Did they control for age? It could just be that younger men tend to be less sexist.

As to the study showing that women who subscribe to trad'l gender roles making less than women who don't, I would imagine that traditional gender role-subscribers chose fields and positions that reflect their beliefs that men should dominate or succeed above them, so make less money.

@boo

That's what I was thinking - also, they say they control for "job complexity." At least one study found that a classroom teacher requires similar skills to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, so I wonder about the likelihood of sexist men pursuing higher-prestige/paying careers of similar "complexity" as lower-prestige/paying/feminized careers.

Or even within a career - amongst lawyers we might expect different gender notions between guys who do civil rights law (and don't get paid oodles) and guys who do corporate law.

I would think that at least a part of it is that men who make lots of money have the luxury of holding more conservative views. Requiring two incomes has an impact on views about whether the woman should be staying home.

Could it be that the more tradition-minded men are married to tradition-minded women? So they have the stereotypical 'wife' to take care of all household related stuff and childcare therefore giving the men a less burdened personal life with more time to focus on being successful at work? Whereas the egalitarian men have egalitarian spouses and share the burden leaving less energy for work? And the opposite being true for the women?

I always assumed that my future wife would have her own income, thus I haven't structured my career around having enough income for two people.

It looks like this study controlled for job choices. Quoting from the Washington Post article on the study: "Researchers said all the conclusions in the new study were based on comparisons between people in similar jobs, working similar hours, with similar qualifications."

The same article speculates that employers may discriminate against employees who don't fit into traditional roles, or less traditionally masculine employees may not negotiate as aggressively.

Whatever the reasons, it looks like we still live in a patriarchy. Surprise, surprise.

Perhaps some women put up with more sexism from men with money.

The BBC suggested the following reasons for the results:

Dr Magdalena Zawisza, a psychologist from Winchester University, said that there were a number of theories which might explain the difference.

She said: "It could be that more traditionally-minded men are interested in power, both in terms of access to resources - money in this case - and also in terms of a woman who is submissive.

"Another theory suggests that employers are more likely to promote men who are the sole earner in preference to those who do not - they recognise that they need more support for their families, because they are the breadwinner."

If a man believes that his wife should be in the home, then obviously it is going to be all on him to succeed outside the home. He is going to make more money then men with less sexist views, but it is also going to be more stressed out, see less of his family, and have health issues. And he can't just make "enough" money for now, he had better get a good sized nest egg build up fast, or else if he dies early his undereducated wife will be forced by her lack of job skills to move to Agrestic and sell weed to keep up her standard of living.

It seems to me this is likely due to the amount of financial responsibility the male assumes for himself. The "traditional" male thinks of himself as the sole breadwinner, and thus would be more likely to make career choices more suitable to supporting an entire family by himself. A man who truly believes it is his sole responsibility to acquire the financial wherewithall to allow his wife to stay at home with the children might be more inclined to pursue a higher paying, but less fulfilling, career so that he can fulfill those "responsibilities" to his family.

A less "traditional" male might assume his wife would contribute financially to the household, and thus might be more driven to a less lucrative career.

Just a thought.

kbz

It's also likely part of a self-perpetuating system: These men probably hold those beliefs because they have fond memories of stay at home mothers--and if they are younger having a stay at home mother means you come from money, and coming from money means you're more likely to make a lot more money. Poor people don't have the luxury of the kind of beliefs that keeps someone who is able to make an income at home, so their families are more likely to believe it is okay, or even right to have a working mother.

That's the kind of bias we always see in these articles. These traditional values are a matter of privilege, not pragmatic reasoning.

It could also be that the sense of entitlement that sexist men have leads them to negotiate for higher wages more persuasively.

