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?

Xenia,

Firstly, financial services in total contributed 10% of GDP in 2009, and that is dropping. Secondly, London was less than half of that, and the traditional "City" a slightly smaller percentage still. So maybe 4% versus the 25% you are claiming.

You have to counteract that with the money injected and lost by the government and the possibility that a lot of the assets bought by the BOE's special liquidity schemes may not pay back 100%.

And even if the City does contribute, that is through overpaying its staff at the expense of its shareholders. Cannot continue forever.

Xenia, why is it "silly women" letting other women down and not "silly men" who should be asking for flexible working in equal numbers to their wives and partners?

The finance industry is really broad. I am in it and both men and women at my work have had flexible working. Lots of firms would be less happy about this but ours is good.

The PP who said the City expects you to be married to it is right. In my first job there was a pretty even gender split on the way in but practically everyone was pre-children (all 30 and under) apart from the two eldest (men) who were married without children. As both men and women had children, both genders left as lots of us were married to people similar (ambitious graduates) so there was no SAHP to cover the last minute travel, all nighters etc.even using all left over salary on childcare after living costs, there aren't many jobs, even "good" graduate jobs that would pay enough to cover 24/7 childcare at the age of 23 or whatever.

A lot of the world is still set up on the assumption that there is a "wife" at home (though things are getting a bit better, at least BritishGas have stopped being surprised there's no-one home during the day to let them in!) and a lot of City-type jobs are in that category. Over time it is becoming a problem for City men as well as City women, which is at least fair!

Childcare and housework are deadly dull. Anyone male or female asking to do more of it is very silly. I am happy to apply that adjective to either gender.

I agree that some work needs long hours. Those of us who work for ourselves make our own hours and often we choose to make those pretty long but at least we are in charge of that. Some things just you have to be there - the surgeon cannot leave a 10 hour operation because it's time to collect a child.

We are working shorter hours now than 150 years ago by the way. In th elifetime of many people's parents people always worked a 6 day week so things are not necessarily any worse than they ever were.

If you want to earn a lot of money, as many of us do, then I agree you need lots of help which thankfully if you earn a lot you can afford but it will never be easy whether you're at home or work if you have young children. However it is just a short phase over a 40 year career so if you do adore your work the aim should be to see those 40 lovely years ahead and not let having a few babies ruin the career forever.

Plenty of people of both genders do not like or want children and some cannot have them even though they want them but they may have other commitments too like older parents or dogs or horses or a hobby they love. All of us have to make compromises about work but from the feminist point of you in this crucial period when we would rather like most institutuions to have more women than men in positions of power now is not the time for women to duck out of high paid jobs to bake cakes and wipe bottoms. We need more not fewer women at the top.

I still dont see though,that if women set up business for themselves,how this helps other women in the institutions,as the other women are literally no longer there.In fact they have deserted.
When the media quotes eg 4% of women or whatever have the top jobs in the ftse 100,that is what the masses mainly hear.

Xenia,

Lumping together housework, which is definitely deadly dull and best subcontracted, and "childcare" I.E helping your own children to become the adults you want them to be is an error and probably comes from the fact that you have never taken the time to get to really know your children. Bringing up children is exactly like any other job, you get out what you put in. Doing it only a few hours a week is like trying to work on a complex deal 2 hours a day. You will never see the full picture and never be able to really understand what makes it interesting.

I know my children pretty well. Like most men who work full time and many working women I have certainly brought my children up. It is just that high earning full time workers are better at psychology and childcare and in fact can do both and better than most housewives. The fact housewives cannot understand that a working parent brings up a child probably illustrates why they are only housewives.

Anyway the fact of the matter is that working parents bring up children very well indeed and most of them like a few hours with their babies a day ( not 12 hours a day low grade cleaning, toddler and baby care which no one in their right mind chooses to do - even the rich buy in help with it, even the Victorians with their servants, even the Romans with their slaves).

Xenia,

If you feel you can do as good a job part time as a full time (or at least fuller time) parent, why do you not feel that applies to work too? Children (and especially babies and toddlers) are very complex. You cannot state baldly that you have brought your children up because it is very debatable. I am sure that you combined with the nannies and private schools have turned out very well behaved and successful children. That does not mean that you have put your stamp on them or that they could not have done better with more of your input. That is completely unknowable.

The "rich" are as varied as the "poor". They do tend to buy in some help to give them a break from time to time and certainly have cleaners (as we do). However, there are plenty who choose to do the majority of their own childcare (as we do and we would certainly be classified by most as "rich"). You do not seem to be able to comprehend any other motivation than money or anyone who does not see the world exactly as you do. You think that others would like to be like you but just lack the ability or drive. I am sorry to disappoint you but that is just not the case. There are plenty of able, driven people making different life choices to those that you have made.

"It is just that high earning full time workers are better at psychology and childcare and in fact can do both and better then most housewives"

words fail me.I am sat here open mouthed.
I am not saying they cant be equal,but wow,I often am concerned about you.

Have realised that what you are actually saying is that your psychology and childcare was not all you would have liked it to have been.

Xenia - hello from the other place. Now I've been reading this from you for about 8 years now, however for the first few pages of this thread you managed to put sensible points across in a cogent manner. No doubt that's how you earn your giant salary. However yet a bloody gain you've trolled yourself and come across as someone so fragile of mind that it completely undermines the sensible part. Old dog / new tricks but one day if you manage to hold back, you'll actually get across a valuable point. I know you're all for selling your brand of feminism but you harm your evangelical powers more than you realise.

ps herethereandeverywhere before you quit altogether, give going in house a shot. Interesting work with a greater variety of people (in itself a great relief from all the lawyers) and a geniune ability to get a wk / life balance. Partnership isn't the only holy grail.

