By Garance Franke-Ruta 譯 / 鄧琛

學(xué)生時代，女生的成績通常要比男生好。認真、刻苦、踏實、執(zhí)著——這些都是女生出奇制勝的法寶。然而，在她們走出象牙塔、踏入職場的那一刻，所謂的法寶似乎開始失效，女性漸漸喪失了原有的優(yōu)勢。面對不利的競爭形勢，女性反而更加迷信高學(xué)歷的作用。殊不知，教育并非萬能的靈藥，好成績也不再是可靠的保障。

In her new book， Lean In， Sheryl Sandberg1）， Facebooks chief operating officer， recounts a warning she delivered to Harvard Business School students in 2011. “About one-third of the women in this audience will be working full-time” in 15 years， she told them. “And almost all of you will be working for the guy you are sitting next to.”

Surveying the stubborn gender inequalities of the early-21st-century workplace， Sandberg has written what might best be described as a cross between a feminist treatise2） and an airport business book， in which she advocates for structural changes to make corporate America more hospitable to women—particularly mothers. She also issues a bracing3） call for women to propel themselves ever higher， take more risks， speak up， negotiate， and pull a seat up to the table. But for all the persuasive parts of her argument， a vexing4） contradiction remains mostly unaddressed. In one important arena， women have already， to borrow Sandbergs phrase， been leaning in： school. Women surpassed men as a percentage of college students in the late 1980s， and by 2009 had become the majority of masters-degree students and doctoral candidates. The majority of Americans older than 25 with college degrees are， today， women. Yet just 4.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. So why hasnt womens success in the academy led them to more leadership positions in the work world？

Forty years ago， Title IX5） mandated equality for women. But it did so only in schools. In the decades since Congress passed this law， which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education， women have flocked to the ivory tower. There， enforced equal standing is coupled with criteria for success that are transparent， and that reward industriousness. Many parts of the work world， by comparison， are still plagued by sexism， or reward a particular sort of self-promotion that many women shy away from6）. Studies have repeatedly shown that women get more criticism and less praise in the workplace than men do. They are offered lower starting salaries， and are judged more negatively by prospective7） employers than are men with identical backgrounds. And unlike in school， the burden of fighting discrimination rests almost entirely on an individual， who must initiate grievance procedures8） against her boss.

Just as important， the behaviors that school rewards—studying， careful preparation， patient climbing from one level to the next—seem to give women an advantage academically， judging from the fact that they get higher grades in college than men do. Yet these behaviors arent necessarily so helpful in the workplace. Out in the work world， people hire and promote based on personality as much as on formal qualifications， and very often networking can trump grinding away9）. As Whitney Johnson and Tara Mohr put it in an article on the Harvard Business Reviews Web site earlier this year， “The very skills that propel women to the top of the class in school are earning us middle-of-the-pack marks in the workplace.”

It can take young women years to realize that the professional world is less of a meritocracy10） than the school world， and that the strategies that lead to success in one realm may not be enough to master the other. In the meantime， many suffer from tiara syndrome—the belief that if they keep doing their job well， someone will notice them and place a tiara on their head. This tends not to happen.

Women begin to fall behind the moment they leave school. Even controlling for11） their college major and professional field， they wind up12） being paid 7 percent less than men， on average， one year after graduating， according to a 2012 study by the American Association of University Women. One reason is that they take fewer risks right out of the gate： they are much less likely to negotiate their first salary—57 percent of men do this， versus 7 percent of women. Compared with their male peers， women also set less ambitious goals. A McKinsey study published last April found that 36 percent of male employees at major companies hope to be top executives， compared with just 18 percent of female employees. Ive heard countless stories that reflect this same divide. Stephanie Mencimer， now a reporter at Mother Jones13）， told me that when she was a hiring editor at The Washington Monthly14）， she marveled at how， among comparably credentialed15） applicants just out of school， women were more likely to apply to be interns， while men would apply to be editors at the magazine.

The university system aside， I suspect there is another deeply ingrained set of behaviors that also undermine women： the habits they pick up in the dating world. Men learn early that to woo women， they must risk rejection and be persistent. Women， for their part， learn from their earliest years that they must wait to be courted. The professional world does not reward the second approach. No one is going to ask someone out professionally if she just makes herself attractive enough. I suspect this is why people who put together discussion panels and solicit Op-Eds16） always tell me the same thing： its harder to get women to say yes than men. Well， duh17）. To be female in our culture is to be trained from puberty18） in the art of rebuffing19）—rebuffing gazes， comments， touches， propositions， and proposals.

