E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSEconomics is becoming less of a man's world, and new research implies that as more women enter the profession that could lead to changes in economic policy.
"Without a doubt it will change policy," said Ann Mari May, an economics professor at University of Nebraska in Lincoln and one of the study's authors.
May and her co-authors surveyed hundreds of members of the American Economic Association for the study, which is due to be released in an upcoming issue of the journal Contemporary Economic Policy.
What they found was surprising: Despite similar training and background in economic principles, male and female economists tended to hold sharply different views about some of the biggest and most hotly debated economic issues.
For example, female economists were more likely to say employers should provide health insurance and that income distribution should be more equal. They also were more likely to disagree with the use of educational vouchers.
Women also were far more likely to conclude that job opportunities for men and women are not equal, and that specifically the economic profession favors men over women.
“We were a little surprised to see that there were these striking differences,” May said.
The findings were especially interesting to May and her colleagues because they had taken great pains to ensure that they were surveying mainstream economists, whose views might be considered more closely aligned.
They also come as more women are pursuing the "dismal science" as a profession. Women earned 34.5 percent of new doctorates in economics in 2010, up from 27 percent in 2000, according to the researchers.
The research for the paper was conducted in late 2008 but took several years to compile and prepare for publication.
May thinks that as more women enter the field their voices will start to be heard when politicians and others craft economic policies. A more diverse group of expert opinions could lead to more rigorous debate and, perhaps, different ways of thinking about the nation’s major economic challenges.
If nothing else, she noted, the study should raise the awareness that all economists don’t think alike.
“It’s just sort of a snapshot that allows us to consider the diversity of the profession and how we sort of shortchange ourselves when we use phases like ‘all economists think this.’”
Tip of the hat to USA Today, which earlier reported on this research.
Leave a Comment:
Men learn they have to be independent and providers in life, but women rarely do so. Women feel there is or should be some source of funds for them, whether daddy, husband, or the government. That explains the difference.
Even successful women with high incomes want to marry men with equal or more money. This is not true at all about men. Men often marry down and feel good about it.
Chauvinist pig!
You
Are
WRONG!
I second what kiru said.
Most women I know have worked hard to get where they are. I am in my 60s. I worked my way through college and have worked hard all my life, though I have been married for 43 years to a good provider.
I think there is a major generational shift in women's expectations, I noticed it beginning in the early 90s among the college undergraduates I taught. The women had no expectation of being supported by a man -- instead they expected to make their own choices and their own way in the world.
Figure, I don't think you meant to be patronizing, but the world has changed since the 1950s! Or are you saying that women make up the 47% who are "takers?" Tread carefully there, my friend.
PS My undergraduate degree is in Economics!
Women see things mildly and never explode over a simple post.
wow. I bet you are one of those conservatives trying to "put women in their place"
What a sad narrow little world you live in.
Actually its pretty much true about the difference.
Nothing to do with being a chauvinist..its been like that, and still is that. Maybe 100 years later it could be different. The majority of women prefer to be taken care of, by their man financially, while men prefer to be taken care of non-financially. (if both great, but atleast the latter).
Again, Randy, I think you will find that the younger cohort of women -- those born after 1970 as a guess -- have very different expectations. These are the women referred to in the article, those who will make up a greater percentage of economists and who are earning PhDs now or in the recent past.
This is not your grandmother's or your mother's world any more! Women and their expectations and their behavior and their lives have changed dramatically.
As a side note, though, I grew up in the 1950s in a working class family and my mother always worked, we needed her income to survive even though my father also worked full time at a skilled job. Women have always done what is necessary to look after their families.
True. Its changing. We all want that. But not there yet. Maybe in the future. Look around in our communities and its still the "grandmothers and mothers" world out there.
Wow. Figurethis, you have either a narrow range of experience in life or you just don't respect women much. Your kind of attitude is one reason women have trouble getting ahead at work and why they are treated unequally to men.
I have known a few women who were taught they needed a man and therefore did feel they had to marry a successful earner to make it, but the very vast majority of women I know married the man they did because they loved him and many despite his average earnings, not because he was well off. Many are totally held back from achieving in their careers/education because they end up having to take time off to have babies and care for them while he doesn't have that experience.
In case you don't understand what that mean, figure, it means that THEY are caring for others and that man, too, while he hopefully makes something to feed the kids. Often he isn't able to make enough for the family (sometimes he doesn't try very hard and sometimes he works very hard but everything is so expensive it takes two) and the woman not only cares for those kids, but struggles to balance them with the need to work outside the home or at home, too.
I put my ex through school and he didn't ever make much or "take care of" us, and my spouse now is finishing up grad school and helping with our kids while I work hard at two businesses. I know many women who ended up taking care of it all...figure, you are clueless. And yes, women can use facts and data and we do all the time, but yes, when I look at my employees I do care if they get health insurance or if their kids starve. Perhaps a bit less absolutely profit-driven thinking and some common sense and balance might help our country and our businesses at least as much as starving workers while getting rich off them. It is possible to have a successful business without stepping on and distancing yourself from those who work for you, and if you look at other areas of our society I think having more women in leadership would be a good thing.
