Read other letters about this article

• Monday, September 22, 2008 02:44 PM

  Hard to puzzle this out

  The interesting thing is that this isn't the usual group of corporate climbers-- average salaries of $34,000 would middle class at best (I'm not entirely sure how to interpret salaries being "averaged over a quarter of a century"). These looks like working class folks, really. But it is interesting to speculate about which way causation is running, and what underlying causations there are.

  For example, it may not their non-traditional views themselves that keep the non-traditional men down, it may be that the non-traditional views are part and parcel of a larger set of attitudes towards work and money that make them less eager to make a buck.

  Or is it simply a matter of testosterone? The high earners being more A Type and driven? Or is it that the higher-earning traditional types are tradition bound because they have the social and financial asset of a traditional-view stay at home and be supportive wife?

  There doesn't seem to be any tracking across couples and their attitudes, nor indeed tracking of family rather than personal income. For example, I would bet that the non-traditional types are more likely to pair up, and with both working have a larger family income than a traditional family with a stay at home mom and a higher earning dad.

  —Canuckistan Bob Read Canuckistan Bob's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel