Wall Street Bro Caught on Camera Humping Fearless Girl Statue

If you haven't seen it yet, a picture has gone viral of someone humping the "fearless girl" statue that faces the Wall Street Charging Bull. According to a Huffington Post Article, the "man in suit humping 'fearless girl' statue is why we need feminism."


“Almost as if out of central casting, some Wall Street finance broseph appeared and started humping the statue while his gross date rape-y friends laughed and cheered him on,” Kaloyanides wrote on Friday.

“He pretended to have sex with the image of a little girl,” she continued. “Douchebags like this are why we need feminism.”

“He was gone within 20 seconds, but it just ruined the mood of the scene,” Kaloyanides told Inside Edition. “There were people talking about empowering children and women and for then to have this 20-something showing his entitlement, defiling the statue ... it was utterly revolting.”

In just two days, Kaloyanides’ photo of the man has been shared on Facebook more than 19,000 times. If you would like to see the picture it is available in the article.

A picture is available at the above link. What do you guys think about this picture and the attention it is receiving?

 
Best Response

I saw it. People do dumb shit with status. I've seen countless pictures of women bending over in front of male statutes. Who cares.

The statue is dumb. The bull represents the animal spirits in the market. The bull and the bear. It has nothing to do with masculinity. Women in finance want to crush deals and get paid, same as men.

I'm sure this will cause snowflakes to get upset and cry in their safe space. Who cares. I'm sure some homeless guy is pissing on it right now.

 

It's a statue. It means nothing. Do you really think young women are going to flock to Wall Street because State Street spent a couple bucks putting it there? What would really make a difference is if they started actively hiring and promoting more women. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, but jobs and paychecks make differences, not immobile bronze dolls.

Thanks, let me know if you ever need an introduction in the industry.
 

Dude, you could say that about anything.

There is almost no one below 5'2" on any of the boards on the S&P. Where is the damn diversity there?

Most bankers come from target schools, lets get some damn diversity in here. Bring in the non-target by the boatload.

What about the outlandishly small amount of stay at home Dad's. Surely discrimination is a foot! Something must be done!

Whether or not you think this is a problem, I'm sure people can universally agree discrimination is a pretty strong factor that explains this low representation.

We have special recruiting programs just for women for crying out loud. How much help do they need?

Maybe the just don't like finance, equality of opportunity not outcomes.

The amount of rage that this post gives me... I cannot be the only one...

Let me hear you say, this shit is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
 

Oh yes, mere dumb shit. Mere statue and what has that really got to do with masculinity? It's just a rep of market spirits, I agree. I don't believe that will stare a dumb shit out of women. What difference does it make after all.

 

Here are the top facebook comments on the photo to caveat off that:

"I see these types of phuckbois all the time near my office... they're such wretched people."

"And to anyone out there who question and criticize those of us who march: THIS is one of the MANY reasons we march."

"New Yorkers love to complain that their neighborhood is changing too quickly. It's nice to know there are some neighborhoods that never change."

"And each one of them probably told someone within earshot to "lighten up" because "it's just a joke" and never once questioned his motives or wondered what about this might be "funny." I've said before, if you see a white guy in a suit below Canal and you punch him in the face odds are good that he deserves it for SOMETHING. And to anyone who wants to tell me that's not fair, I'll just say, "Lighten up. It's just a joke. Jeez.""

 

People grab the bull's nuts all the time. Didn't see the guy humping the statue, but we can all agree that's creepy. The thing with the little girl statue is it's not a symbol of feminism but anti-capitalism trying to stop the bull, right?

26 Broadway where's your sense of humor?
 
TippyTop11:

The thing with the little girl statue is it's not a symbol of feminism but anti-capitalism trying to stop the bull, right?

Swing and a miss. It's supposed to be about feminism.

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek
 

As much as I agree with @TNA" that it's only snowflakes that are going to get upset, this was beyond a stupid move on his part.

Basically, he's brought horrible publicity to himself (and once his firm is identified, his firm). He'll be lucky if he keeps his job if he works on the sell-side, especially with all the sensitive political scrutiny banks go through. What a moron.

 

First off, not cool.

Second off, we need more women on corporate boards. State Street isn't arguing for gender parity; they're just arguing the fact that if a corporate board has no women at all on it, that's a problem. And it's a reasonable ask to make sure most or all corporate boards which SSGA has voting power in (and they exercise this power on behalf of both men and women investors, and the womens' ownership of ETFs is greater than 0%) have at least one woman on them.

