Interesting post about women in the finance industry

[maryjanell79]

Hey all,

Just read this post on how womens role in the finance industry has changed in the past 2 generations.

www.rplan.co.uk/post/1280/women-in-finance-the-past-50-years

I think we have come a long way. Especially those who can juggle high powered jobs and a family! (Hats off to them as that is no small task!)
However I get the feeling we still have a long way to go in the finance industry.

What is everyone elses thoughts on this post?

I thought it was a bit superficial tbh. It didn't go into why women might be more considered with regards to risk, nor of the experiences of women within banking. It also didn't extrapolate as to what type of women were in finance e.g. did they have families, did they behave as men or were other characteristics welcomed (other than a slight risk aversion).

I found the statement that women coming through that rights were now considered an entitlement a bit strange. Rights are an entitlement and I would imagine these rights were only things that men had felt entitled to (and recieved) for decades.

There is always this issue of whether that comment by HH that had it been Lehman Sisters not brothers they would not have been in trouble is basically very very sexist a comment. Some women like power and money and to get to the top and achieve and do better than anyone else and take some risks (I do). Some women don't. I think we can get shunted into ghettoes if we allow generalisations that say women hate risk.

However I very much support the right of scientists to look for and examine gender differences and I do accept that there are some.

I have a child in banking in a sense and I don't think she nor I over 20 years ago had any discrimination applied to us but we both may so far have been lucky. I certainly think most women are better off considering banking to baking - see the women who earn £1k a day thread compared with will I be able to earn £10 if I sell 2 cupcakes type of business attempts of some women. They need to look where the money is if they don't want to spend 20 years on credit crunch threads learning how to darn socks on mumsnet to get by.

As an ex-accountant who worked in corporate banking, I would say that 20-odd years ago it was very much a boy's club - new male employees were whisked off to the local stripper bars as an 'induction' and a hard drinking culture was everywhere. I was paid less than my male counterpart (until I complained) and had to fight for promotion - it was said (not in my hearing unfortunately) that there was no point in giving me the job because I would only go off and have babies - this when I was 25 and newly married with no desire to start family at all!

Fast forward ten years and most of those dinosaurs had been made redundant, my employers were marvellous on paper at equal ops, and largely great at following through. I was in a management position and in line for better things - then I had DD and was utterly sidelined. If I'd been able to afford a nanny and worked like my life wasn't my own, then yes, I would have been very successful (I have seen other, more career-focused women achieve great things in this manner, however they rarely seem to see their families).

Although the company was great at managing part-time lower grade employees, their structure was such that at my level you were being set up to fail - you couldn't tick the boxes on your appraisal unless you worked full time, you weren't given decent, challenging work to do for the same reason and it became a vicious circle. By the time they started offering redundancy I was only too happy to go, sick of juggling and doing a job meant for someone of a much lower grade because I couldn't apparently be given responsibility if I wasn't full time. I am not the only one this has happened to, they have lost many good female employees in middle management because they just didn't know what to do with part time staff of that grade.

I don't understand why so many people seem surprised that if they choose to work part time they are seen as less than fully committed to their work and progression is difficult. I don't think that is necessarily sexist.

Because most women at my work, who have had babies recently, have come back part time, if at all - I keep being asked why I am not working compressed hours, if I really need to be full time.

The assumption is that a mother should want this, so a mother should not want progression. Nobody seems to question fathers who work full time.

Holeyghost I am with you! Although my full time hours are pretty good to be honest so sometimes feels like cheating - but I dont think there is much sexism around these days. Amazed people on here talk about it so much. Sometimes I think people are maybe using it as an excuse.... I'm sure talking about it quite so much is not helpful and makes people see problems where there are none.

I don't think you are with me

Sexism and misogyny are rife. It is important that we talk about it.

However, if you work part time, or take career breaks you should not feel entitled to be at the same level as those who have not. They will simply have more experience.

That so many women (and not men) make it clear that work is no longer their priority when they have children makes it harder for the rest of us.