Sensing that they are not prepared for the world they have entered， many professional women seek still more academic credentials. Ive come to think of this as intellectual primping20）—the frequently futile hope that one more degree will finally win notice， and with it， that perfect job or raise. Eight years ago， Anna Fels， a New York City psychiatrist， published a book called Necessary Dreams： Ambition in Womens Changing Lives. She told me she has since noticed that women today may have a harder time seeing the barriers before them than did the women of her generation. “Women may think the more degrees they get， the more chances they have of being hired，” she says， “but they are swimming upstream21）.”

In the 20th century， women often needed to be better-credentialed than men to get to the same place—for example， female Pulitzer Prize winners tended to be better-educated than men who won the same award. But in the 21st century， education is clearly no panacea22）.

Facebook的首席運營官謝麗爾·桑德伯格在其新書《向前一步》中講述了2011年她在哈佛商學(xué)院給學(xué)生們的一個告誡。她告訴學(xué)生，未來15年“在座大約三分之一的女性會從事全職工作，而你們幾乎都得為你鄰座的男性打工?！?/p>

在對性別不平等這一21世紀早期的職場頑疾進行調(diào)查后，桑德伯格著成此書。將這本書形容為集女權(quán)主義論著和機場商務(wù)讀物于一身的著作或許最為恰當。在書中，她主張對美國公司進行結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整，使其更適合女性——特別是媽媽們——打拼。她還發(fā)出振奮人心的號召，激勵女性要不斷提升自我，勇于冒險，敢于表達，參與協(xié)商，積極參與決策。盡管她的論點在很多方面都很有說服力，但還有一個讓人惱火的矛盾在很大程度上沒有論及。借用桑德伯格的話，女性已經(jīng)向前一步，進入了一個重要陣地——學(xué)校。上世紀80年代末，大學(xué)女生的比例已經(jīng)超過了男生。到2009年，碩士和博士研究生中女性已占大多數(shù)。今天，25歲以上擁有本科學(xué)歷的美國人多半是女性。但是，在《財富》雜志評出的500強企業(yè)的CEO中，女性只占4.2%。那么，女性在學(xué)業(yè)上的成功為何沒能促成她們在職場上得到更多的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職位呢？

40年前，美國教育法修正案第九條規(guī)定女性享有平等權(quán)利。但是，這種平等僅囿于學(xué)校。在這一嚴禁教育領(lǐng)域存在性別歧視的法案獲國會通過后的幾十年里，女性們紛紛涌入象牙塔。那里既有強制實現(xiàn)的平等地位，又有清晰透明、鼓勵勤奮的成功標準。相比之下，職場的許多方面要么仍受性別歧視之害，要么推崇某種特定形式的自我推銷，這種推銷為多數(shù)女性所回避。研究一再表明，與職場中的男性相比，女性得到的批評更多，贊美更少。與背景相同的男性相比，女性拿到的起薪更低，從未來老板那里得到的評價也更負面。而且，不像在學(xué)校，職場中反歧視斗爭的重擔(dān)幾乎完全落在了個體身上，女性必須啟動申訴程序才能與老板抗衡。

同樣值得指出的是，從大學(xué)時女生的成績比男生好這個事實來看，學(xué)校所鼓勵的行為——刻苦學(xué)習(xí)、精心準備、耐心攀登一級又一級的學(xué)術(shù)階梯——這似乎給予了女性學(xué)術(shù)上的優(yōu)勢。然而，這些行為在職場上卻未必那么奏效。在職場中，人員雇用和提拔既看正式的學(xué)歷證書，也看個人的性格特點，而且很多時候社會關(guān)系比埋頭苦干更管用。正如惠特尼·約翰遜和塔拉·莫爾今年年初在《哈佛商業(yè)評論》雜志網(wǎng)站上發(fā)表的一篇文章所說：“那些讓女性在學(xué)校中名列前茅的技能只能讓我們在職場中得個中不溜的成績?！?/p>

年輕女性得花上幾年工夫才能意識到，職場世界不比學(xué)校的精英教育，在某一領(lǐng)域取得成功的方略用以駕馭其他領(lǐng)域就有可能捉襟見肘。同時，多數(shù)女性還患有一個通病，即皇冠綜合征——她們相信只要繼續(xù)做好本職工作，伯樂終會注意到她們并賜予她們一頂桂冠。而這往往不會發(fā)生。

