Interesting post about women in the finance industry

I think there is still a lot of hiring discrimination in finance. All of the people I know who work in that area are currently in their forties or fifties and do a fair amount of hiring into entry level and lower management. They say there is pressure not to hire women who are over 30. They are seen as liable to be about to have kids and then, once 40+, as not being attractive enough (although there is similar but not so strong pressure not to hire men over 40 either - I think from a potential perspective). Several of my female friends have had comments made along the lines of "good job you don't want kids so you can do this" from their managers, though none of the men have.

So while I agree it's a lot better than it was, and there are lots of women doing well at entry level, I don't think the only thing women who are talenteted and ambitious enough have to contend with are the logistics of how to cope with children and a long hours culture.

I take your point about going in with an offer Xenia (and yes, I will have one - people who can do my job are incredibly thin on the ground - I've had an offer to relocate to Asia but at the moment we need to be at home).

But if I get a begrudging counteroffer out of my bank (and if push came to shove they would probably match an offer, as it would be so hard to replace me), they'll regard it as a ceiling, whereas it will be a floor at a new bank.

I think that the problem in banking, and especially in investment banking, which is the area that I know, is that it is often hard to objectively measure performance. It is normally mainly measured by how much money a trader/salesperson generates. However, that can be determined by limits, access to markets and sheet luck (one big deal/trade can change someone's year).

The above means that it is often quite cliquey and discriminatory. It is easy subconsciously to employ people like yourself and then give the ones you like easier jobs to make money. I had to fight against this trait in myself throughout my career in banking and try to be more objective.

To be honest, no one I know is desperate to remain in finance and I would certainly not recommend my sons end up in it. It is (well, was) a good way to make a lot of money quickly but it is not conducive to a normal life, normal values or a career much beyond mid/late thirties for most.

Blueshoes, my dcs are young (3 and 1) so I have had to be smart about travel and how/when I do client ents. Both were breastfed for first year, so I limited my travel to Europe, particularly those destinations that are easily served by City airport, or on Eurostar as I could do those in a day and wouldn't do overnights. I went back to doing the overnighter after breastfeeding stopped (so recently with dc2). Prior to dcs most of my clients were US so I travelled there a lot but over the last 3 years I have focused more on Europe clients. I will be going to the US later this year but am away for 5 days so I think I have done that twice in 3 years. And I avoid Asia as that feels too far away. Dh and I coordinate travel so that one of us always in the country - his travels tend to be to Europe and Asia.

As for client entertaining, well the dcs have forced me to be smarter about how I do that, as well, quite frankly as the recession. There is a lot less expectation (I find anyway) for big evening gestures so I tend to do face time through a lot of lunches, and coffees. One of my colleagues has a standing monthly booking for breakfast at a hotel and just invites a different client each time. I am going to be stealing that idea. I do still do the evening ents but try and curtail it to once a month at most.

Overall, I would say that my career has been in 2 halves, my 20s were about putting in the hours, my 30s have been around being more strategic about how I spend my time and getting the best return on my time. Dsis is a corporate lawyer, so I appreciate that the long hours just never seem to change, but in my experience that's not the same for all parts of the City.

HG, that is the issue. I never had the guilt some have. I alwaysh ad such self belief I knew working full time (and breastfeeding at night) and leaving work on time eveni f that damaged things at work was my best compriomise in those short early years. Was that because I read all that Betty Frieden and Grier stuff in the 70s as a teenager? Was that the great gift to me and ensured a successful business and family life because unlike many of the girls of today I had that feminist backdrop and they just have cup cakes, Martha Stewart, Jordan and fancy models with large breasts as role models?

I certainly agree with you to work full time. I don't know how well I would have done working for others as in 94 I began to work for myself byut I am pretty certain that however far I went had I stayed I would not earn as much as I will do over my career now that I keep everything I earn and can work as much and as little as I choose. So if my choice to leave work mostly on time hindered me then briefly in fact it has been a massive benefit if it resulted in my owning rather than being hired.

I do think women need to ditch guilt. Also some think being a parent is some kind of task like a work task. It isn't at all. I've been doing it for 28 years and it's about love and compromise and flexibility. It is not about doing XYZ with the baby and it turning out ABC perfection doble first from oxbridge or whatever you expectd for it. Therefore perfectionist women are probably better off working full time and letting someone who likes the compromises, baby sick, redoing everythning you just did, cleaning the high chair 8 times a day task which is child minding to someone who can tolerate that kind of life 8 - 6pm. I am lucky enough now to have two 20 something daughters who can talk about these issues whereas most of thos with under 5s have no feedback from the baby. All they can see is the toddler grabbing their leg like a leech when they want to leave the room and it wailing. The 20 somethings adore a successful working mother who has things in common with them. They also of coruse rather like graduatuing debt free and having help with buying first properties which successful working mothers can manage but housewives rarely can. It's win win if you work and a happier more balanced life as men have known for years whereas women are conned into being told mummy at home is best when patently it is not best for anyone.