I don't agree with everything the original poster wrote, but if you don't think men and women approach economics differently, you have never shopped with the opposite sex.
Women and men are biologically different and that makes them different in most of their choices. So this difference would continue on to their outlook in economics. Rarely will a women choose a physically hard job that involves getting dirty. They prefer an easier, cleaner job where there is a lot of competition which means lower pay. Even in the college and graduate courses they choose a more glamours career instead of Physics, math and computer science. With women's interest in buying it doesn't take a government commission to discover what women buy and what men buy. Just take a walk through any department store to see their different interest. The problem is they want more money for what they do when what most women do is cleaner and less work. When was the last time you saw a woman plumber, painter, roofer, electrician or yard maintenance show up?
But we have to learn to enjoy the difference because at the end of the day there is only one person in the house that knows if you are going to have sex and it isn't the man.
The original comment is one reason women are paid less. Employers assume their female employees have a husband to bring home the bread, and therefore, they can pay them less. I worked with a female account executive many years ago, who asked for a raise, and she was told, "Doesn't your husband work at (whatever company it was)?" - implying that he was earning plenty and she shouldn't be asking for more.
Men are not treated this way at work. They are viewed as the providers and are paid as such. Women are treated as if they are supplemental - as if their job is just for extra money.
"The majority of women prefer to be taken care of, by their man financially."
This is the silliest thing I have read today, and the poster is not doing his gender any favors in trying to uphold its reputation for clear-thinking. Today's workforce in the U.S. is more female than male. Women earn 60 percent of the Bachelor's degrees in the U.S., more than two-thirds of the associates degrees, a majority of the medical and law and other post-doctoral degrees.
If this keeps up, men will be an income and education underclass in a single generation. Women will be lucky to find mates who earn half of what they do. These statistic's belie that posters ridiculous assertion, but I suspect he is incapable of grasping it.
Like most things in the world, it's not all one way or the other. There's probably a large bell curve regarding how women see financial things and the role men play regarding finances.
I can see some women who want sugar daddies, but that would be one end of the curve and a minority.
I can see some women who are man haters and want nothing to do with them and that would be a slice of the curve.
I can see some women who want to be CEOs, want to run companies, want to be rich and successful and there are some that achieve those goals.
I would think most women would fall somewhere in between with a mix of one or the other regarding many details of their life. A one-size-fits-all simply does not apply and each and every person is different in so many ways.
What surprised me, in the article, is that the women who wrote it took "FOUR YEARS" to write it.
IN economics four years is a lifetime. Anything and everything can change in four years.
On it,
Are you aware that the undergraduate population at MIT is now at least half female? Times are changing, as noted by Tracey above.
Try to keep up.
A recent Science Times article illuminated the difference between men and women running for political offce. Men are more ego driven,wanting to be somebody. Women are more function driven,wanting to do something. And that is why we can't have women in office. We now have a male dominated and totally dysfunctional government with a heavy concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and lots of wars. So, what is to change?
Women tend to be less "pure capitalist". They tend to care more for the less advantaged. Women tend to be more Christian in practice. Men tend to be more Christian in their lectures, leaving a wide gap between word and practice.
Simple observations from a Navy vet who carried boxing title for a couple of years.
If only the President had listened to Brooksley Borne instead of Greenspan/Summers we would be in a lot better shape economically today. Simply,she was just right.
mj..."I bet you are one of those conservatives trying to "put women in their place"
My Dad kept my Mom in her place. She took a job outside the house in her 70's because he wouldn't give her any money except bare minimum needed for the house.
He is and always has been a die-hard, liberal Democrat.
Good for your Mom!! My father was similar in that he was a die-hard Democrat with traditional cultural beliefs, he never wanted my mother to work even though she did. Believe it or not, these variations used to exist in BOTH parties. Now things are so polarized, so "purified" that if you don't toe the full party line, you're out. It's a crying shame.
"Chauvinist"? No one uses that word any longer. It is so 1980s.
We probably should let women take the reigns (on the economy) for a while; they certainly can't screw things up any more than we men did.
(but let's just make sure it's not any Ayn Rand disciples)
Interestingly, I've never met a female Rand adherent. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I suspect they are uncommon.
I've met one or two. But it's hard to get around the fact that Rand was a misogynist and a sociopath.
I heard that's what Iceland did after their bank collapse. They (The Government) fired all the male bankers and replace all the key players with women.
.
women may be good at little things (like how to save 2 pennies on a roll of bread with their stacks of coupons) but they lack passion and imagination for bigger things.
it has always been men who ponder the big questions such as what happened before the Big Bang, why does time have a direction or where did life come from. the fact that there is virtually no women in astronomy & physics confirms this. sure there are plenty of them in Bio Science but that's only because they want to make money, which is a short-sighted reason. when was the last time you saw a woman lecture passionately about topics such as or whether there's life on Mars? fact is they don't care because it doesn't affect their day-to-day activities.
i think they are good at keeping things in order, maintaining peace, as they have less testosterone, but i think they should know their limits and leave the big, challenging jobs to men. thank you.
Mark, please see my post above regarding the gender distribution at MIT. Since women were excluded from higher education and sciences for hundreds of years, it is not surprising that they are underrepresented (not absent entirely though as you seem to believe).