Could it simply be that since that man is more likely to have a spouse at home taking care of the family, he is free to put in the hours that bring advancement? I work for an engineering company and have noticed this phenomenon there, as the project managers (who all make serious money) without exception have wives who stay home with the kids - and they never seem to have to check in when they work 10, 12, 14 hour days. It's part of "the way it is" that some periods require ridiculous amounts of hours (rather than, say, staffing enough engineers to finish projects without tons of unpaid overtime). Their salaries are high, but at the end of the day, they're still getting their hourly rate driven down by the amount of overtime since they are all salaried.

The engineers with 2-income families tend to leave to find employment that allows a more regular schedule, and less travel.

I think a MAJOR problem are the male-only country clubs, like Melbourne's Athenaeum, that still exist. Women are banned from membership, and are not allowed to enter most rooms.

Australia's political leaders (both conservative and liberal), company executives, richest men, and entrepreneurs sit within its four walls.

A recent vote of the clubs 1600 members went 2-1 opposing any change. A leading diplomat resigned over the result: "Particularly shocking to me was the attitude of younger members ... who are clearly unable to adjust to the world as it is and who seem to want to retreat to some kind of boys' treehouse where they might be untroubled by half the human race"

Imagine the decisions, job offers and deals that have been made over its 142 years. How can women expect to compete without this kind of access to big decisions??

Do these still exist in the US?

When I read this, I started thinking about how unwilling people are to admit privilege. You know, for a lot of people admitting privilege means admitting inferiority. Like, a guy doesn't want to admit that sexism exists because then he has to worry that he got his job even though a woman might be better fit for the position. People don't want to admit that some of their success is due to a system of oppression.

So, if you don't want to admit that sexism exists you then may subscribe to sexist beliefs. Women shouldn't be working because men are better. Men belong in the workforce, women belong in the home. If guys hold on to these sorts of ideas they don't have to feel challenged by women. So, I'm thinking maybe high paid folks have a tendency to be sexist because otherwise they'd have to consider all the factors at play making the money.

And also, you got to think, maybe it has something to do with masculinity. Real men make a lot of money. Real men are super competitive (often required for high paying jobs- right). And so, non-sexist men aren't clawing their way to the top in some sad defense of masculinity. And, guys clinging to that form of masculinity are bound to be pretty sexist.

You know, we really need to give this whole wage gap thing a rest. I know a lot of guys who make more money than me, but you know what, a lot of them are willing to do things a lot of women wouldn't. Like relocating to take a higher paying job or working longer hours.

Plus guys on average work more dangerous jobs( all of the firefighters that died in the 9-11 attacks were male). Sure there are some women who are firefighters and police officers (all of there salaries, by the way, are regulated to be the same and most newly hired women in gov't jobs receive promotions faster than a lot of men do) but the majority are men.

Lets face it, most, not all, but most of us wouldn't want to work dangerous, dirty jobs whether its raiding a crack house or working in a sewer. Instead of criticizing and demoralizing our men, why don't we give them a little pat on the back every now and then, for doing the nasty jobs most of us wouldn't want to do anyway.

Ut oh, bobbigrl, you might want to read the whole Feminism 101 website...but I'll direct you toward the most important article in this case.

For a start.

There could be so many reasons for this. One thought I had was that men interested in equality are likely to have spouses who also work, so they could be choosing to make less money and instead focus on family. Another factor could be that female dominated fields pay less, men who believe in equality may be in these fields such as male teachers and nurses. Men who are sexist may feel they deserve more money then women in their same field even though they don't deserve more money and therefore ask for more money and promotion. I have witnessed this in my own job even though the male who was promoted and paid as much as I am for less work is not sexist and I work in a female dominated workplace. Just by asking men often get more.

I think women getting paid less is obvious. Women who have views of traditional roles are probably less likely to become educated, less likely to believe they are being discriminated against in the first place, less likely to be competitive, more likely to feel that family and other commitments should come first.

I wouldn't necessarily blame this on institutionalized sexism.

If a guy believes in traditional gender roles, he's obviously going to be a lot more driven to make money than a guy who thinks that it's okay for his wife to contribute to the marriage financially.