女性在走出校門的那一刻就開始掉隊了。根據(jù)美國大學(xué)女性協(xié)會2012年的一項研究，即使將她們的大學(xué)專業(yè)和職業(yè)領(lǐng)域這些因素考慮在內(nèi)，女性畢業(yè)一年后的平均薪水還是比男性低七個百分點。其中一個原因在于女性一旦走出校門就不愿冒太多風(fēng)險：她們極少就第一筆工資與雇主“討價還價”——57%的男性會這么做，而這么做的女性卻只有7%。與男同事相比，女性在設(shè)定目標時也沒有那么雄心勃勃。麥肯錫公司去年4月發(fā)布的一項研究顯示，大公司的男員工中有36%的人希望當上高管，而女員工中只有18%的人想當高管。我所聽過的能反映這一差異的事例簡直不計其數(shù)。現(xiàn)任《瓊斯母親》雜志記者的斯蒂芬妮·孟希莫告訴我，她曾在《華盛頓月刊》負責(zé)招聘編輯，其時她發(fā)現(xiàn)在那些剛剛畢業(yè)而又學(xué)歷相當?shù)那舐氄咧?，女性更傾向于申請實習(xí)崗位，而男性則會申請當雜志編輯，這令她驚訝不已。

除去大學(xué)體系，我認為還有一套根深蒂固的行為方式也會削弱女性的競爭力：她們在戀愛中養(yǎng)成的那些習(xí)慣。男性早就熟知，要追求女性，就要冒被拒絕的風(fēng)險，而且要持之以恒。而對于女性來說，她們很小時就知道必須要等男性來追求。職場不會鼓勵第二種做法。在職場中，沒人會僅僅因為你把自己打扮得足夠有魅力就對你有興趣。我猜這就是為什么討論小組的組織者和特寫專欄的招募人員總是告訴我同一個事實：讓女人點頭比讓男人點頭難多了。呃，好吧。在我們的文化里，女性從青春期開始就得接受訓(xùn)練，學(xué)會回絕的藝術(shù)——回絕目光、評論、接觸、主張和建議。

許多職業(yè)女性感覺到對自己已經(jīng)進入的領(lǐng)域準備得還不夠充足，于是追逐更多的學(xué)歷頭銜。我已開始漸漸覺得這是種學(xué)術(shù)裝飾：她們希望更多的學(xué)位能最終幫她們贏得關(guān)注，以及隨之而來的完美工作或薪資提升——而這樣的希望一次次落空。紐約市精神病醫(yī)師安娜·費爾斯八年前出版了《必不可少的夢想： 女性生活變遷中的雄心壯志》一書。她告訴我，此后她注意到，今天的女性相比她那一代人也許更難發(fā)現(xiàn)眼前的困難?！八齻兛赡芤詾閷W(xué)歷越高，被錄用的概率就越大，”她說，“但她們是在逆流而行。”

在20世紀，為了取得同樣的成就，女性往往需要有比男性更好的文憑。比如，普利策獎的女性得主往往比男性得主受過更好的教育。但在21世紀，教育顯然不是萬能的妙藥。

1. Sheryl Sandberg：謝麗爾·桑德伯格（1969～），生于華盛頓，F(xiàn)acebook首席運營官，在2013年《福布斯》權(quán)勢女性排行榜上排名第六位。

2. treatise [?tri?t?z] n. （專題）論文；專著

3. bracing [?bre?s??] adj. 令人振奮的

4. vexing [?veks??] adj. 引起煩惱的；令人惱火的

5. Title IX：美國教育法修正案第九條，于1972年頒布，嚴禁學(xué)校在學(xué)習(xí)和體育方面因性別歧視學(xué)生，是一項具有里程碑意義的民權(quán)立法。

6. shy away from：（由于羞怯或恐懼）躲開，避開；回避；退縮

7. prospective [pr??spekt?v] adj. 未來的；即將產(chǎn)生（或發(fā)生）的

8. grievance procedure：（企業(yè)管理中的）抱怨程序，申訴程序

9. grind away （at sth.）：〈口〉刻苦工作或?qū)W習(xí)；苦干；用功

10. meritocracy [?mer??t?kr?si] n. 精英領(lǐng)導(dǎo)；英才教育（制）

11. control for：考慮（外界因素）

12. wind up：〈口〉（以……）告終

13. Mother Jones：《瓊斯母親》，美國著名的公共議題雜志

14. The Washington Monthly：《華盛頓月刊》，關(guān)于美國政治和政府的非盈利雙月刊雜志

15. credential [kr??den?（?）l] vt. 為（學(xué)習(xí)成績等）提供證明書；credentials [kr??den?（?）lz] n. [復(fù)]身份（或資格）證明書；證件；文憑

16. op-ed [??p?ed] abbr.〈美〉（報紙的）專欄版，特寫稿版（由專欄作者等署名撰文，與社論版相對）

17. duh [d??] int. [用于意識到自己做錯事或說錯話后] 哦

18. puberty [?pju?b?（r）ti] n. 青春期

19. rebuff [r??b?f] vt. 斷然拒絕；回絕

20. primp [pr?mp] v. （仔細地或過分講究地）打扮；裝飾；整理

21. swim upstream：逆流而上

22. panacea [?p?n??si??] n. 治百病的藥；〈喻〉萬靈藥