Also, maybe a more controversial point: who was the idiot who decided to make a statue of a rambunctious girl as their symbol for women on Wall Street? Sheesh guys, come up with something that's more dignified. If your image of a woman in corporate America is frigging Pippi Longstocking, this country has much bigger issues than misogyny or "radical" feminism. It has a general problem with adulthood and professionalism.

Last thing, and this is a message to all the social liberals out there. OK, so for the longest time, you guys were claiming that sacrilege doesn't exist. Art exhibits where visitors step on the American flag. Artists filming their abortion. People painting pictures of a drunk and passed out Jesus with Mary Magdalene. You guys ran around claiming conservatives were getting their undies in a bunch over progress-- that it was backwards to protest these sacrileges. Now that other people are painting cartoons of Mohammad and now someone's profaned this statue, apparently sacrilege DOES exist.

Good. Let's talk some more about that. If you don't like it, don't dish it out and (beyond supporting the first amendment) don't provide ideological defense for those who do.

 
IlliniProgrammer:

Also, maybe a more controversial point: who was the idiot who decided to make a statue of a rambunctious girl as their symbol for women on Wall Street? Sheesh guys, come up with something that's more dignified. If your image of a woman in corporate America is frigging Pippi Longstocking, this country has much bigger issues than misogyny or "radical" feminism. It has a general problem with adulthood and professionalism.

Some things I'll never comprehend about social liberals in America.

IlliniProgrammer:

Last thing, and this is a message to all the social liberals out there. OK, so for the longest time, you guys were claiming that sacrilege doesn't exist. Art exhibits where visitors step on the American flag. Artists filming their abortion. People painting pictures of a drunk and passed out Jesus with Mary Magdalene. You guys ran around claiming conservatives were getting their undies in a bunch over progress-- that it was backwards to protest these sacrileges. Now that other people are painting cartoons of Mohammad and now someone's profaned this statue, apparently sacrilege DOES exist.

Solid point this one.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."
 

I am a pretty liberal woman, but even I thought, "Really? A girl? Not a statue of a woman?". Perhaps it would have been even more radical to have put up a statue of an older woman.

********"Babies don't cost money, they MAKE money." - Jerri Blank********
 

perhaps a statue of g-strings? or a statue of a pair of tits? now that would be radical

You killed the Greece spread goes up, spread goes down, from Wall Street they all play like a freak, Goldman Sachs 'o beat.
 

Agree with your point on the boards. Somewhat on the little girl. On the social liberal comment...

The design of the voting system basically forces two party democracy. This, in turn, leads to a broad sorting into two camps ideologically (or, at least, a broad failure to consistently notice/identify nuances in political leaning). You will thus find people on both sides that support (or do) essentially anything.

Flag-burning is a first amendment right, as is humping statues of little girls. Thus we can both agree that they should be legal, as should abortion videos and pictures of Mohammed. The difference I notice in this country is that liberals are willing to defend these rights no matter who they apply to, while conservatives will jettison or actively subvert them when it offends their sensibilities. Saying liberals are providing ideological cover for flag burning is like saying conservatives are providing ideological cover for racism and hate speech (not false in many cases, but certainly a somewhat selective reading of the mileu)

 
dazedmonk:

Agree with your point on the boards. Somewhat on the little girl. On the social liberal comment...

The design of the voting system basically forces two party democracy. This, in turn, leads to a broad sorting into two camps ideologically (or, at least, a broad failure to consistently notice/identify nuances in political leaning). You will thus find people on both sides that support (or do) essentially anything.

Flag-burning is a first amendment right, as is humping statues of little girls. Thus we can both agree that they should be legal, as should abortion videos and pictures of Mohammed. The difference I notice in this country is that liberals are willing to defend these rights no matter who they apply to, while conservatives will jettison or actively subvert them when it offends their sensibilities. Saying liberals are providing ideological cover for flag burning is like saying conservatives are providing ideological cover for racism and hate speech (not false in many cases, but certainly a somewhat selective reading of the mileu)

Liberals are doing more than just defending these peoples' first amendment rights. They're also affirming some of this speech in some cases. Like the abortion video or various sacrileges of Jesus. The equivalent would be Bill O'Reilly running around saying that it's OK to use the N-word, that this is progress and it's 2016.

Liberals and conservatives should both affirm flag burning as a constitutional right, and also condemn it as behavior that while legal, is an irresponsible use of the first amendment, and people really ought not do stuff like this.

