# Is the Irish Financial Services industry male-dominated?



## RainyDay (4 Dec 2005)

I shared a restaurant with a lunch for 25-30 hosted by the Irish office of one of the leading insurers. From the bits of the speeches I could pick up, it was a 'thanks for your business during this very good year' lunch for their brokers. 

But it was exclusively male attendance. One of the 'ladies who lunch' at another table who asked 'Why are there no women?' was swiftly told to mind her own business - Not a great tactic given that they had just be shouting out the name of the insurer.

Is this lack of gender balance typical?


----------



## DrMoriarty (4 Dec 2005)

My wife worked in AIB for a number of years and found it very much 'girls downstairs' (behind the counters/dealing with the public), 'boys only' upstairs in the corridors of power...


----------



## joe sod (4 Dec 2005)

Yes finance and alot of other areas are male dominated. The simple reason is that most women don't take much interest in discussing financial and economic issues. Most of the contributions on this site are from males. So its not the age old agenda that women are being excluded they simply don't take an interest by and large.


----------



## D8Lady (4 Dec 2005)

True story.  A female friend started in college to study accounting. One of the first welcoming speeches they heard was that women have more points in leaving cert, do better in the college exams but will be the last to be employed. Welcome to accounting.

From what I have observed first hand is that men will do golf, drink, talk football & other fake camraderie activities in order to get ahead. They have more free time to indulge in networking. Women will tend to just get on with the job & don't B.S. as much. At meetings, women talked over & not listened to. But also they tend to not speak up as much nor put themselves forward & apply for more senior positions even though they are well capable of doing the job.

Much like the lady at lunch who asked the question, anyone asking tough questions will receive a sharp rebuke. 

Many companies give lip service to equality however, in practice, they are likely to hire people just like themselves - so a self perpetuating culture is established. It locks out new talent. Those that are hired are sidelined. 

But I partially agree with Joe Sod - many women do not take as much interest in finace as they should.


----------



## RainyDay (4 Dec 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> My wife worked in AIB for a number of years and found it very much 'girls downstairs' (behind the counters/dealing with the public), 'boys only' upstairs in the corridors of power...


While this wouldn't be hugely surprising, the lunch attendees weren't the board of the insurer. They were (I guess) the senior sales & marketing teams of the insurer, plus the senior bodies from the brokers. Surely given this audience, you'd expect to have a spattering of female attendees?

Having attended various industry groups (social & working) in other industries (IT, healthcare, retail), I've never seen an exclusively-male audience like this.


----------



## DrMoriarty (5 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> ...a spattering of female attendees?


You sure have a way with collective nouns, RainyDay!

Maybe they were all at home, cooking a nice Sunday dinner for their husbands?


----------



## extopia (5 Dec 2005)

Hey Rainyday it's a good question.

I think it should be answered by the AAM women. Financial Services is a lucrative career option but according to Revenue Statistics there are only 1500 women in Ireland earning over 100k. It shows that we have a long way to go yet.


----------



## RainyDay (5 Dec 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> but according to Revenue Statistics there are only 1500 women in Ireland earning over 100k.


Do you have the equivalent figure for men handy?


----------



## extopia (5 Dec 2005)

I was referring to an article on front page of the Irish Times early last week. 

According to this revenue statistical report for 2002 [broken link removed] there were a total of 31,526 taxpayers earning 100k or above. Of these, 4,035 were single income male, 1,570 were single income female, and 25,921 married couples both earning.

There does not seem to be a breakdown of M/F earnings within the Married Both Earning category, unfortunately. I would imagine the high earner is usually male.

Together, these households earned 37% of all taxable income and paid 62.7% of all income tax collected. These figures suggest that the notion that high earners pay less tax is false, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## daveirl (7 Dec 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> Hey Rainyday it's a good question.
> 
> I think it should be answered by the AAM women. Financial Services is a lucrative career option but according to Revenue Statistics there are only 1500 women in Ireland earning over 100k. It shows that we have a long way to go yet.



