High finance not worth it for women
Is it just me or is even a job at the best PE funds or HFs just don’t make any sense for women? There are always women who have great family support or husbands that are understanding and encouraging. But generally why does it seem like becoming a senior woman in finance even at the best places is sort of unattractive and significantly increases your odds of “failure” outside of work e.g. divorce,having kids late? Interested for thoughts from both men and women.
Women biologically have the child bearing role. You're up against nature when you complain about female participation and opportunity in the workforce. Combine that with an industry that hews to traditional hierarchical social organization and it's not surprising. "That's life," as Frank Sinatra once said.
I don’t mean any disrespect, but it makes sense that you’d name yourself “p¥ssy galore”. The maturity shows.
Ok prospect
It's a James Bond character
He deserve this answer!
Do you also preach this to your daughter and/or niece?
Nope. But I do live in reality
I mean I'm a woman, and nothing he said in that statement was inaccurate. High finance is terrible for women who want families. Most of my female friends have already exited after having kids. Hell, I can't even handle my job's hours without kids which are about 15 hrs lighter than IB/PE
I love your username. 007 reference.
Thank you sir. Most people (and especially the intern / prospect crowd) don't get the reference. I'm just an immature internet troll who doesn't get laid.
[insert any demanding job with long hours and low flexibility] is not worth it for women
Such as “Stay at home mom” long hours, stressful, not appreciated
Highly situation dependent and whether or not you have a good support system. Naturally, the guys who are looking for the traditional stay at home types aren't going to find it in someone who is career-driven. Personally don't want kids especially in this economy so am all good.
I respectfully disagree. Your assertion that being in high finance “…significantly increases your odds of “failure” outside of work e.g. divorce,having kids late…” is just as applicable to men as it is to women.
If anything, I’d argue the opposite. Women in high finance are more cognizant of the toll a career can have on the family - they live through it everyday as a mom. And because women are more aware of that reality, they make extra effort to protect their personal life (cut back on unnecessary travel to handle family obligations during the week, doing client lunches instead of dinners so they can be home on time, work from home more than the dads so they can pick up their kids from school, etc.). From my experience, men don’t nearly feel the same degree of obligation/pressure.
And it’s always so amusing to me when people talk about out how a women’s role in society is to bear and take care of children at home: my acquaintances who held the same opinions completely changed their views once they had daughters.
Respect
Can't disagree
Have you started working yet or still a prospect in uni
As a woman in high finance, I think it's totally worth it. Why?
1) In my experience, self-confident men with BDE don't shy away from high-earning women with serious careers
2) If your personal relationships do fail (and let's face it, there's a good chance they will if you are in high finance or not), you'll still have money to live your life and won't be stuck with someone because of financial dependency.
At the risk of divulging too much, but for the purpose of illustration, when my sh*tbag ex fiancé flaked out on me while I was pregnant with our child, I was able to buy my own house, move out and move on, even during the worst housing market in 30 years in an expensive area. Where did I get the down-payment money? Hedge Fund. How did I single-handedly qualify for the mortgage? Current role in finance. My situation sucked but I think it would have sucked worse had I not had the capital to be able to disentangle our lives and strike out on my own and live comfortably. I've heard horror stories of women stuck with shitty and even abusive men because they can't afford to move on. You don't want to be that person. It's also worth pointing out that while you risk age-related fertility issues by waiting to have a kid, you're more likely to be able to afford fertility treatments if you have made decent money. I'm not saying money solves all problems, but it really helps a lot and can ameliorate negative relationship outcomes; negative relationship outcomes that may be just as likely to occur even if you weren't in a high finance role.
Also, it's worth noting in my case that my ex's departure had nothing to do with my career. He is just a douche, and douches can happen to anyone. Consider making bank working in high finance as your "douche-insurance" to keep you from being stuck with one long-term.
This is badass
I like your attitude. Bravo.
Oddly enough, I had a conversation with a close friend about this issue not long ago. I did mention to her I'd want a wife who is career-driven and possibly in a field like this. Why? In case something happens to me I know she can care for herself and the children.
I've met and seen many women (men too) get stuck in situations not favorable due to financial constraints when I worked at the hospital.
why you had a kid with a douche
until proven otherwise, I will assumen that those Ms come from women.
It seems that more than 1 women around here had a kid with a douche... hehe
it ain't douche's fault either. She controls who she has sex with and she chose Mr Douche.