 

Why do we need more women on corporate boards any more than we need more xgozax's on corporate boards?

Really, not a single one on any corporate board.

My point being, there is no reason for a woman to be on a corporate board just because she's a woman. There is no merit to it. If there is discrimination to it, it's a different story, but often times theres not.

Let's be a little realistic, GENERALLY women are completely different than men. They make way different life choices, they can get pregnant and often do early in their career. They are typically more timid and less aggressive. Put 3 of them in a group and you are guaranteed to have drama. It's not if, but when.

I'm not saying women are less smart, or less qualified than men at anything (although its true if you look at every single athletic sport). What I am saying is that women are not men, they don't make the same choices as men and thus get different results.

There are drastically less women in finance. You're going to get drastically less on the corporate boards. It's tough as fuck. Men hate the hours, what do you think women will think of them?

If our main concern is getting more women in good positions, we've got bigger problems.

Let me hear you say, this shit is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
 
xgozax:

Why do we need more women on corporate boards any more than we need more xgozax's on corporate boards?

Really, not a single one on any corporate board.

My point being, there is no reason for a woman to be on a corporate board just because she's a woman. There is no merit to it. If there is discrimination to it, it's a different story, but often times theres not.

Let's be a little realistic, GENERALLY women are completely different than men. They make way different life choices.

Ironically, I think this is the point on the left. They think war would end because 'all wars were started by men'. I don't have to point out the idiocy there.

 
xgozax:

Why do we need more women on corporate boards any more than we need more xgozax's on corporate boards?

Really, not a single one on any corporate board.

My point being, there is no reason for a woman to be on a corporate board just because she's a woman. There is no merit to it. If there is discrimination to it, it's a different story, but often times theres not.

Let's be a little realistic, GENERALLY women are completely different than men. They make way different life choices, they can get pregnant and often do early in their career. They are typically more timid and less aggressive. Put 3 of them in a group and you are guaranteed to have drama. It's not if, but when.

I'm not saying women are less smart, or less qualified than men at anything (although its true if you look at every single athletic sport). What I am saying is that women are not men, they don't make the same choices as men and thus get different results.

There are drastically less women in finance. You're going to get drastically less on the corporate boards. It's tough as fuck. Men hate the hours, what do you think women will think of them?

If our main concern is getting more women in good positions, we've got bigger problems.

Professor Ned Smith of Northwestern has done some work on this.

Here's the problem as a more extreme example:

If you get a bunch of Illinois graduates running JPM, they're going to assume they need to land ADM, Caterpillar, John Deere, Chicago Bridge and Iron, Eli Lilli etc, as clients-- that's where their friends work; that's what they know. They're not going to walk ten blocks down the street and try to land Pfizer. Now, if you get someone from Columbia, someone from NYU, someone from Oxford, and someone from Berkeley in the room, the corporate strategy will adjust. The ideas to go after Eli Lilly will still be there, but trying to land Pfizer as a client will be there too, along with Google and Unilever.

The more high-quality people, and the more high-quality diversity you get in a room, the better the ideas and the analysis are. There are more opportunities to come up with good ideas and more opportunities to challenge bad ones.

Corporate boards shouldn't put a woman in the room just for the sake of having two x chromosomes somewhere, but if you can find a high-quality, qualified executive who's a woman, you should get her in there. Likewise, if we can find someone with a blue collar background who spent thirty years in rural Alabama or Wisconsin, and they are qualified to be on a corporate board, we should put them on there. A strong team needs people who have different ways of approaching problems who can all work together.

If nothing else, a board should be at least as diverse as the people who drive its competitive advantage (customers, workers, etc). I can understand how a defense contractor might have close to an all-male board with a bunch of ex-military people with Annapolis and West Point backgrounds running it. But most boards should try to get multiple perspectives and people with different approaches to solving problems. And my suspicion is that an all-male or all-female board reduces that opportunity.

Look I keep diversity on a really short leash. I think there's a such thing as diversity sometimes being toxic, and diversity for the sake of diversity doesn't necessarily make sense. For instance, I think it would be a really dangerous idea to put a Chinese national on the board of Lockheed Martin for the sake of "diversity" when we've got a lot of military rivals out there. But I think women have proven they can peacefully coexist and contribute in the corporate world, I think they often bring in an insightful and necessary perspective, and I think that in many cases (not a majority due to career choices made by women), they're not only qualified for the board but the best person to run the company.