It takes time to catch up. That's what this article is all about, IMO. You might consider the field of medicine -- which is fast becoming (or maybe it is already) pretty evenly split between men and women.
And, on a personal note, I know a lot of men who couldn't care less about life on Mars. What is your point exactly?
Without trying to assert a stereotype, my experience in speaking with women in general tells me that women are less likely to rely on zero sum thinking than men and therefore it only makes sense that their approach to economic modeling would also incorporate more cooperation than competition...something I believe we could use a lot more.
Without cooperation, we probably wouldn't exist at all:
Not a sexist bone in my body man, but I don't think you've seen the way women interact with their "friends" if you think they tend to actually cooperate more than men, or don't see life as a zero-sum game.
How many times has one of your bros described another guy as "a total slut" then pretended to be his friend? lol
Let me ask a question. Have you ever heard of a man making the decision regarding whether a woman was attractive or not based on her jewelry (not including wedding rings of course)? Not once in my long life have I ever heard a man say anything that implied a woman's jewelry had anything whatsoever to do with how attractive she was to him.
Yet women adorn themselves with jewelry every day. Why do you think that is?
I can't comment specifically on jewelry, but I do think women can be excused for believing that men judge them by their appearance, don't you?
And I've never heard of a woman who made a decision about a man based on how fast his car goes, have you?
NH..the point is that women compete just like men do. Men by cars or trucks to compete with each other and women by clothes and jewelry to compete with each other. But yes, everyone remembers the nerd in high school with the fast car having one of the best looking girls in school.
Really, hs? I am sorry, I missed your point that "women compete just like men do." I thought you were making a reference to how irrational women are when it comes to shopping and spending money.
Silly me.
And by the way, this statement proves my point about men judging women by their appearance:
NH...in the context of article and comments, the point I was trying to make could easily have been misconstrued, but it was in reply to Culheath's implication that women aren't as competitive, but more cooperative than men.
No one in their right mind would begin to question that men judge women on their appearance.
So, you might even concede that women who "adorn themselves" are behaving logically since men judge them by their appearance and "adornment" enhances their appearance? Just askin' :)
I think it's safe to say men and women look at everything differently, for better or worse.
Absolutely. My wife and I refer to "women's logic" and "men's logic" all the time when we observe how people handle things, make comments etc. IT's real. Notice the study says the male and female subjects were trained from the same sources, receiving the same teaching. During the education process or afterward men and women think differently about the subject material. Readers need to be careful not to project superiority or inferiority onto the "differences".
The article didn't note whether the reason men and women economists look at issues differently based on emotions. Do women economists view the issues an emotional looking glass? Or are their opinions based on data?
What the heck does "emotional looking glass" mean?
Tsk, tsk, Bookem! You don't get a PhD based on emotion. You get it based on analyzing data. It might be time for men to get over the idea that everything women do is based on emotion. Because it simply isn't true.
I think anyone who has an impartial view of the sexes will note that women are much less likely to act on emotion than men.
The difference is that society has codified and validated men's emotions of anger, aggression, pettiness(this one may or may not be valid. It's just something I happen to have seen a great deal of in the campaign cycle this time around so I mention it) and competitiveness as "good" emotion. Where as women's emotions of empathy and support are considered weak.
Let me tell you, as sociologists have often pointed out, if women were in charge wars would be fewer and very very much shorter. Because women would go in and get the job done no matter how bloody and violent then clear out. Unlike men who tend to somehow identify war with their masculinity.
Biologically women are programmed to care for the next generation. To be successful at that they need to key into how people feel and their well being. I don't think it would hurt anyone if we spent a little more time pursuing that aspect of our nature.
My experience tells me that women are more rational than men in the way they think. Men just like to cover their emotional thinking with a lot of claptrap that makes it look like it is something else -- anything else, actually. Women are more pragmatic, in my experience. A woman might have a good cry but then will get on with working things out. Men distain the good cry and then get on with fighting it out. I like our way better.
I believe it is a fair question as people cannot completely account for their biases. Women may have a different outlook (possibly based on their experiences or emotions) when viewing the data than men.
And Bookem, look at the world. How has that been working so far? Men sometimes look at land or opportunities for power and see them as opportunities for getting more of both. Women tend to (notice tend to) see the whole picture. What will this do for my family? My kids? My spouse? Will taking this land hurt the families I am displacing? Can we share it instead of me having to go kill everyone and take it? Will my quest for power/land destroy that land so no one can use it? Is there a better way than a fight to the death where i can get what I need for my family and I don't have to kill everyone already here?
You can call that emotion...I call it a reasonable set of considerations. Think of our species' history and how different it might have been if people had looked at the big picture and not just acted emotionally (I must compete and win!!! I must make more money and win!!! I must prove myself!!! THAT IS MINE!!!).
I think Bookem is referring to making decisions of the "heart" vs. the "head".
How many times have we heard of a woman buying something because it's on sale even though it's not needed? That particular woman sees that as a good deal. The man may see that as wasted money (if you don't need it, don't buy it).
