This is how the issue played out: Murali asked how to explain the gender gap, as if we were supposed to cower and admit that women are purer, or that they have their own "issues" that override the good of the country. I did not take the bait, but offered an hypothesis, one that I believe has some documentation, but which I cannot off- hand substantiate, namely that women are less well informed than men on public affairs. I did not say they were stupid, or that there were not some women who were better informed than some men. In fact, I said that Republicans had more female office holders than Democrats, and I approve of that. I am also a big fan of Margaret Thatcher, as many of the regulars know. I was referring to the broad spectrum of women.
Now, I find the study you allude to interesting. However, it is not about politics, nor does it deal with the broad spectrum of women. Therefore it is not especially relevant. Also, I would like to know the particulars of the study. For example, if women have less confidence, does it mean that they are more prone to invest in mutual funds, most of which are run by men? What is the performance comparison between women daytraders and men daytraders? Is the difference of 1.4 percentage points a year trivial, or significant? Would it reverse for a longer time period? Since high risk investments are inherently more volatile, and the hope is that they will pay off in the long run, is the time span of the study altogether too short to know who is better? Are there independently corroborative studies? Ah well, as I say, it doesn't matter much....... |
