In my opinion, pretending to be a non-sexist by engaging in sexist activities is perhaps the worst manifestation of morality in human endeavor. Let’s take the example of the financial media industry, if we can.
Well, The Wall Street Journal publishes a list of the best financial advisors and it includes both men and women based on the ranks, the actual return and the amount of money under management. The Wall Street Journal then published a list of the best financial advisors for women. Considering this, one can easily say; and what? But this is only because we have been trained to think that this is right, even when it clearly demonstrates complete bias towards women. I wondered why the Wall Street Journal was doing this?
It’s just that those in the media are journalists, journalists spend a lot of time in college to get a journalism degree, thus have more time to be brainwashed into the trap of the theory of sexism, which says that in our patriarchal society women are victims in some way. The Wall Street Journal, a business newspaper, pretends to be above all this, but this is clearly not the case, judging by such a choice in their content.
If things were fair and sexism did not exist and everything was really “gender neutral”, there would be only one list of 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, which is not such a good performance and of course there are probably reasons for that, but these are the numbers, fair and square. We live in a competitive society and the financial sector really is, and these are the real results based on pre-defined criteria. This is the truth.
If for some reason we as a society are worried about women who look bad in such surveys and data, or if the Wall Street Journal is concerned, then we have a better choice;
A. Do not publish the survey at all
B. Two separate studies – one for men and one for women
If we choose “A”, then we are biased to store or hide data, which does nothing more than maintain the wrong name of the ability and supports the theme that both men and women are completely equal in all aspects of human endeavor, we do not are. We all either know, or we should already know, simply by simply observing our species and basic people observing techniques inherent in our species’ need to understand the world around us.
So, above “A” is better than the way we do the financial advisor’s survey now, but it’s probably not as good as choosing “B”, which makes more sense.
Then it could be argued, and the professor of gender studies would definitely do the reason that women have only 4 in the top 100 because the industry was previously biased towards women. Okay, let’s take this for a moment, shall we? First, the field of financial advisor is quite new, in fact the first people were even licensed for it, and the first courses took place in the late 70’s and early 80’s. There were women in those first grades. I know because I was married to one of them, actually enrolled in first grade. Most of the people in the class were men, but there were also women.
Maybe this title or subject didn’t interest women that much. Everyone at that time was allowed to enroll. Most of the stockbrokers, who were somewhat fed up with the norm, were first-class, but not all, some were just people from finance, banking and accounting, and other circles and interests. At the time the industry started at all, there was no bias. In fact, some might say that since Financial Counseling is very much about “relationships” with clients, that women may be more appropriate, this is of course my bias, as I believe that women who are evolutionarily are the mothers of the family unit, do better than men in relationships, but I deviate, because on this topic were spent enough words to fill the data from the Internet, generated by man in one day.
So why do men outperform women as financial advisors? Well, it could be said that men are usually more competitive, therefore they take a riskier approach, which makes them very successful or more often less successful, thus they crash and burn out and go to find a new job in another sector. A survey showing the lowest or lowest performing (in terms of return) financial advisors in this case will be completed by men; and women who are better relationship builders take less risk because they don’t want their clients to lose money, they will show more average returns, which overtime is a safer bet. This can actually make them “better” in general, a topic for future dialogue.
The funny thing about all this, and keep in mind that I don’t fight for “gender equality” and I don’t even value the financial sector; is that while people were busy playing gender equality games and the government was busy throwing more regulations into the sector, artificial intelligent robotic advisors came and went. Soon the best person to work for will not be a man or a woman or even a transgender person, but a computer. Well done people, you did it – again!