Wall Street Strategically Isolating Women

[IMPress Polly]

A recent investigation into new policies of financial corporations reacting to the Me Too movement has unearthed a rapidly expanding trend toward discriminatory policy responses designed to segregate workplaces based on sex (more, I mean) and thereby cut women off from plausible access to promotions as punishment for the existence of this movement. In fact, one wealth adviser interviewed went as far as to claim that simply hiring women is "an unknown risk" that should be embarked upon minimally in the future.

No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.

In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?

The problem with these new policies of imposed isolation for women?

“There aren’t enough women in senior positions to bring along the next generation all by themselves,” said Lisa Kaufman, chief executive officer of LaSalle Securities. “Advancement typically requires that someone at a senior level knows your work, gives you opportunities and is willing to champion you within the firm. It’s hard for a relationship like that to develop if the senior person is unwilling to spend one-on-one time with a more junior person.”

I think this consequence is intentional. It's collective punishment by powerful men for the existence of a climate wherein calling out predatory sexual behavior is now more acceptable than it has been in the past.

It also shows you that once more that, in a capitalist system, people are viewed in monetary terms, not in human terms. This is occurring because women are not being viewed as assets, but now as potential legal, or at least PR, liabilities. Were we thought of as people, then maybe the natural response would be to, you know, just don't demand that a colleague get on the desk and spread her legs for you or threaten to fire a subordinate if she doesn't have sex with you. I don't feel that these are difficult or unreasonable lifestyle changes to make. There is no need for this kind of hyperbolic, juvenile drama.

As people here know by now, I'm a proponent, and defender, of exclusive spaces for women. BUT what I'd point out here is the contrast of logic between this trend on Wall Street and say the highly popular women-only rail cars that were introduced in Tokyo, Japan back in 2000. The latter is something that was, and is, demanded by women, to which end participation is optional. Single-sex rail cars were introduced in Tokyo to protect women against pervasive groping on rail cars by predatory men and nearly 70% of women who live in Tokyo still support them because having that option makes them feel safer. Wall Street's segregation of financial workplaces by sex right now, by contrast, is occurring for the exact opposite reason: to protect predatory men from women, to which end participation is not optional and is occurring within the framework of almost exclusively male-owned institutions wherein men one-sidedly control the hiring and promotion levers. (e.g. 85% of Wall Street executives and 74% of senior financial managers are male, as are 63% of even just ordinary, low-level managers. These stats can be found in the article at the first link above.)

As the first article above also points out, this trend isn't limited to the financial sector either. It's happening more broadly across corporate America to varying degrees. During the summer, I pointed to a similar development in a space that I frequent even, gaming, wherein the internet's most prominent profession video game streamer revealed that he refuses to stream with women on the grounds that

"If I have one conversation with one female streamer where we’re playing with one another, and even if there’s a hint of flirting, that is going to be taken and going to be put on every single video and be clickbait forever. The only way to avoid [the rumors] is to not play with them at all." He wants to shield his wife from rumors of infidelity, he explained. Problem is that the effect is the same as it is in the area of finance: female pro gamers are few and far between (too few and low-profile to have the plausible option of gaining visibility and success by only ever playing with other women) and could really use visible platforms like Ninja's, and if other prominent male streamers begin to follow his example and cut off female gamers from gaining more visibility and success in streaming, the consequences for female pro gamers could be significant. So I mean this phenomenon of powerful men shutting off women on the grounds of potential sexual rumors or claims is becoming pervasive, even existing in spaces like professional gaming.

The claim that men are losing their careers (or marriages or whatever applies) over petty things like sexual jokes made in poor taste, complimenting a woman's dress, and bull$#@! like that is exactly that: bull$#@!. And you know it. No one here can produce a single example of that happening. The claims we're talking about in connection to Me Too and such are of real sexual harassment and/or abuse: of stalking, groping, requiring sex as a condition for advancement, occasionally even rape, that sort of thing. It's not difficult to avoid those types of behaviors. That's what people should do. What corporate America should NOT do is react by childishly using the Me Too movement to justify a straightforward, unambiguous power grab by men revolving around cutting women off from the corporate latter systematically for being female.

[Chris]

No, it's an unintended consequence, a natural reaction of the #metoo movement going too far.

[The Xl]

A lot of males are scared of an accusation ruining their careers, or even their lives. It's unfortunate but this was going to be the eventual destination.

[Common]

This is called fear,

There have been too many women caught outright lying since Metoo started, like all the Kavanaugh Accusers. Its gotten like the race card, just say it happened and the city pays you, same thing with metoo.

Men have every right to be leery of hiring women who at anytime they get unhappy can make a false accusation. Men are stuck between a rock and hard place, because progressive liberals have made it next to impossible to defend against.

This is an unintended consequence of an overbearing group who has gone way to far.

I also realize Polly will hate me for my opinion,

[Peter1469]

This is not strategically isolating women. It is a direct reaction to the #metoo movement. Of course now women are going to sue for unequal treatment in the work place.

All actions have consequences and many of those are unintended.

[countryboy]

A recent investigation into new policies of financial corporations reacting to the Me Too movement has unearthed a rapidly expanding trend toward discriminatory policy responses designed to segregate workplaces based on sex (more, I mean) and thereby cut women off from plausible access to promotions as punishment for the existence of this movement. In fact, one wealth adviser interviewed went as far as to claim that simply hiring women is "an unknown risk" that should be embarked upon minimally in the future.



The problem with these new policies of imposed isolation for women?



I think this consequence is intentional. It's collective punishment by powerful men for the existence of a climate wherein calling out predatory sexual behavior is now more acceptable than it has been in the past.

