Did you know risk aversion and testosterone are inversely related? And that that risk aversion includes career choice and risk aversion in general?
That means that the statistics that show that there are more men than women in high powered positions are not really valid in supporting gender inequality in the workplace.
The expected number of men in high powered positions will always be higher than women because the chemical makeup of men leads them to be more risk taking. With higher risk comes higher reward.
Ie. If you have 50 men and 50 women who represent the entire workforce, only 10 women might put themselves out there for a higher level positions and, at the same time, 40 men might. If the expected success rate (for any gender because.. equality) is 50% then 5 women will get the positions and 20 men.
The reason is not because women aren’t being given their fair shake, it’s because women naturally possess less testosterone which means that of the 50 women who could potentially go out for a higher position, less women than men will throw their hat in the ring.
Interestingly, I read a study several years ago (that horrified me at the time because it’s so inappropriate how this study would have to be conducted). But anyways, the study showed that women who had sex before competing in an organized sporting event typically did better (presumably because of their recent “infusion” of testosterone).
What do you think? Could biology be a predetermining factor to why we shouldn’t even be striving for an equal number of men and women in high powered positions?
Note: In order to fully wrap your mind around the point I’m trying to make here, you need to rid yourself of the notion that risk taking and high positions is what people want. Because of lowers levels of testosterone, I would venture to say that women generally don’t take as much satisfaction and personal fulfillment from risk seeking.