The vast majority of high ranking politicians and bankers are men, so is testosterone the real culprit here? These issues came up during Friday’s programme with Prof Mohammad Yunus. Over ninety per cent of the borrowers at his Grameen Bank are women. And they payback the money at a rate no main stream bank can match.
He said it was as much about circumstance as gender, but plenty others are more explicit. They argue women do things differently, and a female approach to money would have avoided the excesses and risks that have led to the current economic situation.
Do you agree?
So do women do things differently? If women were heading banks and were CEO’s of the majority of huge global corporations, would we be in a global recession? Would a female approach to money have avoided the excesses and risks that have led to the current economic situation? Is testosterone to blame for the financial crisis?
A couple of guests coming on today’s programme, who used to work in the City of London, say women go one of two ways. They either take on male traits, so what’s the difference? Or they aren’t taken seriously and are just the pretty thing that brings clients in while the men cut the deals…..Do you agree?
Is now the time for a rethink?
Or do you refute the idea that men and women have different approaches to money? After all we’re all human beings?
And what about on a practical level. If women are going to have families, take maternity leave, come back and work part time, are they really capable of working at the highest levels of business, or do they have too many distractions?
Should introducing more women at the top of your country’s financial sector be one the measures to improve how the financial sector operate?