When Nicola Thorpe turned up for her first day’s work as a receptionist at PwC’s global headquarters in London, she was sent home without pay for wearing the wrong shoes.

妮古拉•索普(Nicola Thorpe)第一天去普华永道(PwC)在伦敦的全球总部当前台接待员，结果还没领薪水就被请回家了，原因是她穿错了鞋子。

The problem, according to managers from the staffing agency Portico¹ — which supplies workers to the professional services firm — was that Ms Thorpe’s footwear was flat. She then refused to go out and buy the heels that are part of the agency’s dress code: between 2in and 4in.

为这家专业服务公司输送工作人员的人才中介机构Portico的经理们表示，问题在于索普穿的是平跟鞋。而且她拒绝出去购买该机构着装要求中规定的高跟鞋：鞋跟要在2英寸到4英寸之间。

To be fair, some employment lawyers say this kind of dress code is not illegal as long as men and women have to meet a similar level of “smartness”. Men can be required to wear a jacket and tie, for example, even when women are not.

一些就业律师表示，公平地讲，既然男性和女性都必须达到类似程度的“仪容整洁”，这种着装规定并不违法。比如，男性可能会被要求穿西服外套、打领带，对女性则没有这样的要求。

Faced with all the negative publicity², and a complaint from PwC, Portico announced that it was changing its policy. But one has to wonder about the purpose of the requirement in the first place. Did Portico think it was supplying waitresses to Hooters?

面对种种负面报道，以及来自普华永道的投诉，Portico宣布它正在修改政策。但人们要问，最初制定这种规范的目的何在？Portico以为它是要给猫头鹰餐厅(Hooters)提供女侍应生吗？

A sexualised dress code might be deemed appropriate for a casual restaurant chain that advertises with pictures of scantily³ clad waitresses and describes itself as “delightfully⁴ tacky yet unrefined”. (I confess I am not a fan. But at least the place is honest about what it offers.)

对于一家广告上登着穿着暴露的女侍应生、自称“令人愉悦的俗气而天然”的休闲连锁餐厅，凸显性征的着装要求可能会被认为很合适。（我得说我对此不感冒。但至少这个地方诚实地说出了它所提供的东西。）

In fact, while Hooters waitresses are required to sport low-cut T-shirts and hot pants, even they are allowed to wear trainers. Long hours on their feet carrying huge trays of drinks would make uncomfortable footwear an impractical⁵ addition to the uniform.

事实上，虽然猫头鹰餐厅的女侍应生按规定须穿低胸T恤和热裤，但她们也被允许穿运动鞋。她们需要长时间端着摆着饮料的大托盘走动，因此，在穿着制服之外，还要穿着不舒服的鞋子是一种不切实际的附加规定。

Here at the Financial Times, the newsroom includes women in ballet flats and 4in spikes⁶, while men don anything from brightly coloured running shoes to old-fashioned Oxford⁷ brogues. I have my own rule that I totter⁸ around on high heels only when wearing a dress that would look out of place in the office.

在英国《金融时报》，新闻编辑室里有穿着平底鞋的女性，也有穿着4英寸高的细高根皮鞋的女性，而男性则穿着从颜色鲜艳的跑步鞋到老式的花纹牛津皮鞋等各色鞋子。我的原则是，除非穿了一条在办公室里看起来格格不入的连衣裙，否则我不会穿高跟鞋颤巍巍地到处走动。

Whatever your personal preference, a heels requirement certainly has no place in the lobby of a consulting firm that regularly bangs on about the need for diversity and even sponsors a blog about equality issues called “The Gender⁹ Agenda”.

不管你的个人偏好是什么，必须穿高跟鞋的要求在这样一家咨询公司的大堂并不合适，毕竟普华永道经常宣扬多样化，甚至还赞助了一个讨论平等问题、叫做“性别议程”(The Gender Agenda)的博客。

PwC argues, in a letter sent to those who complained through its website about the heels policy, that Portico’s policy is “industry standard”. The firm notes that many of its own female employees wear flats “because of the high mobility¹⁰ required by many of our roles”. So highly educated PwC accountants and consultants¹¹, who could obviously seek employment elsewhere, have a choice and can avoid the pain that goes with wearing high heels. How enlightened. But when PwC hired Portico to staff its lobby, the management either did not care about, or did not bother to look at, the rules the agency imposes on its receptionists.

对于那些在普华永道官网上抱怨其高跟鞋政策的人，该公司在一封信中称Portico的政策是“行业规范”。普华永道指出，“因为我们的很多职位需要行动方便”，所以有很多女职员穿着平跟鞋。普华永道的会计师和咨询师们受过高等教育，显然能够在别处找到工作，因此他们有选择余地，可以不用承受穿高跟鞋带来的痛苦。多开明啊。但是，当普华永道雇佣Portico为其招募的大堂工作人员时，管理层或者是根本不在意，或者是不愿费心去看一看该机构对其前台接待员施加了什么规定。

Though the heels requirement has been scrapped¹², Portico’s dress code for women still specifies¹³ that a minimum of five different types of cosmetics¹⁴ must be worn “at all times and regularly re-applied”. It also regulates acceptable colours of nail polish (plum is OK but green is not) and lays down rules for tights (black for darker skin tones and “natural” for everyone else).

尽管必须穿着高跟鞋的要求被废除了，Portico的女性着装要求依然规定女性“任何时候”都要使用最少5种不同种类的化妆品，“并且经常补妆”。其着装要求还规定了可以接受的指甲油颜色（紫红色是允许的，但绿色不行），还有关于连裤袜的规定（肤色较深的人必须穿黑色，而其他所有人必须穿“肉色”）。

The company also bans stubble, bright coloured hair dye and ponytails for men, but in general the rules for women are far more prescriptive. The whole thing puts me in mind of 1950s airline stewardesses¹⁵ or geisha entertainers in Japan, who used to wear their own brand of uncomfortable footwear — wooden sandals balanced on tiny stilts¹⁶.

该公司还禁止男性留胡子、染亮色头发、留马尾辫，但总体上，针对女性的规定要一板一眼得多。整件事让我想起上世纪50年代的空姐或者日本的艺妓，后者过去穿着标志性的不舒服的鞋子——木屐。

Dress codes that force female staff to be decorative¹⁷ are particularly outdated¹⁸ at a time when companies are being urged to boost the ranks of women on their boards. No wonder more than 100,000 people have already signed Ms Thorpe’s petition asking Parliament to intervene. Women are sick and tired of being told to toe the line.

在企业被督促提高女性在董事会地位的时代，强迫女性员工发挥装饰性作用的着装要求尤其过时。也难怪有10余万人在索普要求议会介入的请愿书上签名。女性已经厌倦了被告知要服从命令。