August 27, 2009
Hormones, not sexism, explain why fewer women than men work in banks
From The Economist:
That the risk-taking end of the financial industry is dominated by men is unarguable. But does it discriminate against women merely because they are women? Well, it might. But a piece of research just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Paola Sapienza of Northwestern University, near Chicago, suggests an alternative—that it is not a person’s sex, per se, that is the basis for discrimination, but the level of his or her testosterone. Besides being a sex hormone, testosterone also governs appetite for risk. Control for an individual’s testosterone levels and, at least in America, the perceived sexism vanishes.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 06:13 PM | Permalink
Comments
Having spent decades in business, real estate and law, I continue to be amused by the efforts of men to rationalize the exclusion of women from decent jobs in society, the treatment of women as "assistants," to be thrown away when they reach 30 or 40, to be kept around for sexual amusement and cheap labor when they are younger.
Here is the simple explanation. First, men are hired more readily than are women. They are promoted more readily, and given more money throughout.
Second, women's accomplishments are generally ignored or explained away by those in a position to evaluate the woman's performance. She "got lucky." While the male worker with the same record "shows great promise." The woman's performance is interpreted in such a way that it disappears from the woman's record. And all that is left are the minor, often petty complaints of her male bosses who find her very presence to be an abomination.
Third, women have no safety net, no room for error. If they reach for the moon and fall short, they may land on the street.
Men have support systems: parents, siblings, spouses, friends, co-workers who will prop them up, encourage them, assure them they will make it next time.
For women, if they fail, they are more likely met with "well you exceeded your grasp," or "why did she think she had to work in a "man's" field anyway?" No support for women means that one mis-step is fatal.
And because of all those things, women continue to be excluded from the best-paying jobs and positions in our society.
As for hormones, men tell us that they are completely incapable of controlling themselves, think about sex all the time, must nail every female they see, have no ability to control their anger, blow up and scream, rage, swear because they can't help it, often are violent for the same reasons.
If we want to assess hormones, and their influence on groups in society, we would necessarily conclude men are incapable of controlling themselves, probably should be locked up from 18-60, and certainly should never be put into a position of authority.
So much for that stupid theory, repeated over and over again, about women's estrogen making women inferior and, thus, excusing men's bigotry against women.
Posted by: NABNYC | Aug 27, 2009 10:47:04 PM
If I understand you, NABNYC, testosterone is not responsible for men being more likely work in finance, but is responsible for men being more violent. Is that correct?
Posted by: Sagredo | Aug 28, 2009 12:12:06 AM
Right. And we know that testosterone levels are completely independent of how people are treated: they don't rise in aggressive environments and fall in less aggressive.
Oh wait.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 28, 2009 2:03:45 AM
Post a comment