In congress, the men (and women) have done a very good job of buying but not a good job of saving.
Since economics is not a real science (which follows facts to a conclusion), that leaves us with Scientism (google it) which is uses pseudo-science to support a predefined conclusion. Since men and women have different views to begin with and economics doesnt have a rigorous scientific method to compensate for that, scientism is the only remaining methodology.
Um, Tiggle, how many times have we heard of a man buying something because it makes more noise and goes faster? You can play the irrational shopper argument in a lot of different ways...
And regarding Congress, I see it a bit differently -- they have done a good job of buying and not paying for what they buy.
@ NHLucky
Pay attention; Tiggle's point is valid. American women spend something like 75% of household discreationary income. Advertisers pander to their "needs" by telling them they are "worth it". Women are easily manipulated by such nonsense because they find it beneficial. Men defer because arguments about spending can be troublesome and endless. It is certainly true that women waste money by buying things they don't need. "Consumer confidence" is supposed to be a measure of the health of our economy. It is more a measure of our willingness to spend, and by extension, since women spend most of our money (on needless stuff), it is a measure of their willingness to spend.
Next time you wonder why so many people are in debt or have mortgagesthat are underwater, think of who did most of the buying and why they bought.
Yes, men are induced to buy needless stuff; that is the nature of commercial advertising...but keep your eye out for television advertising and what gender is being most pandered to.
Thus the term "woman economist" sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Oh, tiggle, if my husband goes out to buy groceries he spends a lot more than i would, even though he is very money conscious. I buy with the idea of each item and how I will combine it with the others, save a bit, and the nutritional values. He buys to stock up. We both end up with groceries, but my focus is different because I plan each meal and cook more than he does.
And if you think women buy on impulse more than men you are wrong. This depends on the person. I will put things back and think and consider. Some men will go buy a toy without thinking of what the family has to do without so he can have it. And yes, sometimes women do as well.
Tiggle, I completely agree about advertising! Especially those Cialis ads I see constantly when I am watching my favorite channel -- The Golf Channel.
Seriously, you make a valid point. I submit, though, that it is a mistake to conclude that women are any more easily led or manipulated than men.
Dubina: "American women spend something like 75% of household discreationary income."
And you have drawn the conclusion that it's all on hair care products and make-up? Women do the grocery shopping and other household purchases. Cleaning supplies. Home improvement supplies. They even make a majority of car purchases. Somehow, you have taken this statistic and interpreted that women spend 75 percent of the household income on nail polish.
And you're trying to convince us that clear thinking is a male trait? Thanks for the laugh.
Men and women both have emotions and they both react to motions, but often differently.
That men and women have different brain morphology is established scientific fact.
What we should do is learn to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses on both sides.
Galye..."A woman might have a good cry but then will get on with working things out. Men distain the good cry and then get on with fighting it out. I like our way better."
When men fight, they punch each other in the face. It's very personal, upfront and in the open. Both know what and why its happening and who the winner is.
When women fight, they stab each other in the back.
It is also established scientific fact that the within group variance of genders is greater than the between group variance on many, many measures, brain morphology notwithstanding.
I agree that we should be focused on maximizing strengths and compensating for weaknesses, however, I have not seen that line of thinking reflected in very many of the posts here.
Um, hs, I don't believe that back stabbing is confined to the female gender. Perhaps others might comment on this and share personal experiences.
By the same token, confrontation is not confined to the male gender. Take Angela Merkl for example.
Dealing in these sweeping stereotypes just holds us back, can't you see that?
@ TraceyS
You wrote:
You are mistaken. Your argument is known as "reduction to absurdity". I did not write your interpretation of my argument and I did not imply your interpretation.
Yes, women spend disposable household income on cleaning supplies, groceries, phone bills, etc. No doubt about that. My complaint is not about the details of female spending habits so much as their (and your) default assumptions ... about what is needed to lead a good and satisfying life in America.
In 1868, my great grandfather drove his small family in a covered wagon from Indiana to settle and homestead a farm in what is now Southeast Kansas. Eventually he and his wife had eleven children, bred in their default belief that children could be profitable to the purpose of farming, homemaking and animal husbandry. Their default belief was practical and pragmatic; it did not mean that they and their cohort were crass, but it led them to think very differently about children, their needs and upbringing, than we do today. Try to wrap your head around around those cutural differences. Then step back from your personal self and look at the current milieu. Notice the many ladies snacking on chocolate whilst sitting on their fat a$$e$ watching "Dancing with the Stars".
Times have changed, but not in all ways to the good. Women, shamelessly encouraged by Wall Street and Madison Avenue, have led ... and are leading ... the way.
"Notice the many ladies snacking on chocolate whilst sitting on their fat a$$e$ watching "Dancing with the Stars"
Just about the same amount as there are men stuffing pizza, beer and nachos in while sitting on their ample posteriors watching football.
What's your point again?
@ TraceyS
True about men, but try to stay on point: the harm done by hedonism and materialism, encouraged by Wall Street And Madison Avenue and chiefly enabled by thoughtless women.
Over.
And, Oh, by the way, dubina, your great grandmother had absolutely no control over how many children she had, unless she decided to abstain from sex with your great grandfather. Today's women have control over their bodies and the changes we are seeing stem from that single fact.