And I bet that many of those 1,500 don't have kids. To be honest I don't think this will ever change, if I took a year out of my job between the ages of 30 and 40 I'd expect it would have a severe impact on my progress within the company. This is exactly what happens when a woman has a child. Extremely unfortunate but I can't see a viable solution.

Well maybe up paternity leave to the same amount of time as maternity leave but then I'd say a lot of men wouldn't take the full thing?


----------



## CCOVICH (7 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> I shared a restaurant with a lunch for 25-30 hosted by the Irish office of one of the leading insurers. From the bits of the speeches I could pick up, it was a 'thanks for your business during this very good year' lunch for their brokers.



From my experience of the insurance industry, there wouldn't be many female brokers.  I used to work for a major life insurer, and most of the salesforce was male, but some of the inhouse salesforce was female.  That said, there were plenty of females in senior positions in the wider company.  

I am still working within financial services, and there are plenty of females working alongside me and in higher positions.  The one exception are the traders-a male dominated area.  I think that male personalities are better suited to occupations like broking and dealing in financial services.  No empirical evidence, just my own (informed) opinion.


----------



## podgerodge (7 Dec 2005)

daveirl said:
			
		

> And I bet that many of those 1,500 don't have kids. To be honest I don't think this will ever change, if I took a year out of my job between the ages of 30 and 40 I'd expect it would have a severe impact on my progress within the company. This is exactly what happens when a woman has a child. Extremely unfortunate but I can't see a viable solution.



I don't agree that it's extremely unfortunate.  Having a child is a choice.  Why shouldn't the women who choose career over kids earn more money?  why shouldn't the men who stay late in the office while the working mothers go home early earn more money? My wife has done better than she would have if she took time out to have children. So she earns more than women who spend half their time working and the other half thinking about the kids.


----------



## extopia (7 Dec 2005)

CCOVICH said:
			
		

> I think that male personalities are better suited to occupations like broking and dealing in financial services.  No empirical evidence, just my own (informed) opinion.



Just be aware that some people would say that a set of beliefs with no empirical evidence behind them amounts to prejudice.


----------



## RainyDay (8 Dec 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> I don't agree that it's extremely unfortunate.  Having a child is a choice.  Why shouldn't the women who choose career over kids earn more money?  why shouldn't the men who stay late in the office while the working mothers go home early earn more money? My wife has done better than she would have if she took time out to have children. So she earns more than women who spend half their time working and the other half thinking about the kids.


Diversity is important for all workplaces. A workplace where unpaid overtime is constantly expected is not a very healthy environment for anyone. A workplace full of no-kid parents walking all over each other to climb the corporate ladder will almost certainly burn out a significant percentage of the staff. Parenting brings with it a certain maturity and outlook on life which is important in taking the big picture view.


----------



## Vanilla (8 Dec 2005)

> So she earns more than women who spend half their time working and the other half thinking about the kids.


 
Yes, I agree completely. People with personal relationships of any kind, whether that be with family, children or spouses have no right to expect the same level of remuneration or prospects as those without as certainly those pesky personal relationships interfere with keeping ones mind on the job.


----------



## annR (8 Dec 2005)

I'd be interested to know what the gender balance on askaboutmoney.com is but you can't do polls unfortunately.


----------



## CCOVICH (8 Dec 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> Just be aware that some people would say that a set of beliefs with no empirical evidence behind them amounts to prejudice.


 
Fine. I can live with that.  I'm basing my views on personal experience of working within the industry, that's good enough for me.  There are of course exceptions, and I'm more than aware that you can't paint everyone with the same brush.  If people want to assume I'm prejudiced even though I've formed a view based on first hand experience, that's fine by me, but I would challenge them to post facts to suggest that I'm wrong.

Let me just clarify/qualify my views by saying this:  if I was hiring for a position in financial services, I would hire the best person for the job.  Just because I think that in general men are more suited to certain jobs than women (and vice versa obviously), doesn't mean that I don't believe that always holds true.


----------



## Sherman (8 Dec 2005)

Rainyday, I have to say that is one of the most condescending things I've heard in a long time.

