Is "discrimination" necessary to explain the sex gap in earnings?

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JEP2005.pdf

by arvinjoar • 16 years ago

3 1 16 years ago

personal.lse.ac.uk

I think this is really interesting, there's so many modern myths.

pbhjpbhj• 16 years ago

From the papers conclusion:

>EP [Evolutionary Psychology] can provide a more parsimonious explanation, consistent with the evidence presented in Tables 1 and 3, that women have inherently less desire to earn money than men, and the sex difference increases as women have better things to do, reproductively speaking. From the perspective of EP, there is absolutely no reason to expect why men and women should have identical predispositions and inclinations toward earning money. Women’s evolved psychological mechanisms, adapted to the EEA [ancestral environment or the environment of evolutionary adaptedness], would not compel them to engage in activities that did not increase their reproductive success in the ancestral environment.

Just as earlier studies (Farkas et al., 1997; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, Chapter 14; O’Neill, 1990) demonstrate that ‘‘discrimination’’ is not necessary to account for the race difference in earnings, my analyses show that ‘‘discrimination’’ is not necessary to explain the sex diﬀerence in earnings. Due to evolved diﬀerences in their preferences and desires, women should be less motivated to earn money than men, because resource accumulation did not increase women’s reproductive success in the EEA whereas it did increase men’s.

[] = my edits

Is "discrimination" necessary to explain the sex gap in earnings?

Related Stories