Mrs. Watanabe, Meet Mrs. Brown

Tyler Durden's picture

"Risk on, risk off" might be the most essential hallmark of the current market, but just focusing on the day-to-day whims of capital markets ignores longer term changes to investor risk preferences.  Nic Colas, of ConvergEx looks at the topic from the vantage point of gender-specific investment choices.  For example, more women are participating in deferred compensation (DC) plans, and the data from millions of 401(k) accounts tells a useful story.  Their retirement accounts still lag those of their male counterparts in total value and they remain a bit more risk-averse. But for the first time in at least a decade they are more likely than men to contribute to a retirement account and are contributing a greater percentage of their earnings.  Pulling in some other academic work on the risk preferences that create the “Venus/Mars” divide dovetails nicely with investment specific analysis: women may not “Know” as many of the grimy details of investing or shoot from the hip as much as their male counterparts but they know when to cut their losses and they tend to be more methodical.  Lastly, we can’t help but wonder how much of the much-discussed money flows into fixed income versus equities has to do with the shifting gender profile of the “Average” American investor.  “Risk off” may well be “risk shift.” 

Note from Nick:  Men may be from Mars, and women from Venus, both they both want to make something on their investments.  You’ll never see pink or blue dots on the “Efficient Frontier” of academic models, to be sure.  However, both empirical data and psychological studies do point to subtle – but notable – differences in how men and women consider the classic risk-reward tradeoff inherent in the challenge of investing.  Beth picks up the thread from here.   


She was savvy, she was smart, and she was a moneymaker.  And now she’s on the move.  Mrs. Watanabe, the market’s metaphor for Japan’s housewife currency speculators, was a star of the yen’s glory days in the early 2000s.  Dedicated salaryman “Mr. Watanabe” made the money, sure, but it was his wife who controlled financial decisions.  And a decade ago, she was the “Whale” of the yen-denominated currency market.


The reason she was so active was that she was looking for better yields than those on offer in low interest rate, newly deflationary Japan.  She wanted a safe return, yes, but to make a little bit extra as well.  Which turns out to be a common female approach to investing as we’ll outline today.  (Just in case you’re wondering, “Watanabe” is the fifth most common Japanese surname, equivalent to “Brown” in the States.) 


This same sort of female investment psychology has been documented in the Mrs. Browns of America.  We turn to a 2011 report regarding “How America saves,” courtesy of The Vanguard Group’s research department.  The report highlights data on defined contribution (DC) retirement plans, which represent the centerpiece of the American private-sector retirement system.  More than 60 million US citizens are covered by such plans – predominately 401Ks – and assets now exceed $4 trillion.  Vanguard is a large player in this market, and their data aggregates information from millions of individual accounts. 


Since our focus is on male versus female investing habits, we note the following 3 gender-oriented takeaways from the data in the report.

  • Financially-speaking, the last recession had a larger impact on the savings patterns of women than men.  Prior to 2008, DC participation rates for men topped those for women by up to 3 percentage points.  The gap closed to 1 percentage point by 2009, and by 2010 68% of women were DC plan contributors, compared with 67% of men.  On average men earn more money than women – 25% more according to the latest government data – which is one explanation for their historically greater propensity to establish retirement funds.
  • A similar pattern occurred with deferral rates.  In the 3 years before the financial crisis, men contributed a greater percentage of their incomes to retirement plans, but in 2009 and 2010, women were larger contributors than their male counterparts (6.9% versus 6.7% in the latter year).
  • Men are more likely to contribute the maximum allowable amount to their retirement funds.  In 2010 (the most recent year for which data is available), 9% of men deferred the maximum amount allowed by company policy, compared with 7% of women.  Coupled with the fact that men make more money than women on average, this explains the substantial gap in retirement fund balances.  The average male has a balance of $96,000 which the average female has just $59,000.  Median amounts for men and women are $34,000 and $21,000, respectively.  And yes, you read that right. The typical American of either gender has only about $26,000 saved for retirement.
  • Women are more risk-averse than men – as you’d likely guess – but probably not by nearly as much as you’d think.  69% of men’s’ retirement assets are in equity, compared with 67% of women’s.  Conversely, 10% of women’s assets are in bond funds, compared with 9% of men’s.  Keep in mind this is post-recession data, so it very well could be that differences in asset allocation patterns were once greater.

