In a Twitter discussion on Sept. 5, Rosa-Maria Ryyti (Miss Universe Finland 2015 winner), argued Bitcoin's risk factor made it more appealing to men.
She was responding to a query by analyst and Cointelegraph contributor, Filb Filb, who asked followers why the Bitcoin community was overwhelmingly male.
"Women are more risk-conscious in general and often go for a 'slow & steady' investment strategy," Ryyti wrote, adding:
"The current general perception of Bitcoin in the msm makes it even less probable for the average women (and men) to get involved."
https://cointelegraph.com/news/miss-finland-bitcoins-risk-keeps-most-women-away-from-cryptocurrency
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bitcoin’s Risk Keeps Most Women Away From Cryptocurrency
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 39 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @05:42PM
Do they also scare of crypto? How about Eskimo LGBTQ chicken? Those are the brave ones, I am sure.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday September 07 2019, @06:02PM (17 children)
In a Twitter discussion on Sept. 5, Rosa-Maria Ryyti (Miss Universe Finland 2015 winner), argued Bitcoin's risk factor made it more appealing to men.
Miss Ryyti just confirmed that:
1/ Women are more sensible than men
2/ Finland can produce Miss Somethings that aren't dumb bimbos
3/ Albeit rare, it's possible to read intelligent things on Twitter
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @06:16PM
0/ she says what she's paid to say
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @07:14PM
She did say average men weren't into cryptocoin either. In other words, it is something for Aspies to get wet over.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday September 07 2019, @08:08PM (14 children)
That "sensible" is a bit dubious. Sometimes the risk is worth it to the one taking the risk, because the payoff can be large enough to counter the risk. So "sensible" is a statement about one's relative values.
OTOH, I've never understood why ANY statistics major would buy a lottery ticket. It has to have something to do with "marginal valuation", e.g. the reward you get for dreaming about how much better things would be if you won.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 07 2019, @08:12PM (9 children)
Nothing wrong with your statement. But, in context, women have always been more risk averse than men. That's why we do crazy things like riding motorcycles like madmen, and trying to take corners on two wheels when driving the family car. The difference in male and female auto insurance rates reflects that risk aversion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Sunday September 08 2019, @02:13AM (8 children)
If true, women should be paid less for the same job.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:54AM (7 children)
I disagree. Employees who take risks with the boss's assets are of less value than employees who protect the boss's assets.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Sunday September 08 2019, @12:58PM (4 children)
Made me think of the Parable of the Talents [wikipedia.org]. Short version: the boss returns home and rewards the risk takers and punishes the guy who played it safe. (I have always wanted to know what would have happened to an employee who took a risk but ultimately lost.)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 08 2019, @01:38PM
I have wondered the same. I suppose the moral of the story is, you have to risk it all while blindly trusting in God. If you lost all your money in risky investments, then you had to be listening to the devil. :^)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @02:50PM (1 child)
The boss would have smote him, because a Jew is supposed to make money, not lose it.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:22PM
No, that would be sinful. The boss should have sent him on a quest to collect 100 philistine foreskins in the hopes he would be smote by someone else in the process.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:06PM
Yes, this is exactly the underlying problem. Our society rewards the result without much considerations of the risk taken. This screws a lot. Women underpayment is just a relatively minor example. Some scientists working on the bomb believed it may ignite the whole earth, but the bomb was tested. Some guys create black holes using particle smasher and say nothing could go wrong.
Perhaps we do need to push it and take those risks because if we stop for a moment, Chinese will enslave us, or aliens with higher tech come and kill us all. Or a rock. Or a supernova. If this is the case, we should accept it and reward men taking risk. If not, we should go the current way wich is removing the risk from our lives for the price of faster progress.
Men vs women discourse is a strategy decision about risk. We got to realize it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:54PM (1 child)
If this is true, the original statement means that women are smarter than men - able to get the same done with less risk - and should be paid more for the same job than men.
I don't take sides with either statement, mind you. What I was trying to say that a politically acceptable statement "women are more risk averse" is a different way of phrasing a politically questionable statements such as women are smarter or not.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @09:55AM
I pay for results, not for anything else.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Sunday September 08 2019, @12:33AM (1 child)
"I've never understood why ANY statistics major would buy a lottery ticket"
Well, maybe it's because life is only so good at rewarding perspicacity. Consider walking up to a guy who won $10,000,000 on a one-dollar Lotto ticket and saying "Well, aren't we a dimwit?"
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:38PM
Assuming one means a general concept of the lottery, I can come up with a few explanations.
For example, one could believe that there are no true random games around. All the games are rigged by players.
One could have a religious belief that luck is a way God uses to support good people. This approach is very popular in Asia.
Finally, one could assume that any randomness is an illusion and simply represents a lack of knowledge that mentioned graduate believes to possess.
Trust in pure statistics is a sign of an amateur statistician; perhaps a fresh grad without real life experience.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:43AM
Because you won't miss the dollar, but it gives you the chance to win a billion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @06:22PM
For a statistics major (which I ain't, but I think I understand the theory of this)...
If the reward odds go over the odds of winning this is considered a solid bet. The odds of winning the PowerBall jackpot are 1:292,201,338 according to Wikipedia. Ignoring the investment of multiple times (i.e. playing once only), that the odds are much lower for winning any prize whatsoever (1:24.87), the possibility of the jackpot being split, and assuming one takes the annuity instead of cash payments then anytime the jackpot goes over $292,201,338 you are receiving more money than the odds of winning.