Big mistake
Most people I know don't know the person is a douche until they have a kid together
what is this? people live on minimum wage. why can't these women? you don't have to work at a hedge fund in order to be able to live without a support of a man. cashiers and janitors survive somehow.
maybe, maybe not. people sometimes behave douchey when they are not afraid to lose someone. and he could have not cared because you were not giving him what he wanted due to your demanding job.
I still agree with the general message that women should work and rely on themselves financially, but super demanding jobs like IB and PE are not necessarily the best option for everybody. attractive girls can have better life while working less demanding jobs, and they'll still have their financial safety net you're talking about.
1) I don't know if you read the news or look at any economic data, but these days you don't have to be stuck in a minimum wage job to be incapable of paying rent in most areas. It's more than just janitors that can't afford to strike out on their own, especially when it comes to security deposits and other up-front moving costs.
2) Often children are involved and children are expensive. Many women stay because they fear they cannot provide their children a comfortable living situation if they move out of the home they share with their former partner.
3) Not that it is any of your business, but I later learned from an estranged half-sister that my ex had a history of getting engaged and then bailing when things got serious (ie. engagement, buying a house). So it was, in fact, unrelated to my career.
4) While I don't appreciate your suggestion that my problem is that I'm simply not "attractive" enough, you nonetheless illustrate a very important point: Men are, for the most part, very shallow. No one is sufficiently attractive enough forever to prevent themselves from being dumped, abandoned or cheated-on. Everyone ages and you can be hit by a bus or suffer some other gross deformity at any time. The fact that men frequently leave their long-wed partners when they face life threatening cancer is a well-documented phenomena in medicine. Consequently, even if you are currently very conventionally attractive, it's still important to build up your professional capital so that you can stand on your own two feet and live comfortably in the absence of a partner. My career won't leave me the moment I develop crows feet or laugh lines. My 401k isn't going to run off and f*ck the nanny. My carried interest doesn't care if I've gained 5 pounds, and my sharpe ratio won't necessarily fall if I have to shave my head to fight breast cancer. Even the classic "gold diggers" who bone an 85 year old to get first in line for his inheritance often end up in costly legal battles with his biological family. The surest (and most rewarding IMHO) route to financial security for most women is to work hard, and work hard in a field that pays bank.
no disrespect - but don’t you think your commitment to your career could have had an impact on your relationship? or even the kind of men you even have the option of dating?
i find my successful female peers either end up completely alone/single or date weird/subservient men that play second fiddle and guys they’re not “really” attracted. or end up with guys not in extremely high paying careers with long/erratic hours. this basically makes you “the man” of the relationship as the breadwinner. so OP could have just said “is it worth it to take on 80hr weeks for an EXTRA $100-300k if you want kids and a traditional/heteronormative/patriarchal relationship+family”
femininity (which is expressed in so many ways) and high pressure wall street jobs typically do not go hand in hand outside of relationship mgmt./sales which seems like the sweet spot honestly. there are always trade offs to everything. very few people can and do have it all
in an indirect way you’re kind of proving OPs point by telling your story. you weren’t able to do both. women who hold down good men WORK FOR IT. i find women with careers/money simply don’t. it’s too hard (and i don’t blame them). but i also see at lot of 35+ single career women grasping for whatever they can get later. so just be careful ladies if you’re reading this thread
i’ve heard this from women MDs/PMs themselves. striking some kind of balance in MOST cases matters and truly most people aren’t built/capable of doing both. safely being a mom or conceiving at all has REAL time constraints. there’s two sides to the conversation.
note: i’m a huge advocate for women and prefer working with and for them in my experience (on average, def a few overworked bad apples lol)
Love this perspective, this isn't talked about enough IMO
Now how much time did you spend with your child each week? The only people who will remember the amount of effort and hours you worked on your job will be your kids, and not in a favorable way. I would have just taken an easier role in Product Marketing or Corporate development so I could have more time with the kids. If you move to a LCOL it's completely doable.
How much time do you spend with your kids? Raising a kid is a job for both parents.
Incredibly based
Fellow woman in high finance here. Awesome response and totally true. Men who are losers and insecure about having a high achieving partner always show their true colors. Not only are you better off without them but thanks to sticking to your own guns you're financially fine without them too. Money doesn't solve everything but at least it helps prevent you from being tied to some asshole. Independence is power.
Great way to end up as a childless 45 year old, too.
This is the bad advice women offer each other. They will all be lonely together, at brunch bitching about the latest much younger guy ghosting them.
Man, these boss babes sure got scammed! It would be nice competing against less women in the workplace since they are given the extra "points" to keep on climbing that corporate ladder.
A couple of things that will wake you up.
