”) Creepy, yes. But for all the talk about this woman’s motives — and whether or not she was indeed fired for her looks — there’s one question nobody seems to want to ask: isn’t it possible Lorenzana’s looks got her the job in the first place?

我們大概都聽過倫蘿薩娜(Debrahlee Lorenzana)的故事，一名來自紐約皇后區的33歲女子，在上個月控告花旗銀行因為她穿緊身窄裙、高領毛衣、露趾細高跟鞋而以「太辣了」為由，炒她魷魚。而我們也看到了倫蘿的信用問題：她在一段實境節目裡天花亂墜、高談闊論地描述整型手術與膠原蛋白的注射(「我超愛整型手術，」她輕聲地說，「我覺得這是世界上最美好的事情。」)。對，很詭異。姑且不論這個女人的動機為何，還有她是不是真的因為外表而被解雇，有一個問題好像從來沒有人想問：倫蘿當初在找工作時，是不是也是因為她的外表而被錄取？

Not all employers are that shallow — but it’s no secret we are a culture consumed by image. Economists have long recognized what’s been dubbed the “beauty premium” — the idea that pretty people, whatever their aspirations, tend to do better in, well, almost everything. Handsome men earn, on average, 5 percent more than their less-attractive counterparts (good-looking women earn 4 percent more); pretty people get more attention from teachers, bosses, and mentors; even babies stare longer at good-looking faces (and we stare longer at good-looking babies). A couple of decades ago, when the economy was thriving — and it was a makeup-less Kate Moss, not a plastic-surgery-plumped Paris Hilton, who was considered the beauty ideal — we might have brushed off those statistics as superficial. But in 2010, when Heidi Montag’s bloated lips plaster every magazine in town, when little girls lust after an airbrushed, unattainable body ideal, there’s a growing bundle of research to show that our bias against the unattractive — our “beauty bias, ” as a new book calls it — is more pervasive than ever. And when it comes to the workplace, it’s looks, not merit, that all too often rule.

雖不是所有的雇主都那麼膚淺，但不可否認的，我們所處的是個被外貌消費的文化。經濟學家長久以來稱之為「美貌津貼」(或貼水，beauty premium)，無論這些外表較出眾的男女們的抱負志向為何，他們對於每一件事都能做得很好。較帥的男人，平均較他們條件相同但長相較不出色者多5%的薪資(較美的女人則多4%)；外表姣好的人，會較吸引老師、老闆、或良師益友們的目光；即使是小嬰兒，在看到漂亮的臉也會看得比較久(我們看到比較可愛的小嬰兒時也會有一樣的反應)。幾十年以前，當經濟繁榮之時，我們視素顏且清新自然的凱特摩斯為心中美麗的典範，而不是全身由整型手術堆出的芭黎絲希爾頓。但2010年，當海蒂蒙塔格那豐腴的雙唇遍佈於各大城市的雜誌，當女孩子們急於追求並視那有如噴槍般，難以達到的身材為典範，此時出現了許多研究告訴我們對於「無魅力」這件事的偏見，也就是一本新書上所謂的「美麗偏見」，比過去更普及於現今的社會當中。

Consider the following: over his career, a good-looking man will make some $250,000 more than his least-attractive counterpart, according to economist Daniel Hamermesh; 13 percent of women, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (and 10 percent of men, according to a new NEWSWEEK survey), say they’d consider cosmetic surgery if it made them more competitive at work. Both points are disturbing, certainly. But in the current economy, when employers have more hiring options than ever, looks, it seems, aren’t just important; they’re critical. NEWSWEEK surveyed 202 corporate hiring managers, from human-resources staff to senior-level vice presidents, as well as 964 members of the public, only to confirm what no qualified (or unqualified) employee wants to admit: from hiring to office politics to promotions, even, looking good is no longer something we can dismiss as frivolous or vain.

