October 4, 2012, - 6:24 pm

Study Shows Female Economists Exceptionally Stupid (& Very Far-Left)

By Debbie Schlussel

If women were not allowed to vote, the better candidate would usually win the Presidential race. That’s because women are more liberal, more likely to be Democrats, and in poll after poll, more clueless and unlikely to know what they are talking about with regard to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, the candidates’ backgrounds, and their positions on issues. And so it goes with female economists, where the gender gap is a gender chasm. A University of Nebraska-Lincoln study shows that female economists are stupid (which probably has a lot to do with affirmative action for chicks in math and sciences, every step of the way from education to career) and far to the left.

A new study shows a large gender gap on economic policy among the nation’s professional economists, a divide similar — and in some cases bigger — than the gender divide found in the general public. . . .

Female economists tend to favor a bigger role for government while male economists have greater faith in business and the marketplace. Is the U.S. economy excessively regulated? Sixty-five percent of female economists said “no” — 24 percentage points higher than male economists. . . .

Says Ann Mari May, co-author of the study and a University of Nebraska economist, ” . . . women are more likely to accept government regulation and involvement in economic activity than our male colleagues.” . . .

The survey of 400 economists is one of the first to examine whether gender differences matter within a profession. The answer for economists: Yes.

How economists think:

* Health insurance: Female economists thought employers should be required to provide health insurance for full-time workers: 40% in favor to 37% against, with the rest offering no opinion. By contrast, men were strongly against the idea: 21% in favor and 52% against.

* Education: Females narrowly opposed taxpayer-funded vouchers that parents could use for tuition at a public or private school of their choice. Male economists love the idea: 61% to 14%. . . .

The genders are most divorced from each other on the question of equality for women. Male economists overwhelmingly think the wage gap between men and women is largely the result of individuals’ skills, experience and voluntary choices. Female economists overwhelmingly disagree by a margin of 4-to-1.

The biggest disagreement: 76% of women say faculty opportunities in economics favor men. Male economists point the opposite way: 80% say women are favored or the process is neutral.

See, the women won’t face the facts. As I already noted, everyone knows there is major affirmative action for women in math and the sciences, especially in economics. The few male economists who said the process favors men are the ones who surrendered their testicles a long time ago.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

43 Responses

DS, I found this very interesting and definitely mirrored in the high tech industry. Problem solving and general intuition falls along these similar lines. Also I see even greater disparity in the immigrant population.

Anthony Calcaterra on October 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Anthony, one of the great disservices, among many, that Mexico inflicts upon its nationals is virtual or complete illiteracy. Many of these migrants cannot even read and write Spanish. It is no wonder that ESL has been such an abysmal failure for so many. Learning a new language properly is a very difficult thing in itself. If there is no little or no literate base to begin with, the job becomes virtually impossible. Such people, despite claims to the contrary, are only able to hold the lowest and most poorly paid positions without any real hope for advancement. Inevitably, what they earn is never enough to live on, so they go on various forms of public assistance. Mexico fails those who are not among the upper classes in education, while pushing a potentially explosive part of their own population over the border where they will be someone else’s problem.

    Worry01 on October 4, 2012 at 7:31 pm

      Yo Worry, the Lesbo fashionistas do call a spade a spade.

      Why promote intellectual advancement when stupidity sells
      and the female rappers are the sickest and most violent
      promoters of warfare both personally and socially.

      They are all Obama Urinals,and are rich behind it.

      commander schvatsa on October 4, 2012 at 9:55 pm

        Commander, that was a pretty medicated response that really did not address the information furnished in response to your claims regarding Meg Whitman. when you have finished smoking, snorting, or downing whatever you are on, let us know.

        Worry01 on October 5, 2012 at 12:07 am

When Meg Whitman lays off twenty percent of HP’s workforce
does the thought of her husband’s testicles enter her mind
or elsewhere.I doubt whether an employees’ sex plays a
great role in the her corporate economic decision.
As one of the great business leaders of our time, she has
achieved for the greatest reason of all–talent.
Although the High-Tech World may sometimes appear male
dominated,Meg Whitman is an icon for her leadership and
as a steward for greatness and innovation.
HP will be a better company because of Meg, not despite of

commander schvatsa on October 4, 2012 at 6:59 pm

What I really found interesting was the portion on education:

“Education: Females narrowly opposed taxpayer-funded vouchers that parents could use for tuition at a public or private school of their choice. Male economists love the idea: 61% to 14%. . . .”