A). You have no idea how men think. Zero. No "BDE" men are looking to marry a "High Finance" hyper-masculine female. You only bring problems to a relationship: arguments, combativeness, not being feminine, etc. No, thank you, guy! I want a woman, not a guy who makes good money. lol
B). You act as if "High Finance" (you sound lame) will buy you a family down the road on your timetable. Ummmm, can you please stop misleading younger women? It's incredibly high risk at 35 years old. My wife is an OBGYN....you have no idea how many older women have miscarriages. And burn money like crazy to get pregnant.
C). We are getting one side of your relationship failure. You call him names, but it's not actually what YOU did. I doubt you were a saint. Also, this is what happens when you choose the wrong guys to have sex with! You should've been married before having that child (it seems as if many single mothers are such screw-ups and cause a lot of terrible things to happen to their kids).
If you had gotten married, your ex couldn't just bail on you. You do realize the divorce laws in this country are so tilted in the woman's favor, you could've had his balls on a plate for years to come. Nope, a dumb choice on your part. How do you work long hours with a kid in "high finance"?
You also sound young. Your mindset will flip in a few years, and you will want to get out of your "high finance" role. You'll want to be a mother, not a PowerPoint builder.
I'm sorry, but you were told to go into finance, but the men you want ain't bringing you home to mom. That guy wants peace and quiet, too.
Well put
>. You have no idea how men think. Zero. No "BDE" men are looking to marry a "High Finance" hyper-masculine female. You only bring problems to a relationship: arguments, combativeness, not being feminine, etc. No, thank you, guy! I want a woman, not a guy who makes good money. lol
Sounds like you are the one bringing problems to relationships!
Another thing: no self-respecting man is going to want to raise your child as their own if it's not their offspring. It's all downside for the step dad.
Everything stated above is exactly why DEI is dying off rather quickly. Thank god.
How many more diversity hires do we have to stand by and watch blow up a classic american company???
I don't think there is more relationship "failure" (as you define it, because for me having kids "late" is totally fine - I say this as a first time mom at 33 and now pregnant with the second at 35) in our firm vs. what is normal. Where does your data, or even anecdata, come from? Yes it's a high intensity job but let me tell you, things change as relationships progress, and you find yourself at cruising altitude that requires less effort if you invest the time upfront.
For instance, I love my husband but I don't want to spend 24/7 snogging anymore, we're passed that. We're happy having a bit of time with each other watching a movie, going on a date, etc. It doesn't require intense serenading day in and day out. I'd find that exhausting at this age tbh... Let me read my memos in peace!
Same with the kid - we put him in nursery half the day not for anything else than getting him socialized / less feral with other kids. This means our nanny stays 1.5-2h extra giving me and my husband some time back. He also needs less of the constant insane levels of attention as he did when he was a few months old. But don't worry, he's cuddled plenty...
Truth is that 1. I love what I do and 2. I've set up other parts of my life to work with this. As cliche as it sounds, Sheryl Sandberg is right: your biggest career choice is your choice of spouse. They either get the fact that you love this job and you guys as a team need to make it work, or it's not a LT thing.
I dont believe for a second a toddler can be spending a significant amount of time with his/her parents if both parents are working high finance (or equivalent hours) jobs. That isn't to say what is right/wrong/best/worst, but it is the reality and must be acknowledged. Much, if not most, of the upbringing for these kids will be done by people that aren't their parents because there is no other way to math out the hours in a day.
Husband has a classic 9 to 5 job and spends more time with the kid during the week. He was the one who wanted kids desperately, while I was OK with or without. We always do bath time ourselves. We basically let the toddler run our weekend.
Yes, I could probably spend more time with him if I had a less demand job, but he'd be spending time with a miserable mom. I'd rather have quality time vs. quantity time, esp. when we've set it up such that he's surrounded by good, nice, quality people whenever we're not around.
Having kids late or getting divorced is not failure. If I'm gonna cry, atleast it's gonna be in a ferrari
first post I made on this website (lol):
chatGPT, lol.
Why don't we let the women decide for themselves if its worth it?
So many reasons:
1) Women in boring Type A roles (finance, law, etc etc) are less physically attractive on average because noticeably attractive women tend to select into other paths. This is just on average, don’t get angry w/ me.
2) Men don’t assign much attractiveness to the fact that a woman has career success. It can help a little, but we don’t care much.
3) Men get insecure when a woman is more successful than them, and often won’t date women who are on a higher rung career wise.
4) Similarly, some women don’t want to be with a man less successful than them.
5) Busy careers degrade social networks. But women can less afford to let those degrade because biological clock. Men can make money first and rediscover their youth later (ie midlife crisis).