考慮以下幾點：根據經濟學家Daniel Hamermesh指出，一個比較帥的男人，在他的生涯裡，會比另一個外表較不出色的人多賺25萬美元；根據美國整形外科醫師學會指出，13%的女人(根據Newsweek調查，10%的男人)肯因為在工作上會變得更有競爭力而接受整型手術。沒錯，這兩個觀點都讓人有點無所適從。但現今經濟體系下的雇主們，在擁有較過去更多的人才可以選擇的情況下，外表，不只是很重要，而且極為關鍵。Newsweek調查了202位公司人力雇用主管，從人力資源幹部到更資深的副總裁，另外也調查了964位社會大眾，為了就是確認那些合格(或不合格)的應徵者所不願承認的事：從錄取到公司政治文化甚至到升遷，「外表姣好」已不再是我們可以用無聊或無意義而將它帶過的重要因素了。

Fifty-seven percent of hiring managers told NEWSWEEK that qualified but unattractive candidates are likely to have a harder time landing a job, while more than half advised spending as much time and money on “making sure they look attractive” as on perfecting a résumé. When it comes to women, apparently, flaunting our assets works: 61 percent of managers (the majority of them men) said it would be an advantage for a woman to wear clothing showing off her figure at work. (Ouch.) Asked to rank employee attributes in order of importance, meanwhile, managers placed looks above education: of nine character traits, it came in third, below experience (No. 1) and confidence (No. 2) but above “where a candidate went to school” (No. 4). Does that mean you should drop out of Harvard and invest in a nose job? Probably not. But a state school might be just as marketable. “This is the new reality of the job market, ” says one New York recruiter, who asked to have her name withheld because she advises job candidates for a living. “It’s better to be average and good- looking than brilliant and unattractive. ”

57%的人力雇用主管告訴Newsweet，能力合格但外表較不出色的應徵者，必須花費更多精神來得到一份工作；而有一半以上的人則建議：請付出與「使你的履歷完美」相同的時間與金錢在「使自己看起來更有魅力」這件事情上。而女人，很顯然地，炫耀一下我們天生的本錢是有用的：61%的主管(大多數是男人)說，如果女人穿的衣服能夠表現出她的身材，那真的是一大利多(媽呀)。而要求他們將應徵者的特質依重要性來排名，主管們將「外貌」，放在「教育程度」之上：九項特質之中，外貌排名第三重要，僅次於經驗(第一名)，及自信(第二名)，但比「應徵者所念的學校」(第四名)的排名來得高。所以這在告訴我們應該放棄哈佛學位而投資隆鼻手術嗎？應該不是。但一所州立大學或許就足夠了。「這在就業市場是一個新的事實，」一位不願具名的紐約招聘人員建議應徵者：「能力不差且外表出眾，會比極為聰明但不具魅力來得好。」

Remember the story about the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate? It goes to show our beauty bias is nothing novel. At the time, radio listeners thought Nixon had won, but those watching Kennedy’s tanned, chiseled face on TV, next to a worn-down, 5 o’clock-shadowed Nixon, were sure it was the junior senator. There are various explanations for some of this. Plato wrote of the “golden proportions, ” which dubbed the width of an ideal face an exact two thirds its length, a nose no longer than the distance between the eyes. Biologically speaking, humans are attracted to symmetrical faces and curvy women for a reason: it’s those shapes that are believed to produce the healthiest offspring. As the thinking goes, symmetrical faces are then deemed beautiful; beauty is linked to confidence; and it’s a combination of looks and confidence that we often equate with smarts. Perhaps there’s some evidence to that: if handsome kids get more attention from teachers, then, sure, maybe they do better in school and, ultimately, at work. But the more likely scenario is what scientists dub the “halo effect” — that, like a pack of untrained puppies, we are mesmerized by beauty, blindly ascribing intelligent traits to go along with it.

還記得1960年尼克森與甘迺迪的那場辯論賽嗎？它說明了我們對於美貌的偏見並不是什麼新鮮事。那個時候，收音機旁的觀眾認為尼克森贏定了；但在電視機前的觀眾，看到甘迺迪那古銅色、輪廓分明的俊俏外表，站在老態龍鐘、滿臉鬍渣的尼克森身旁，很明確地選擇了那位年輕的參議員。有很多的解釋可以說明這一切：柏拉圖所提出的「黃金比例」，也就是臉部的寬度剛好為長度的三分之二，鼻子的長度不超過兩眼的距離，這樣的比例被視為完美；以生物學的角度來看，人們會被對稱的臉及身材凹凸有致的女人所吸引，是因為：他們相信這樣的體態會生出最健康的後代。有了這樣的想法，對稱的臉型被視為美麗；美麗又會與自信聯想在一起；而長相與自信的結合通常會讓人與聰明畫上等號。這或許也有些道理：較俊俏的孩子在學校會得到更多老師的注意，接著當然，他們或許會在學業上有比較好的表現，最後，到了工作場所也是。但更有可能的情況就是科學家所謂的「光暈效應」(halo effect)，就好像當我們看到了一籃子未受訓練的小狗，我們都會被其可愛的外表所迷惑，進而盲目地認為那可愛的小狗理所當然的會有聰明的特質。