It also shows you that once more that, in a capitalist system, people are viewed in monetary terms, not in human terms. This is occurring because women are not being viewed as assets, but now as potential legal, or at least PR, liabilities. Were we thought of as people, then maybe the natural response would be to, you know, just don't demand that a colleague get on the desk and spread her legs for you or threaten to fire a subordinate if she doesn't have sex with you. I don't feel that these are difficult or unreasonable lifestyle changes to make. There is no need for this kind of hyperbolic, juvenile drama.

As people here know by now, I'm a proponent, and defender, of exclusive spaces for women. BUT what I'd point out here is the contrast of logic between this trend on Wall Street and say the highly popular women-only rail cars that were introduced in Tokyo, Japan back in 2000. The latter is something that was, and is, demanded by women, to which end participation is optional. Single-sex rail cars were introduced in Tokyo to protect women against pervasive groping on rail cars by predatory men and nearly 70% of women who live in Tokyo still support them because having that option makes them feel safer. Wall Street's segregation of financial workplaces by sex right now, by contrast, is occurring for the exact opposite reason: to protect predatory men from women, to which end participation is not optional and is occurring within the framework of almost exclusively male-owned institutions wherein men one-sidedly control the hiring and promotion levers. (e.g. 85% of Wall Street executives and 74% of senior financial managers are male, as are 63% of even just ordinary, low-level managers. These stats can be found in the article at the first link above.)

As the first article above also points out, this trend isn't limited to the financial sector either. It's happening more broadly across corporate America to varying degrees. During the summer, I pointed to a similar development in a space that I frequent even, gaming, wherein the internet's most prominent profession video game streamer revealed that he refuses to stream with women on the grounds that

"If I have one conversation with one female streamer where we’re playing with one another, and even if there’s a hint of flirting, that is going to be taken and going to be put on every single video and be clickbait forever. The only way to avoid [the rumors] is to not play with them at all." He wants to shield his wife from rumors of infidelity, he explained. Problem is that the effect is the same as it is in the area of finance: female pro gamers are few and far between (too few and low-profile to have the plausible option of gaining visibility and success by only ever playing with other women) and could really use visible platforms like Ninja's, and if other prominent male streamers begin to follow his example and cut off female gamers from gaining more visibility and success in streaming, the consequences for female pro gamers could be significant. So I mean this phenomenon of powerful men shutting off women on the grounds of potential sexual rumors or claims is becoming pervasive, even existing in spaces like professional gaming.

The claim that men are losing their careers (or marriages or whatever applies) over petty things like sexual jokes made in poor taste, complimenting a woman's dress, and bull$#@! like that is exactly that: bull$#@!. And you know it. No one here can produce a single example of that happening. The claims we're talking about in connection to Me Too and such are of real sexual harassment and/or abuse: of stalking, groping, requiring sex as a condition for advancement, occasionally even rape, that sort of thing. It's not difficult to avoid those types of behaviors. That's what people should do. What corporate America should NOT do is react by childishly using the Me Too movement to justify a straightforward, unambiguous power grab by men revolving around cutting women off from the corporate latter systematically for being female.

What did you think would happen, when mere allegations are promoted as guilt, in the complete absence of evidence? Who wants to risk that?

[IMPress Polly]

Okay, then what should be done, guys? People who are treated this way should just sit there and take stalking, groping, even rape without complaint, you're suggesting? Seriously, if being allowed to say that you have experienced $#@! like this is the problem here, then I assume that somehow imposing silence in the internet age is the solution you'd propose?

[Dr. Who]

I understand what you are saying, however in the context of industries that tend to demand that those in senior positions work very late hours when there are few if any support staff present, it then becomes a matter of he said, she said. In terms of who is likely to be believed when it comes to accusations of a sexual nature, the pendulum has swung the other way and any allegation by a female employee now would seem to require the male to prove his innocence, which could be like trying to prove a negative. I don't like to think that my own sex would manufacture such tales but in the dog-eat-dog worlds of certain professions, eliminating an obstacle to advancement by making an unprovable allegation might appeal to someone who is both ambitious and unscrupulous. It's also not unheard of (as recently noted in the press) for women to make such false allegations. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than for HR departments to ensure that they don't act with bias and investigate such accusations very carefully and thoroughly. I certainly don't think that not advancing women is the correct solution.

[Peter1469]

Okay, then what should be done, guys? People who are treated this way should just sit there and take stalking, groping, even rape without complaint, you're suggesting? Seriously, if being allowed to say that you have experienced $#@! like this is the problem here, then I assume that somehow imposing silence in the internet age is the solution you'd propose?

Report rape, assault, and hostile work environment, etc as immediately as practical.

[Common]

Okay, then what should be done, guys? People who are treated this way should just sit there and take stalking, groping, even rape without complaint, you're suggesting? Seriously, if being allowed to say that you have experienced $#@! like this is the problem here, then I assume that somehow imposing silence in the internet age is the solution you'd propose?

Sincerely Polly, I dont think its right one bit what they are doing, I wouldnt want that to be done to my own daughters, but I have to admit I understand the consternation of men now in the workplace being afraid of getting screwed for no reason.

Polly the worst possible thing that could have happened to the MeToo movement and women, was when Men and women not involved in that movement all over the country, saw LIVE and in REAL TIME what Feinstein, Kamala Harris and California democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh. Polly you are an extremely intelligent young woman, you have to know that all trust went Right out the window. Heres how men thing now, if they can do it to brett kavanaugh what they hell can they do to me.

Women did this to Women, it wasnt Men that did this women this time