I'm sick of people who have children claiming they've somehow managed to unlock the secrets to happiness and the universe just by popping out a few sprogs.

I know plenty of people for whom having children has most definitely not resulted in them being happier, healthier, or more mature. And it certainly hasn't helped them in seeing 'the big picture'.


----------



## Humpback (8 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> They were (I guess) the senior sales & marketing teams of the insurer, plus the senior bodies from the brokers. Surely given this audience, you'd expect to have a spattering of female attendees?


 
I presume you mean that because there were sales people, there should be women. Maybe it's just because cheerleeding hasn't become a major aspect of our school sports regimes yet. [broken link removed]


----------



## Cahir (8 Dec 2005)

My workplace is extremely male dominated.  Most of the time I'm the only female at a meeting or course or conference.  Sometimes I think it's an advantage because everyone knows who you are but mostly it's a disadvantage as the men tend to group together and ignore you/treat you differently.


----------



## Kitty Kat (8 Dec 2005)

Interesting topic!  The industry is very male dominated, seminars held by insurance companies tend to only have what has been referred to as "token females".  Actually, one seminar I was at, I won't mention the company, anyway, it was a breakfast seminar and there was only one female attendee.  She went to pick up her briefcase which she had placed under the table (stand-up breakfast seminar) as the presentation was about to commence in another room.  A male attendee handed her his plate and said, are you knocking off now.  She promptly replied, "I think I will go into the seminar to see what it is all about!"  he really did not even pay any attention but when he saw her sitting in the room and particularly asking questions, he was mortified!!  He just assumed that she was one of the catering staff.


----------



## podgerodge (8 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Diversity is important for all workplaces. A workplace where unpaid overtime is constantly expected is not a very healthy environment for anyone. A workplace full of no-kid parents walking all over each other to climb the corporate ladder will almost certainly burn out a significant percentage of the staff. Parenting brings with it a certain maturity and outlook on life which is important in taking the big picture view.



I agree with Sherman, that has to be the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in a long time.  (No offence intended!)


----------



## Humpback (8 Dec 2005)

Cahir said:
			
		

> but mostly it's a disadvantage as the men tend to group together and ignore you/treat you differently.


 
I resent comments like this. "Grouping together" and ignoring people can and does in my experience work both ways.

In my last job, technology, the split of male/female was approximately 50/50. Yet before I left, it was more of the male members of staff that I was familiar with rather than the female. 
In general, the female members of staff were cool, frosty, and unwilling to engage in any normal workplace chat. And this wasn't just me, having started on the same day as another female, she experienced the same thing.

In my new job now, sitting around me now, there is a 60/40 male/female split, and already, I can see the "closed shop" that the females have created in this small team (10 people). 

The only occasion that 2 of the females deigned to speak with me, the newbie, they were very clear up front that they had boyfriends (which came up in conversations which had nothing to do with anything outside of working for the company).

What does their having boyfriends have to do with me integrating into the company, other than having me think now (based on their own actions) that they're stuck up cows who think that they're so beautiful that everyone must be interested in them.


----------



## Cahir (8 Dec 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> I resent comments like this. "Grouping together" and ignoring people can and does in my experience work both ways.




Thats just been my experience quite a number of times when I've been the only female at a function.  Again, in my own experience, the few females in my industry don't group together - some of the older ones seem to resent new females who arrive on the scene.  The most recent experience I have of being left out was on a course with about 13 men where very few people knew each other before the course.  The men were reluctant to sit next to me at the start of the course or at lunch time and I was never included in conversations, even when I tried to contribute.  I mentioned this to other females in the industry and they've found the same.  I'm not sure if it was a gender thing or an age thing as they were all significantly older than me.

Unfortunately in work my office is near the photocopier room and very often men come in and ask me, quite rudely, for more paper or the code for the machine -assuming I work in admin (despite the title of Engineer on my door!).


----------



## DrMoriarty (8 Dec 2005)

You should just politely suggest that they ask one of the 'lads in admin', and then look away and continue working! 