All of these things make women in finance less likely to find and keep dude. I know OP’s post was broader than just finding a dude (“failure outside of work”) but let’s be real, this is largely about that.
Maybe, just maybe, women don't take all their decisions based on what is attractive to some men? And maybe successful women don't find insecure men attractive in the first place, so it doesn't matter what they think? I have multiple colleagues in my PE firm and friend circle where the woman makes more than the man (men are high school teachers, hotel managers, one is in tech vs women in MBB consluting on partner track, MF PE) and they are all in happy marriages. Nobody cares what the "average male" thinks because there are plent out there who find driven and sucessful women attractive. Relationships fail for all sorts of reasons (for both women and men) - doesn't mean you can draw such overly generalized conclusions out of them.
OPs question was a general one, that called for a general answer. Fact that you can find exceptions doesn’t change anything.
This is a poor response. As someone with a HE wife in finance (I'm hoping i'm not debating with my wife here!), the reasons rahma stated are the majority of the reasons. Just because you have retorts to them doesn't mean they're not true. and just because you say they may or may not be rational, doesn' t mean they aren't true.
You saying women don't make decisions based on what is attractive to men - I think that kind of proves the point. If someone (not just a woman) makes a decision that is not attractive to a potential partner, their success rate with a partner will go down - duh. Doesn't mean they can't make that decision
This is true, all my attractive friends work in marketing, pr, or brand strategy. Most of them are dating guys who have trust funds or make good money in high finance. The ugly ones who are still single are working in IB and PE. I did have one friend who was pretty attractive and always popular at school do IB at an EB into PE, but she quit after 2 years at the PE shop bc the stress wasn't worth it and she just married a guy with a hefty trust.
And before anyone says this is simply anecdotal, I went to an undergrad with an insanely large class size (30,000+) and transferred to another one equally as large my junior year, and I still check up on people on LinkedIn from the other years as well, so I have a pretty large sample size of women to draw off of.
@regretmyjob there's one component youre missing imo (although i do agree with ~70% of what youre stating). Im a female and work in PE and dont come from family money. those trust fund guys are often looking for trust fund girls themselves. yes they dont care if she's in PE but they care if she has family money because lets be real, no such thing as too much money. for me personally, building my own trust fund is the best bet.
this is an interesting topic and give that 99.999% of the readership on WSO is male the responses are very telling. although as a female interesting to hear the male perspective
Where so you live that everyone has a trust fund?
Divorce and general relationship issues are not exclusive to women. A giant percentage or maybe even majority of senior men I know have gone through at least one divorce before remarrying. I heard this one colorful guy describe the experience as a mulligan alongside a couple other remarks almost like it was a ritual or right of passage.
Women uniquely face challenges with pregnancy and child rearing though. My wife is three months pregnant and while she’s not in finance, she has a job that increases her stress significantly at least once or twice a week. She is going through a lot and her body and mind is being stressed even without work. While she has a path to easing her work stress somewhat, I don’t imagine that women in most deal or investment oriented roles have the same option - especially in banking and PE. While I don’t think my wife is risking the pregnancy through work, I couldn’t make the same conclusion if she was in finance. It’d be good to hear from women on this subject.
With regards to child rearing, obviously norms have changed and expectations are not solely on women. However, nursing is still needed and the best case scenario incrementally puts more burden on the woman unless you use a lot of formula to feed the baby, which isn’t favored by most people I know.
Why specifically PE and not other fields like IB? Under OPs logic, IB is even more stressful and less predictable hours?
I also think a lot of it comes down to the individual. I’ve interned at a large fund last summer where there were many women in leadership, so it may be that some places have different staff demographics
I disagree with the points made in the post. Since when was it unattractive or less advantageous for someone to be successful in finance, regardless if that person is a man or woman?
Would people be better off working in operations, at a factory or in a supermarket? Don’t think that would be the case, would argue they’d be worse off and that it’s just based on the person themselves. But if people want to quit pe to work in a random field where they can work 30 hours a week and make 60k/year so they can have more time to enjoy their free time, that’s okay too but it may not make them more attractive or better off socially or financially
Same thing with law, medicine, or any high-paying industry
is medicine always long hours? I'd imagine a good specialist can work 40 hours a week and be ok.
It makes no sense to include medicine with high finance, law, or consulting. The hours are usually much, much lower once somebody is practicing and near zero travel by comparison.