To cast a larger net over the topic of gender and investing, let’s tread a little closer to the slippery slope of stereotypes, albeit with the aid of some academic studies related to male-female behavioral patterns.  A few points here:

  • Every investor knows that the knife’s edge of decisionmaking is labeled “Confidence.”  Just enough, and you kill it.  Too much or too little, and it kills you.   And simply put, women seem to be less afflicted than men by overconfidence.  I might be walking a fine line (with readers of both sexes) with that statement, so here’s one piece of evidence everyone can relate to: Women have been shown to be 40% less prone than men to speed through yellow traffic lights.  In other traffic-related statistics, men are also 3.41 times more likely to receive reckless driving citations than women and 3.09 times more likely to receive a DUI.  And traffic accident fatalities?  Well, they’re 70% men. By taking more risks behind the wheel than women, men are more likely to get into serious crashes.
  • Men are also more competitive and place a greater emphasis on performance.  A survey of first-time marathoners asked runners why they entered the race and if they would run another.  Men more often said they wanted to see how high they would place and/or how fast they could run, while women were more likely to cite health and well-being goals as reasons for entering.
  • Meanwhile, Niederle and Vesterlund conducted an experiment (“Do Women Shy Away from Competition, Even When They Can Win?”) in which men and women were given in a test that required them to add as many 5-digit numbers as possible in 5 minutes.  Afterwards when participants were told only their raw score and not their relative ranking, 75% of men guessed they had been the best in their group compared with 43% of the women.


As for the financial world, a 2001 study by Brad Barber and Terrance Odean (“Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment”) showed that men traded stocks almost 50% more than women.  The findings suggest that overconfident investors are more apt to interpret what’s going on around them and react to short-term financial news.  Women are more cautious, especially in the wake of the recession, and it shows in their current saving habits.  For the first time ever, they’re more likely to contribute to a 401(k), and even with lower incomes, they’re contributing a greater percentage of their earnings than are men.


You can read the full report here:


Along the same lines, women are generally less knowledgeable and interested investors than men, but they also make fewer mistakes and are less apt to repeat the mistakes they do make.  All this according to a study by Merrill Lynch Investment Managers (  Forty seven percent of women reported not being knowledgeable about investing, compared with just 30% of men.  Women were significantly less likely to know what “dollar cost averaging” means (39% of females versus 65% of males), and they also were less likely to correctly identify historical inflation rates (43% versus 67%). 


However, women are less likely than men to hold a losing investment too long (35% versus 47%), buy a hot investment without doing any research (13% versus 24%), and allocate too much capital to one asset (23% versus 32%).  When it comes to repeating mistakes, women were less likely to report repeating the following: buying a stock without doing any research (47% of women versus 63% of men), waiting too long to sell an investment (48% versus 61%), and ignoring the tax consequences of an investment decision (47% versus 68%).


So women are less confident and more risk-averse when it comes to investment decisions, but they’ve also shown to be more prudent.  Why?  Well, a 2010 New York Times article (  quotes Alexandra Bernasek, an economics professor at Colorado State University, as saying that historical disparities in earnings, power, wealth and social status could explain certain behavioral differences.  As could evolutionary behavioral patterns that pre-date recent history.  Aggressive risk-taking likely once helped men find mates, while women were more risk-averse because their role was to protect their offspring.


