Thank you for your contribution, Oliver!
It is a difficult question that you answer; as a discussion point, I am going to change some of your answer, and represent it as follows:
[I]“why are there so few [B]black[/B] traders? Why are [B]black traders[/B] not pushing their way onto the trading floors, and why are banks and hedge funds not waving them in?”[/I]
And again, with a further change:
[I]“why are there so few [B]gay[/B] traders? Why are [B]gay traders[/B] not pushing their way onto the trading floors, and why are banks and hedge funds not waving them in?”[/I]
The point of re-writing these statements is that for every one of those groups (women, ethnic minorities, LGBT) you could ask the same questions, and indeed get a huge variety of answers: some feminists are
against ‘pink quotas’ in companies, for example, while others agree that without tangible targets by
companies it will all be too vague and companies will not commit to change.
Certainly, ‘women’ have not stopped pushing, just like ‘black’ and ‘gay’ individuals: what is often the
problem here, is that the worst examples of marginalisation from certain positions in companies show
how groups who enjoy privileged status will use subtle tactics to undermine people who are outside that
group, so it is not the fault of the individuals who try to get into the ‘inner circle’, but rather it is the fault
of the ‘inner circle’ who fear change and loss of control over keeping the circle closed.
In other words: there is no shortage of women talent in the financial sector, but until they will be seen as
second best or ‘not fitting in’, then even the best women will go unnoticed: the glass ceiling will continue
to exist for them, as for the other groups that I mentioned.
That is just one view, of course, but I strongly believe that positive action (e.g. quotas) would force
companies to change, as the egalitarian idea that it is ‘up to women’ has not really worked, thus far.