I agree that high finance is not worth it for attractive women (for ugly women, it's still worth it), but not for the same reason. It's not because they have to make babies and spend time with them. They don't. They can choose not to have babies and live life for themselves and enjoy it way more. However, working a less demanding job provides them with more time to go out and bag a rich guy who'll provide them with great life. And they'll have enough time to maintain their look - to go gym, sleep enough, etc. Plus, what's the benefit of making $500k as an attractive girl? You still can't afford a yatch or Rolls Royce even. And you won't have spare time to go to Belize and Bora Bora and enjoy it properly without checking your emails and counting days until you have to leave cause your bank will only give you a week or two off at a time at best. However, if you have enough spare time, you can get all these from a man, who in his turn has to work in high finance in order to be able to have all these plus attractive girls. As a guy, you don't have a choice, so high finance is the only option for a guy. As an attractive girl, you do have a choice, you have more options, and high finance is a less attractive option, and thus not worth it.
go back to the incel forums
did I hurt your feelings? poor sensitive baby.
Couple issues here. Why can the man in this scenario afford giving the woman the Rolls Royce and yatch while the woman can’t. If it’s because in your head you’re imaging a young girl with a much older man, you should realize that being with an old dude you don’t actually like IS WORK. And work that is much more soul crushing than building some LBO models. As a woman, I’d much prefer the $500k/yr with the freedom to date whoever I please than have to put in the work that is dating an old/rich guy I don’t like that much. I’d take a husband I love over a yatch and pseudo-sex work. No shame to any women who make the other choice and sex work is work, but it’s a totally reasonable preference to not want that…
yeah it's because the man will be older, so he'll be able to accumulate enough wealth for that later in his life if he spends 2-3 decades working in high finance.
if you see it as worse work, then yeah, stick to PE and such, it makes sense.
one caveat is that your options while working $500k job and while working a chill job are not the same. because you have more time to talk to men and meet men and take care of yourself (gym+clothes+hair+makeup) in the second scenario.
Couple issues here, why can neither of you spell yacht ?
get the fuck out of here with that
did I hurt your feelings? poor sensitive baby.
touch grass, lose 60 pounds and probs get out of the basement
I look better than like 99% of men. I'm former competing swimmer with square chin, full set of hair, stubble, etc. And I had more than 100 girls from 20+ different countries.
You would have a choice if you were attractive, Kevin
read above, I'm hot af, but I never let my personal situation affect the logic of my thought process. if something is true, I will agree with it, even if it is not in my interest. like, I wouldn't deny that oil and gas affects environment even if I worked in oil and gas. unfortunately, most people, even educated and successful, are incapable of separating their feelings from facts.
Somewhat controversial to most people but I agree. I’m a woman who has experience working in high finance investment teams and doesn’t want kids. If you are attractive there is less incentive to work on an investment team with long hours depending on the lifestyle you want to live. If you want that upper middle class life paying 50/50 w ur partner then yeah it’s still worth it for a lot of women. However, if you are extremely money focused and want to have a lavish lifestyle where you can have lots of luxury items plus TIME and freedom it’s better to have a 9-5 or part time job and invest in your looks and a business imo. A lot of women wouldn’t want the latter option early on in their career especially if they came from families where they wanted for nothing so can stomach working in high finance in their early 20s whilst family pay their rent allowing them to spend the money on luxuries. However, if you are from a poor family with lots of responsibilities you are more likely to realise you want freedom above all and living in a capitalist society money can provide that but money in Finance won’t because you have the money but barely any time. (Also if you don’t have family support + you have extremely high student loans + UK high tax rate + HIGH rent because you live close to your work + your family expect you to give them a cut of your salary = that high finance salary won’t let you live a lavish lifestyle AT ALL). Time and money is the ultimate luxury combo. If you are a smart and ambitious woman with a relatively higher risk tolerance you can do a 9-5/6 and try entrepreneurship. Finally, high finance is the WORST if you enjoy traditionally feminine hobbies/activities. No one understands why you would spend so long on your makeup or need to pack a lot for a work trip or why the job makes you too tired to work out (a lot of women are iron deficient).
The problem is, no one is conventionally attractive forever. Every ages and entropy takes its toll. Your appearance could be dramatically altered by cancer or some kind of physical trauma (ie. car accident) at any time. Injuries, child-bearing or other health issues could render it impossible to continue to work out all the time and maintain your physique. Consequently, relying on a man to continue to find you attractive enough to want to fund your lifestyle is not a long-term and sustainable life strategy. Many men are shallow are will not hesitate to jettison a partner once they are no longer attractive, or present any type of care-burden (don't take my word for it, look at the overwhelming data in medical journals on how women with cancer are frequently left by their husbands). The family law system is not as favorable to women as many paranoid men would have you believe; you can't count on receiving a settlement that will support you the rest of your life. The reality is, for most women, even attractive ones, you are best off building a career that allows you to be self-reliant. This also prevents you from ending up in a shitty situation where you have to put up with a borish or even abusive partner because you are dependent on them financially.