To be sure, women are investors. So are men. And they have a right to vote their shares. They also have a right to redeem their SPY ETF in favor of IVV if they disagree with State Street. Me personally I don't have a huge problem with this, so long as State Street is also going to advocate for putting one or two men on all-female boards if that ever becomes an issue.

The average corporate board has roughly 9.5 people on it (Sheila Margolis, 2011). Let's say 1/2 of women decide to pursue a career rather than be a full-time parent. So for a typical industry, 1/3 of senior employees ought to be women, and the other 2/3 ought to be men. What about the board? If we apply these assumptions, the odds of finding 10 directors but not getting a single women are (2/3)^10 or roughly 1.7%; that's outside the 95% confidence interval. But 25% of companies have no women on their boards.

In many cases, these firms may have smaller boards or they may be in industries that are largely represented by men (EG Lockheed Martin is probably made up of mechanical engineers and ex-military people). But 25% of the F500 has zero women on their boards. And there are probably cases where having one or two women in the room (along with several men) might improve the decision process.

My own personal rule would be that the t-stat on a single-gender board has to be significant relative to the makeup of industry employees or their customers before I start stomping my feet and demanding another gender on the board. I get it. Ann Taylor probably isn't going to have a lot of men on its board, and Lockheed might not have a lot of women (actually Lockheed has 4 out of 12). But my hunch is that when 25% of F500 boards have no women, there are many cases where there's something strange going on and companies are making sub-optimal decisions as a result.

 

Dude, when were divorces favorable to the bulls? Females get alimony, child support, and a shit ton of other benefits because they are seen as 'vulnerable'. There's a good article in WSJ on how NY's laws are atrocious towards males.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."
 

If there's no marriage then there is no divorce. Marriage is little/no upside for men with all the benefits for women. If you do marry then it is to someone of equal status. e.g. The dukes of Europe did not marry peasants.

Work hard, work clean, & most of all do not give up.
 

Remember when I spoke of nuking the Davos WEF a few months back? How about we plan something like that for HuffPost's offices?

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."
 

It's Flake .

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."
 

This is why I hate technology. This guy doesn't deserve the attention and serious people shouldn't be wasting time on it. If we had Huffpo and FB in the 1970s would every streaker get a 50-comment story?

 

This is the fascism of the left. I doubt any leftist protestor destroying property of screaming st people calling them Hitler would have any job repercussions. But this guy does something silly (is he even humping the statue?) and the witch hunt begins.

How about maybe this guy was young, acting immature and his behavior isn't indicative of mysoginy or anti feminism.

I pray this idiocrisy has a terminal point because I shudder to think what it will be like in 20 years. Like if I throw away a magazine with a feminist figure on it and I going to be condemned because the action is perceived as disrespectful? At some point the lunacy needs to self correct.

 

I agree with you for the most part, but come on, do you really think there is even a minute possibility that something as insignificant as throwing out a magazine will become a manufactured controversy? There's no reason to believe that the "tyranny of the left" (or whatever you want to call it) will get to the level of extreme where we somehow destroy our basic freedoms.

Gimme the loot
 

1.) are you saying if a leftist protestor was caught on video damaging property and he worked at (for example) Goldman Sachs he wouldn't be fired or reprimanded? That is quite the claim. 2.) Young and immature guys can be very misogynistic (not saying that is the case here), those conditions are not mutually exclusive

I mean I agree it is an immature and silly act, not a big deal, but this post is a bit over the top.

Array
 

Calm down Huff Post. It's a form of political protest against the hyper liberalism that's overtaken this country. Most (most, not all) of the idiots complaining about rich people and that their wealth should be redistributed are the ones without the talent & energy to get there themselves. This guy is just fighting what he considers the good fight just as you have the far left constantly doing controversial things in Times Square (but now with the liberal media, this has come to be recognized as the norm). God forbid anyone stage a similar protest if they are on the other side of anything liberal ever anywhere anytime.

 

The dude was broing out and being dumb, trying to frame this as some sort of political protest is pretty hilarious. I mean this statue was made specifically to promote gender diversity on corporate boards, how is that something that even needs to be protested?

Array
 
BobTheBaker:

The dude was broing out and being dumb, trying to frame this as some sort of political protest is pretty hilarious. I mean this statue was made specifically to promote gender diversity on corporate boards, how is that something that even needs to be protested?

People use all kinds of things as the focus of their protest, including crosses, US flags, etc. Many people don't see the US flag or Jesus or motherhood as something that should be protested either.