As for the women with traditional gender roles, my guess is that they're just less career-minded than their more-progressive contemporaries. Perhaps they put more of their energy into non-career activities.

They make...

...drumroll...

$8,500 more?

Thats about *just* over half of what I made working as a part time pharmacy tech in K-MART. And what is more important... the 'wealth' of one partner or the wealth of the family (remember, sexist = traditional, apparently)? Now, I'm no math whiz, but $8,500 isn't much spread out over June Cleaver, Beaver, and the rest of the bunch.

I don't see a "gain" of $8,500 for "sexist" men so much as *a loss of wealth upwards of $12,000* (assuming a blue-collar, part time second salary)...obviously much more if you factor a full time or professional salary.

Now, I haven't read the study itself or it's methodology, but I'd bet you could also look at the findings as "men with sexist attitudes" cost their families tens of thousands of dollars to maintain said sexist attitude. This is money that could be used for college or organic banannas.

Shame on you, sexist men!

bobbigirl is a warren farrell subscriber. I smell an MRA. Same for Rob Williams.

Hows about these sexist pigs make more $$$ because they have the privilege of being sexist and lording it over women without repurcussion? Fuck "supporting" a family. These asswits have the ability to maintain their open sexism because they hide it under cover words such as a 'traditional' woman, or 'hearth and home,' in a society thats majoritively inhabited by men that are sexist pigs and aligned with women who would rather be anti-women and complacently sexist to get ahead rather than breaking the system.

Alright, weve got three MRAs on this site. Time to toss em off.

Hit list:
Jane Awl
bobbigirl

How the hell do these types even get on a feminist webpage anyways?

Could ya'all piss off. Go onto your own BS sites and incestually eat your own crap? Like the movie "Deliverance" except your inbreeding is your own crap ideas rather than biological chromosomes.

(note: didnt mean to include rob williams on the other post. Got it mixed up...tired :)

This is probably cliche, think this is a classic example of work that has historically been performed by women simply not being valued as much (or at all) as professions that have been historically been performed by men. I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that sports figures, politicians or businesspeople are of any more value to society than childcare providers, teachers, midwifes, and the like. It would seem that men willing to explore professions that used to be (and in many respect still are) dominated by women are more willing to relinquish sexist attitudes than men who pursue high-earning professions.

You know, this isn't really an interesting or even particularly surprising finding. As a few people have noted, in an egalitarian household a man is going to have less time to focus on work because he's busy vacuuming the floor. But this means that (presuming both marriage and traditional marriage) the woman is going to have more time not vacuuming the floor, which she'll spend doing other things, which frequently will include income.

So the interesting study would be the average household income for feminist and sexist men. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the feminist men earn more on a total household income basis... a lot more.

Yeah, It is really a smoke screen study. How did they know they were sexist? I doubt people will come out and say they are sexist. Did they ask if they are traditional and by default this made the people sexists?

I really doubt 95% of the couples think about the wife staying at home is a must. In most cases both have to work. Depending on the situation of children; one parent might choose to stay at home due to paying for an extra vehicle, gas consumption, vehicle repairs, insurance, child care. Basically, one parent might work at a part time job while the other is full time.

There are bigger problems that couples face than thinking about being sexist towards each other or which one makes more money.

There are so many questions about this study that I'm really not sure how much validity to place in it. But - assuming it is accurate it's not all bad news for 'progressives'. Although the man in the 'progressive' couple makes on average $8500 less, as long as the woman is on more than $8500 their household income will be higher than the 'traditional' household.

Given how low $8500 is, I'd say most progressives will be seriously out-earning the traditionalists.

As to the causes - If the study is accurate then my money is on their bosses going "Oh but he's got a family to support!!11!" and the traditional guy being under a lot more pressure to negotiate more money due to a lower household income.

Negotiation can seriously affect salaries and it always amazes me how few people ask/demand raises even when they work in industries with serious skills shortages.

