Posted on 05/24/2005 12:48:37 PM PDT by neverdem
Suppose you could eliminate the factors often blamed for the shortage of women in high-paying jobs. Suppose that promotions and raises did not depend on pleasing sexist male bosses or putting in long nights and weekends away from home. Would women make as much as men?
Economists recently tried to find out in an experiment in Pittsburgh by paying men and women to add up five numbers in their heads. At first they worked individually, doing as many sums as they could in five minutes and receiving 50 cents for each correct answer. Then they competed in four-person tournaments, with the winner getting $2 per correct answer and the losers getting nothing.
On average, the women made as much as the men under either system. But when they were offered a choice for the next round - take the piece rate or compete in a tournament - most women declined to compete, even the ones who had done the best in the earlier rounds. Most men chose the tournament, even the ones who had done the worst.
The men's eagerness partly stemmed from overconfidence, because on average men rated their ability more highly than the women rated theirs. But interviews and further experiments convinced the researchers, Muriel Niederle of Stanford and Lise Vesterlund of the University of Pittsburgh, that the gender gap wasn't due mainly to women's insecurities about their abilities. It was due to different appetites for competition.
"Even in tasks where they do well, women seem to shy away from competition, whereas men seem to enjoy it too much," Professor Niederle said. "The men who weren't good at this task lost a little money by choosing to compete, and the really good women passed up a lot of money by not entering tournaments they would have won."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
fascinating, as much in its content as that the Slimes would print it.
bump
As a woman, and as a particularly NON-competitive woman, I think most women are into cooperation, which is generally how women treat each other and work together. Men compete and women cooperate. There are always exceptions but I think the general tendencies are there. I just wish society would value more highly the things that women ARE good at, such as taking care of people, rather than manipulating things and systems.
Chocolate. Next question?
"I just wish society would value more highly the things that women ARE good at, such as taking care of people, rather than manipulating things and systems."
Heh, I've seen quite a few men here on FR who would probably argue that women are masters at manipulating.
Is this an opinion piece or a "report?"
Oh, NY Times. Purely opinion, objectiveness is not even attempted.
Long live bloggers.
Interesting note: "Bloggers" does not pass the spell check, but "AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH" does.
How much did those two get paid, for conducting this "study"?
I am glad you didn't list "driving".
And women don't manipulate things? Your kidding right?
I think that society DOES value what you mention. Look at the high pay that doctors get. Also, although many teachers complain of low pay, they receive high psychic income, as well as schedule that allows for more free time than most other professions.
Depends on what you mean by "things", lol.
Possibly manipulating people, but I meant things as in plumbing, electronics - inanimate things. I think Larry Summers might agree with me.
You sure?
Hmmm...
Then why are women universally more vicious towards each other than men are to other men?
"As a woman, and as a particularly NON-competitive woman, I think most women are into cooperation, which is generally how women treat each other and work together. Men compete and women cooperate. There are always exceptions but I think the general tendencies are there. I just wish society would value more highly the things that women ARE good at, such as taking care of people, rather than manipulating things and systems."
I don't know if you have ever been involved in a team atmosphere with a bunch of women but it seems to me they are generally much less cooperative, and more backstabing then men. Males will certainly compete and hash out who the alpha male is, but once the pecking order is determined they generally do what is best for the team. Whereas it appears to me that women continually undermine each other.
Pretty sure - look at the relative numbers of women in professions involving people versus involvement with things or systems.
I guess Larry Summers was right!
>>I think most women are into cooperation<<
I disagree. Women can be the most uncooperative, especially when they don't feel they've been emotionally rewarded. As you said, there are always exceptions.
I also think that the reason women so dominate or make up significant portions of some industries and professions is cultural and historical.
The other thing is women will sublimate conflict and make it passive-aggressive and then kid themselves that somehow they're "cooperating better"...men will openly hash out a disagreement, but not take it as seriously and a day latter it's forgotten; women will pretend to be best buddies but you talk to each one privately and they'll be seething with hatred for the other, but they'll never let it get out in the open, and it will simmer and undermine things for months.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.