Much of the theory of elementary Poker betting revolves around this principle, at least for solid (i.e. not bluffing) play. If your odds of improving your hand are better than the bet you're having to make to the pot ratio, it makes sense for you to bet. It is an extremely simplified version of pot odds [wikipedia.org] are, assuming one knows one does not have the nuts in a hand. (OK, pot odds can get more complex than that. But if you're being asked to thow in $1 to a win of $10.00, and your odds of completing a straight and that's your only improvement are 1 in 12, that's a bad bet. If you're throwing in $2 to a pot of $48 you could raise to $3 safely and still be good. If you expect the pot to reach $120 by final card you can invest $12 in the hand safely if the odds stayed constant - which they don't in Hold 'Em.)3
It all comes down to a simple theory: Is your potential payout to your investment greater or less than the odds of your achieving that payout? If payout is greater than odd of getting it, bet. If not, don't.
Will you still win the PowerBall? Only in 1 time of 292 Million. But, win or lose, your bets then weren't pure luck.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Captival on Saturday September 07 2019, @06:09PM
Well, that settles it. Bitcoin must be bad then, because anything that isn't exactly equal for every race, gender and age is by nature evil and must be condemned. Bitcoin must be made illegal or at least so highly regulated that nobody wants to use it. All males who own a bitcoin must give half of them away to a wahmen until such time as they own the majority of them, kind of like how divorce works. If you don't agree with my bizarre radical Communist ideas like this, I'm going to savagely and constantly disparage you in the name of tolerance.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @06:11PM (2 children)
I just invested $20k in Bitcoin to impress the chicks. I knew I should have gone with the penis implant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @07:58PM (1 child)
Having someone implant their penis in your ass doesn't impress the chicks, either.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @09:49PM
What if it's the chick doing it? I hear there's no biological difference between men and women these days.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @06:29PM (1 child)
So, risc conscious is a genderist newspeak for cowardly now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @12:20PM
The same as "brave" is an newspeak for "stupid"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @07:10PM (2 children)
Perhaps the genderists can stop diluting computer science with extraneous junk fields and diversity admissions, and go forth and fight for sexual equality in crypto"currency".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @10:03PM (1 child)
They can't. This is a bourgeois power struggle. These arguments are useful for bourgeois women, in whose class interest it is to uphold the monetary status quo. They are also useful for bourgeois women who want to "lean in" to the corporate ladder. The actual work of Lovelace, Hawes, Liskov, Yuschenko, Hamilton et al is irrelevant to their class interests, only meaningful to proles, whose gender and attendant healthcare needs are also irrelevant, especially with the drive to push down their wages with propaganda (they're just a bunch of incels, who unlike the woman who coined the term, are expendable [their bodies are not necessary for reproduction]) and the idea that one can learn "programming" in a 3 week "boot camp."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @10:32PM
Hm, I was under the impression that the point was to create well paying jobs for the daughters of bourgeois families, while not having to put in the hard work and study.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @07:56PM
They should make this stuff an exclusive Apple iPhone app, and then they will all be drooling over it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @10:53PM (3 children)
There's a comment on that page:
I've only talked to guys about investing, never thought about women investing. So is this true? I would figure that if an individual in this time did not actively manage his assets, come retirement he would be in pretty bad shape.
If there are apparently so many male incels, that would imply that many women won't have a husband to handle financial matters for them.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:55AM (2 children)
Women don't need a husband to handle it. They can just divorce and get the kids, child support+alimony (till the end of their life) by default. Repeat a few more times and they don't even need to work. At least until the man decides to stop it all. See Robin Williams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:01AM (1 child)
If they were married, they had a husband who could have handled the finances for a potential divorce.
What about those women who statistically remained single because of the existence of male incels?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @10:00AM
They don't remain single, the divorced guy gets screwed again.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @11:03PM
bitcoin is sexist now.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Sunday September 08 2019, @01:28PM (4 children)
I'm a woman - I had the chance to invest in bitcoin and I declined. My view on it was that bitcoin carried no innate utility value (like food or fuel or a crate of AK-47s) or fiat value backed by a government, only consensus value - ie. it's worth what other people think it's worth and that's it. That's cool and all, but it means it's ripe for speculation and pumping, which inevitably leads to bubbles. Now, if you ride that train smart and get off at the right station you can do very well, but that's a lot of work and risk. Yes, investment requires risk, innately, and the higher risk generally the higher the reward. But this is risk that is difficult to quantify and it ties up capital that could be put into ventures with a better risk/reward profile.
None of that has anything to do with gender, mine or anyone else's. If you think that maybe I'm more risk-averse than men, well... ok. But thus far I'm in the positive with my investment returns (about 15% on average) and I'm comfortable with that.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:15PM (1 child)
What do you think about gold? Doesn't it only have consensus value?
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday September 09 2019, @12:24AM
Gold is an interesting one because it's consensus value that had historically had very clear scarcity and it had certain utility value that make it a convenient trade token. Those factors together made it useful for governments as a tool which lead to it virtually becoming a fiat currency. There is a complex interaction between governments, gold exploration and market growth that has given gold sustained increases in value over time - not what I'd invest in, but historically it has done well and preserved its value.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:45PM (1 child)
You basically echoed my entire thought process on the matter, though with a bit less cynicism about the purpose of BC (I personally think it was supposed to be the monetary equivalent of Uber and Lyft, with all the awful things that implies...).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday September 09 2019, @12:26AM
Cynicism has its place with bitcoin, but I read it as being the product of idealists rather than people exploiting workers. I consider lyft and uber to be utter, utter scum - and as a roboticist, I have even more antipathy for uber.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.