There are various forces to blame for much of this, from an economy that allows pickiness to a plastic-surgery industry that encourages superficial notions of beauty. In reality, it’s a confluence of cultural forces that has left us clutching, desperately, to an ever-evolving beauty ideal. Today’s young workers were reared on the kind of reality TV and pop culture that screams, again and again, that everything is a candidate for upgrade. We’ve watched bodies transformed on Extreme Makeover, faces taken apart and pieced back together on I Want a Famous Face. We compare ourselves with the airbrushed images in advertisements and magazines, and read surveys — like this one — that confirm our worst fears. We are a culture more sexualized than ever (Mad Men notwithstanding), with technology that’s made it easier than ever to “better” ourselves, warping our standards for what’s normal. Plastic surgery used to be for the rich and famous; today we’ve leveled the playing field with cheap boob jobs, tummy tucks, and outpatient procedures you can get on your lunch break. Where that leads us is running to stand still: taught that good looks are no longer a gift but a ceaseless pursuit.

會造成這樣子的結果可歸咎於許多外力因素，從允許吹毛求疵的經濟體系到鼓吹擁有膚淺美貌的整型手術。事實上，這是匯集全部現有文化而形成的外力，造成我們汲汲營營，不顧一切地追求永無止境、日益進步的美貌典範。現在的年輕工作者，就是看著整天呼籲每件事都須不斷更新的真人實境節目，及通俗文化下成長。我們看著「改頭換面」(Extreme Makeover)節目中演員身材的大改變，及「我想要張明星臉」(I Want a Famous Face)中，將臉部分解又重新組合的畫面；我們將自己與廣告及雜誌裡有如噴槍般的身材相比，還有閱讀某些研究報告，就好比這篇文章，再次確認我們心中最不願面對的恐懼。我們處在的是一個比以往更加性別差異的文化，也是在一個充滿能讓我們利用科技使自己「更完美」的社會，顛覆了我們對於何謂「正常」的標準。整型手術，在過去只是有錢人與名人們的專利；現在，我們只要利用午餐短短的時間，就能進行隆乳、腹部拉皮、或是門診手術。而帶領我們停滯不前的則是：美貌不再是天賦，而是永無止境的追求。

Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor and author of The Beauty Bias, is herself an interesting case study. During her term as chair of the American Bar Association’s commission on working women, she was struck by how often the nation’s most powerful females were stranded in cab lines and late for meetings because, in heels, walking any distance was out of the question. These were working, powerful, leading women, she writes. Why did they insist on wearing heels? Sure, some women just like heels (and still others probably know their bosses like them). But there is also the reality that however hard men have it — and, from an economic perspective, their “beauty premium” is higher, say economists — women will always face a double bind, expected to conform to the beauty standards of the day, yet simultaneously condemned for doing so. Recruiters may think women like Lorenzana can get ahead for showing off their looks, but 47 percent also believe it’s possible for a woman to be penalized for being “too good-looking. ” Whether or not any of it pays off, there’s something terribly wrong when 6-year-olds are using makeup, while their mothers spend the equivalent of a college education just keeping their faces intact. “All of this is happening against a backdrop of more women in the workplace, in all kinds of jobs, striving toward wage equality,” says Harvard psychologist Nancy Etcoff. “So we’re surprised — but we shouldn’t be — how this [beauty curse] continues to haunt us. ”

狄波拉．羅德，一位來自史丹佛的法律教授，同時也是「美麗偏見」一書的作者，她自己本身就是一個很有趣的研究案例。當她還是一位職業女性，擔任美國律師協會的主席時，她驚訝於時常看到全國最有權力的女性們，大排長龍地等著計程車，進而趕不上開會，因為穿著高跟鞋，無論妳想走到哪裡，都是難上加難。為什麼她們那麼堅持地要穿高跟鞋？當然，有些女人就是喜歡高跟鞋(也或許她們知道老闆喜歡她們那樣穿)。但事實上，無論男人想要美貌是多麼地困難，從經濟學的角度來看，男人們的「美貌津貼」更高；經濟學家表示，女人時常要面對進退兩難的局面：一方面得期望自己能達到現今社會對於美貌的標準，另一方面又得因為這樣的行為而遭受譴責。招聘人員或許會覺得倫蘿薩娜會因為她炫耀自己的外型而早別人一步達到目標，但47%的人相信，女人會因為「太好看」而陷自己於不利之地。無論這些方法是否奏效，當一個六歲的小孩化妝，或母親們為了使自己外表看起來完美無缺，而花了與大學學費相當的費用，都是大錯特錯的。「這些正在發生的事，都與各行各業越來越多女人的工作場所裡，追求達到薪資平等的情況相違背。」哈佛心理學家Nancy Etcoff說，「所以儘管我們很驚訝，這樣子的『美麗詛咒』會如何地纏著我們，但我們真的不該如此驚訝。」

