Huffington Post: 'Want Less Risk? Hire More Women!'

Article here. Excerpt:

'I have a better idea: why not hire more women? Many studies have shown that women tend to be more risk averse than men. Recent research [1] shows that testosterone is to blame. The higher the amount of testosterone, the more willing people are to take risks. Women, with considerably less of the male hormone coursing through their bodies, are more risk averse. Even women facing death are more risk averse than men in the same situation [2]. Women also, apparently, make better money managers according to another study by two professors at UC Davis [3]. That study found that overconfidence caused men to trade stocks 45 percent more often than women, thus lowering their net portfolio returns by 2.65 percent per year (compared with 1.72 percent lower returns for women traders).
...
But what is the cause and effect? If a previously male-dominated profession becomes female-dominated, does the total compensation automatically drop? Or conversely, if the total compensation of a profession is forced downward, is that job now less attractive to men and more available to women? One study(4) says not so. In reviewing data from 1983-2001, the researchers found limited evidence that feminization of an occupation causes reduced pay, and no evidence that reducing compensation causes an occupation to feminize. Perhaps 18 years isn't long enough to see any long-term trends. After all, it took more than 100 years for the secretarial profession to flip from 96 percent men to 96 percent women.'