Lovecat well done on finding work elsewhere. Part of the reason part timers are treated so badly is that they can rarely find hours to suit elsewhere.

IME, women who work part time generally do full time hours anyway. A stressed friend told me in all seriousness that before her twins were born she always worked at least 60 hours. Part time it was more like 40.

I work full time and very rarely over 40 hours. My colleagues at my level are all male, and either childless or with wives who are SAHM.

They work much longer hours than me. I expect them to be promoted ahead of me. It is demotivating. But at least I get paid for the hours I work, unlike part time colleagues. Unfairly, I think I also get more recognition.

Women who are high achievers are often hit hard by motherhood.

We have worked hard and had excellent results all our lives. We want to do our very best for our babies. In pregnancy, we read all we can, join mumsnet, the nct...We buy in to the mantras that breast is best, sleep training techniques are evil, natural birth is better etc.

Exhausted, we feel responsible for everything in every sphere of our lives. Something has to give

I think you need to go in with an alternative offer - I was telling one of my children this the other way - go in with XYZ has offered me a salary package of Y and I am off if you don't beat that (that is assuming you can find an alternatiev offer). Some women are not as good as men at asking for and getting more pay.

By the way my chidlren's father was denied a pay rise by his headmaster one year on the grounds that we had loads of money because of my job yet he was not allowed to leave on the dot at 4.30pm like some female teachers even though he was the person who had to be home by 6 when our nanny left. So it is not just women who suffer from prejudices about who earns what and who deals with children.

I think my ablity to take on risk and always think things will be fine is not typical of women. I think more studies shoudl be done - is it social conditioning, is it my genes, is it my testosterone levels?

I certainly am glad I was borrowing books on child birth and the best position for it when I was 14 as well as books on what people earn and that I prioritised marrying young and having babies as well as a career young which meant by the time I was 30 I'd about 9 years of experience for work and children of 4/6/8. However I did have rather a lot of school fees to pay in my 20s. Mind you that gets you used to never have any spare money ever soi t's never a shock, whereas if you have 20 yeras of free life aged 17 - 37 and then suddenly babies arrive that must be a very big life change.

I work in finance, and I think that sexism has come in very handy as a tool to keep costs down.

I work in a very niche area and have achieved something that should have automatically increased my pay by about 50-70%.

I have asked three times now about a raise but I get fobbed off in a way I don't think a man would. Yes we all know times are tough but I've gone in with hard numbers from other banks for the same position. They freely admit they wouldn't be able to replace me for the same money. My boss adores me, but I wonder if he doesn't almost think of me as his work wife - along with the death-us-do-part aspect. I've said X headhunter told me Y bank is paying Z, and somehow the penny doesn't seem to have dropped that maybe X headhunter will actually go ahead and place me at Y bank.

Perhaps mothers valuing stability is shooting ourselves in the foot slightly. I am sure at my bank, the men are thought of as far more likely to walk if they don't get what they ask for.

Which is why I'm interviewing elsewhere. It's a shame, because I love my current job, I am shit hot at it, and would stay in it until retirement if they'd match what I could get elsewhere.

however the points made above about partners and those at the top are true. The hardest time for me ever were when I was not senior. now that I decide everythnig it is dead easy. When I was bottom of the pile it was much harder.

I think its the middle layers that have it toughest tbh, no one expects much from the juniors, its far tougher having to deal with small kids' needs in middle mgmnt positions), when companies do expect you to be more on the ball at work. (I'm actually thinking from a corporate p.o.v. your having kids very early may have been a good one Xenia)

bs, you just have to pick your areas carefully and be flexible. I don't want to out myself but it genuinely is possible. All kinds of firms were start ups - SJ Berwin, Kemp & Co and I could go on and on. However just like being at the top of an existing firm whether it be Ernst & Young, Goldman Sachs or a law firm most people male and female don't like the work enough and/or aren't good enough do want to be in that position. I am think I am rare. I adore it as much as on day 1 nearly 30 years in, perhaps even more. Most people aren't like that about their work whether male or female. I always argue that it is owning which makes it fun. It certaily helps that I earn ni an hour what the minimum wage for a full time working week is. We rae all extremely lucky if we are in these high wage careers. I have a few different income sources and acquired part of a busniess 2 years ago too. WE haev also done buy to lets at various stages too. Diversity protects income sources. One employer or one client is arguably the riskiest way to run a life.