@ NHLucky
What's your point...about my great grandmother having or not having children? It's obvious that you are not a child of the 19th century. My great grandfather was a farmer; his wife was a farm wife. The economics of farming and procreation in the 19th century before the advent of farm machinery are completely lost on you.Why is that? Is it because you a thoughtless modern American woman?
Try to stay on point. Do modern American women have good economic sensibilities? Are American economic sensibilities the same as English economic sensibilities? Or Indian? Or Korean? Why are you so "special"? Is rampant materialism good for the body and soul?
NH..."Dealing in these sweeping stereotypes just holds us back, can't you see that?"
Agreed sweeping stereotypes hold us back. But I intended my comment to be a generalization, in the sense that generalizations are generally true. Certainly not always. Always exceptions to the rule.
dubina, dubina, dubina...
My point, and one point of the article we are supposed to be discussing, is that women now have a whole host of choices and chances that your great grandmother didn't have. I am fully aware of the family as an economic unit on American farms. I do not know of many women, however, who would actively choose to have 11 children, even back then. And those 11 are the ones who survived, I presume? The literature is rife with diaries etc of these women who dreaded another pregnancy but had no alternative.
We don't really know what she would have done if she had been able to control her reproduction, do we? I may not be from the 19th century, but I know that from time immemorial women have sought to control their own reproduction. The ones that survived their first few childbirths that is.
I am not sure where "why are you so special?" comes from. Who said anything about special? The discussion is about highly educated women who have an apparently discernible difference from men in the way they interpret economic theory as regards policy. And I can tell you from personal experience, when you get in front of a dissertation committee, there is no "special" there. It doesn't matter what gender you are or they are, they are going to chew you up one side and down the other.
Now I have a question for you. Why are you so hostile?
dubina: "and chiefly enabled by thoughtless women."
Seriously? You are laying the faults of humanity at the feet of women? Hmmm...I'm sensing you were recently dumped or passed over for a promotion for a woman.
I honestly think the spending argument has less to do with gender and more to do with personality. Some people are savers, some are spenders, and they tend to marry each other. My husband is the spender. He's also the more emotional one. He buys stuff he doesn't need to fill an emotional need. He used to buy stuff we couldn't afford for himself without even thinking about the affect on the family. I, on the other hand, who was always the breadwinner, would have one purse and use it for 5 years, have 2 -3 pairs of shoes year-round, hardly ever have new clothes - even though I had an excellent salary. We had four kids, five if you include him, and I supported them all. Obviously, this did not work out! After we separated, he started learn about the realities of money.
Most economists, male economists, are Libertarian. I wonder if the women follow the same philosophy.
figurethis, you are so off base. Look at the numbers of women, young, old and in between, who live alone, who provide for their childen alone. At the numbers of women in college compared to men. Etc. etc. I think we pretty much get it by now that women have to prepare to be independent for life. A husband-wife team who provide in various ways for each other is a wonderful ideal but too often falls FAR short of the mark.
About women's different perspectives on economics, economic decisions large and small are fundamentally about values. Women and men do not IN GENERAL - there are certainly many exceptions - value the same things. Case in point, I caught the last half of the Half the Sky documentary film last night: when women get money, they buy milk for their children. When men get money they buy beer. In much of the world women do ALL the work.
The U.S. isn't so different from other countries. I recently asked my ex- to go in with me on a fund to support our grown daughter's new business venture. He wasn't interested, said she'd be "okay." My response was that as her mother, that's not good enough for me: I want her to thrive.
A question of values. And about what's good for the world. What will produce the best outcomes toward healthy productive lives. The well being of individuals adds up to the well being of communities and countries. This is a woman's perspective.
You think I'm bashing men? Don't even go there. Every man who cares to nurture his offspring is a treasure and has my full respect. All others should devote themselves more honestly to a life of personal indulgence, forego having children, and certainly forego leadership. Except of course that the trappings of leadership are so attractive. It's so much fun to be king of the mountain.
and kill people either metaphorically or in reality to get there.
"A husband-wife team who provide in various ways for each other is a wonderful ideal but too often falls FAR short of the mark."
Really? All I see is the husband-wife team working way better than the single parent of etiher sex. So you are way off base. All you have to do is look at the outcome of each group's kids. I don't have the article, but statistically children raised with two-parents are way better off and have a higher rate of success. While the number of children from single parents are a lot lower.
So I'm not really sure what "Mark" you are referring to, but your argument does not hold any water. You just sound bitter and probably a selfish person to start.
I watched the entire Half the Sky documentary. It was really good.
But the culture in Africa, specifically Kenya, is far different than many other places in the world.
thepunisher, the conclusions you drew from my remarks made me realize I expressed myself poorly on one point. By “too often falls FAR short of the mark,” I meant that too many husbands and wives don’t aim to be a great team. The divorce rate alone is evidence enough of this. I’m with you on the benefits of two-parent families. No so much on the “bitter” and “selfish”
Thanks for the laugh there.
hs321, my milk/beer anecdote happened to be from the Kenya segment of Half the Sky, but I don’t think Kenya or Africa should be singled out. Half the Sky was reporting on the lives of many millions of women around the world. It’s important to realize we’re just a jump ahead here in the U.S. It wasn’t so long ago that women (and children) in this country were a man's legal chattel (personal belongings). And long after the laws changed, husbands could still treat their families however they wanted and nobody would blink an eye. Reading up on conditions that fueled the women’s rights and feminist movements in the U.S. is eye-opening.