However, research out of the University of New Hampshire ( shows that gender stereotypes affect the investment decision-making of women, often resulting in counterintuitive results.  Researchers found that when a group of angel investors was less than 10% women, then the group as a whole was more cautious about investing.  But when women comprise more than 10% of the group, investments increased.  Researchers pointed to a psychological theory called “stereotype threat” to explain this finding; when a stereotype exists about a person, that person will behave in a manner consistent with the stereotype when they’re in a situation that highlights the stereotype.  As the number of women in angel investor groups increased, the stereotype of women as cautious investors became less apparent and they were more recognized for their ability as investors.

Now, what does this all mean?  The increasing share of individual savings and investments managed by women is one overlooked driver of the continued rally in “Risk-off” assets.  Assets controlled by women are clearly increasing.  Patterns in labor force participation rates for women mean they have more money to invest directly in assets such as 401Ks.  Also, divorce rates have increased over the last 30 years, as has the number of women-led households.  In summary, it makes sense to reconsider the notion that continued money flows into bonds and other safe haven investments is really “Risk off” market behavior.  At least a piece of it may well be “Risk shifting,” driven by the demographic and psychological factors I have outlined here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
chump666's picture

women are excellent traders... good instincts.

Not For Reuse's picture

it's a fucking synecdoche, ok? not a metaphor

lsbumblebee's picture

I suppose we'll really never know for sure unless we chop Ben Bernanke's dick off.

Arnold Ziffel's picture

I'd rather watch the teen nymphos dance, wiggle and sing in skimpy clothes to raise money for Japanese Bonds.....sorry.

blackbeardz's picture

strap on  strap off 

valkir's picture

All i know is,that sheeple forever be....sheeple.

Psyman's picture

Women are the reason for the rise of socialism in all nations that have granted women the right to vote.  Females are indeed more "risk averse."  They desire safety for themselves and their offspring above all else.  Closely followed by material comfort.


Daddy gives them these things when they are young.   And with the break down of the American family structure the "Daddy" (provider) in their adult years is no longer a husband, but government.  They cast aside their husbands on a whim to "upgrade", knowing that if things ever get tough Daddy government is there for them and their children with free housing, free food, and free utilities.


Notions of liberty frighten women.  They just want to live in comfort and safety.  All of the things men associate with freedom are things women do not understand.  After all, why wouldn't everyone want to have health care?  Why wouldn't everyone want to be protected from criminals by a pervasive police state?  Why would anyone want to own a gun?  Guns are dangerous.  Why would anyone do extreme sports?  Why would anyone take risks?  Risks may have negative consequences, better have the government back stop us and provide a safety net from cradle to grave to mitigate these risks.  Better yet, let's ban all risky behavior by law and millions of law suits such that one cannot even cross the street without signing a waiver of liability to the entity that paved it.


Any nation that grants women the right to vote will invariably drift into authoritarian socialism.  Go ahead and junk me.  Can any of you seriously imagine a woman speaking the words, "give me liberty or give me death", and meaning it?  History shows that women always knuckle under to even foreign invading armies that just murdered their husbands, sons, and fathers.  Women are merely the window dressing of the human experience.


And it's still a man's world, baby.

kekekekekekeke's picture

that was the most homoerotic thing I've read since Moby Dick

Moe Howard's picture

So you find a realistic explaination of the male / female political situation homoerotic? 

Maybe you just see "homo" in everything.

kekekekekekeke's picture

I've seen gay porn I know homo when I see it.  Sorry to crash yr circle jerk

lol "realistic"



kekekekekekeke's picture

You losers take any opportunity to whinge about women ruining everything, like they're a destructive unified force but of course you neckbeards are all special snowflakes channeling Patrick Henry, how delusional can you be? Sorry about your ex wives and that bitchy prom queen from high school who wouldn't blow you

hondaicivic's picture

I actually took my time to sign in and gave you a vote up. Now that was a post!....

gwar5's picture

...And that is why I only date American women who can ride a Harley, drink whiskey, shoot a gun, and are built like a file cabinet with the top drawer pulled out. 

Max Fischer's picture



Wow!  You're gay and don't know it!  