There are so many questions about this study that I'm really not sure how much validity to place in it. But - assuming it is accurate it's not all bad news for 'progressives'. Although the man in the 'progressive' couple makes on average $8500 less, as long as the woman is on more than $8500 their household income will be higher than the 'traditional' household.

Given how low $8500 is, I'd say most progressives will be seriously out-earning the traditionalists.

As to the causes - If the study is accurate then my money is on their bosses going "Oh but he's got a family to support!!11!" and the traditional guy being under a lot more pressure to negotiate more money due to a lower household income.

Negotiation can seriously affect salaries and it always amazes me how few people ask/demand raises even when they work in industries with serious skills shortages.

There are so many questions about this study that I'm really not sure how much validity to place in it. But - assuming it is accurate it's not all bad news for 'progressives'. Although the man in the 'progressive' couple makes on average $8500 less, as long as the woman is on more than $8500 their household income will be higher than the 'traditional' household.

Given how low $8500 is, I'd say most progressives will be seriously out-earning the traditionalists.

As to the causes - If the study is accurate then my money is on their bosses going "Oh but he's got a family to support!!11!" and the traditional guy being under a lot more pressure to negotiate more money due to a lower household income.

Negotiation can seriously affect salaries and it always amazes me how few people ask/demand raises even when they work in industries with serious skills shortages.

Damn... sorry folks.

I agree with what some posters said about men with more sexist views feeling like they have to make a ton of money to support their families. Maybe the headline should be "Men who believe in equality experience less stress, have longer lives"? I want to see that study done.

I'm thinking perhaps all the structural ideas (including the one the researcher mentions in the BBC article) are kind of sides of the same coin. Sexist men are the men who fit better into the patriarchal system and its hierarchies, while those who are more egalitarian (in every sense) and uncomfortable with hierarchies, whether between men and women or between men, will not fit in as well.

Those who desire power would want power over both other men and over women, hence the sexism and the career climbing, and the right-wing politics in general. That also endears them to other men who think the same, and thus gets them promoted. The hierarchies of the patriarchal system are self-perpetuating in that the most power-hungry and oppressive men will always succeed.

Gopher...

Goofy... the MRA I'm most familiar with is the "Marketing Research Association", with "Magnetic Resonance Angiogram" running a far second. In any case, I'm not quite sure what you found confusing, though in retrospect I guess I should have made it clearer that the second income I was referring to (the one that represented the loss) was the non-working wife's.

As other's have pointed out, $8,500 isn't a big honkin' amount of "extra" money to support a family on, especially in the US (study is from the U. of FL.)where more often then not people need/want a dual income to raise their fams.

Granted, I'm assuming that women in these families don't work *at all*, which is a rather large assumption.

BTW, Gopher... don't make fun of the people in Deliverance. Thats just petty.

Based on the "data" presented in this "study", there are two potential conclusions that can be drawn: 1) People get rewarded for sexism (men). 2) People get rewarded for feminism (women). Why didn't any reporters construct their headlines around the latter concept?

The pay discrepancies are not the result of men taking on more dangerous jobs. Nor is it the result of men being "more willing to work hard." The study clearly states that they controlled for job complexity, number of hours worked and education.
Men will get no pat on the back from me for pursuing dangerous jobs. Feminists have always fought for women's inclusion in those fields, but they are very unwelcoming to women. Men can't kick us out of their Boys Only clubs and then blame us for not being there.
Anyway, I don't know what to make of this study, especially the finding re: women who hold traditional views on gender. Perhaps men with traditional views (and women with egalitarian views) are more likely to negotiate effectively for higher pay.

I love these studies. Lots of opportunity for further work. Lots of my speculations below are purely and unabashedly sexist. They're there for discussion, and, like I say, further work. Diss them if you want, but would love it if y'all would consider them as dispassionately as you can.

What if sexist men have more raw competitive drive than other people?

