Deriding gender at Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs is surprisingly not leading the fight against gender stereotypes in the workplace.

The bank promoted itself to Harvard’s Women of Computer Science club with swag items chosen to appeal to women — nail files and makeup mirrors.

Because, you know, chicks dig that stuff.

Not surprisingly, this company has a whopping two women on its 12 person board and three female executives out of 30 on its management committee.

So while handing girly favors — or gender stereotypes — is clearly a commendable attempt to recruit more women, Goldman missed the mark. 

The fact that there are no “Men in Computer Science” clubs is not reverse-sexism. The reason such a club cannot exist is because men have never been thought less capable because of their gender. There has never been a reason to create an exclusive club for a group who are traditionally the excluders.

The boys club of Goldman Sachs, which has been called “a frat on steroids,” is no different.

One of the reasons women are excluded is precisely because the gender stereotypes a nail file and makeup mirror represent are both impossible to live up to and distracting from what women can really achieve.

A former female Goldman employee claimed that a memo once replaced corporate headshots of women with pictures of half-naked Playboy playmates. Amusing.

The problem with handing out nail files and mirrors as a way to promote your company to women is it’s a reminder of the way many men view their female coworkers. It’s not quite as bad today as the Playboy incident, which happened in the ‘90s.

Now things are slightly different, but sexual objectification of women still has its grip on society.

Women obviously face much more physical scrutiny than men. The problem here, though, is not necessarily the crushing standards of beauty for women, but how degrading it is to have your appearance constantly referenced over your abilities.

It’s an insult to the effect women actually have on the world — an effect that is not just aesthetic. 

Goldman has surely done worse things to discriminate against women, and their attempt to appeal to women is commendable, even if the execution was poor.  Kudos to Goldman for trying to improve their male to female ratio, but they would have sent a better message with a more gender-neutral item for these smart, high-achieving women.

A pen, for example, which is just as functional for a woman as it is for a man.

Harvard’s Women of Computer Science can achieve much more than looking pretty, a fairly useless talent.

It was a nice attempt, Goldman Sachs.

Just remember there’s more to being a woman than filing our nails and wearing mascara.

cjellert@indiana.edu
Follow Columnist Caroline Ellert on Twitter @cjellert