Mind you, I would agree that clubbiness/exclusionist and other hostile tactics in the workplace are certainly not the sole preserve of men. Nor is bullying/harassment from people in positions of power.


----------



## podgerodge (8 Dec 2005)

Cahir said:
			
		

> Unfortunately in work my office is near the photocopier room and very often men come in and ask me, quite rudely, for more paper or the code for the machine -assuming I work in admin (despite the title of Engineer on my door!).



You're correct.  They should ask more politely!


----------



## darag (8 Dec 2005)

> Yes, I agree completely. People with personal relationships of any kind, whether that be with family, children or spouses have no right to expect the same level of remuneration or prospects as those without as certainly those pesky personal relationships interfere with keeping ones mind on the job.


That's a somewhat dog-in-a-manger attitude isn't it?  Who are you to judge someone who has decided to prioritise their lives differently in terms of work/life balance?  If someone wants to dedicate more of the time to earning money, why resent them for it?  I took a extra unpaid holidays last year and lost some income as a result.  Wouldn't it be pretty ridiculous for me to expect to be paid as much as someone who worked the whole year?  What is wrong with people making a life choice to shift some of their energies away from working (e.g. to dedicate more of their time for family,  socialising with friends, playing golf, travelling the world for a year, learning Spanish, etc.) and living with the consequence of less renumeration as a result?  Or the converse; someone decides to forgo such pleasures and work every hour possible in order to earn more money?


----------



## Vanilla (8 Dec 2005)

Hi darag, my response was a dig at Podgerodges assumption that women with children spend half their day working and the other half thinking about their children. My point was tongue in cheek, and I was attempting to point out that almost every body has personal relationships which could be said to interfere with their work- some people without children are married, some are in the process of divorce, some are coping with bereavement, some are starry eyed in love. So do we analyse whether or not all of the aforementioned are thinking about their work 100% of the time? Do all women with children really think about their children 50% of the time at work? Do people without children automatically spend 100% of their time at work focussed on their work?


----------



## podgerodge (8 Dec 2005)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> Hi darag, my response was a dig at Podgerodges assumption that women with children spend half their day working and the other half thinking about their children.




Don't worry, I knew it was a dig!  Darag - you really must try to read behind the lines in statements like that!!

However, what I actually meant by "the other half thinking about their children" was that they work less hours cos they are at home, not that they are dossing while they are actually at work.  Only some women do that !


----------



## extopia (8 Dec 2005)

Obviously some people here spend half the workday thinking about askaboutmoney, never mind thinking about the children!


----------



## podgerodge (8 Dec 2005)

Good one Extopia!  At least I have one of the lassies typing this in for me!


----------



## Winnie (8 Dec 2005)

I work in accounting & have never noticed any sort of descrimination.  
I think that it is a fact of life that if you take time out to have babies etc that you will fall behind in the career ladder & that is up to each individual to decide if its worth it & also that the majority of women generally put career second once kids come along & that this contributes to more men being at the top of the ladder.  Men seem to be able to separate home life from work life a lot better than women.
I don't buy into the whole idea that there should be 50:50 balance in every working situation.  I think that the main thing is that people doing the same job get the same pay.


----------



## annR (8 Dec 2005)

I've experienced both - boy's clubs and frosty unfriendly women . . .I think it's more down to corporate culture than anything.  It doesn't excuse people though, everyone has a choice how to behave when it comes to something like that.


----------



## annR (8 Dec 2005)

>>Men seem to be able to separate home life from work life a lot better than women.<<

Probably because they have a wife/partner who is worrying about the kids/housework for them.  I know that's a prejudiced thing to say and I know couples this doesn't apply to, but I do think it's a factor.

I don't have kids and don't really know a thing about it, but I agree with giving more paternity leave and moving towards equalising things more at home, thus giving women a more equal chance in the workplace to move into higher positions.

If women give up on their careers because of babies, we will end up with even less women in positions of power and influence and that to me is not progress.