You should have said:  "I only date women who are exceptionally manly.  If they happen to have circus boobs, well... that's a plus."

Doomer Goon Love.... straight from the lower brain stem.   

<grunt, grunt, snort, snort>


C-B77's picture

Top drawer? Jaws? (from James Bond). I prefer my file cabinet with second drawer pulled out....

that said, interesting article considering that at the center of this crisis is the reckless investments of the financial institutions but with the comfort of goverment rescue with tax-payer's money.

neither man-like behaviour nor woman-like, an unholy combination

an abomination

Seorse Gorog from that Quantum Entanglement Fund. alright_.-'s picture

Are these women from the band Mötley Crüe?


Or like that gym teacher from Scary Movie?


Whatever turns you on, man. I'm not judging.

Lebensphilosoph's picture

History shows that women always knuckle under to even foreign invading armies that just murdered their husbands, sons, and fathers.

Not only that, they even fall in love with their captors viz. Stockholm Syndrome. That being said, a lot of mothers will absolutely take a bullet for their children.

old naughty's picture


this may change now that Venus retrogrades between the sun and planet earth...their warring instinct may now be manifested!

Moe Howard's picture

Spot on brother. Example in point: My wife is a refugee from Socialist Poland [Pre- 1989]. Her best friend from grade school also is. Her best friend is an Obama supporter. 

My conclusion: She wants a better paying socialism, not no socialism. The socialism was so poor in Poland that the men drank themselves to death with cheap [bad] vodka, and the women who escaped that poverty still do not understand that socialism was the problem. They just think [I guess] they were "doing it wrong" and the USA is "perfecting" it.

Understand that when you give up liberty for security, you get neither.

I also signed in to up arrow you and comment. Thanks for the "post of the day".

Azannoth's picture

I too was born in the Soviet Block and found it at fist puzzling than just stupifing how people can hate communism 1 day but love socialism the next when the difference is in name only. The fall of communism had nothing to do with the System only with the implementation and with the likeability of those implementing it, dress it up use a deodorant put lipstick on and you're good to go

"Understand that when you give up liberty for security, you get neither." - Or Liberty for Prosperity

Moe Howard's picture

Yes sir. I agree with you. Maybe the bottom line is the "free lunch" syndrome. My father grew up during the deppression, he owned his own small business, worked for everything he had, but would express socialist ideas from time to time. This puzzled me until I understood he wanted the "free lunch", meaning, for example, health care insurance he never had for decades, until he got old and needed it, was "too expensive" and we needed national health. So when he was young he didn't want to pay for somebody else, and when he was old he wanted somebody else to pay for him. This is human nature, man and woman. 


I agree also with your last statement.

blackbeardz's picture

we live in a cess pool of cancer caused by MAN and all u can rant about is guns and liberty, guess that will give you the right to self medicate then.

Azannoth's picture

Great summary hard to add anything to it. That is why communism/socialism goes hand in had with feminism and why most communists are feminists and vice versa and why the Elites are pushing so hard for feminization(pussfication) of culture, politics, business and above all Men

It might be a reason why the Industry is putting so much Estrongen in our Environment and Food they want to pussyfy us all chemically

DanDaley's picture

History shows that women always knuckle under to even foreign invading armies that just murdered their husbands, sons, and fathers. 


In an invasion, women always have an out; making babies for the invader.  If their dead hubbies couldn't get the job done, then they can go with the strong horse. (Oh, Hung-Dong/Boris/Mohammed -you chingi-chingi so much better than my former husband.) Pussified men don't understand this.

Azannoth's picture

It's no coincidence that history speaks of virtually no women who sacrificed them selves for their country in any heroic shape or form, but you have plenty of women who collaborated, instigated, inflamed and even where the direct cause of Wars

kekekekekekeke's picture

I consider "investing" in a 401k  too risky

I'll stick with stacking

Diatribe's picture

Live records for multiple radiation monitoring stations near the border of Indiana and Michigan have shown radiation levels as high as 7,139 counts per minute (CPM). The level varied between 2,000 CPM and 7,000 CPM for several hours early this morning (EST).