Look, I don't know what the right answer is here. I just know that this is no different from other peaceful but objectionable/not-cool forms of protest. If flag burning is OK but this isn't, or if this is OK but flag burning isn't, you're being inconsistent. Right now I take the view that while it's OK to be more pissed off about one or the other, they're both wrong and civilized people don't protest this way.

 

Yeah. You see the double standard though. People just do dumb shit . But when that dumb shit involves a person the left wants to demonize, watch out.

Honestly, this is going to become MAD. Liberals will witch hunt and conservatives will have to start retaliating. Instead of all of us just realizing people don't have evil intentions all the time, every little thing will get blown out of proportion.

 

I once witnessed a sober woman climb under the bull and cup its balls while pretending to be fucked by the bull. We all laughed and moved on. Not sure if there were any pics or not, but I'm sure there were. No HuffPo article though. People pick and choose the shit that they call as inappropriate to fit their narrative of the day. To give an example, all the Dems got all bitchy about the "grab them by the pussy" comment but Rep. Richmonds made some pretty crude comments about Conway and Pelosi was like "we were all making crude comments" lol - so it's ok when your guys are doing but not ok when you can use it as a bullet to hit the other side. I also think that generally we have gotten too sensitive, like the woman who ripped into Google and Alexa digital assistants because apparently they are not feminist enough (not making it up - google it).

Moral of the story: there are people who forget to take their meds. Just like those people on the train who try to convert you on the way to work just don't make eye contact and move on.

"I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing. " -GG
 

Yeah I didn't vote for Trump and I still think these snowflakes need to get over themselves and grow some hair on their nuts. Although I fund it funny that you automatically assume "not being a pussy" = "voted for Trump". You know what, I may think Trump's economic policies are retarded and I may not like the guy, but I'd rather hang out with 'deplorables' than with 'insufferables'. At least his supporters don't spend 90% of their time in a circlejerk trying to figure out whose gender is most fluid and complaining about people not spelling it "womxn" or some bullshit like that.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/proof-wall-street-is…

Interesting that as we discuss this a new study is posted by bloomberg that shows that while women are less likely to engage in misconduct and even when they do it is less likely to cost their respective firms as much as male misconduct, they are 20% more likely to be fired and 30% less likely to find a new job after said misconduct. At firms with no female owners or executives, women were 42 percent more likely to be fired than men. This is for financial advisors btw. Sexism is totally a boogeyman though.

Array
 
BobTheBaker:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14...

Interesting that as we discuss this a new study is posted by bloomberg that shows that while women are less likely to engage in misconduct and even when they do it is less likely to cost their respective firms as much as male misconduct, they are 20% more likely to be fired and 30% less likely to find a new job after said misconduct. At firms with no female owners or executives, women were 42 percent more likely to be fired than men. This is for financial advisors btw. Sexism is totally a boogeyman though.

I'm glad I grit my teeth and read to the end of this.

The reports of men are accused of and successfully sued for misconduct isn't surprising. The judicial system is arguably biased against men-- we're supposed to be more deliberate and the culture holds us to a higher standard. It's part of the reason the vast majority of people on death row are men, even though women commit aggravated first degree murder at a much higher rate than their representation on death row.

I'm going to get to why I read to the end in a second (skip to the bold part if you'd like), but more criticisms first. There's likely also a lot of interaction between the "leave industry" vs. "remain in industry" results for men and women and the fact that men generally stay in the workforce until age 65 while many women choose to focus on parenting.

The first order stuff is just going to result in a bunch of political framing, spinning, and hogwash. But the diff of diff-- that women are punished more harshly at firms run by men than firms with a mixed C-suite is very interesting. It raises some legitimate questions about gender bias.

Frankly I think men get attacked too much in our culture. I also think that if society really does hold men to a higher standard, "male privilege" looks less unfair in context. I can't talk my way out of a traffic ticket or pretend that trading my PA without preapproval was an honest mistake, and I'm utterly terrified of blackout drunk women who want to see my bedroom. I can get drafted to fight in one of Trump's wars, and there's a stronger expectation that I will provide for myself and my family, and work until retirement. We're trained to work harder to win. And if we hold ourselves to a higher standard due to western culture and make different decisions than some (not all) women as a result, it shouldn't be a surprise if we sometimes wind up with better average outcomes on a level playing field, so long as the upper tails look the same-- as long as driven women can succeed playing against driven men.

But there is a boys' club culture on Wall Street, in some places more than others, varying from firm to firm. (My own personal experience is that it's better in IT and QR than in S&T and by my guess IBD) But this study is proof that when we can find highly skilled women with 20-30 years of industry experience to put in leadership, we need to do it.