I genuinely would rather sit here wrestling with a work intellectual issue than change a nappy. I would put sex and breastfeeding above it but not much else and I adore having a lot of children and my hobbies too so I think my working for myself I have achieved a lovely high paid but balanced life.

if were talking about law there are more Jews, blacks and women in it than in the general population so if you were trying to attract more of any particular kind it would ber working class white protestant men actually at theb ottom end, laughing as I type but it is true.

Most people don't want to work as hard as it take to be successful whatever their gender. Women more than men haev a choice not to so more women duck out later.

however the points made above about partners and those at the top are true. The hardest time for me ever were when I was not senior. now that I decide everythnig it is dead easy. When I was bottom of the pile it was much harder.

When an industry or sector is trying to encourage more women into it,so there may be bias towards women at interviews.Dont know how it would work,as wouldnt it be illegal?
Like your "encouraged to appoint",but at grass roots entrance level.

What's "feminine tick-boxing"?

Am now going to ask my question of earlier that I was going to leave.Does feminine tick boxing actually occur.
Think it may have worked in my DDs favour.Not sure.

Agree with whatmeworry and blueshoes. Although re: "workist", that implies a pure meritocracy which it isn't. It's an "if the face fits" culture. There is a man in my dept who is technically excellent works harder than anyone and is always volunteering for all the extra-curricular stuff (marketing groups, steering committees, pro bono, training). I KNOW from things that partners have said that he's not a popular choice for partnership and that others are preferred ahead of him. He also happens to be openly gay.

And that "all or nothing" decision is one that's looming for me. Realistically firms are not recruiting PSL/KM list they used to be (a "dead" cost in tricky economic times) and without previous secondment or experience going in-house a senior lawyer is not a straightforward step either.

I'd have loved to have been one of the desperately needed "Women on boards" female non-execs that listed companies are being increasingly encouraged to appoint - although the guidelines/recommendations are just that. Just don't think I got senior enough to have the breadth of experience that it takes. But one or a couple of non-exec ships whilst the kids are young to ramp up as they get older would be ideal - in my dreams....

The City sounds awful.
And this thread is about finance.
But while you all are here,and most know others who work in London but not in finance,would you say that it goes on in all other sectors.I am guessing not.The young people I know that have started in London,are all on the bottom rung,but not in finance.And are in a variety of different sectors.One of them is one of my sons.

Xenia, what opportunity is there for a City lawyer in global M&A or international finance to set up on their own? Their clients will generally only use magic circle or occasionally silver circle, with intense competition to get on their client panels. A City lawyer would find it difficult to become a high street lawyer (serious retraining required) or even a domestic commercial lawyer (the clientele is different and they would have to start from scratch).

For a lot of City lawyers, it sometimes feels like it is all or nothing, if they want to continue fee-earning. The hardier ones will go for a counsel role but the hours are still long. But many opt for non-fee-earning, such as PSL/KML roles or go in-house or just do something completely different from their speciality. I speak as an ex-City lawyer who is still in the City but no longer fee-earning.

I am genuinely interested, not just throwing up obstacles.

I agree with whatmeworry, particularly about the City being workist. Many men also don't have what it takes or want partnership badly enough.

Whilst it is possible to exhibit parental behaviour once inducted into the partnership, it is not coasting either. A junior partner is just at the bottom of a long greasy pole and the punishing hours/travel/client schmoozing continues well into their 40s and beyond. They still have to make their targets, parents or not. If they can do it while being at home, bully for them. But that is not particularly realistic for the times they must be at a meeting or in a different location or at a client function where face-time is essential.

Most people male and female don't make that but I agree it is hard for women particularly ilf they feel they need to be with their children m ore than their husband so in a sense thinking about that issue, examining your feminism, talking to women like I am who have children now doing what we did in the City and so have a longer view is sensible. I work for myself but in similar roles and that is hugely more fun as you eat all you kill and I go in for a lot of killing and I think I out earn an awful lot of men. I adore it. Yes, I am as availbale as the people described on the thread but I own, rather than share or work for someone.

