性别差异的恼人的不确定影响

Deborah M. Weiss
{"title":"性别差异的恼人的不确定影响","authors":"Deborah M. Weiss","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1355585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At present, men and women have different distributions of certain aptitudes and personality traits. A growing body of research suggests that some of these differences have some biological basis, although these distribution differences do not always conform neatly to traditional stereotypes and cultural factors also contribute. A heritable basis for difference, however, has frustratingly indeterminate implications. It suggests that some occupational segregation is not caused by discrimination. At the same time, a statistical aptitude or temperament difference will almost inevitably cause discrimination in professions that make use of that aptitude or temperament. This implication is supported by empirical evidence about the continued existence of discrimination from disparate sources, including labor market data and experimental laboratory studies in both economics and psychology. The offsetting effects of difference and statistical discrimination make it extremely difficult to predict the degree of occupational segregation in a non-discriminatory world. To complicate matters further, there is no simple relation between the size of ability differences and the efficient degree of occupational segregation. The principle of comparative advantage suggests that even small ability differences might produce large degrees of occupational segregation. Conversely, high demand in a sector using skills that favor one sex may draw the other sex into sectors in which they have an absolute disadvantage. Ability distribution differences create tremendous challenges for anti-discrimination policy. Liability rules based on current labor market representation are of minimal use, since the labor market reflects existing discrimination. Though perhaps useful in the short term, long-term numerical targets are problematic: target goals are extremely difficult to set, and would need to become a permanent institution. Moreover, numerical targets may create unintended problems for women. Men have historically dominated even fields in which women have an advantage. A target goal of equal representation would prevent women from attaining majority status in these fields. Closer scrutiny of employer practices holds promise as an alternative to numerically based theories. Earlier versions of this paper were circulated with the title \"The Paradox of Statistical Discrimination\"","PeriodicalId":344781,"journal":{"name":"Texas Journal of Women, Gender, and the Law","volume":"101 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Annoyingly Indeterminate Effect of Sex Differences\",\"authors\":\"Deborah M. Weiss\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1355585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At present, men and women have different distributions of certain aptitudes and personality traits. A growing body of research suggests that some of these differences have some biological basis, although these distribution differences do not always conform neatly to traditional stereotypes and cultural factors also contribute. A heritable basis for difference, however, has frustratingly indeterminate implications. It suggests that some occupational segregation is not caused by discrimination. At the same time, a statistical aptitude or temperament difference will almost inevitably cause discrimination in professions that make use of that aptitude or temperament. This implication is supported by empirical evidence about the continued existence of discrimination from disparate sources, including labor market data and experimental laboratory studies in both economics and psychology. The offsetting effects of difference and statistical discrimination make it extremely difficult to predict the degree of occupational segregation in a non-discriminatory world. To complicate matters further, there is no simple relation between the size of ability differences and the efficient degree of occupational segregation. The principle of comparative advantage suggests that even small ability differences might produce large degrees of occupational segregation. Conversely, high demand in a sector using skills that favor one sex may draw the other sex into sectors in which they have an absolute disadvantage. Ability distribution differences create tremendous challenges for anti-discrimination policy. Liability rules based on current labor market representation are of minimal use, since the labor market reflects existing discrimination. Though perhaps useful in the short term, long-term numerical targets are problematic: target goals are extremely difficult to set, and would need to become a permanent institution. Moreover, numerical targets may create unintended problems for women. Men have historically dominated even fields in which women have an advantage. A target goal of equal representation would prevent women from attaining majority status in these fields. Closer scrutiny of employer practices holds promise as an alternative to numerically based theories. Earlier versions of this paper were circulated with the title \\\"The Paradox of Statistical Discrimination\\\"\",\"PeriodicalId\":344781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Texas Journal of Women, Gender, and the Law\",\"volume\":\"101 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Texas Journal of Women, Gender, and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1355585\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Journal of Women, Gender, and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1355585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前,男性和女性在某些才能和人格特征上的分布是不同的。越来越多的研究表明,尽管这些分布上的差异并不总是完全符合传统的刻板印象,文化因素也起了作用,但其中一些差异具有某种生物学基础。然而,令人沮丧的是,差异的遗传基础具有不确定的含义。这表明一些职业隔离不是由歧视造成的。与此同时,统计上的天赋或气质差异几乎不可避免地会在利用这种天赋或气质的职业中引起歧视。这一暗示得到了来自不同来源的歧视持续存在的经验证据的支持,包括劳动力市场数据和经济学和心理学的实验实验室研究。差异和统计歧视的抵消效应使得在一个没有歧视的世界里预测职业隔离的程度极为困难。使问题进一步复杂化的是,能力差异的大小与职业隔离的有效程度之间并没有简单的关系。比较优势原理表明,即使是很小的能力差异也可能产生很大程度的职业隔离。相反,在使用有利于一种性别的技能的部门中,高需求可能会将另一种性别吸引到他们处于绝对劣势的部门。能力分布差异给反歧视政策带来巨大挑战。基于当前劳动力市场代表性的责任规则用处不大,因为劳动力市场反映了现有的歧视。虽然短期内可能有用,但长期的数字指标是有问题的:具体目标极难确定,需要成为一个常设机构。此外,数字目标可能会给女性带来意想不到的问题。历史上,男性甚至在女性有优势的领域也占据主导地位。平等代表权的目标将阻止妇女在这些领域取得多数地位。更仔细地审视雇主的做法有望成为基于数字的理论的另一种选择。本文的早期版本以“统计歧视的悖论”为题分发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Annoyingly Indeterminate Effect of Sex Differences
At present, men and women have different distributions of certain aptitudes and personality traits. A growing body of research suggests that some of these differences have some biological basis, although these distribution differences do not always conform neatly to traditional stereotypes and cultural factors also contribute. A heritable basis for difference, however, has frustratingly indeterminate implications. It suggests that some occupational segregation is not caused by discrimination. At the same time, a statistical aptitude or temperament difference will almost inevitably cause discrimination in professions that make use of that aptitude or temperament. This implication is supported by empirical evidence about the continued existence of discrimination from disparate sources, including labor market data and experimental laboratory studies in both economics and psychology. The offsetting effects of difference and statistical discrimination make it extremely difficult to predict the degree of occupational segregation in a non-discriminatory world. To complicate matters further, there is no simple relation between the size of ability differences and the efficient degree of occupational segregation. The principle of comparative advantage suggests that even small ability differences might produce large degrees of occupational segregation. Conversely, high demand in a sector using skills that favor one sex may draw the other sex into sectors in which they have an absolute disadvantage. Ability distribution differences create tremendous challenges for anti-discrimination policy. Liability rules based on current labor market representation are of minimal use, since the labor market reflects existing discrimination. Though perhaps useful in the short term, long-term numerical targets are problematic: target goals are extremely difficult to set, and would need to become a permanent institution. Moreover, numerical targets may create unintended problems for women. Men have historically dominated even fields in which women have an advantage. A target goal of equal representation would prevent women from attaining majority status in these fields. Closer scrutiny of employer practices holds promise as an alternative to numerically based theories. Earlier versions of this paper were circulated with the title "The Paradox of Statistical Discrimination"
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信