Turning back to the main topic, when men and women are appreciative and respectful of one another, their differing perspectives complement each other remarkably and add up to, oh, something approaching Superman’s vision and strength. I pray to see more of the power of such collaboration in both personal and public arenas. Hearing from women economists is another small step toward that end. Can’t begin to collaborate unless we step up to participate.
They call it the "free enterprise" system for a reason! Women in general are more likely to be comfortable in a cooperative, sharing environment. Men are more likely to embrace the competitive approach. This applies to most areas of lfe -- not just economics. It's touchy feely vs the rough and tumble!!
I am not sure that "free enterprise" excludes cooperative approaches. Research I have seen supports your statement about gender differences, but I have not seen research indicating that one approach or the other is more successful in business or in life. You need to bear in mind that women were kept out of the public arena for most of our history (they still are in countries where fundamentalists have their hands on the tiller) so we don't have all that much data about what women actually do.
And speaking as a female, women can be just as vicious as men.
As any sociologist will tell you women can be more vicious than men. But as a means to an end, not to smear blood all over themselves then howl at the moon.
It isn't touchy feely, and if you think women can't go for your jugular you are wrong. yes, I find that if I am polite but firm with my kids they do much more and better work in our family. Same thing goes for our business. I treat employees like crap and they resent me and leave or do less of a job. I treat them with respect and listen to them and they will stay and work hard. It's good economics to look at the whole picture and not just how much money you can grab without heeding the consequences.
Like the great dialog in the original Species movie,
Xavier Fitch: We decided to make it female so it would be more docile and controllable.
Preston Lennox: More docile and controllable, eh? You guys don't get out much.
CME mgmt Agree, I think your comments is rooted in our "Hunter or Gather" beginnings, which I believe have shaped how men and women view things. Hunting has evolved into a competition done by men, whereas there's really no such competition gathering for women, as its far better to cooperate than compete.
Competition for mates, or the right to mate, is the key.
Too bad we can't just willy-nilly un-wire millions of years of evolution.
The free market and our political discourse on the economoy has been tainted by "jock-onomics". Female economists are right!
This makes sense. Women tend to be more empathetic/compassionate so in general they are going to lean towards doing things that are good for the group as opposed to saying "screw you, I got mine". These are generalizations of course and not ever woman will fit that molding, but I can understand why there are differences in economic thought between men and women.
In the early 90's I took a few economics courses, and one professor was a woman. At this point I don't recall a great deal of specifics from the course, but what stands out vividly is how she ranted about Greenspan and how she felt she could do a much better job. With some of the bubbles he helped create having burst and others swelling towards the max, I'm thinking that maybe she was right.
She was right.
Women seem to look at economics, as with all things, from a perspective that is "tempered with compassion". Some find such a trait to be a sign of weakness. I find it rather admirable and hope to see such a mindset make greater inroads not only into economics, but all aspects of society. I know we will be better for it.
Enlightened compassion is great. Judiciously applied compassion is great. Knowledge of right and wrong underlying decisions including compassion is great. Ideas from economists who have been politicised, such as "too big to fail" may appear to be compassionate at first. But where is the compassion when the devils running the major corporations crash the economy in their bids to become billionaires at others expense and millions of people suffer from that compassionate decision ?
It has been proved that men are more competitive than women (in general-not specific to EVERY woman). The fact that women Economists choose paths that are not driven by competition does not surprise me.
I wonder what women think of derivatives? Probably not much in favor of a financial instrument that 'creates' profit from a loss. I think they are more likely to do the math and see what a farce derivatives are. Derivatives generate a domino effect in any downturn of the economy. I think men like to gamble, where women are more down to earth. Perhaps, I am just hoping so.
I think women tend..not all, of course...to think about how what they choose affects others. But since women haven't been allowed to really show for the most part what a world with them making the decisions would be like, we can only guess.
I think women bring balance to men, and vise versa. If there is mutual respect for each other's views, I think important decisions they have to make will be more balanced and more effective.
It's a lot like parenting. Moms tend to nurture and empathize, dads tend to lay down the law. But if they work together on decisions, the kids turn out better.
I used to be in charge of a small group at work and was told I was a "mother hen" toward my employees, by my male supervisor. His style was far different from mine, so I see how he viewed it that way. But just saying that to me brought some balance.
Derivatives are a means of wagering or insurance. And that is about all they are. You sell a promise to pay if such and such happens and hope it doesn't-or that you will get a Bailout.
Softdude: many of us of the female persuasion, as well as many of you of the male persuasion, understood that derivatives are based on nothing tangible or substantive, and certainly on nothing that brings benefit to the person or society. Smoke. Mirrors, more smoke. Just gambling. They brought about the collapse of our system.