Do you know who evidently loathes children and the working class women who bear them, female economists. They would rather stuff a kid into a worthless gang infested school, rather than allow a low income parent the option that economically better off parents have, namely better public or private schools. Yes, here is the war against women in bold type. It is not over birth control pills that a whining rich girl like Sandra Fluke refuses to pay roughly ten dollars a month for. No, it is imprisoning children in schools that do not function, and disregarding the agonized cries of the mothers seeing the same old pattern repeat itself for the sake of teacher’s unions. Women economists have no time for such things when their biggest concern is tenure or the chair of a dean.

Worry01 on October 4, 2012 at 7:07 pm

“…women are more liberal, more likely to be Democrats, and in poll after poll, more clueless and unlikely to know what they are talking about with regard to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, the candidatesā€™ backgrounds, and their positions on issues.”

Same thing with the 18-to-29-year-old demographic (of any gender). Especially with the uber-pervasive leftist indoctrination in our schools and colleges, the increasing dumbing-down with a greater emphasis on the celebrity culture, and the creeping infantilization of our youth to the point where nominal “young adults” are still living off their parents. The comment “If women were not allowed to vote, the better candidate would usually win the Presidential race” is the least of it; allowing 18-year-olds to vote, starting in 1971, has been equally disastrous for the direction of this country.

ConcernedPatriot on October 4, 2012 at 8:02 pm

P.S. As for Meg Whitman’s stewardship of HP (essentially running it into the ground) – sounds awfully similar to when Carly Fiorina was running the show. And we all know how she turned out.

ConcernedPatriot on October 4, 2012 at 8:06 pm

WOW! This ougghta piss the feminists right off! Debbie, if a man put out an article like this, he would probably have to go into hiding like Salman Rushdie.

RT on October 4, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Let her call a spade a spade. They teach, write journal articles, and spend most of their time with preferred graduate students. Their intellectual advancement stopped with John Kenneth Galbraith and Paul Samuelson, who were both past their shelf-life long before they died.

    Worry01 on October 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm

Any “economist” who does not believe\know that minimum wage laws increase unemployment, should be fired, stripped of their degrees, and required to find work in either the domestic cleaning or food preparation industries. That would clean out almost half (44%) of the female incompetents. Social progress at last.

j'kel on October 4, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Can we discount the wealth and influence of the
Black Female Rappers who have caused tremendous
chaos in the Entertainment Industry and disrupt Youth
Let’s see of Romney has the balls to call them out.

Commander Zero on October 4, 2012 at 10:17 pm

There’s a very good commentary about this sort of thing by Men’s Rights activist, “barbarossaaaa” titled, “Organic dissolution of traditionalism, and small govt. platitudes” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt8LtMl0TI0

You are invited to view it.

Nigel on October 4, 2012 at 10:22 pm

It would have been interesting if the survey had compared the professional attainments and education of the male and female economists. I’m sure there are a lot more adjunct professors among the females, more part-time economists, and fewer female economists who had distinguished themselves professionally or attained PhDs. I suspect the definition of ‘economist’ was stretched to include some of the females, as well.

Little Al on October 4, 2012 at 10:25 pm

This is a very interesting analysis. However, I’m not surprised that female economists would take the liberal slant.

I think that two things are at work here.

One, women have a greater need to be loved them men do, and many liberals are people who feel a need to be loved more. And an underlying emotional force behind liberalism is that the people advocating liberalism believe that they will be loved and appreciated more for their liberalism. The inner child of the liberal is crying out, “I’m a good person; I want to help people and give them things; and they will love me for helping them.” In the infantile mind of the liberal, the conservative is the bad parent, who wants to deny the giveaways, freebees, and will impose austerity on the freedom-loving children.

Two, economics is a quantitative discipline, and women are just not as strong as men are at mathematics. So women are not generally going to make the smartest economists. I’m sure I’ll get some boos for this but women are great at law, literature, history, the arts, and other such fields, but not so much in mathematics and the sciences. Sure there are plenty of exceptions, and it doensn’t have to be that way, but this is the general trend. Because I might get some flack from the ladies, I’m going to post a link in support of my position: http://www.livescience.com/1927-men-dominate-math-science-fields.html

Ralph Adamo on October 4, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    Ralph, I liked what you said. Good on ya!

