Sexism in the City - what did you think of the article? Post Reply

[MamanMummy]

I would be very interested to know what the NappyValley mummies thought of the "Sexism in the City" article published in the FT Weekend Magazine.

Having left the City myself after ten years of very hard work, I read it with interest but was fascinated to find out it missed quite a bit of the problem of why mothers quit after children. For me, it was not the "punishing hours" or the difficulties of getting flexi working (which I did not want), but much more the fact that all promotion prospects to managing position, discussed openly before pregnancy, vanished during pregnancy. What's the point of staying if efforts are not fairly rewarded anymore, just because you betray by having children before being MD?

Is it only me?

[EHMorris]

Did those promotion prospects return when you returned to work?

I read the article too, and am a City worker with 2 children who returned full time both times. I haven't found it a barrier to promotion.

I can quite understand why some people choose (if they have that choice) not to return to work post children whatever their career is. The reality is a lot of people do not return, so perhaps forgive employers for waiting to see if people do return before promoting them and spare a thought for co-workers who often carry a role for 12m before the mother decides/indicates whether or not to return, fully within her rights.

Anyway - my conclusion from the article was if people want to promote me based on a female quota and pay me more then yes please! I'd be glad to accept.

[SdKPhotography]

My boss passed this article on to me. I work in HR, which is mostly female dominated but we do tend to see (and hear) it all. Personally I have never been subjected to direct sex discrimination. I sometimes think the nature of my job means that people are careful about what they say and do about in front of me. I also think that people know what they can and can't say at work and just because they don't say things doesn't mean they don't have these thoughts. I think that mysoginism, racism and discrimination manifests itself a lot more subtly as micro behaviours - who do you favour and get on with at work and what benefits does that give you in terms of how work/projects are assigned and opportunities are afforded to - and assumptions - if you are a mother and working part time you won't be interested or have the time to go for that high profile opportunity.

I have had two sets of maternity leave and yes, my career has slowed down but so have I. I am working four days a week and I am not putting in the kinds of hours I used to. Recently I have wanted to ramp on again and started to have conversations with my manager on how to get back on the fast track. I am finding it tougher, especially because I would like to maintain my four day a week arrangement and my interests outside of work, but I am seeing progress.

[Abbmun]

I read this article with interest. I don't feel it really addressed the fact that many banking roles are market focused, and market hours are not determined by a child's waking day, nor ever will be. I spent a decade on a trading floor of a bulge bracket and chose not to return after having my first child. The BB in question was incredibly pro promoting women, I suspect with quotas in place, but market hours dictated us to be at our desks by 6.30am with a departure time of 5.30-6pm. Add in commuting times etc and I could have gone a working week without seeing my child awake. I doubt global markets are ever going to change their opening hours simply so mothers can see more of their children!

Ironically, whilst I feel my career choice was incompatible with having a young family, I chose that exact career path knowing it would give me the financial freedom that now enables me to now be at home with my family.

[MamanMummy]

Thanks guys for all these thoughts. In answer to EHMorris - I had 4 children, very short maternity leaves for number 1 and 2 and not promotion issues then- I respectively took 5 and 1-month maternity leaves so maybe that helped. It's from number 3 that things got wrong, so by number 4 I just did not come back. I imagine there is also an "acceptable" number of children in people's mind for a full-time working mum, and stay-at-home dads (which would have been a completely viable option for us if my career was faster than his) is just not something employers even consider.

[nvmof3]

I chose not to go back to resume my investment banking career after baby 1. My bank tried to come up with roles that would have involved less travel and a four day week but I declined. I was one year off making MD and I think I would have got it had I gone back as they were keen to be seen to be promoting women especially mothers. However, the reality is that there is huge competition internally for deals and clients and I just knew that on the day I wasn't there my colleagues would be all over my clients trying to steal them and, after a year off, my elbows didn't feel as sharp as they had been to try to fight them off. If the internal politics had been less brutal than I would probably have gone back, but I couldn't face trying to defend my turf while working part time and distracted by motherhood.

[BobbyK]

The City, and investment banks in particular, is openly and unashamedly sexist. A woman will nearly always be underpaid versus her male colleague exactly because the expectation is that at some stage that woman will go off and have children, and in many cases will not return. In my experience of ten years on a trading floor, there was never an attempt to portray it any other way. Yes you can take maternity leave, yes you can come back on a four day week (in some cases) and yes on the face of it nothing will have changed for you, but everyone knows that's not the case. As mentioned above, the minute you step off the desk your clients are pounced on by someone else and, as also mentioned above, the market is not interested in whether mums get any kind of work life balance! That is the way it is. I don't like it, in fact it makes me very angry but i don't believe it will change. We all chose a City career at a time when children were a long way off our radar (at least for me!) and now life has changed completely. I too, wouldn't accept not seeing my children awake all week so I made a choice. I didn't return. There's a reason why women are so outnumbered in the City, and this is it in my view. Yes it is openly sexist and I don't think it will change in our lifetime. Put it this way, if either of my daughters decides to go down the same route, I will tell them to seriously consider their decision!

[BFW]

I kind of agree and disagree at the same time ! In my experience things are slowly changing in the City. In my company for example 5 years ago nobody worked part time - now there are quite a few of us and there are also a few of us that leave at 5pm on the dot to get back to our kids and then work from home once the kids have gone to bed (if needed that is !). 5 years ago the nobody would have dared to leave that early !

In my view the problem in this country is with the Government doing nothing to encourage women to go back to work. Personally I think the reason there are so few women in the City in top management roles, is because so many women decide not to come back to work after children because the finances really don't make it worthwhile (and I mean once you also take into account long hours / travel etc). Childcare in the UK is the most expensive in Europe. And after paying your own taxes you get a little nice extra surprise of nanny taxes too (If you decide to go down the nanny route which with long hours at work seems to be the only route available)! plus Nannytax fees, Ofstead yearly subscription and now they are even making it compulsory to contribute to nanny's pension (not saying its a bad thing... just an extra cost to think of !). And then to top it all up you get the added stress and cost of actually getting into work which in London lets face it is a bit of a nightmare !

They have been talking for a couple of years of scrapping childcare vouchers which is about the only incentive working parents get !

[BFW]

Whops sorry for all the spelling mistakes .. I am writing the post in a taxi on my phone !!

[firsttimerSW11]

Funnily enough, in an opposite scenario to an earlier poster, I didn't experience sexism at all, in the sense that I had the same workload, same opportunities and same promotion prospects. What caused me to (reluctantly) quit the City to become a SAHM was the gruelling hours (desk at 6.30am, 5 days a week, after work meetings with no notice, client entertainment, zero flexibility etc).
If they had offered me a 4 days a week from 8.30-5.30 say, I'd not have given up my career. I'd even have considered doing the above hours 5 days a week. But in a lot of areas within the City it's all or nothing.
I guess I am, like many others on this forum, one of the people whose "talent" is being wasted because of an inflexible industry. I don't think my baby appreciates my knowledge of the Equities world!
Had I even considered that my chosen career path would have been culled post baby, I'd have gone into HR. It is the one career where you can pretty much guarantee flexible working.
I love the time spent with my baby but I am sad that I've effectively had to give it all up, so if that is "sexism" then I guess yes, I too am a victim.