Financial Advisors : How Did Reverse Sexism Become Acceptable Norm?

In my view, pretending to be non-sexist by engaging in sexist activities is probably the worst display of a moral foundation within the human endeavour. Let's take an example from the Financial Media Industry if we might.

Financial Advisors : How Did Reverse Sexism Become Acceptable Norm?
Financial Advisors : How Did Reverse Sexism Become Acceptable Norm? 


Okay so,

The Wall Street Journal puts out a list of Top Financial Advisors and in that list it is both male and female based on the ranks, actual returns and amount of money under management.

Then the Wall Street Journal puts out a list of Top Women Financial Advisors.

 In looking at this one could easily say; so what? But that is only because we've been trained to think this is proper, even when it flagrantly displays the complete bias for women. I asked myself why the Wall Street Journal does this?

It's simple, those in the media are journalists, journalists spend a lot of time in college to get their journalism degree, thus have had more time to become brainwashed into the sexism theory trap, one which says that in our patriarchal society women are somehow victims.

 The Wall Street Journal, a business newspaper, pretends to be above all this but they obviously are not, judging by such choices in their content.

If things were fair and sexism did not exist and everything was truly 'gender neutral' there would be only one list with men and women, or there would be two lists, one with only men and one with only women to be fair to both.

 When we look at the list of all Financial Advisors there was only one woman in the top 20, and four in the top 100, not such a good showing, and of course there are probably reasons for this, but those are the numbers, fair and square.

 We live in a competitive society and the financial sector is indeed, and those are the actual results based on pre-determined criteria. That's the truth.


If for some reason we, as a society are worried about women looking bad on such surveys and data points, or if the Wall Street Journal is concerned, then we have better choices;

A. Don't Publish The Survey At All

B. Two Separate Surveys - One for Men and One for Women

If we choose "A" then we are being bias to hold or hide the data, which does nothing more than perpetuate a misnomer of ability and props up the theme that both men and women are totally equal in all aspects of the human endeavour, we are not.

 We all either know or should have already known this, simply by mere observation of our species and basic people watching techniques inherent in our species' need to understand the world around us.

So, above "A" is better than the way we are doing Financial Advisor Survey's now, but probably not as good as choice "B" which makes more sense.

Now then, one could argue and a Gender Studies Professor definitely would, that the reason women only had 4 in the top 100 is because the industry was previously bias against women. Okay let's take this for a moment shall we?

First,
 the field of Financial Advisor is pretty new, in fact the first people even licensed for this, and the first courses occurred in the late 70's and early 80's.

 There were women in these first classes. I know because I was married to one of them, enrolled in the very first class actually.

 Most of the people in the class were men, but there were women too.

Perhaps that class title or subject didn't interest women as much. Anyone at the time was allowed to enrol. Mostly stock brokers who were somewhat fed-up with the norm were those in the first class, but not all, some were just folks from finance, banking and accounting, and other backgrounds and interests.

 There was no bias at the time the industry started at all. In fact, some might say that since Financial Advising is a lot about 'relationships' with clients that women might be more suited, this of course is my bias speaking, as I believe women, who evolutionarily are the mothers of the family unit do better than men in relationships, but I digress, as enough words have been expended on that topic to fill a day's worth of human generated Internet Data.

So, why do men out-perform women as financial advisors? Well, one could say that men are typically more competitive therefore take a higher-risk approach, which leads them to be very successful or more typically less successful, thus they crash and burn and go find new work in some other sector.

A survey showing the bottom or worst performing (in terms of returns) Financial Advisors in this case would be filled with men; and women who are better relationship builders taking less risk because they don't want their clients to lose money would show more average returns which overtime is a way safer bet. This might actually make them 'better' overall, a topic for a future dialogue.


The funny thing about all this and mind you, I don't give a crap about 'gender equality' or even hold the financial sector in high-esteem; is that while humans were busy playing games with gender equality, and the government busy throwing more regulations at the sector, the Artificial Intelligent Robo-Advisors came and took over.

Soon, the best person for a job won't be male or female or even transgender, it will be a computer. Well done humans, you did it to yourselves - Again!

thanks for the time .

Message to you : - Keep Educating the children . 


Post a Comment

0 Comments