----------



## podgerodge (8 Dec 2005)

Winnie said:
			
		

> I work in accounting & have never noticed any sort of descrimination.
> I think that it is a fact of life that if you take time out to have babies etc that you will fall behind in the career ladder & that is up to each individual to decide if its worth it & also that the majority of women generally put career second once kids come along & that this contributes to more men being at the top of the ladder.  Men seem to be able to separate home life from work life a lot better than women.
> I don't buy into the whole idea that there should be 50:50 balance in every working situation.  I think that the main thing is that people doing the same job get the same pay.



Well said, discrimination only applies when people doing the same job don't get the same pay and I think that has largely disappeared.



			
				annR said:
			
		

> If women give up on their careers because of babies, we will end up with even less women in positions of power and influence.



They had a choice whether to have babies or not.  Women that don't have babies are rising up the corporate ladder as quickly as men in my experience.  There is no conspiracy.  You can't have babies and a high powered career unless you work and the man stays at home.  If that happens fine, the man will lose out on his career.  So there is no discrimination.  Just reality.

By the way, why is it that equal representation always has to be at the top of the ladder, I never hear a complaint that it's nearly always men cleaning the streets etc.


----------



## Humpback (8 Dec 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> discrimination only applies when people doing the same job don't get the same pay



Strictly speaking, this isn't correct. 

There are more facets to how discrimination can expose itself in the workplace, and pay is just one of them. 

It may be that it's the most common one, but I don't know.


----------



## podgerodge (8 Dec 2005)

Of course there are other forms of discrimination.  I was only referring to the types surrounding equal work equal pay.


----------



## RainyDay (8 Dec 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> I agree with Sherman, that has to be the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in a long time.  (No offence intended!)


No offence taken. Diversity is important. I'm not claiming some simplistic mantra that parents are always better/smarter than non-parents. I'm stating that a team consisting solely of go-getting 30-somethings with no family ties is not a great idea, as once the team start hitting 35 & the kiddies start arriving, the team will implode.


----------



## CoffeeBrew (9 Dec 2005)

Sistas are doin' it for themselves :
(Can't get that song out of my head now)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/06/wbank06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/06/ixworld.html


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 Dec 2005)

They'll have their own bloody golf clubs, next...


----------



## daveirl (11 Dec 2005)

Not quite on the same topic but interesting all the same - http://www.slate.com/id/2131645/fr/rss/


----------



## joe sod (11 Dec 2005)

it seems that the novelty of male/female workplaces has worn off. Maybe we have reached the high water mark in this. It seems women complain about difficulty in breaking into mens clubs such as golf and football etc. Now we are hearing that women form their own clubs in other areas which men find difficulty in working with. I think in the future men and women will retreat back to male and female dominated jobs. I think the high water mark in this was probably reached with the high tech boom in the nineties and clinton in the white house. They seem totally unrelated topics but the high tech industry was probably the most "progressive" in pushing male/female workplaces.


----------



## extopia (12 Dec 2005)

Ehhh.... right.


----------



## annR (12 Dec 2005)

>>They had a choice whether to have babies or not.<<

Yes but we want women to have babies don't we so that the Irish race will continue to exist.  If having babies means going back to pre 1950s and staying at home, or working in a low paid job, I don't think women will bother.  You talk about reality - the reality is that many women don't see why they can't have a few kids and a decent career without having a nervous breakdown.  And they could if things were set up that way.

Yeah you'll have the odd few power women nowadays who don't have kids and dedicate themselves to the jobs and rise to top but that's not very many.  Most career women would like the same chance as men to have babies and still fulfill their career potential if that's what they want to do.  

>>You can't have babies and a high powered career unless you work and the man stays at home. If that happens fine, the man will lose out on his career.<<

Or maybe they just share responsibility?  Is that an option?  There should be equal parental leave so that men can share it.  Surely the couple themselves should have those options of who does what.


----------



## CCOVICH (12 Dec 2005)

In my expererience, women in high ranking jobs are just as likely to have kids as not.


----------



## triona (12 Dec 2005)

As an interesting side speculation, would things be different in terms of single sex domination of an industry, e.g. financial services, if it was the men who got pregnant and needed to take time off??!!