What if certain jobs that pay more attract or selectively hire a**h*les, who happen to be sexist?

I like the idea from the poster with the conjecture, in part, about age -- maybe we old f*rts are more likely to be sexist, and make more money?

What if sexist men are also more likely to be more dismissive of Weaker Men, and just step on everyone to get ahead (not just women)?

What if those gosh darn liberal-minded men spend too much energy in hand-wringing to get ahead?

Blah blah blah -- RG

I am compelled to agree with BlueCat. I'm also an engineer working at a consultant firm (so high energy, high stress, and crazy schedules). The most advanced earners (and I am one of them, female or no) put in long hours when jobs come to crunch time and schedules get tight, and it's a salary position, so no extra overtime. But the only reason that I am "able" to do so is because my husband is very egalitarian and in the same field with the same long hours. We are good at making our limited home time count - no kids though.

Folks (female or male) who are egalitarian but possibly don't have as understanding a spouse (as in - understanding the demands of such a career) will be more likely to cut hours short, not work on weekends, take family days off, and likely not see the kinds of salary increases and bonuses we do.

It's a choice. A bugger of a choice, and I wonder what I will do if I ever feel the urge to start a family, but I imagine that the sexist, breadwinner males make the same choice I do while the egalitarian family man may not.

It's probably a combination of factors.

The study controlled for age, similar jobs, complexity of job, etc. But the sexist man knows that it's his "place" to be the breadwinner, which means he is both able to concentrate solely on work (putting in very long hours, for instance) and that he cannot afford to choose a personally fulfilling career that doesn't pay as well. He *must* negotiate for the best salary he can, and he has a socially approved excuse for doing so -- he has a wife and family to support. (Most men with "traditional" attitudes probably do have a wife and family to support, because by tradition, that's just what you do.)

The egalitarian man knows he has responsibilities at home, so he cannot solely focus on his job. He also knows he has backup in the form of a working partner who likely makes similar money to him (at least 2/3rds what he does), so he may not be as terrified of losing his job, and therefore not as driven. He doesn't have to negotiate as hard, because he's got backup. He can balance his life better. It's not all on him.

The traditional woman is working for pin money. She doesn't *have* to have a job -- that's her husband's purpose. if she has one, it's to provide a little extra on the side or because the kids went to school and she's bored. She can take subservient positions that make little money; she doesn't have to think of her job as a career; she might spend long periods unemployed, caring for children or being a housewife, so her lifetime earnings are much lower than the egalitarian woman.

Of course, this assumes these people are married, and that traditionals marry traditionals and egalitarians marry egalitarians, but *most* people do marry and have kids, and I think it's safe to say that the marriage of a traditional and an egalitarian will not last very long most of the time no matter which sex has which set of attitudes.

The egalitarian *household* probably makes more money. The people in it are more stressed out by average everyday life, because it is harder to negotiate who does what chore when both parties work and neither party ostensibly believes that it's someone specific's job to do something, but when crises hit, the egalitarian household can weather the storm better, because either party can do any job required in the family, from breadwinning to diapering. Also, the traditional man probably dies younger (there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that men who identify strongly with their work die sooner after retirement than men who don't.)

I've been reading as much as I can about this study, since (until very recently) I was in a male-dominated profession and male-centric workplace. The thing that I find most interesting is that the study compensated for job differences by comparing like with like.(e.g. female teacher/male teacher, female CIO/male CIO) I've always heard the rationale that men work longer hours, more difficult jobs, are willing to sacrifice more in the company's favor -- but it's never played out that way in my personal workplace experience.

Best of all, this study has opened up an avenue by which my dad and I can talk very plainly about sexism and equality in the workplace. He's the executive-type and I'm the creative-type, so we're coming at it from different perspectives. It extremely rewarding to have a springboard for serious discussion.

This seems pretty obvious to me: men with traditional views of women marry women who take on those traditional roles. Since their wife is effectively