I sometimes think that the people who talk about sexism on Mumsnet,seem to be the older mums tbh.

I think you have misunderstood me.

I never felt 'entitled' to be at the same level as those who have not had career breaks or didn't work part time (it was noticeable, however, that men who took a year or more off (as we were allowed to) to travel or do charity work were not penalised on their return).

What both depressed and frustrated me in equal measure was that I was effectively demoted - given work that I would have been doing in an entry-level position, not permitted to work remotely or flexibly, then at my reviews, castigated for not working to my grade. I had no opportunity to work to my grade as if I asked to be included on projects I was told it wasn't suitable as I was part-time. So I, and many other intelligent capable women were in a Catch-22 position where our only alternative was to leave for a job elsewhere. Which we did, in droves. That can't be good for the business.

I was good at my job and I enjoyed it. Just because I didn't want to dedicate my entire life to it is not somehow copping out and 'making it harder for the rest of us' - I find that sort of thinking the kind of thing that makes it harder for ALL women.

HG, I agree. It is a fascinating issue for feminists. LIke most parents who earn a lot and are successful I want and love to work full time so no employer in the days before I owned, rather than was an employee, would have noticed any difference,. In fact the babies in my early 20s gave me loads in common with older men and women as I had my chidlren 10 years before anyone else my age. I appeard more mature, I had the same issues the men did who were hiring nannies (believe it or not lots of professional men have wives who work so are pretty used to dual career couples) and there was just not difference between me and them. I suppose when I was breastfeeding I did try to leave work on time for physicla reasons but that was a short phase.

Now had I said I don't want to do this job as it is. I want to change it so that I am available a third of the time a client might need me why should I possibly expect to be treated the same as someone doing the job properly? Also whjy are all these women conned by their husbands, culture and sexist famkilies into thinking part time working is some kind of nirvana? It's not. It's dire. Your husband thinks you have all the time int he world to darn his socks. Your employer makes you work full time hours and pays yo ua pittance. Your promotion prospects are shot to pieces. youc annot do many of the jobs in reality and you think you need to be there at the school gate which is a pretty boring enterprise after a few weeks when the novely wears off and your children certainly never thank you particularly when you cannot afford to payu their university fees in 15 years' time. Lose lose.

Work full time and much riches both in life and money terms come upto you.

Also part time is awful. Our female NHS dentist who is lovely and good only works a few days and cannot do after 4.30. That is pretty useless for customers. I imagine I earn many multiples of what she does and I can be contacted happily almost 365 days a year.

Anyway whatever our sex we all make our own choices. On women who earn £1000 a day thread and entrepreneur thread it is interesting to see some of the work women choose and some is very very low paid and some pick very high daily rate type work.

Of course sexism exists and sometimes it hurts men too if they want to be home and their wife wants to be home sponging off them and won't work full time whilst the husband is home. Sexism is not a massive problem if you are excellent as so many of us can just vote with our feet, set up on our own and out earn men. It's huge fun.

I always laugh when people say sexism doesn't exist anymore. Of course it does.

At the top if purely skill based organisations/careers perhaps not but otherwise definitely. For a start, politics is rude everywhere and unless you are good at it, you will suffer. That's true though for men and women.

But the casual sexism in banks still exists. I have worked in banking for 8 years and nature of my job means I work with very senior people. Who are mostly men. The culture isn't necessarily I've of titty bars etc at that level but my sense is that there's a (naturally) long standing element of relationship to senior teams and tgat starts with men all together on the trading floor

It's so subtle in that on a trading floor the pa's are all women and most of the rest of the women are trainees or back office people. It perpetuates this sense of men at top with women working for them. At my organisation, it's not blatant but I know many competent and successful with clients women who consistently didn't get promoted.

Having said that, all those women remain in their jobs. The men I know who Sydney get promoted got up and walked out.... So there is definitely an element of women not taking the same approach.

Men who don't get promoted walk out. Sorry!

We certainly need to educate women to ask for more pay better; to make their own networks with senior women; to leave the set up themselves and own which is where the real money often lies. If you own you can make your own culture as everyone works for you.

