

Is "discrimination" necessary to explain the sex gap in earnings? - arvinjoar
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JEP2005.pdf
I think this is really interesting, there's so many modern myths.
======
pbhjpbhj
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