Normal radiation levels are between 5 and 60 CPM, and any readings above 100 CPM should be considered unusual and trigger an alert, according to information listed on the RadNet website (at

Digital Journal reported earlier today that near the Indiana & Michigan borders Geiger detectors from the EPA & Black Cat were showing insanely elevated radiation levels. They quickly changed their story fundamentally, but not before I went OCD on it (see also my username). I personally conversed with the NRC today as well as the Hazmat response Captain for the Indiana State Police.

Here is a quick pic, before it was redacted / "corrected". Notice it is NOT the EPA's RadNet open-air detector in Fort Wayne, but another privately run detector near South Bend, owned by Radiation Network:


They then "made a correction" and called it a false alarm, claiming that their "false alarm" was also the same cause for Black Cat... but what about the EPA's federal detectors, the ones that don't use the same information streams as RadiationNetwork? Read on:

EPA's "near-realtime" open-air geiger counter for Ft Wayne Indiana no longer shows live data but cuts off May 19th. This morning, it didn't (hence the basis for this comment), but by using the RADNET query tool, WE CAN STILL PULL THE DATA UP as in this screenshot <- For more cities and a breakdown of the wind spread, check here

Want more? The area of interest isn't very far away from this strange event that just happened the other day where no fault line is present.

More? The DOD owns about 130,000 acres of land right in that immediate area.

Also, I remind you that it was the EPA's federal detectors and privately owned / Internet enthusiast detectors FROM TWO DIFFERENT PLACES (BlackCat & the Radiation Network) reporting the same incident.

Tell me Reddit, am I paranoid?

EDIT 14 pwns EDIT 7Redditor says: Central Ohio here. I work at a large public university (not hard to guess which) next to a small research reactor that's located near the back of campus. There's (normally) a large fleet of hazmat response trucks and trailers parked in the nearby lot. Most of them are NIMS early response vehicles funded by Homeland Security (says so right on them). Haven't seen them move once since I started working a few years ago. Tonight? All gone. edit: will try to get pictures tonight/tomorrow

EDIT 7 comes first: To those who say it was still a malfunction:

You miss a VERY elementary point: one detector was privately ran in South Bend. That one "malfunctioned". But then the data is corroborated by a federally ran detector in Ft Wayne, a good drive away. And then more data as time goes on from other detectors. Like here, where one can see the drifts over Little Rock, AR 12 hours later, which lines up with the wind maps. For those that don't seem to know, that's a long way away from Ft Wayne. And the "average" CPM level in Little Rock has been around 8 CPM for the past 12 months.

and to those that point to the pinhole coolant leak in Dayton:

that pinhole leak couldn't possibly account for the levels seen here, and it was in hot standby mode (hot & pressurized, but no fission) because it was being refueled. And the workers would have triggered alarms if they were contaminated.

EDIT 11 also jumps the line: On a tip, I called the Traverse City Fire Dept and asked them if they noticed anything unusual, muttered that I was with the "nuclear reddit board". They confirmed they had unusually high readings, and that they reported them to the NRC earlier today.

EDIT 1 It's spreading as you would expect

EDIT 2 More "human numbers":

The actual dose from other redditor / semi-pro opinion + myself is speculated to be... RE-EDIT: Guess you'll never know, because armchair-physicists want to argue too wildly for consensus.

EDIT 3high levels of Radon in the area??

