Thank you, PipNRoll… You are right, ‘politics’ will always be there, but in teaching there should none… We should all be here for the love of it…there should be no weird mind or money games! That is my view, anyway…
I would love to go on a ‘tanning’ holiday but I will be off to Italy next Saturday, so I suppose I will do my bit for melanin
Speaking of private tuition, I am confident I can make it work for me, but, of course, there will always be sobriety in dreams of greatness, and such articles are a healthy reminder of the pitfalls:
This poll has struck me really, are there even female traders in the market. I have not seen any or heard of any. I would be really interested in replies here.
An article from last month, on Bloomberg, following female wealth, female financial careers, and the lack of women in
the finance business, with real-life examples of women who ‘made it’:
It isn’t all rosy in female land but this a name worth adding to this list despite her hedge fund winding down this week she has done pretty well. Reminds us that we are all human even the big fishes go bust. On that note quite a few hedge funds took a beating with the Oil sell off. Even Mr Buffet…
They’ve covered so many topics that are important. In my view,promotions into senior staff or in higher positions/board in a company/organizations should always be base on merit not because they wanted to met their " quota". Most companies, at least in my experience, are willing to work with their female employee by providing flexible hours, promotions ( when it’s available), and raises as long as they are willing to put in the work, who are loyal, and who can add value to the organizations. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of work to do to teach young women and or men of what hard work really means ( not entitlement)…and finding who they are and what they really wanted for their future.
I agree that meritocracy is a great principle [I]in theory[/I], but a practice of negative discrimination against anyone “different” (from a particular power-group) is never addressed by meritocratic liberalism or simple goodwill: as the following article tries to discuss in an impartial way, while gender quotas are the source of much uneasiness among a few women (who feel patronised, even), and a few men, they do [I]focus [/I] employers in the way that their recruitment strategy promotes, encourages, and positively discriminates in favour of women going forward to directorship shortlists when a position becomes available…
As one who, like me, read Sheryl Sandberg’s [I]‘Lean In’[/I], you will appreciate why having a debate about quotas, when a lot of hopeful talk has turned to melted snow, is essential to ‘get women in’: once they are in places of control, more junior women will have role models to aspire to - it does not mean that every woman at the top will be liked by every woman at the bottom (of the workplace chain), but at least the women at the bottom will have someone in their sights to confront their ambition with, to compare themselves to, and to navigate toward during their career.
I am a great believer that quotas should belong to history [I]only if[/I] companies could be trusted to really be candid about what they have [I]actually done[/I] to challenge the [I]status quo[/I]…
I think this might be the reason more woman are not involved in western society. However, when you look in Asian society, trading is most certainly a female activity and while there may not be a huge number of professional female traders it has been noted that there is such a proliferation of female traders in some Asian countries they are responsible for market moves at certain times due to the number and total volume they trade from home as a hobby, often bringing in more $ then the male.
Speculation. Many people believe this anyway, Male and Female. Either people get it or they don’t.
Woman handle rejection SO MUCH better then men. They have dealt with it from a very early age. Other girls are the most harsh critics of each other. We men think we go through hard times with woman, work and whatever. Woman have to deal with rejection in all areas of life from a very early age.
Again, Woman are wired to handle emotions. How many times do you see male after male after male posting about not being able to handle/keep emotions out when trading? Woman are better at compartmentalizing issues, multitasking and assessing the core emotional issue at hand. They are less likely to be aggressive and more likely to be patient. 2 things that are important in trading. Even if they have other emotions going, they can multitask so it is not the same issue as for men.
Yes men are more likely to be logical but no good if you can’t multitask with trading. Lots of woman are VERY logical in a work situation.
I would guess that if a Woman went to try trading full time from home, she would also pick up another work from home job to finance her life while making the switch (Multitasking). She would also be more likely to live on a budget and sacrifice whatever needed to be sacrificed. Again, Woman have in a lot of cases received less money to live on then Male counterparts, are better a money management if financially inclined then males and would stick to trading plans as emotions would not be taking over all the time.
I guess as with any bastion of a male dominated sector, we like to make it as un-accepting and misunderstood towards Woman as possible as has happened time and again. That is until the first few Woman fight for the right to be accepted and the industry is opened up so that others can understand what it is all really about.
Also, the drive of greed is not as strong for Woman as Men so Trading may not be a first prospect for an income they look to.
All said, I think Woman would be fantastic traders and I think they would have a higher success rate when compared to Men. If only more Men would support them in finding out about it. I’m sure most of us here have a Partner, Sister, Cousin, Friend or whatever. Have you taken the time to show them some free resources they might learn a bit from and create an interest in trading for them? Not to teach them yourself but so they can learn that there are ways for them to learn about this field in their own way and time?
That article is utter nonsense… to state that there is some inherently masculine characteristics that led to the financial collapse is nothing less than opportunistic propagandising from some, would be, social engineer. Where’s the Time article openly pointing the finger at women, or blacks, or Hispanics, or any other social group aside from men, for one societal ill or another? Or claiming that white’s or men are better suited for some particular role in society? They don’t exist because those claims would be seen as the bigotry they are, but when it comes to female supremacist claims… no problem.
It doesn’t stand up to the mildest of criticism or logical evaluation and if anyone claimed the reverse they would, and should, be publicly scorned… why do we accept these things without critical thought when it comes to women?
you make some interesting points, the strongest being this: mutatis mutandis, what would happen were we to extol the virtues of men in financial markets?
While nobody claims that women are inherently better at financial activities, just as much as nobody should claim that men are, it is of no interest to further promote or reinforce the image of men’s power and influence in the financial markets, because this IS the status quo: on the other hand, the experiences of that minority of women who make it to the top of the corporate financial ladder make for great reading and activism, because it seems inconceivable in the 21st century that women should be paid less than their male colleagues within the same roles, or that they should be knocked back when returning to work after maternity leave: are we really telling women that all is equal in the world when they are still inherently asked to choose between a promotion to the top or giving birth to the next generation? Given that it would serve companies better to have a gender-mixed work environment, would it not be possible to avoid marginalising women, with their finance degrees and experience not being discounted as ‘less than’ bravado when in an interview next to male candidates, for example?
[QUOTE=“PipMeHappy;678424”] on the other hand, the experiences of that minority of women who make it to the top of the corporate financial ladder make for great reading and activism, because it seems inconceivable in the 21st century that women should be paid less than their male colleagues within the same roles, or that they should be knocked back when returning to work after maternity leave: are we really telling women that all is equal in the world when they are still inherently asked to choose between a promotion to the top or giving birth to the next generation? .[/QUOTE] Women make less on average then men because they work less hours on average then men and choose different careers (for family reasons or gender preference) that on average make less money. More men then women CHOOSE to pursue S.T.E.M. degrees, which upon graduating, give access to higher paying jobs.
Trading is a performance rewarding endeavor, with gender being irrelevant. If you are good you make a ton of money, if you are bad you lose a ton of money. I’m not sure what the point of female activism is for this particular cause.
No? Five wild generalizations made by the babbling bigoted fool given a voice and more importantly implicit credibility and authority by Time magazine in that article.
Women…
They’re quicker to admit ignorance.
They’re more likely to seek help and advice from others.
They’re better at specific goal-setting.
They do more “homework.”
They’re generally more cautious about risk.
So, again, I ask… why do open claims about the supremacy of females fly under the radar when similar statements about others would get called out immediately?