Forty years ago, when feminists threw their bras into the “Freedom Trash Can” outside the 1968 Miss America pageant (no, they didn’t really burn them!), it was to protest the idea that women had become “enslaved by ludicrous beauty standards, ” as the organizers put it. At the time, women still made up just a fraction of the workforce, and yet they were rejecting the notion that, in work or play, they had to be confined to the role of busty secretary — a mere office toy. A decade later, as women entered the workforce in droves, it was boxy suits, not bustiers, that defined their dress. But today’s working women have achieved “equality” (or so we’re led to believe): they dominate the workforce, they are household breadwinners, and so they balk at having to subvert their sexuality, whether in the boardroom or on the beach. Yet while the outside-work milieu might accept the empowered yet feminine ideal, the workplace surely doesn’t. Studies show that unattractive women remain at a disadvantage in low-level positions like secretary, while in upper-level fields that are historically male-dominated, good-looking women can suffer a so-called bimbo effect. They are viewed as too feminine, less intelligent, and, ultimately, less competent — not only by men but also by their female peers.

四十年前，女權主義者在1986年的一場美國小姐遊行大會中，將她們的內衣丟入「自由主義垃圾桶」裡(當然她們沒有真的燒掉內衣！)，該組織的訴求為：抗議女人成為「荒唐可笑之美麗標準的奴隸」。儘管那時女人只是勞動力中的一小部份，但她們還是拒絕接受無論是工作場所或戲劇中，女人永遠都是扮演著大奶秘書，即辦公室玩物的角色。十年後，當女人大量地跨入勞動力範疇，套裝定義了她們的衣著標準，而非緊身束衣。而現在，工作場合中的女人已達到「兩性平等」(或我們被領引為相信)：她們主導了整個勞動力，她們是家庭中養家糊口的主力，所以她們也畏縮猶豫著不得不顛覆她們的性別特徵，無論是在會議室裡或沙灘上。然而室外工作環境可能會接受那有權威但柔弱的形象，但室內工作場所如工廠就不是那麼一回事了。研究顯示，外表較不出色的女性依然處於像祕書等較低階的職位，而高階的職位自有歷史以來一直是由男性的角色所主導，而外表出色的女性也會受所謂的「笨女人效應」所苦。不光是男人會如此認為，她們的女性同儕也會視她們為過度柔弱、不聰明，還有，最終的「無勝任能力」。

To add an extra layer of complexity, there’s the conundrum of aging in a culture where younger workers are more tech-savvy, cheaper, and, well, nicer on the eyes. Eighty-four percent of managers told NEWSWEEK they believe a qualified but visibly older candidate would make some employers hesitate, and while ageism affects men, too, it’s particularly tough for women. As Rhode puts it, silver hair and furrowed brows may make aging men look “distinguished, ” but aging women risk marginalization or ridicule for their efforts to pass as young. “This double standard, ” Rhode writes, “leaves women not only perpetually worried about their appearance—but also worried about worrying. ”

另外還有一層文化上更複雜、有關於年齡方面的謎。也就是說，年輕的工作者對於科技方面較為專長，薪資也較低廉，當然還有，年輕人看起來更舒服。84%的主管告訴Newsweek，他們相信能力夠格但外表看起來較老的應徵者，會讓一些雇主猶豫；雖然年齡歧視對於男人也有影響，而對於女人影響更鉅。就像羅德所說的，銀髪與額頭的皺紋，會讓男人看起來更有尊嚴且高貴，但對於女人，年華老去只會讓她們冒著被邊緣化或被嘲笑的風險。「這樣的雙重標準，」羅德的書中寫道：「不僅讓女人不斷地苦惱自己的外表，也苦惱自己的煩惱。」

The quest for beauty may be a centuries-old obsession, but in the present day the reality is ugly. Beauty has more influence than ever — not just over who we work with, but whether we work at all.

追求美麗，是古代至今人們一直無法擺脫的迷惑，但在現今的社會裡，事實是醜惡的。美麗已比以往有更大的影響力，不只影響了我們和誰工作，也影響了我們是否能夠工作。