I think diversity of opinion in this field will turn out to be a great thing. You don't want to put all your money is the stock of just one company and we shouldn't want to get all the economic advise from a group of guys that all think the same.
Also I read an article about a study where as more women join the competitive fields of study and business they are becoming more narcissistic and greedy in search of the all powerful dollar and catching up to the rates in men. Please be careful about making generalizations that women are softer and more caring and men are mean and lazy.
Yes, women can be cutthroat for sure. Anyone who thinks women are all pink and fuzzy hasn't crossed one lately...lol.
Love modern times. Apparently men arent capable of anything anymore whatsoever. Women can do EVERYTHING better than men and saying anything different to that is considered sexist.
I have yet to meet a woman who isn't willing to take...despite her success. The sad part is, men are more than willing to give it to them and women know it.
Vet, honey, you need to get out more and find some new friends.
Not true. Men are wonderful at many things. Purely on a personal level, something men can be very good at is instilling a sense of honor and morals especially in their sons. They are excellent beyond measure at teaching the idea of helping anyone or anything that is weaker and needs to be cared for. They can be wonderful money mangers and provide structure for managing day to day affairs. Men tend to be much more fun for their children in a recreational setting because they don't multi-task like women do. Play is very important for all creatures and too often women don't focus on it because they are distracted by other things.
Men can be amazing wonderful parents who might not have quite the 'fear issues' a mother might have. In other words men will often let their children take chances which are essential to raising capable human beings, that a mother might shy away from.
These are just personal things. In the outside world we need a balance of what men and women think. We do need to be competitive but we need to temper it with compassion. Not to bring politics into this, but this is the trouble I have with things like the "47%" comment. It shows no compassion for people who haven't been born with a silver spoon in their mouth and it's a real weakness in my view.
I know quite a few men who are married to women who earn a great deal more than they do. Yeah, those gals are real takers.
Men and women can both be "takers". It is silly to say that women are like that and not see that men are too.
And yes, a balanced approach is a good idea. Men and women both can be amazing and contribute much to the world, and both can also be horrible and destructive. The point is to work together and not demean or diminish each other.
"Apparently men arent capable of anything anymore whatsoever."
Is this the crux of misogyny today? You are in a resentful pout that you don't get to be "better" at something anymore? You sound like you have the emotional maturity of a six-year-old.
Aw, Tracey, ease up!! The poor guy can't take it that women are no longer content to stay in the roles men ordained for them for millenia.
No, in fact you all have incorrect assumptions. The point is, men are still the backbone of this country and civilization in general. Of course respect is given to women who work, bear children and sacrifice. I respect that 100%. We need women just as much as we need men.
But, that isn't what society propagates anymore. Men are labeled as expendable, bumbling, immature, incapable creatures left to the guidance of our ever wise wives whilst we stumble about through life aimlessly. Need proof? Check out any sitcom, gender based news article (esp. MSNBC)...etc. How are men portrayed?
See, I am an unmarried single father of three boys, 12 year active duty veteran, own my own side business and full time federal correctional worker and get NO child support. I do it on my own so the "behind every good man there is a great woman" statement doesnt apply here. Quite frankly, Im not alone either. That mentality is just propagated to the public as such.
Fortunately, as a correctional worker I work with female inmates at a camp. I see how they REALLY react when forced into positions males do in everyday life. No, not secretaries, or CEO jobs, or management or anything like that. Im talking real jobs like construction, diggin holes, driving forklifts, roofing, sheetrock, laying concrete, electrical work...etc. The jobs that make the world go round.
ALL they DO is complain, complain, complain. Number one statement? "Im not a damn man, this a mans job" Dont even get me started on the time it takes to get a simple chore done and how low the stamina is and breaks every 10 minutes. They HATE the work. Where do they all want to work? The Library, Chapel, and in the Education Dept. In my life outside of work, I see no difference. Women like being women and the benefits of being women. But, society doesnt tell you that. They portray women as these super beings who WANT to do all of these things.
The bottomline is...most, the majority, 90+% of women do NOT want to be in a mans shoes. Again, I fully respect that women are moving up the ladder. But, they should be held to the same standards and it shouldnt be at the expense of labeling men as morons and less capable to make it happen.
If you want true respect. Eliminate affirmative action for women, gender norming and sign up for the selective service. Then, you will get some real respect.
I know, Im sexist for stating facts and having an opinion.
Vet, let me just be sure I have this straight. You are basing your conclusive statements about women on the behavior of CRIMINALS? Do you have any compunction about the nature of your sample?
FYI, these criminals are low level, minimum security criminals. Many of them have run multi-million dollar businesses, have been CEO's, Directors of Federal departments, Social Workers...etc. Most of them are first time offenders in for tax fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud, writing bad checks off of government funds..etc.
Another statistic of note...a large majority of them have advanced degrees (Bachelors, Masters and PhD). We even have a few M.D. doctors in the house here too.
Not everyone who commits crimes are tattooed and high on drugs.
Vet: "The point is, men are still the backbone of this country and civilization in general."
