In my opinion, pretending in a non-sexist way by engaging in sexist activities is perhaps the worst manifestation of the moral basis in human activity. Let’s take an example from the financial media industry if we could.
Well, The Wall Street Journal contains a list of the best financial advisors, and in that list men and women take into account ratings, actual profitability, and the amount of money under management. Then the Wall Street Journal releases a list of the best women financial advisors. Looking at it, one could easily tell; and what? But that’s only because we’ve been taught to think it’s right, even if it clearly reflects women’s complete bias. I asked myself, why does the Wall Street Journal do this?
It’s just in the media – it’s journalists, journalists spend a lot of time in college to get a degree in journalism, and so he had more time to brainwash into the trap of sexist theory, which says that in our patriarchal society, women somehow become victims. The Wall Street Journal pretends to be above all, but obviously not, judging by this choice of content.
If things were fair and sexism didn’t exist and everything was truly “gender neutral,” there would be only one list with men and women, or there would be two lists: one only with men and one with women to be fair to both. If we look at the list of all financial advisers, only one woman is in the top 20, and in the top 100 – four, which is not very good, and, of course, there are reasons for this, but the numbers are fair and square. We live in a competitive society, and the financial sector does exist, and these are real results based on predetermined criteria. This is true.
If for some reason we as a society are worried about women who look bad during such surveys and data, or when it comes to the Wall Street Journal, then we have a better choice;
A. Do not publish the survey at all
B. Two separate surveys – one for men and one for women
If we choose “A,” then we have a bias to store or hide data, which does nothing more than reinforce the erroneous name and reinforces the theme that both men and women are completely equal in all aspects of human effort, we are not out are. We all either know or should have known this already, simply by simply observing our species, and the basic people who observe the techniques inherent in our species must understand the world around us.
So the above “A” is better than the way we now conduct a financial advisor survey, but probably not as good as choosing “B”, which makes more sense.
Now one can argue, and a professor of gender studies would certainly say that the reason women had only 4 places in the top 100 is that the industry used to shy away from women. Okay, let’s take this for a moment? First, the field of financial advisor is quite new, in fact the first people even licensed it, and the first courses took place in the late 70’s – early 80’s. There were women in these first classes. I know, since I was married to one of them, I entered the very first class. Most of the people in the class were men, but there were also women.
Perhaps this title or subject did not interest women so much. Everyone who was allowed at the time was registered. Mostly stock brokers who had enough to eat the norms were those who were in first grade, but not all, some were just people from finance, banking and accounting and other strata and interests. At the time when the industry started at all, there was no bias. In fact, some may say that because “Financial Counseling” is largely about “relationships” with clients, women may be more appropriate, this is of course my bias, because I believe that women who are evolutionarily out of are the mothers of a married unit, more successful than men in a relationship, but I refuse, because enough words have been spent on this topic to fill in the publicly available data created by man.
So why do men outperform women as financial advisors? Well, we can say that men tend to be more competitive, so approach higher risk, which leads them to be very successful or tend to be less successful, so they break down and burn out and go looking for a new job in some other sector. The survey, which shows the lowest or worst (in terms of profitability) financial advisers, in this case will be filled by men; and women who build relationships better are less at risk because they don’t want their clients to lose money, will show more average returns, that overtime is a safer rate. This can make them overall “better” – a topic for future dialogue.
The funny thing about all of this, and, mind you, I don’t agree about “gender equality” and don’t even highly value the financial sector; is that while people have been busy playing with gender equality, and the government is busy imposing new rules on the sector, artificial intelligent robo-consultants have come and taken over. Soon the best person to work for will be a man or a woman or even a transgender person, it will be a computer. Well done, you did it yourself – Again!