EDIT 4 I heard from a semi-verified source that minot afb in north dakota, one of the largest nuclear bases, is running a nuclear response and containment "training exercise" right now with their b-52s. take this with a grain of salt, I'm not vouching for it EDIT: this redditor verifies

EDIT 5: some redditors keep talking about seeing gov't helicopters: here and here and here <- UPDATE: this one now has video

EDIT 6: Someone posted it to AskScience, but a mod deleted it and removed comments

>>>> EDIT 8: > Twes [+1] 11 minutes ago I mean, it is kind of interesting to speculate about... I will at the very least continue to watch this thread/ news stories. I don't know if someone in the 2000 comments has posted this, but before the spike, radiation levels were around 1 to 2 times normal. After the spike they are staying at a constant 5 to 7 times normal.!/LongmontRadMon

EDIT 9: - Removed for being incorrect -

EDIT 10 Battle Creek, MI helicopters & ac-130: & sauce:!/BeRONSON

EDIT 12reliable source! says: > Got an email from friend at NMR lab at Eli Lilly in downtown Indianapolis. Said alarms just went off with equipment powered down; Indy HLS fusion teams responding; says NRC R3 not responding tonight.

EDIT 13: this will be where pictures are collected. Got pics? Send to OP. New helicopters (Indianapolis) to getstarted with, and some Chinooks, 20:30 EST West Branch, MI:

EDIT 14 now up top ^

Psyman's picture

"War of the Worlds", internet edition.  Also, Reddit is some unholy amalgamation of 4chan and Facebook.  Truly awful.

gwar5's picture

That's not good news.


What's Canada reporting? Anything from the Canucks not scrubbed --Vancouver, BC, etc? Guessing it came from that direction. Jet Stream.


Central Bankster's picture

The two nuclear facilities closest to the Indiana/Michigan Border near Southbend Indiana according to Wikipedia (do your own Due Diligence): owned by NYSE:AEP owned by NYSE:ETR

DanDaley's picture

You miss a VERY elementary point: one detector was privately ran in South Bend. That one "malfunctioned". But then the data is corroborated by a federally ran detector in Ft Wayne, a good drive away.


Grammar isn't everything, but if you can't get the basics right (...was privately RUN -not RAN -past participle/passive voice), then what else did you screw up!?

A grammar nazi.

Central Bankster's picture

so you understand that reddit is an informal discussion and any post would have multiple different contributors, many of whom english is not their first language?

DanDaley's picture

Okay.  Thanks for the heads up.  I'll cut them some slack.

gwar5's picture

Mrs Brown: Find a rich guy, putting out as little as possible, leaving more bait for other rich guys. Risk off.

Mr. Wantanabe: Get a hot chick, spending as little as possible, leaving more bait for other hot chicks. Risk on.


I had a science teacher named Mrs. Brown when I was in 8th grade. She had long blonde hair that played really well off tight red sweaters.  She had a habit of leaning over you from behind when you had a question with a given project. All the boys were really stupid that year because we had lots and lots of questions.

sharky2003's picture

Female here... 55% cash, 22% phyz, 13% stock, 10% bonds...I think you say that's pretty damn risk off. 

dolph9's picture

For all of their obvious utility, women are pretty much clueless.  Everybody knows this.

Without the male brain, nothing you see around you would exist.  Nothing.

Part of the reason the world started to go to shit in the mid 20th century is women taking over and taming the natural instincts of males.  Yes, we became more civilized, you could say, but in doing so we have lost a great deal of vitality.

Now, males act out their aggressiveness in video games or sports instead of the real world, where it belongs.  That or they become comedians.

Now, if you are young boy and act naturally like you should, you are given Ritalin.  Truly messed up.

jomama's picture

i just want to say that i love women.  that is all.

Disenchanted's picture




I want my mommy...


And the Archons became attracted to Eve, the primal woman. They said to one another, "Come, let us sow our seed in her," and they pursued her. And she laughed at them for their witlessness, and their blindness; and within reach of their clutches, she turned into a tree, and left before them a shadowy reflection of herself. ~ from Reality of the Archons(NHC)


In cosmological terms, it is difficult to say what the Archons are doing here, but in psychological terms — which, let's recall, always run in parallel with cosmic events in the Gnostic vision of human reality — it suggests that womanhood becomes defiled, defamed, and denigrated. This is exactly what has happened with the rise of patriarchal religion: the distinctive voice of woman, her authority to speak for herself and for the Goddess, has been defamed and defiled. ~ John Lamb Lash

Seorse Gorog from that Quantum Entanglement Fund. alright_.-'s picture

Read Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind. In other words, as Chris Rock said,...