----------



## annR (12 Dec 2005)

> In my expererience, women in high ranking jobs are just as likely to have kids as not.


 
That's great.  I wonder how they manage it.  They must have a very supportive employer/husband/family network/excellent child care facilities.  Otherwise how is it possible?


----------



## Gabriel (12 Dec 2005)

triona said:
			
		

> As an interesting side speculation, would things be different in terms of single sex domination of an industry, e.g. financial services, if it was the men who got pregnant and needed to take time off??!!



If men had babies you lot (by you lot I mean women in general) would never hear the end of it


----------



## CCOVICH (12 Dec 2005)

annR said:
			
		

> That's great. I wonder how they manage it. They must have a very supportive employer/husband/family network/excellent child care facilities. Otherwise how is it possible?


 
Or maybe they are hard working and bright?  I don't know how they manage it as I wouldn't be friendly enough with them to ask:

"So, how did you get where you are today given that you have X kids"?


----------



## CCOVICH (12 Dec 2005)

triona said:
			
		

> As an interesting side speculation, would things be different in terms of single sex domination of an industry, e.g. financial services, if it was the men who got pregnant and needed to take time off??!!


 
What's the point in speculating on something that isn't possible?


----------



## annR (12 Dec 2005)

> Or maybe they are hard working and bright?


 
There's no question about their ability obviously, it's doing that and having the time to raise a family that's the problem!  Unless they bring the kids into the office?


----------



## CCOVICH (12 Dec 2005)

Well there's different ways of raising families I guess.  Maybe they (man and women) waited until they could afford creche fees before having kids?  I really don't know and amn't really interested in speculating any further, all I know is that in my experience, women in higher up positions in industry were as likely to have kids as not.  How are why they got to where they are doesn't really concern me.


----------



## tyoung (12 Dec 2005)

ccovich
 I think you are being somewhat dismissive. At present a woman must be smarter and harder working to achieve the same level of success as her male peers. If she takes time off work to raise a family her career suffers. If she devotes herself fulltime to her career her children may suffer. Basically a woman now has two jobs, her career  and her home. Very few families can afford the level of childcare/homehelp that would make this acceptable.
 For the record I'm a middle aged married man with a family and a fulltime job.  My wife works  parttime.  Her  career has clearly suffered because of her parttime status.
 This may not affect you directly but it is definitely an issue for society.
 Regards


----------



## Winnie (12 Dec 2005)

In my experience the women who are very successful careerwise (ie. women who have made partner) generally don't see their children very much - I have seen these women in my office working mad overtime so that they are barely at home.  I don't think any career is worth that & I think that a lot of women think similarly to me which is why they tend not to be in top positions. 

That is not to say that one can't have a decent career - its just that you don't get to the major top positions......but for me that isnt the be all and end all.

Why have kids if you are going to be so wrapped up in your job that you never see them?


----------



## CCOVICH (12 Dec 2005)

tyoung said:
			
		

> ccovich
> I think you are being somewhat dismissive. At present a woman must be smarter and harder working to achieve the same level of success as her male peers. If she takes time off work to raise a family her career suffers. If she devotes herself fulltime to her career her children may suffer. Basically a woman now has two jobs, her career and her home. Very few families can afford the level of childcare/homehelp that would make this acceptable.
> For the record I'm a middle aged married man with a family and a fulltime job. My wife works parttime. Her career has clearly suffered because of her parttime status.
> This may not affect you directly but it is definitely an issue for society.
> Regards


 
I am speaking from my own experience, in what way am I being dismissive?  I think that it is hard to say that a woman 'must be smarter and harder working' to achieve the same level of success as a man.  It may appear that way, yes, but it is hard to prove, i.e. will anyone admit that this is in fact the the case, i.e. are there any males (or females) who would say that they would promote a man over a women, given that there respective abilities were equal?  Or would a woman have to demonstrate extra ability and motivation over a man to get a job/promotion?