    Also, to add just a small part to your post…women need to be taken care of, which prolly is one of the main reasons they love Big Gubmint. If it were up to me, women who think like that would be not allowed to be economists because they will sully the system by the inherent need to be taken care of. It’s a conflict of interest.

    Skunky on October 5, 2012 at 12:09 am

      Skunky, I was thinking of a version of what you said. Women are by nature nurturers. Sure, there are exceptions but that is the role we were programmed for so we look for ways to take care of people rather than showing them how to take care of themselves. The feminists and affirmative action crowd are so busy denying basic biology, they refuse to accept the inherent valor of their roles.

      Italkit on October 5, 2012 at 4:35 am

LOLOL. That “fail” picture is CLASSIC!! I can’t stop laughing!

Truth hurts. I like the truth though. You can tell I have ZERO feminism left in me because, unlike many others, I never let my ex-feminist get in the way. And I can always tell when a feminist (non-Liberal) lets her “feminism” cloud her reality. And it annoys me very much and I can smell it coming even before it arrives.

Skunky on October 4, 2012 at 11:39 pm

Meg Whitman is a violent, insane, monster. She navigated through business in the same way Condoleeza navigated government – they were abilities that would allow them to pass themselves off as competent, but little else in the way of actual vision or leadership. They were tokens.

Ebay benefited from the pervasiveness of high-speed Internet adoption and cheaper technology to access it, not because of any miraculous things that she did.

HP is at the end of its rope and if Whitman is allowed to continue, it will inevitably dissolve and be sold off. I’m normally extremely bullish, but I wouldn’t touch HP now with a ten foot pole.

DS_ROCKS! on October 5, 2012 at 2:03 am

    The problem comes down to it not working. Being a CEO of a major corporation in distress is not a public relations exercise. Also, massive layoffs when done too often destroy the social structure and productivity of an organization. If everyone is potentially a short-timer, how can a company realistically expect loyalty and self-sacrifice from its employees? As the bitterness and resentment spreads, the company’s workforce spends more of its time seeking stable employment elsewhere than doing their jobs. Binging by excessive hiring that is followed by excessive purging of one’s workforce should be viewed as a sign of dysfunction arising from poor management planning, rather than as a legitimate workforce practice by a company.

    Worry01 on October 5, 2012 at 9:00 am

After reading this article, I got questions…

a) Does this mean that we shouldn’t have given the women the right to vote?

b) Did women destroy true liberalism – the one that prohibited big government than promoted it – and replaced it with flower power?

c) Did these “female economists” work, pay or play for their credentials? If they did work for them, did they work in the real world? And what kind of work did they do? (Lap dances DO NOT count.)

d) Is the concept of entitlement turning out to be the most over-hyped and abused meme in modern Western Civilization?

I’ll be damned if I had the answers all along.

The Reverend Jacques on October 5, 2012 at 2:04 am

    Or, women are moody and stubborn. šŸ˜‰

    Worry01 on October 5, 2012 at 9:01 am

    RJ, on A,B and D, yes and on C, NO!

    Italkit on October 7, 2012 at 7:57 am

Something I cannot find confirmed is the breakdown of the participants of the study- specifically if the 400 participants were evenly 200 male and 200 female.

If that is the case, and we accept the figures stated within this article about the same study


about the percent of econ doctorates going to women in recent years (27% in 2000, 34.5% in 2010), would it not suggest that the probability that the women’s group would tend to be on the younger side, which could account for some of the tendency towards liberalism? A french economist mentioned that she had more liberal-stances in her youth

If the women’s group was not roughly half of the 400 questioned, but a smaller portion proportionate to their share of Econ ph.ds, then having a smaller sample of women to work with could also exaggerate the appearance of liberalism amongst female economists.

The only way to adequately and thoroughly demonstrate that gender is the principle underlying cause of difference in this study, and not age, would have been an analysis also how each age bracket stood on those same issues, and the number of men and women in each age bracket.

Robert on October 5, 2012 at 6:35 am

I’d love to know how these airheads think we should reach the goal of statement #2, “Income distribution should be more equal.” This is the essence of the debate we should be having with these numbnuts. Would they be willing to sacrifice part, or all, of their salaries to make things more equal? Not on your sweet life. Incomes are not a zero-sum game to be manipulated by the anointed, the social engineers running our government. I always think of a game show, like Jeopardy. The three contestants work hard to get on the show and then work harder to win the most money. How about at the end of the show, we just add the players dollar amounts together and then divide the total equally between the three. How would the player who won the most money feel about that? That’s what these airhead women seem to want to do. Leading with your heart instead of your head is a dangerous way to make policy.