The times when the children are little are not very long but yes it's hard. I chose to have babies at 22/24/26 and that was very hard too as you have no mnoey and no power. The nanny cost more than 50% of each of our salaries for a year or two. I am sure both of us curtailed work too because of wanting to be with babies - we both spent as much time with the children as it was not a sexist marriage and I never took any maternity leaves by feminist choice so took 2 weeks of holiday to have a baby. I am quite happy with that. It felt so much easier than staying at home but not everyone's choice. I certainlyi feel nearly 30 yars on I very much benefited from. I have seen lots of women my age who stayed in the City. How did they manage? Some had both a nanny and an au pair. We hired a girl for Sat and Sunday mornings for the younger 2 children which did help if we were working. My older children have helped a lot with the youngest who are just now leaving prep school.

The essence though if is your customers love you you can work for yourself in many jobs. There are hedge fund managers women who have set up on their own. There are lots of lawyers and accountants and they can go on and outearn those in the huge firms. It is so much more fun and you make all the rules. I can be working today if I choose but I keep 100% of what I charge. I chose to take 2 weeks of holiday this year - a week to ski, a week in the sun so far and that feels wonderful and just right. If you adore your work then it's fine. I also am based at home when I am here like today so that is nice too if you like your house. obviously some jobhs like leadingv surgeon you can hardly do from your living room but I would certainly encourage peopel ont hte £1k a day earnings thread and the female entrepreneurs thread.

The weekend sixth formers with our baby twins were perfectly okay. We tended to be raound the house and the older children and if you are a really clever prviate school girl I bet you are heaps better with a baby than your local council estae girls who has all her NVQs in childcare.

The whole thing would be far far too competitive for my personal taste.Like being an athlete.Have to give up far too much of so many things,and for so many years.
I do have another question.But my DD is not in the finance industry,and probably wont end up being,so I will leave the question for another thread.

The sexism comes in where the women are given an infinitely harder time in order to make partner (not "one of the boys" so invariably work twice as hard for same recognition, not "made in the same mould" so find tend not to have a natural mentor who "sponsors" them through the process). Male partners in my firm often work from home to see their children/assist with a childcare issue and arrange their diaries around family-related activities (good - it's the 21st century!)

I've seen this at first hand, and you are right re women but you don't quite describe the dynamics with the men. Firstly, the men won't exhibit much "Daddy" behaviour while shooting for partner (the opposite in fact), that only comes once through the gate and with feet comfortably under a table. Secondly, there is discrimination within the men as well, those whose faces don't fit can also forget making partner.

Big picture, the City is better for women now than it was 20 years ago, but the crunch point still comes when children arrive. Any sign that you are not fully committed to the cause (and going part time is the kiss of death) puts you on the Mommy Track (and Daddy Track btw, it happens to men as well). Women are better off trying to shoot for partner before having kids.

The City is not sexist these days IMO so much as workist - it wants those who will marry it, not another person.

IMO the biggest issue for Feminsm today (in the UK anyway) is to deal with the discrimination when kids arrive, and that is largely due to the high complexity/cost of finding childare that covers the whole working/commuting day.

I think its absolutely no surprise that ambitious, clever women are the major forces driving small business creation and the move to professionals working from home businesses.

I see.Fair enough.A lot of people at 20 dont know if they want children.
Hope you work it all out in the best way for you.
Doing what is best for you and people around you is not failing,it is winning.Even if there is a lower income involved.

Not offended at all amillionyears I ask myself that! At the age of 20 when I got my job and 23 when I qualified into corporate I wasn't sure I wanted to have children. I wanted to make enough money to never struggle like my parents - that was far more important than ensuring I had a career that could also accommodate having children. Then, having children was something anyone could do, most of the girls in my class at school had babies before I'd left to go to Uni, I saw it as selling out and failing . As time went on I thought I'd leave the crazy hours and "do something else" when the time was right but it's not easy to find something that pays this well without the hideous hours. I then thought I'd just "make it work", just do it my way and juggle everything - which worked for less than 12 months. And now I'm looking at selling out in a different way. Ah well.

Xenia - childcare for 24/7 cover is not an easy issue to resolve (granted not impossible though). Most people do not have family on their doorstep and I don't know anyone whose friends are just available to offer ad hoc childcare on an ongoing basis! (Do you?) You need a nanny or au pair (although re: the latter I wouldn't trust an unqualified young parson with the 24/7 care of my children) - they also need to live in (assuming you have a home big enough to accommodate them - I don't). Most nannies will only do 12 hours a day and anything over and above that will be seen as an exception, helping out in a crisis, not something to be worked on a regular basis. It is NOT a simple issue to resolve without compromising the career of one of the parents.

not meaning any offence,here,but did you know all this before you started in the City,or did you expect it or hope it would have changed by now.
And would you say there has been any change,all be it very slowly.