I do think that there is a difference bewteen taking maternity leave and working part-time.  If I was working alongside a woman, and we had similar quaifications and experience, I wouldn't feel hard done if she was promoted ahead of me even if she had taken/was due to take maternity leave.  However, if the same woman was working part-time for an extended period (5 years or more?), unless I knew that she worked harder than me for the time she was in the office, or was excpetional in her work, I think I would feel aggrieved.

I don't think that we can have it both ways, i.e. women who spend significant time at home looking after their children and yet expect to move up to more senior positions in financial services, or wherever else.  There has to be some give and take in there somewhere.

I think Winnie makes some good points above, and she is a woman (I presume?), so is more qualified than me to give an opinion on this issue.


----------



## annR (12 Dec 2005)

> That is not to say that one can't have a decent career - its just that you don't get to the major top positions......but for me that isnt the be all and end all. Why have kids if you are going to be so wrapped up in your job that you never see them?


 
It wouldn't be for me either but I think that if that's what some women want to do, they should be able to.  Otherwise, you're saying, any woman with kids is not going to get a top position.  That's hardly progress in terms of society and diversity and gender equality and all that stuff.



> I don't think that we can have it both ways, i.e. women who spend significant time at home looking after their children and yet expect to move up to more senior positions in financial services, or wherever else. There has to be some give and take in there somewhere.


 
Exactly they need to have help with their family in order to acheive senior positions.

I mention all this because of the original thread about women in top positions.  Everytime there is a discussion about glass ceilings etc it always comes up that some women decide not to go further in their career for family reasons.  I wonder whether this is out of genuine preference to stay at home or because they just can't juggle all the balls.  If it's the latter surely couples should be enabled to spread/share the work a bit more and make choices.  Otherwise, the end result for society is that it continues to be male dominated which to me is not progress.


----------



## podgerodge (12 Dec 2005)

annR said:
			
		

> I wonder whether this is out of genuine preference to stay at home or because they just can't juggle all the balls.



Most of the women in my office freely admit they have a preference to job share/stay at home and take the loss accordingly.


----------



## RainyDay (14 Dec 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> Most of the women in my office freely admit they have a preference to job share/stay at home and take the loss accordingly.


Isn't this a contradiction? If they would prefer to stay at home, why don't they do so?


----------



## Humpback (15 Dec 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> Most of the women in my office freely admit they have a preference to job share/stay at home and take the loss accordingly.


 
New research in the US indicates that taking a loss isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion.

"On average, Miller has found in a new paper, a woman in her 20s will increase her lifetime earnings by 10 percent if she delays the birth of her first child by a year". 

An interesting article.


----------



## podgerodge (18 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Isn't this a contradiction? If they would prefer to stay at home, why don't they do so?



They do - half the time as they can't afford to stay at home full time.  But what they do not expect is to be paid as much as people who work full time. Nor do they expect the same promotional opportunities as, mainly, men for this very reason.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Dec 2005)

Slightly off topic but having graduated from _Computer Applications, NIHED _in the late '80s from a class split more or less 50:50 on gender lines, I have subsequently found that all of the engineering roles in which I have worked have been male dominated for some reason.


----------



## bearishbull (20 Feb 2006)

irish financial service will be indian dominated in years to come. the banks are recruiting graduates in india for jobs currently done in ireland such as back office in funds etc.


----------



## CCOVICH (20 Feb 2006)

bearishbull said:
			
		

> irish financial service will be indian dominated in years to come. the banks are recruiting graduates in india for jobs currently done in ireland such as back office in funds etc.



Not to my knowledge. Is this your view based on personal experience?  I work in financial services and know plenty of other people who do otherwise, and have not heard of this anywhere.


----------



## bearishbull (20 Feb 2006)

CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Not to my knowledge. Is this your view based on personal experience? I work in financial services and know plenty of other people who do otherwise, and have not heard of this anywhere.


 
jp morgan and many others are recruiting graduates in india for their financial and IT jobs(google yourself for further details),when they have a good set up down there the jobs will flow,no jobs have currently left dublin for india but its obvious that they will when people are equally qualified and cost one sixth of the price.financial services is very labour intensive (50% expenses are labour) so cheap qualified labour is highly attractive.