''. Don't be a pussy.


The evolution of male and female psyches have lead to certain investing characteristics.





WTF am I talking about?

Lebensphilosoph's picture

What's the female to male ratio at Zerohedge? I can guess the order of the answer and doesn't it speak volumes.

YHC-FTSE's picture

Yeah..... Women are more risk averse than men? Like Ina Drew and her synthetic credit portfolio that blew up over $3 billion in losses for JPM? Yeah right. Keep generalising. 

Lebensphilosoph's picture

Your point? Any fool can see that this is a statistical generalisation that doesn't hold in every last case. We didn't need you to point it out for us. And your emasculate whining doesn't give the finding written about in the article any less bearing on reality.

YHC-FTSE's picture

Generalisations feed the weak and lazy minded. They are used to divide people, obsfucate reality, and encourage group-think. The article has as much use as your hyperbole. That's my point. But do please carry on believing that it has anything to do with "Reality", and good luck with your investments.

Lebensphilosoph's picture

Generalisations feed the weak and lazy minded.

Isn't  that itself a generalisation? Generalisation is essential to rational thought, being, not least of all, at the foundation of empirical science. Get over yourself and your 'strong' and 'diligent' mind.


They are used to divide people, obsfucate reality, and encourage group-think.

Another generalisation? In any case, what they might be used for is of no consequence to their truth. What is more, how does conceptualising the reality of noticeable, inherent, and established trends in behaviours between the human sexes 'obfuscate reality'? What are you going to come up with next? The old 'gender is a social construct' canard?

The article has as much use as your hyperbole.

What hyperbole? I was under the impression you believed 'generalisations' have the uses given above. Is contradicting oneself the sign of a 'strong' mind then?


But do please carry on believing that it has anything to do with "Reality",

It is a reality, as opposed to your pie-in-the-sky faith in 'gender equality'. You pretend to counter scientific research first through a single anecdotal example directed at a straw man, and then by whining about the moral consequences of it. What a laugh you are.



YHC-FTSE's picture

Wow. You got all that from my post? I'd bet you're one of those people who hears voices in their heads. Pity, because your language skills are excellent, but you're so obviously inadequate and angry for no reasons at all. Never mind.

Mercury's picture

For example, more women are participating in deferred compensation (DC) plans, and the data from millions of 401(k) accounts tells a useful story.  Their retirement accounts still lag those of their male counterparts in total value and they remain a bit more risk-averse. But for the first time in at least a decade they are more likely than men to contribute to a retirement account and are contributing a greater percentage of their earnings.

It's not so much about risk profiles or investing styles but rather the fact that women are generally more willing to trade liberty for security or the promise of security.  Just imagine what the world would look like after half a century or so if you gave them the right to vote.

It's not just the Democrats, the grand strategy of our self-aggrandizing government is increasingly to offer "security" for liberty in all areas of life. Women, for obvious reasons, just happen to be an easier sell in this area.

  The Obama campaign is, right now appealing directly to women, essentially offering to make them government dependants for life:

Pretty soon women, free at last form eons of oppressive patriarchy, will essentially be married to the government as nuns are brides of Christ (and The Bill of Rights will have been whittled down to sex and shopping!)  I guess that’s what they call Progress.

This concludes my Q3 sexist commentary.

Stuck on Zero's picture

Over the last twenty years most male jobs have been exported to Asia: manufacturing, engineering, sciences, etc. e.g. private industry. In the meantime, jobs traditionally held by women have exploded: bureaucrats, administrators, teachers, nurses, social service workers, counseling, clerical, sales, etc.  e.g. government jobs. 

And how long do you think this situation will last?