Xenia,what happened to you when you were young was not your fault,probably not anyones fault.

It's pretty obviously that (a) the women who earn the most and have the highest IQ keep on working and those who never earned much become housewives therefor (b) it follows that housewives will be worse at the psychology of and bringing up children on the whole. I don'tt hink it's controversial to say men and women who work and are successful at that tend to be the better parents than those who never could or would earn much. Obviously there will be some exceptions but on the whole I will be right.

it is the housewife paradox that they have to believe they do better than a wokring parent and yet they don't. They have to think that working parents put in so little time with children that the children suffer and yet they have husbands - do they think those people are inadequate parents too or does a penis give you God like superiority in all things? May be housewives being fully dependent on male earnings have to hold that view,.

Your post is wrong on so many counts I dont know where to start.

I think part of your problem as a whole with this,is that you do not mix with other sections of society,almost never.
You are a solicitor and write books,so by definition you mix with highly educated people.Your children all go to fee paying schools,so again by definition,you mix or hear about other very wealthy people.When you go on holiday,I presume you fly first class and go to expensive places,so again you mix on the whole with the rich.
In fact I can barely think of an instance where you come into contact with non rich people.
So your view of society as a whole is very warped.Not your fault,but a reality for very rich people.Oh,and I forgot,you will have gone to a fee paying school when you grew up too.

Many people have posted on MN over the years,telling you that they have high IQs and high paying jobs,and have decided to leave that world and stay at home.
It does not mean that suddenly their brains have turned to mush and they no longer have high IQs.
That is one point.I will post this part so as not to lose it.

so the above post makes a. wrong.
the other part of a. "those who never earned much become housewives".You have got to be kidding.This is where your warped view of Britian today comes in.There are millions,literally millions of working people who dont earn much.They are not normally the housewives of Britian today.In fact,the housewives of Britain today tend to be those high fliers I talked about in the post above,who left the city or whatever.They are about the only ones who can afford to.You know some of them yourself.

I feel I am stating the obvious with all this,but never mind.

Now about the psychology bit.You do not need a big IQ to be good enough at psychology to bring up children well enough.In fact,I wouldnt necessarily say that the higher the IQ on the whole,the better at psycology.Psychology is partly wisdom,part common sense amongst other things,and I think you will agree that there is probably just as much of that amongst eg average IQs or even lower, as amongst higher IQs.
Part 3 later.

Xenia, you can assert that your point b follows from your point a, but that doesn't make it true.

When DS1 left daycare for school I wrote noting that I considered the person he had grown into was in no small part due to them. DH, me, extended family are all involved in bringing up the DCs, but so is the child care and school they are at during working hours. I really don't see how they couldn't be!

Agree that a capacity to earn high wages is not necessarily an indicator of an understanding of child psychology and an ability to bring up children well. (And the idea that it is seems staggeringly absurd to me.)

If it's your belief that it is, though, Xenia, then surely you must be doing all you can to campaign for better wages for child carers? By your reasoning, seemingly the increase in pay in itself would improve the quality of their work.

Part 3
Because of the minute part of society you live and work in,you think that the working parents are the highest IQ ones.But taking Britain as a whole,that is probably far from the truth.
Had a thought.When you say "housewife",are you thinking of parents,presumably women,who may be unable [or choose] not to get jobs because no one wants to hire them? Or prefer or choose to claim benefits.

Didnt get your bit about husbands?Whose husband are you talking about,SAHMs or WOHMs.

I am amongst the great unwashed on a standard class carriage from a Northern City. Is that down and dirty enough to show my mixing with the masses credentials..... There are even fat people with gold chains and tatoos on this train.

The point that brighter women earn more, tend not to give up work when babies come (as who wants to give up £100k a year income) and tend to talk to and deal with their children better than the slap them, shouting principels of those of lower IQ is pretty obviously. Clearly some bright women can tolerate beoing housewives (more fool them) but not most. My generalisation on the whole holds good. Brighter people make better parents, produce better children and tend to work full time and earn a lot.

Xenia do the people who provided your day to day child care know what you think of them?

I once asked her that question, Ennis...

Everyone in the land knows leading female surgeons are brighter than nannies. The fact some people seem to doubt me means they live in cloud cuckoo land. I am just stating the obvious.

My oldest child is 27 so she doesn't really need much childcare these days.

Xenia no-one is disputing that a surgeon has a higher IQ than a nanny. It's your assertion that a surgeon because of her higher IQ would be better at bringing up children than a nanny which is in dispute.

Xenia I know your children are older, hence my use of the past tense: provided.

Xenia 13.27pm second paragraph.
[I will ignore your rudeness to people in the first paragraph this time].

You have missed out the mass of people in between "fat people with gold chains and tattoos",[and there may well be parents in that group that parent as well as "leading women surgeons" albeit with a lot less money],and those who "earn the most and have the highest IQ".

So,you are calling housewives the "fat people with gold chains and tattoos".Then the leading female surgeon may parent better than some of them,but not in all cases.I am sure you are aware of some high powered women who struggle to cope.Dont they say that doctors are some of the highest drinkers in the land.

But also,you have missed about about 10 million women,who are somewhere in between those 2 groups.And no,I could not agree with you,that the parents with the higher IQs make better parents.
Parenting is not just about money and IQ.Far from it.

I hope I have not offended anyone with anything I have just written.