The gender gap in risk-taking among the most competent students reduced the odds that high-ability women received top exam scores, creating gender inequality in outcomes among top performers

Who’s on Top?: Gender Differences in Risk-Taking Produce Unequal Outcomes for High-Ability Women and Men. Susan R. Fisk. Social Psychology Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272518796512

Abstract: Research shows that men are more likely to take risks than women, but there is scant evidence that this produces gender inequality. To address this gap, I analyzed engineering exam scores that used an unusual grading procedure. I found small average gender differences in risk-taking that did not produce gendered outcomes for students of average or poor ability. But the gender gap in risk-taking among the most competent students reduced the odds that high-ability women received top exam scores. These results demonstrate that gender differences in risk-taking can produce gender inequality in outcomes among top performers. This suggests that the upward mobility of high-ability women may be depressed relative to equally competent men in male-typed institutional settings in which outcomes are influenced by both ability and risk-taking. In this manner, these results provide new insights into the microlevel social-psychological processes that produce and reproduce gender inequality.

Keywords: gender, gender inequality, mobility, risk-taking, work

Civil inattention: Even when action has been taken to clean it up, plastic bags filled with dog droppings have been thrown onto the ground in certain carefully selected spots or even hung up in trees or displayed on fence posts or railings

Gross, Mathias, Horta, Ana (2017). Dog shit happens: human–canine interactions and the immediacy of excremental presence. In Bradley H. Brewster and Antony J. Puddephatt (Eds.), Microsociological Perspectives for Environmental Sociology, pp. 143-160. London & New York: Routledge. http://hdl.handle.net/10451/26761

Abstract: When it comes to a human’s best friend it seems Western societies turn a blind eye to practices that fail to meet their usually high standards of everyday hygiene. This chapter will explore practices related to canine excrement and the micro-interactionist strategies deployed by dog owners and non-owners to cope with it. We present here the results of our own observations of the habitual behavior of dog-walkers at various times of the day in various settings, mainly in Germany and Portugal – the authors’ respective countries of residence – but also report on similar observations made in Poland, France, Belgium, Britain, and Japan. Our account is also based on our own experiences of dog walking and engaging in the removal of excrement. We draw additionally on a number of informal conversations with dog owners and non-owners on such topics, including the techniques used to deal with excrement, as well as reports and discussions published online. In thus exploring the ways dog waste is removed, we try and solve the riddle of why, in some cases, even when action has been taken to clean it up, plastic bags filled with dog droppings have been thrown onto the ground in certain carefully selected spots or even hung up in trees or displayed on fence posts or railings. The chapter will present inquiries into micro-forms of interactional behavior and dog walking and pooping practices. Some of these strategies will be accounted for as qualitatively new forms of what Erving Goffman (1971) once referred to as civil inattention. Thus, we explore the logic of civil inattention by focusing on what might be called “poop on display.”