My point was not that attractive women shouldn't work at all. The point was that IB and PE are not the best option for them. The best option is to work a more chill job like corp fin, marketing, strategy, which will make you $100-200k for 40h/week of work. You can save this money while you're attractive and men pay your bills. In your 30s you will have enough to never work again and you won't have to depend on anybody if you don't want to anymore or can't because of incident/illness and men leaving you.
I think you've not really got an understanding of how attractive you have to be to be given the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Generally, if you've got Yacht money, you'll be sleeping with models not normal people.
not really. if you're willing to go to the gym and do squats and get a good ass, you will be attracting millionaires easily, and they'll splash on you.
every girl with a semi decent ass and nothing else has hundreds of guys on Tinder offering them boat rides, fancy restaurants, and with time can get shopping and vacation trips, etc.
for Yacht money, you may need to hassle a bit. but even then sailing classes charge men thousands of bucks while for women they're almost free. can meet men there, or at golf or country clubs. there are plenty of busy rich men who don't have much going on cause they don't approach women, so they're not drowning in models as you assume.
Are we saying the man doesn't need to look good? Come now, the dating market is fucked up for men if anything, men need to be on top of their game.
nope, never said that. as a man, you need to be attractive, but just being attractive is not enough, you also need to have money among other things, so you need to work.
Have you seen Fair Play
Original post makes no sense. It doesn't make a women less attractive if they get to a high position at a financial firm. Doing well in areas outside of work just depends on a lot of factors and personality traits that may not be relevant to what a person's job is. People could be bad at relationships in a completely different field too, like in swe or another random field.
Being in a seat that pays well should be better as one can afford nicer food, trips, clothing, childcare, housing etc that would likely benefit in relationships compared to being in a role where one seems to be running paycheck to paycheck
I think women doing well in high finance have it better if anything. They're usually dating or married to someone else with high income in a demanding field, and have fewer external stressors like paying for rent and other general expenses. Would be similar to a doctor couple. They rarely have relationship issues. Both are working constantly, always in the office, no time or energy to fight or argue when at home, similar mindset. But it largely depends on people's personality, the way they deal with relationships and their mindset towards stuff outside of work.
Anybody here pretending like women in high finance or law or consulting or whatever else while having a spouse also working similar job are going to be providing remotely close to the same parental attention and involvement as a more traditional parenting arrangement is delusional or simply lying. We have friends that do it and their nannies and other support (or grandparents if they are lucky) are the ones raising the kids. The math on hours in the day just don't add up to do these jobs and be an active and involved parent if both parents are working these types of jobs. The same would go for law or consulting. Doctors typically work far fewer hours so that is a bit of a different comparison.
Being high income with another high income partner is usually an ideal scenario to be in all else equal. By the time you have kids and they’re at an age that you’d actually want to spend time with them (so not infant or toddler age where the kid still sh*ts their pants and doesn’t even realize s/he exists yet), you’d usually be in a spot where you’re not working 70+ hours weekly anymore and hopefully have a manageable schedule flexible enough to allocate time to spend with kids.
You’re better off building a good life and future for kids and providing necessary resources for them to succeed as high income parents. This is much better than being low income, because then kids are more likely to be miserable and you’re stuck with them all day and they just whine about how brad and chad from school have this and that etc., not ideal for you as a parent or for the kids
Completely agree - grew up low income and so did my wife. We both work in high paying fields so our kids could have a better upbringing compared to the tough life we had growing up.
Huh? That is arguably the most important time for a mom to be with her children. The idea that you can outsource the "hard" years to nannies and suffer no consequences is comical. I am also not sure of which PE partners are working typical 9-5 hours with no/minimal travel (i.e., actually home to spend with their family), but I certainly haven't met many in that situation. And don't even think about those hours if you're a banker/lawyer/consultant at any level.
Nobody said anything about working 9-5, you’re just not working 70 hours weekly at that level.
I’m a bit far from raising children but think it’s fairly common for parents to let the kids go to pre school and then stay with a nanny or at an after school daycare program until 6-7pm until they get home. Nowadays with remote work, most seniors and even juniors head home at more reasonable times, even if they still have stuff to do.
Seems like a better alternative to having someone stay at home all day
The epidemic of male loneliness is really showing here. Some of you def have never touched a woman.