----------



## CCOVICH (20 Feb 2006)

Nothing is that obvious to me. Ireland is ahead of many countries on the learning curve when it comes to financial services, especially funds. We also have the advantage of being in a GMT timezone, well educated workforce etc. 

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about it. JP Morgan are not a huge employer in Ireland. More fund companies have set up or expanded in Ireland in the past 12 months than have left (have any left?). 4 of the biggest (on a market cap basis) _Irish_ plcs are banks, and are not controlled by overseas parents.

I'm not saying it won't happen, I just don't see the evidence to say it will to the extent you are predicting at this stage.

Anyway, this is veering off the original topic.  If it is to continue, we would be better setting up a new one.


----------



## ClubMan (20 Feb 2006)

bearishbull said:
			
		

> irish financial service will be indian dominated in years to come.


How?


----------



## microsquid (15 Mar 2006)

POV: I work as an engineer, and have frequently been the only woman in a (large) meeting, have never yet had an issue with discrimination, although sometimes I will do it to myself eg. flip my hair and ask if any of the big strong boys will carry the pump for me - everyone has a laugh and the job gets done without me straining my back.

However on pay parity... study after study shows that women are behind the curve with pay. I can't provide personal details as people are so cagey with hourly rates etc. 

On childcare/ work life balance... haven't come to this crux yet but in general the paternity leave seems to be quite good, just that men tend not to take full advantage of it. Would I take time out to pop sprogs? Certainly. Afterward I'd prefer to stagger my work hours and work 4 10-hour days to manage child care. I think Ireland could take a leaf in general from Europe with regard to flexible working arrangements for both parents.  Childcare is a society-wide issue, not just a feminist one.

Women not interested in finance? Come off it. Most households that I know of (personal poll) women organise the budget and day-to-day spend split, whereas savings, investments, mortgages would be discussed jointly.


----------



## noilh (1 Jan 2008)

podgerodge said:


> I don't agree that it's extremely unfortunate.  Having a child is a choice.  Why shouldn't the women who choose career over kids earn more money?  why shouldn't the men who stay late in the office while the working mothers go home early earn more money? My wife has done better than she would have if she took time out to have children. So she earns more than women who spend half their time working and the other half thinking about the kids.



Well Podgerodge I pose the question - Having a career is a choice - Why shouldn't women who choose to have kids over career earn more money?
The answer is rearing kids is not thought to be an important contribution to society or business.   And that is why I guess so many parents seem to abandon their responsibilities to their children in favour of earning money or status or whatever is it your wife has attained.


----------



## z109 (1 Jan 2008)

Define: futility = resurrecting a 21 month old thread to restart an argument.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Jan 2008)

yoganmahew said:


> Define: futility = resurrecting a 21 month old thread to restart an argument.


There is nothing necessarily untoward with somebody posting in and old thread if they have something relevant to say within the posting guidelines. _noilheart's _post would qualify. Not sure about your's.


----------



## z109 (1 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> There is nothing necessarily untoward with somebody posting in and old thread if they have something relevant to say within the posting guidelines. _noilheart's _post would qualify. Not sure about your's.


But I didn't say it was against the posting guidelines or untoward, just that it was futile.

In an effort to stay on topic and having re-read the thread, I would say that the argument raised by noilheart has been adequately dealt with in previous posts. Not that I disagree with the point that noilheart has made, just that it is old ground and that a new topic on the current state of gender discrimination in the workplace would elicit wider responses without having to wade through four pages of historical comments.


----------



## joe sod (2 Jan 2008)

wheter it is male dominated or not is a little academic now as it is going to start shedding serious jobs, an awful lot of fat has been added in the boom years when cash and liquidity were plentiful


----------



## noilh (11 Jan 2008)

yoganmahew said:


> Define: futility = resurrecting a 21 month old thread to restart an argument.



Define:  nitpicker    =    trawling a 21 month old thread to find fault with a contributor who has a genuine interest in the thread.


----------