 

Sexism exists and it's a big problem. But when the left makes it its business to organize witchhunts against "finance bros" for the smallest political correctness infractions, it just makes most men associate the entire movement with hatred and SJW extremism. I support equality, but if equality means constantly bitching about 'microaggressions' like a dude drunkenly humping a statue, then GTFO - your movement annoys the shit out of me and for that reason I hope it fails miserably until its supporters grow up and quit this type of bullshit.

 

My issue with a lot of the "right" and "conservatives" is they seem to be more upset about the left portraying sexism as more widespread than it actually is than they are with actual sexism. Perhaps if they spend more time addressing the root causes rather than complaining about people making them too big a deal the world would be a better place. The same goes with whining about BLM and their confrontational protesting without acknowledging the justice system is fundamentally biased against African Americans and Hispanics. It all seems like an attempt to ignore the actual issue.

Array
 

There is bias everywhere. Short fat ppl are infinitely underrepresented on boards when compared to tall slender people. blonde women,being a very small minority, are overwhelmingly overrepresented in executive and board positions. I pretty much agree with most of what ant is saying, except that the media is just pandering to the fad and much like daytime TV did...For ratings. FAds come and go, the pendulum is slowly swinging back

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
 

To force diversity simply for diversity's sake does not work. It never has and it never will benefit society in the long run because it creates imbalances in the marketplace. Let the free markets work and let the best players play (both in sports and business). People are either reliant on capitalism or the government, but not both.

Simply put, no economic structure has benefited mankind, lifted the impoverished and provided as many equal rights in the long run (50+ yrs.) as that of capitalism - bringing equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. Simply look at outcomes vs. intentions and history can be our teacher.

I do wholeheartedly agree that if there is a specific, identifiable case of racism, sexism, etc., I'm right there with you to shut that person or policy down. Please, for the love of logic and reasoning, I beg you to stop with the generalities, regardless of political preference. We use raw source data and cold-hard, emotionless facts derived from outcomes, not intentions to drive our decisions at our desks every single day, yet we use feelings (with either party) and check our brains at the door to drive our political decisions and activist causes? We can do better than that!

 

Guys, guys, come on.

Look at what this post has become.

We're attacking each other because "hey, but XYZ is being mean and saying things I don't like. This is so unfair! I will do the same!"

What are we, 7-year olds?

We should stand down and have a cold beer. I am sure that this would probably cut in half the "this is fascism" and "this is liberal tears" crap we see.

 

The girl statue facing down the roaring bull of the US markets? I don't get it. What is she trying to do, slow down/stop people from getting wealthier? Increasing standards of living? Driving progress? Financing and growing startups? Allocating capital?

I for one never took the bull to symbolize masculinity. It was always about drive, spirit, and energy. Raw desire for success. Regardless of gender.

 

Also, sorry for the double post.

I thought board members and committees were chosen based on their qualifications and not by their gender?

Here in California, I know a few companies desperately trying to find qualified women to apply as board members, but there are not that many around.

 

Neque quibusdam cum debitis facilis ducimus sed. Qui facere nesciunt nostrum aliquid pariatur aut.

 

Quos dolorem deserunt vitae. Laudantium et molestiae labore sunt. Dolore quam et occaecati necessitatibus sit rerum fuga.

Dolor possimus nihil omnis deserunt molestias. Aperiam nihil rerum occaecati in quas et eum. Rem sit ipsum sint sunt explicabo fuga.

Eaque et laborum eaque a. Rerum ducimus sint et id officiis aut repellendus. Non rerum magnam cumque quisquam asperiores maiores possimus. Quisquam iste laudantium repellendus temporibus excepturi repudiandae unde.

Sint quo incidunt alias aliquam ut. Sint excepturi vel recusandae quaerat impedit et culpa. Voluptate esse id maiores eum repellendus sit quisquam aut.

 

Ut et tempore eos repellat et aspernatur et. Necessitatibus perferendis fugiat atque quo tempore. Laudantium natus et et minus magnam nostrum voluptate. Ab exercitationem unde ut. Vero deserunt ex commodi dolore illum autem. Unde voluptatem voluptatem deserunt cum nihil distinctio amet et.

Et nesciunt enim ratione enim. Quaerat dolorem nesciunt recusandae voluptas. Quisquam provident sequi sit ipsa.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (85) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (65) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (198) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (143) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
9
pudding's picture
pudding
98.8
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”