I don’t necessarily think it’s male loneliness, it’s moreso a lack of understanding different viewpoints on either side.
I don’t necessarily think it’s male loneliness, it’s moreso a lack of understanding different viewpoints on either side.
Pizzie has
This is such a funny thread lol.
OP: High finance doesn't work for women
Women: But it does? We are happy!
Incels: oh you must be ugly then
It's more like:
It is great! You can have kids and minimal or no sacrifice to the kids or family.
>>Proceeds to describe situation where kids are raised by nannies and other help with minimal parental attention
Not just the mom's job no? Daddy could also come home early :)
You fool!…more mommy MDs for me.
Wild part w the weird commenters are they don’t even work in IB/PE/HF. Who let these people in. And how did they grow up like this if their mom raised them
Agreed, and that’s one of the reasons this site kind of sucks. There should be a way for people to be like “verified: PE” commenting on pe posts so you know who actually works in PE versus some cosplay types pushing their opinions
Who are you referring to?
If you're actually a director in IB and think a woman is going to be a highly involved mother to a kid <10 and be a senior banker.... you must not know any of the MDs that are moms.
Referring to you and the likes.
If you want someone rearing kids 24/7 - not just banking, any job other than household work will be impossible. It’s not a finance thing. But we happen to live in 21st century in NYC and my neighbors who aren’t banking ppl have Nannies at home. And I also know senior banking women who make it work and their husbands either work at hedge fund, PE or asset maangement at partner or even head level (not some dweeb jobs). And they aren’t unattractive. oh their kids do fine too. Same with my wife’s physician colleagues (whose husbands are MD/partner level in finance) or one of our senior guys very senior law partner wife. There are so many examples of successful powerful couples with great kids.
You should first get a job in finance maybe and you’d learn the people at higher level are very capable.
Just to comment on the attractiveness point here are my observations:
1) Type A high finance women tend to have more masculine personalities (dominant, less feminine, less warm to hang out with, quite nerdy with dry chat etc) which are less attractive to very dominant type A men. Dominant- Dominant relationships aren’t easy - one person has to take the less dominant role. This has nothing to do with money btw it’s just a personality thing
2) most men do not give a shit about how much a woman makes ; it’s more the hours and stress they endure that is less attractive. If you are a highly successful male, maybe just maybe you don’t want to come home to a wife who is turning comments at 1am and is super stressed in the morning lol. Maybe you want to come home to a wife who is well rested, calm and relaxed and can take care of you
3) if you are a high earning male, chances are you are trying to make a lot of money so you don’t have to rely on your wife’s income - this also makes a woman with more time and energy for you more attractive.
Obviously there are the insecure male types who are afraid or too insecure to be with a high finance woman but here are my observations on why many high finance women end up in divorce or are single which has nothing to do with insecurity. My experience is high finance women do very well with more submissive men who work less hours with less stress who can take on the care taking role in the relationship.
I understand all of these points, but feel the need to highlight that this point goes both ways: "maybe you want to come home to a wife who is well rested, calm and relaxed and can take care of you". A woman would also like to come home to a husband that is well rested and calm, and that can take care of her, listen to how her day was, etc. A woman does not want to come home to an empty room and go to bed alone, just to awake in the middle of deep sleep by her husband coming home in the middle of the night after having sweat in front of a screen for X hours, with bloodshot eyes and a receding hairline + stress way above normal levels that leaves him with minimal energy and effort to put into the relationship.
Ultimately, in a relationship, both partners can come home to a partner that has time and energy to listen and "take care" of the other. The general notion that women should be the partner that puts in more 'direct' effort into the relationship in the form of attention and time towards the other person, taking more of "caregiver" and "listener" role, deprioritizing individual goals and thinking about appearing a certain way for the partner, in my opinion, is based on outdated view of the world.
I think it’s fair to say that everyone’s experience may vary depending on their personality, firm, efficiency etc but in general, it shouldn’t be a negative to get to MD or Partner level, more likely a positive. At that level you can afford after school daycare, aupairs, nannies, part time babysitters etc for the few hours where you may not be able to pick up your kids if your spouse is also in a demanding role
Additionally, at that point you’re not working 70 hours weekly anymore like an entry level associate would be. Even vps and principals seems to generally only work 50-60 hours for the most part, so at the highest levels I’d imagine you’re only spending <40 hours weekly in the office, but possibly spending more time traveling and in meetings.
Additionally, given WFH and remote work, even many junior level staff nowadays can head out of the office by 6-7pm, which is already fairly reasonable.
