So when Wall Street is rebuilt we need to have women running it... the glass ceiling might just be shattered by the markets tanking!

Fair Trade's prescription might not be such a terrible outcome to the financial crisis, but neither her interpretation nor Julia Whitty's is particularly on-the-mark, scientifically.

Testosterone is always a "usual suspect" when trying to explicate stereotypically masculine problem behaviors (usually aggression, but in this case financial risk-taking). The implied (or openly stated) argument, is invariably that men do bad things because of testosterone.

However, in research, the opposite causal path has tended to emerge, the idea that when men are placed in competitive, socially-dominant situations, testosterone increases. For example, one study merely told a group of men that the group to which they had been assigned was predicted to win a notional competition, while another was told that their group was predicted to lose. Strikingly, the men in the "winners" group showed significantly higher testosterone levels than the men in the "losers" group.

Also strikingly, studies have attempted to show a relationship between artificially injected mice (I don't know if this has been done in humans, since testosterone is really not my area of expertise). No one, as far as I know, has ever shown a relationship between artificially increase testosterone and aggression.

Moreover, I find the idea that men's supposedly higher risk-taking propensity alone makes for bad investments to be simplistic, at best. Obviously, managing risks effectively is a component of successful financial planning, regardless of our current crisis. The study in question also does not speak to expected returns or any other means to evaluate risk-taking in the context of the current crisis, which is, as we know, less a function of bad-risk management and more a function of ignoring relevant market indicators.

There was an article stating that conservatives were afraid. Now this article says testosterone results in risk taking(to be distinguished from being "reckless".) So Conservatives being fearful will not take a risk on Obama. They are afraid of change. They lack testosterone(aka balls).

OK, so they bet more; so how did they do?

Black men have more testosterone than White men based upon prostate cancer research. This means that Obama will be more of a risk taker(changer) then the White woman Palin, who will be President if McCain can't do the job.

Men are, in general, less risk-averse than women, specifically because of testosterone. Just look at sex-ratio statistics. More boys are born than girls, but, by adulthood/late adulthood, it evens out. This is because boys do stupid things all the time. The reason the show "Jackass" made me laugh at times is because it demonstrated my point. Boys are more willing to take risks. However, I'd like to see a study determine if it is actually the testosterone level or the male brain, which cannot consider more than one thing at once and, thus, rarely considers consequences...this phenomenon is blatantly more obvious when you look at Republican males vs. Democratic males. There's a reason the default brain and body in humans is female...

hahaha, you racist to blame testosterum, because as Shannon stated, Black folk have more than White males. Testosterum is good, not bad.