Uh, no, but thanks for playing. There are more women employed in the U.S. than men. More female college graduates at all levels than men. And women still do the majority of childcare, housework and elder care. But thanks for that baffling and rambling dissertation about how female jailbirds represent the 99 percent of the U.S. female population that isn't incarcerated.
Vet, nevertheless, I think you will have to agree that your sample is not representative of the general population of women.
Divergence in thought patterns by gender is real, and persists in the "hard" sciences as well. It seems to grow out of the hunters vs gatherers dichotomy and is perhaps more acute in economics.
It is not a weakness, but rather one of our most important evolved strengths. Wise folk of either gender work with it, not against it.
Well said!! When both views are taken into consideration we all win.
Women are equally susceptible to succumbing to the greed of power and money as men. I've read a few studies that suggest rising narcissism in women while the rates for men are relatively stable over the past few decades. Be very careful in assuming that women are soft, too sensitive or incapable of being cutthroat and self interested. Seeking equality to the sexes brings out the good and the bad of both.
Mate, the trend you see is females trying to succeed using male rules, which places them at a significant disadvantage. We need women to act as women to provide diversity, not sell out to the male worldview, the one that is responsible for the world being in the F'd up state it is in.
Voting in Margaret Thatchers, Hilary Clintons, and so on is not a step in the right direction. We need women who think as women. Then again, a woman's woman would probably have more sense than to run for high office.
For truth sir! I totally agree but it just takes one self serving psychopath to poison a lot of people at a company.
And, just for the record, Micro, how do women "think as women" exactly?
You equate Hillary Clinton to Margaret Thatcher?
Hillary's quite a woman, but she's no Margaret Thatcher.
In my book, a sane woman can not be right-wing. Women are the anima to the animus, the yin to the yang. Hilary Clinton is decidedly right of political center—admittedly not as far right as Thatcher; she has more yang than yin. We have an abundance of yang in this world; a little bit of balance is in order here.
As a male economist, I must need to have my estrogen levels checked because my worldview coincides with the female trend. To be honest, I feel that many males hold particular views because they are self-serving rather than somehow innate, and the income of many male "corporate" economists depends on them holding that view. For academes, one is more likely to get credibility and speaking engagements if one sells out to the corporate view.
Yeah I feel like I'm doing it wrong sometimes when my first thought isn't about what's best for me.
At the risk of repeating myself-earlier post seems to have disappeared-
Brooksley Born was right,Greenspan and Summers were wrong.
That's called peer pressure. The concept comes from a different non-science.
I think that your earlier post may be included in the collapsed thread.
Why have we collapsed the first post? I thought figurethis made a comment that was provacative and represented a common point of view.
We should be discussing it, not hiding it!
David...Clinton, Greenspan, Summers and Geithner were wrong.
Interesting that both Summers and Geithner were part of the current administration.
Yes and that will influence who I vote for. As I see it the problems that created "The Bailout" were not addressed or the responses were muted,little more than window dressing. "Bailout" by Neil Barofsky and/or "Predator Nation" by Charles H. Ferguson come to mind. I fear those books are valid.
Of course everything looks different when making a sandwich and doing chores. When you actually do some hard honest labor your views will change.
And to whom are you speaking, Lead? Many people do or have done "hard honest labor", and being male or female doesn't mean you have or haven't.
Your immature tantrum, Lead, makes us pity you.
Lead, can you allow yourself to imagine how things look when you are "making a sandwich and doing chores" AND doing hard honest labor? Because that is the situation most American women with children find themselves in today.
So you really think the women economists studied only make sandwiches and do chores?
I mean really, is that the impression you want people to have of you, that you cannot accept that the world is full of well-educated, intelligent working women? (Who make sandwiches and do chores - as do their husbands - along with holding down demanding jobs).
One thing I am seeing here is indication of a generation gap, as well as a gender gap. Many posters seem to be living in the past as far as the role of women is concerned.
The young families I know are mostly (not all, but mostly) two-wage earner households. The old model of woman at home with the kids and man out earning the family income is fading away, as are many of the behaviors mentioned in this discussion.
NHLucky, I find that most younger men who express misogynistic and rigid gender role opinions are themselves not achievers...either not very smart, not very driven, or both. They believe that...had they been born in a previous generation...they would have "gotten" a good career simply by being born male, and they would have "gotten" a woman because she had no other choices. They seem to express a lot of resentment now that they need to compete with women for jobs, and they sit home alone a lot on Saturday nights because women choose male partners nowadays...they don't require them.
Tracey, I don't seem to have met many of the young men you describe, though I see your point. I am older and my contact is mainly with my son and his family and their friends in Indiana -- who are all two-earner families trying valiantly to find a way to make their families work. I live in northern New Hampshire. Maybe we have a skewed population of no-nonsense women and fair-minded men, because my limited contacts with young families here are similar.
What I said must be true or all of you wouldn't have commented on it trying to convince me otherwise. Talk to any man who wont lie to you and they will all say the same thing..make me a sandwich lol ... unless they want to sleep with you that is.
A demanding job is not as demanding for women or you would get paid the same.....
"Talk to any man who wont lie to you and they will all say the same thing..make me a sandwich lol."
No, Sweetie. I married a man who walks upright and can use punctuation.
It's official. Lead is a troll.