By WdF, a reader from Germany
The “Bundesbank” has published a paper that finds, that more women in the board of a bank correlates with a higher risk. The “Bundesbank” is the German counterpart to the federal reserve system in the US and has used it’s information number on 3,525 banks from 1994 to 2006, which means the accumulated information from 19,750 bank-years.
The paper opposes the feminist claim, that women would be more risk averse than men. I can’t say it proves feminists wrong, because it is only one paper, and the reasoning might be faulty.  However, it is from an renowned institution, and arguments against feminism coming from what is essentially a government institution are all the more remarkable.
In general, state agencies are not as inundated with feminism as politics. The “Statistisches Bundesamt” for example writes in it’s statistics, that the difference in average pay between men and women does not mean, that women get less pay for the same work. They know, they also say so, but politicians continue with their ramblings on the “discrimination of women”.
Anyhow, most probably we will see similar papers come out in the future.
Honestly, I haven’t read the 80 page paper myself yet; I summarized the information from an article on “Sciencefiles“ in German, and added some information that might be interesting to readers abroad. Maybe I should have read it, but if I try to read it and write a summery and a comment, I’ll never get finished. Or at least not in a reasonable time frame. Fortunately for readers of the Spearhead the paper is in English, (except for a small passage near the beginning,) so readers can read it, and post comments to this article, or write one of their own.
 I’m certain that women are not per se more qualified to lead enterprises than men. If they were, there would be more successful companies founded by women. However, I’ve learned not to trust one statistic, even if I agree with its findings, and while I have the ability to find gross mistakes, I have missed important points before, and if I don’t find a mistake, that does not mean there is none.