Although women do better right up to age 26 in the UK and earn more than men, better exams etc as soon as they start deciding if they want to work or make babies and stay home (a choice men don't get which in itself is very sexist) enough choose to go on a mommy track because they married up - someone older who earns more - that it is not just sexism that means you get about 20% senior women and 80% men but because a lot just decided it is easier to stay at home doing not very much at all if you have a man rich enough to keep you in that kind of life. How they can stomach such reliance on men I don't know but I suspect if men were given a choice - stay home and just manage the cleaner and nanny and do what you like much of the time for the next 30 years or go into work and put up with what you have to put up with there there would be good few men rushing off to cup cake school and staying home too.

But men do have a choice.... that is exactly what we discussed long before I got pregnant and he decided he would prefer to stay at home. Also I am very motivated to work my arse off at work but very bad at motivating myself to do housework so it made sense to have me as the breadwinner. So for three or four years dinners been on the table when I get in which has been lovely. Obviously I help more now that we have DC. We choose to accept less household income (than both of us working) for a less stressful life. With the bonuses and downsides that brings. I really dont see why people seem to feel this option is not available to them. If you choose to sort things out differently then great, would be boring if we were all the same, but dont whine that you have to work part time or have to stay at home while your man has to go to work. You have to do none of these things, they are your choice. There are parts of my life that arent perfect but I dont blame anyone else for the choices I have made. For instance my career is not all I dreamed it would be, and its too much effort now to retrain so Im just sticking with it. But I dont have to stick with it - it would be really really hard to retrain and throw away all Ive worked for, but with sacrifice I could do it. But I choose not to and to maintain the status quo. No-one elses problem but mine.

The last barrier (short of the artificial womb) to true equality was removed when the decision was made to allow you to give your partner some of your maternity leave.

I've personally never had maternity leave rights but it was fine without them and I was working for myself for the last two children. In our case too before we married we knew I would earn more and he suggested if needs be if the nanny situation did not work out he would stop work, not I, as I earn more and that would have been fine but it all worked out well with us both full time so that was okay too.

May be I'm wrong but I think most women marry someone who earns more and therefore when it comes to who gives up work her pin money goes by the board nad he earning twice what she does carries on working. When women startr to earn more than their husbands on the whole which is starting to happen may be those men who would prefer to be home will get more of a choice.

Amongst our friends theres an even mix of those earning equal, the man earning more and the woman earning more. Its most common that the pay is similar. Those where one partner earns more still have the choice of the high earner giving up work - it just isnt an easy option.

The line that really stood out to me (in the original article) was this "Institutionalised sexism in finance seems eradicated, say young women bankers, as banks and firms fear expensive lawsuits and bad publicity" for its breathtaking naivety. I think the fact that the interviewees were at the start of their careers, under 35, and therefore in the investment banking world, very unlikely to have children probably explains it.

The interviewees are right in that things have changed during the course of my career but to assume that everything is fine now is, as I say, naive. If everything was fine there would be 50/50 of women in the City, rather than 50/50 on intake and 85/15 male to female in senior management. I think that there is a fine balance to be had in recognising that sexism is still prevalent, but at the same time not letting it consume you, but being more strategic in your career.

When I started (not in banking but similar) in the City in 83 women were 50% of entrants. That is still so, may be 60% now. Women may age who been at it 20 years plus we make up about 20%. So there has been a 30% drop off. Plenty of those will have married richer or sexist men or just could not be bothered to keep working hard when they could stay at home not doing much at all. I am not sure most men get those same options to give up work.

However some of it will also be sexism. However it is much more of an issue that women just don't seem to want to earn £2m a year (God knows why) if they have to work long hours and men are less likely to want to give up the sorts of jobs which mean long hours. I work for myself so would not really see sexism in the traditional sense - indeed I may be being given work because of the appearance of my cleavage on work youtube videos.. joking although if you have a choice of a fat bald middle aged adviser who is very dull and someone who may be is fun and looks good and is pretty brilliant it might tip the balance. WHo knows. May be I'd earn double if I were male or may be not.