Also, even if you just spend an hour or two with your kids a day, that’s generally enough interaction as you shouldn’t need to dedicate your entire day to spend every hour with your kid every day, or anywhere close to that
Most toddlers are in bed by 7:30-8pm, so in the unrealistic schedule you describe (PE principals only working 50 hours a week plus travel on average? In what world?), that person still doesn't see their kids and the kids are being raised by a nanny or an au pair.
This thread is full of people that don't have kids and aren't even aware of a typical schedule for a kid at ages 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. giving family planning "insight."
Where are you getting the idea that anybody is talking about the entire day? It is whether or not both parents can work a demanding job (in terms of hours) and still be the primary people raising their kids. The way I and most others do it is by having a spouse that takes an easier career (in terms of hours) and facilitates and family so that I can be the person that comes in and can get "quality time" for an hour or two every day and our kids still get lots of time with her including b eing nursed the recommended amount of time (something that is literally impossible in any of these careers). If my spouse was trying to do the same demanding job, there is absolutely no way that happens and you proved it with your unrealistic schedule.
50-60 hr weeks is fairly typical at that level, and definitely by partner in most places, could differ a bit if you’re in mf/umm buyout, assuming you don’t work in the industry, otherwise you’d know this
A Toddler is age 1 to age 3, so kids do not always sleep by 7-9pm. Eventually they start to sleep later and remote work helps accommodate this regardless.
Above approaches work. OP should focus on getting to a senior level first and then adjust from that point.
Another person who refuses to engage and further proves the point. No one will post a realistic day/week because it is fiction/delusion being spoken by people that don’t have kids. PE Partners or IB MD or Big Law at child rearing age only working 50 hours a week consistently (including travel/dinners out/etc.)? Lol yeah, that is certainly not the norm.
Idk what other funds are like but my group, even at the junior level, usually is able to head home by 6-7pm or even earlier at the more senior levels, usually around 5pm
The more senior folk on my team seem to be able to manage their responsibilities as a parent fairly well with their work day because of this.
Delectus cum non eligendi recusandae pariatur ea accusamus quia. Quidem et quibusdam recusandae repellat et temporibus.
Dolore ratione omnis facilis hic. Numquam voluptas quo unde voluptatibus error minus quo. Dolore consequuntur eius et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Reprehenderit quia eius odio unde harum. Fuga sequi aperiam quaerat repellendus incidunt quas suscipit. Rerum libero odio cupiditate quasi ad autem cupiditate. Sunt laudantium odio et cum aut laborum eaque. Ut nostrum dolores dolores nesciunt ipsam earum. Ipsam dolores eveniet optio omnis dignissimos facere et. In laborum aut nostrum voluptatem perspiciatis.
Laudantium sed laboriosam id voluptatem. Beatae necessitatibus recusandae libero accusantium quisquam. Aliquid non id aut ab nam architecto. Quibusdam voluptatibus aspernatur nulla tenetur quaerat excepturi animi sequi. Quaerat hic vitae iusto sed nostrum id.
Quo ut animi suscipit totam. Pariatur provident itaque eum et distinctio dicta. Necessitatibus maiores quia in labore sit. In rerum nihil omnis et placeat dolorem ullam.
Enim et harum voluptatibus nulla ut velit voluptatem. Ab corrupti facere ut dolor amet consectetur adipisci. Recusandae tempora magni officiis illo officiis.
Minus omnis harum sunt quia accusamus quod. Aliquam sunt molestias corporis nihil pariatur et quis.
Necessitatibus et voluptatem nisi nulla quia adipisci tenetur. Facilis sit est velit non quisquam voluptates harum. At veniam omnis vero ut ullam repellat molestias.
Qui reprehenderit doloribus doloremque voluptatem molestiae quo expedita. Nihil et soluta hic ut nemo.
Magnam dolorem rem qui omnis commodi dolorem enim et. Itaque sint reprehenderit ratione ad sit ab. Voluptates dignissimos maiores et quasi minima. Autem facere alias inventore.
Consequuntur in nam voluptates est doloribus dolor officiis. Culpa sed voluptatem autem. Nam nemo est laudantium ut animi inventore. Autem nemo iure et exercitationem. Ea cum vel qui.
Quia ut non aut alias. Eligendi rerum est qui repellat veniam quisquam.
Qui nisi dolor non eum. Doloribus fugiat cum aliquid porro quis et quia. Totam consequatur excepturi possimus soluta voluptatem. Officia sit cum repudiandae qui rem omnis. Sed odit omnis qui vero. Harum ex voluptatem deleniti qui voluptas occaecati voluptatem sed.