JeffT on October 5, 2012 at 10:29 am

Clearly, this failure solely happened because of horrible male discrimination and privilege.

I demand bloo…. more affirmative action!

Srs thou, good thing feminists arenĀ“t good at programming, just @mail a lot of threats instead of attempts at hacking your computer and bank account.

Jaws on October 5, 2012 at 10:32 am


Terrific post.

The primordial instinct of men is to hunt, provide for family, kill others, break things, etc.

The primordial instinct of women is to take advantage of the men, sit back, raise the family, etc.

I see nothing in this post that surprises me, except maybe only 48% of men think government is tool large.

Panhandle on October 5, 2012 at 12:39 pm

The men didn’t do too well, either, in some of the questions.

FactsRule on October 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm

@ Panhandle – “The primordial instinct of men is to hunt, provide for family, kill others, break things, etc.”

Erm… not exactly. While some cultures are marked by “breaking things”, mine has the defining characteristic of *building” things as a masculine trait.

DS_ROCKS! on October 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    and I’ll add to that; if you don’t want women competing with you for jobs, then don’t say we “sit back and take advantage…” Someone has to tend the home fires and prepare the caribou, the intrepid hunter brings back also if you think raising a family can be done while sitting back, go trade places with a housewife for a week. I guarantee you will appreciate the comfort of your deer stand or duck blind after that.

    Italkit on October 7, 2012 at 8:01 am

These factual views of gender differences rank right up there with HBD in that neither will ever be allowed to have frank, honest discussion and understanding.

No, if men dominate in a particular segment of the job market or academia, whatever– it MUST be because of discrimination, chauvinist pigs, and good ol’ boys holding the females down.

Yet when women dominate in a particular segment… that’s as it should be.

And I’ll be honest; I’ve come around to the “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote” mindset. I can hardly remember the last time I had a political discussion with a woman that wasn’t A: shallow, B: ignorant, C: pregnant with emotion instead of logic, D: slanted towards ‘helping’ everybody with government money (completely unawares of where government gets it’s money from), E: divorced from reality, or F: All of the above.

Debbie’s blog is so refreshing because she is one of the few women that can talk politics and display that she possesses the intellect to not only belong, but to be respected. Highly noticeable for the exceptional quality about it.

PitandPen on October 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    I totally agree, Pitand Pen, even having had Jeanne Kirkpatrick for my poly sci prof.

    Italkit on October 7, 2012 at 7:54 am

As hard as I’ve tried I have never had a serious political discussion with a female.
…some enlightening ones, maybe…

…usually ones that make you say WTF?!

theShadow on October 6, 2012 at 1:52 am

It all depend on which school of economic thought these women economists learned from while studying at specific universities? The Keynesian school of economic thought is predominant in most liberal art universities and are taught by tenured liberal male professors who probably never have real daily grind jobs or practical experiences in the real world economics.

Bob on October 6, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Ms. Schlussel:
I totally agree.

Although I always vote for the party that is the most America, imo, NOT dem.
I agree that women really are not good with these type issues.

The Mad Jewess on October 6, 2012 at 4:55 pm

(What self-hatred for your own gender. A female misogynist.)

Obvious because of their stupidity women should only be barefoot and pregnant. And hopefully not pregnant by all those darkies out there threatening the economy.

sieg heil!

Royal on October 7, 2012 at 10:04 am

    You sound like a moron.
    Before the 20th century, women didnt vote and we had a country.

    Now you left wing slob LADIES rule America and it is a dirt bag nation. Just look what Hitlery has done in the east, you buffoon.

    I dont have ‘self hatred’ at all. I just hate you and your ilk.

    The Mad Jewess on October 8, 2012 at 11:19 am

More logical fallacies were committed in the writing of this page and its comments than I have ever seen anywhere else in my life. The willful ignorance is irresponsible.

kilz on December 27, 2012 at 12:10 am

Why do you hate your own gender? Do you think having a different opinion from yours makes women stupid? If so, you’re the most stupid woman here.

Asdf on May 12, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Hey there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any
trouble with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was
hacked and I ended up losing several weeks of hard work due to
no data backup. Do you have any solutions to prevent hackers?

jc economics tuition on October 18, 2013 at 2:25 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field