Is is not sexism to show your cleavage?
confused.Too late at night.

I think there are a number of reasons for the drop off in women at senior levels and not just women don't want to earn that kind of money. From what I observe, it is primarily around children and the role of men/women in the home. Most people join the City at 21/22. In order to survive and progress, you end up working round the clock for 8/9 years after which you earn a very good salary/bonus (eg 100k) but not the telephone number sort. However, it is at this stage that people are on the cusp of director/partnership etc (ie the senior roles). It is also precisely this time that people tend to focus more on their personal life, get married and start thinking about kids. Men tend to carry on as before in the expectation that having children will ultimately make no difference to their career as they will have someone else to pick up the pieces. Women tend to conclude that work is not that important compared to marriage/kids, they earn "enough" and don't want to have to work as hard while they have kids as they have done the previous 8/9 years.

The question is what can be done to change this? A lot of people focus on what organisations should do (and I agree with this) but then say unrealistic things like the culture in the City should change so its not all about long working hours. I prefer to focus on women and what they can do. Well the first clearing up the misconception that you carry on working at the ridiculous rate you do in your 20s. As a senior person, yes, I work hard, but no where near as hard as I did in rising to the top. The more that female leaders do to show other women what it is like the less daunting it might appear. I think the second is a change in expectation that the woman has the primary childcare role and the man gets relegated to secondary parent. The third is that the woman is primarily responsible for running the household, ie keeping clean, putting food on the table etc. These last two things would make a huge difference and make it more likely that women didn't think it is too hard to continue on.

good post novice,especially for those of us who dont have any knowledge of the City.
Some probably naive questions from me.Why is there a long hours culture in the City.Is it because it is dog eat dog,so everyone is competing with each other,or is everyone there made to work so hard,or is everyone hardworking anyway.
Do you still do quite stupid hours beacuse you are made to
Thanks

That's a good question amillionyears. A lot of people in the City will have mostly As/A* grades with a minimum 2:1 from one of the top unis so tend to be very high achievers, used to being no 1 and used to working hard, so in a sense it is a combination of a competitive environment with natuarally very hard working high achievers. Overlaying that is a competitive cut throat global business environment which means organisations are under pressure to make things happen faster.

On one level no one forces you to do long hours, so if you don't want to, you don't have to, but you have to recognise that someone who does twice as many hours as you will accumulate more experience (as long as it's "good" hours) as you and therefore will progress more quickly.

I used to do anything between 10 to 15 hour days, and if I was working on a deal (acquiring or disposing of a business), it could be 15 hour days 6 days a week for 6 months solid. Now, those periods of intensity are rare for me so I probably work 9am to 6.30pm (I am including my commuting time as I am usually working then) and then I usually do 30 mins but can be up to a couple of hours in the evening after the kids are asleep (ususally clearing emails or on conference calls with the US). My job is more about making decisions now so it doesn't necessitate long hours, except that I get about 200 emails a day, mostly when I am in meetings. If I didn't clear emails on the train or in the evenings, I would be stressed.

Lovecat - your experience is very common. All my female friends in The City have now left.

Where the discrimiation happens is at middle management. Senior managers and Directors put inb place written policies and priocedures but at trading desk level is where decisions about bonus and promotion get made.

Time and time again get passed over for promotion or they get a much smaller bonus than less senior men on the desk. They get given the smaller clients, they get critical appraisals, set up to fail. Eventually, they do have children and suddenly the pressure really comes on. The one day they need to leave early is endlessly used as an implicit criticism.

Eventually they figure out the stress and hassle in return for poor bonuses and clear indications that they are not wanted leads women to quit.

Thank you for that answer novice.
Can I also ask how much the social side matters.Or is there not one in the City.Cant see my DD ending up there,but she has recently started working in a what has been an almost completely male environment,so i am trying to help her figure out how it all works,and how far she wants to play along.

MoreBeta, that's what I hear constantly about the trading floor. Miserable.