"Women take fewer risks than men"

This generalization is ripe fodder for debate among sociologists and psychologists. Some accept it at face value, blaming cultural and biological influences for women's alleged aversion to physical and financial risks.

"That depends on how you define 'risk"

Others roundly denounce the notion. If we broaden the definition of risk to include personal and ethical choices, the picture changes. Consider the women who summon the courage to leave an abuser, who come out to their families, who strike out on their own at an early age. Those, too, are risks. Big ones.

"Women take the same risks as men, but their risks are discounted"

Some also point to studies that uncover biases in how we perceive behavior. A man and a woman can take the same action, and the man's behavior is seen as gutsier.

Are women risk-averse, or is risk aversion unfairly defined? Either way, fewer women than men hold positions of power around the globe, be it in business or politics. Women still make less money than men. And the perception remains that women are meeker than men, less apt to pursue greatness. No guts, ergo no glory.