April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by Typepad

« Who Has Influenced Who and Why? | Main | I Confess I Don't Get It »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Pete: Maybe you can "get" this... one simple example at a time. So...

I recall Block's case championing the sexist boss and his relationship with his secretary (Defending the Undefendable). Let's say his analysis is consistent with the concept of a downward-sloping demand curve.

Can you imagine -- without much strain -- a criticism of the sexist boss situation that is *also* consistent with the concept of a downward-sloping demand curve? I bet you can.

So, in this example, what we perhaps have is a difference in orientation (and justification/criticism). The hard-nosed male economist applauding the sexist boss, versus the feminist economist criticizing the sexist boss, with neither economist denying the law of demand.


Oops, I must've clicked on the wrong entry.

As Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say: "Nevermind."

Going back to Pete's original point: When I was in grad school it was widely believed (not by me, of course) that less-qualified students -- women, in particular -- tended to self-select into "softer" fields like labor economics, demography, and environmental economics while eschewing economic theory, monetary economics, econometrics, and the like. I remember one of my male classmates being teased for going into labor economics, a "chick field."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books