FT社評(píng)：一場令男性女性都蒙羞的晚宴

The Presidents Club fundraiser, held last week in London, was a loathsome event. That is the overwhelming response in the wake of an FT investigation that saw journalists go undercover to report on the proceedings. It is not surprising, sadly, that some men still treat women as attractive objects which wealth buys access to. The gropes and propositions are wretchedly familiar. Nor is it surprising that some of the women, for £150, were prepared to risk harassment. London can be a city of bad options for those with few means.

上周在倫敦舉行的總裁俱樂部(Presidents Club)募款活動(dòng)是一件令人惡心的事情。英國《金融時(shí)報(bào)》派臥底記者揭露該活動(dòng)內(nèi)幕的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查，激起了公眾對(duì)該活動(dòng)的巨大厭惡。有些男性仍把女性視為可以用金錢購買的漂亮物品，這并不奇怪，但令人遺憾。那些猥褻和求歡的畫面可恥地熟悉。其中一些女性，為了150英鎊而準(zhǔn)備冒被騷擾的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，這也不奇怪。對(duì)于那些并不富有的人來說，倫敦可能是一座充滿糟糕選擇的城市。

What is shocking is the context. This display of male entitlement was linked to institutions and individuals at the centre of the British establishment. Major business leaders were present, publicly listed companies bought tables, and respected children’s charities were to be the beneficiaries. There will be varying degrees of culpability among those present — but the very fact that this was a men-only event ought to have sounded alarm bells.

令人震驚的是事件背景。這種男性權(quán)力的展示與處于英國統(tǒng)治階層中心的機(jī)構(gòu)和個(gè)人有關(guān)。主要的商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖都在場，上市公司為餐飲買單，受人尊敬的兒童慈善機(jī)構(gòu)是受益者。在場的人都應(yīng)受到不同程度的責(zé)備——但該活動(dòng)僅僅是為男性舉辦，這一事實(shí)本身就應(yīng)敲響警鐘。

Events such as this should shrivel when exposed to sunlight. This has begun. The Presidents Club is no more, and the Charity Commission has opened a probe into the trust it supported. The trust tried to cover itself by making the hostesses sign non-disclosure agreements they were given no time to read, and with a warning about sexual harassment in the brochure. These were a tacit admission that bad behaviour was anticipated, rather than real transfers of responsibility. NDAs generally have played a key role in the covering up of abuse, but there is no legal workaround for sexual assault.

此類事件應(yīng)該“見光死”。這個(gè)過程已經(jīng)開始?？偛镁銟凡恳淹Ｖ惯\(yùn)營，英國慈善委員會(huì)(Charity Commission)已開始調(diào)查它所支持的信托。該信托為了掩蓋自己，曾讓女服務(wù)員簽署不給她們時(shí)間閱讀的保密協(xié)議，并在手冊中對(duì)性騷擾做了警示。這是一種默認(rèn)，即不良行為是可以預(yù)料到的，而不是真正的責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)移。在掩蓋丑行方面，保密協(xié)議通常扮演著關(guān)鍵角色，但在性侵犯方面不存在法律上的變通。

Charities are returning the funds the club raised, a sad but necessary decision. Fundraising is built on reputation. A charity seen to accept funds from a seedy source risks its relationship with larger donors. Ugly behaviour justified by being “for a good cause” is ultimately an abuse of the charities that receive the immediate benefit. Those who supported the charities at the dinner should now do so independently.

慈善機(jī)構(gòu)正在返還總裁俱樂部籌到的資金，這是一個(gè)遺憾但必要的決定?；I款建立在聲譽(yù)之上。一個(gè)被認(rèn)為接受了來自骯臟來源的資金的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)，會(huì)令其與更大捐贈(zèng)者之間的關(guān)系面臨風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。用“為了美好事業(yè)”來辯護(hù)的丑陋行為，最終會(huì)讓那些直接受益的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)被毀掉。那些在晚宴上支持慈善機(jī)構(gòu)的人，現(xiàn)在應(yīng)該獨(dú)立地提供支持。

This degrading behaviour is part of a wider societal issue: power and its misuse. The case of Harvey Weinstein shows how entrenched power allows those at the top — still overwhelmingly male — to get away with mistreating those below them. The dinner may have lacked the monstrosities of the Weinstein case, but it is on the same spectrum. In the business realm, such an event would be hard to imagine if corporate leadership included as many women as men. Righting the present imbalance will help consign these displays to the past. Forced disclosures — for example, the UK’s requirement that employers report their gender pay gap — can catalyse change.

這種有辱人格的行為暴露了一個(gè)更廣泛的社會(huì)問題——權(quán)力及其濫用。哈維•韋恩斯坦(Harvey Weinstein)的案例展示了，牢固的權(quán)力是如何讓那些處于最高層的人——絕大多數(shù)仍是男性——欺凌權(quán)勢不如他們的人而又逃脫懲罰的。這頓晚餐可能沒有韋恩斯坦案的那種“怪物”，但與之屬于同一范疇。在商業(yè)領(lǐng)域，如果企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層中的女性跟男性一樣多的話，很難想象會(huì)發(fā)生此類事件。糾正當(dāng)前的失衡，將有助于避免這類丑行在未來上演。強(qiáng)制披露——例如英國要求雇主報(bào)告它們的性別薪資差距——可以加快改變。

But transparency is not enough. Managers do what they are rewarded for doing. A growing body of research shows that there is a business case for inclusiveness: leadership teams that include a variety of viewpoints make better business decisions. Many executives and board members warm to this point rhetorically. Only at a few companies are executive bonuses tied to hitting goals for inclusiveness.

但僅有透明度是不夠的。經(jīng)理們會(huì)做能讓他們得到獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)的事情。越來越多的研究表明，包容性存在商業(yè)上的理由：持有各種各樣觀點(diǎn)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)團(tuán)隊(duì)能做出更好的商業(yè)決策。許多高管和董事會(huì)成員都對(duì)這一點(diǎn)表示了熱情。但只在少數(shù)公司里，高管的獎(jiǎng)金與實(shí)現(xiàn)包容性目標(biāo)相掛鉤。

For those who still cannot grasp the positive and moral case against the behaviour exemplified by The Presidents Club dinner, the dangers which it poses should be obvious. When company leaders exclude and degrade women, investors and stakeholders make their fury felt. Any executive who agreed to participate in the dinner has missed a fundamental and very visible change in social mores. This is evidence of catastrophically bad judgment. To coin a phrase: time’s up.

有人仍然不能理解，反對(duì)總裁俱樂部晚宴所代表的行為有什么積極的道德意義。對(duì)于這些人，危險(xiǎn)應(yīng)是顯而易見的。當(dāng)公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層排斥和貶低女性時(shí)，他們會(huì)感受到投資者和利益相關(guān)者的憤怒。任何同意參加這一晚宴的高管，都沒有看到社會(huì)習(xí)俗中一個(gè)基本且非常明顯的變化。這是判斷力極差的表現(xiàn)。套用一種說法：時(shí)間已到。