As a man who has worked on trading floor in the City I am absolutely convinced that it was typical 'male' behaviour that caused the financial crisis.
In a stable environment where markets are steadily trending upwards, the traders who are the most aggressive, take the most risk make the most money. It is a pure Darwinian selection process. Those traders who are more cautious in strongly upward trending markets make less money so get sacked or do not get promoted.
However, the moment that markets fall and the environment becomes unstable the aggressive risk takers make spectacular losses that risk bringing down firms.
There are very very few female traders. It is pure testosterone driven hubris and aggression that drives extreme risk taking on trading desks and it is encouraged and rewarded by weak and ill informed mangers who themselves are also more likely to be men.
yes well men have proven themselves to be complete failures at running countries. All they know how to do is exploit and create war and pollute the environment. THey created the economic crisis and then had no shame in using the taxes leached from women, mothers, teenage girls, who are usually working in minimum wage jobs (because they're women) in order to bail themselves out.
ONly one bank survived the crash in Iceland and it was a feminist bank run by women. Shortly afterwards Iceland voted in a lesbian prime minister. It makes sense. Men can't be trusted with all that testosterone rushing around their bodies
There is a theory that it was testosterone fuelled risk taking that pushed the hman race forward. Being reckless and risking your life to push into new territory, trying new ways of doing things, doing thisngs to excess is very typically 'male'. Over millenia it has resulted in the deaths of millions of young men. Just occassionally though, one man does succeed and the human race makes a step forward.
Problem is, that type of behavior is lethal on a trading desk and it causes a lot of wars.
It's not regressive to say that men were in charge when an entire financial system was driven off a cliff. It is an observable fact.
We don't have the counterfactual to test how a financial system run by women would have faired. However, I have seen trading game experiments that shows women do trade quite differently (on average) than men.
But we have spent some time moving away from a environment in which it is acceptable to assess whether one sex might be more suited for a particular career than the other, or in which we might seek to restrict the options that are open to someone due to pre conceptions of their abilities based purely on gender. This would seem to run counter to that more progressive trend.
Interesting idea, though I get deeply suspicious when hormones are blamed for anything.
I suspect the socialisation of men and constructions of masculinity have as much, no in fact more to offer by way of an explanation of what happened (and continues to happen) in the banking sector. Also as MoreBeta says, the lack of diversity does expose the sector to the dangers of 'Group Think'.