Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"Traditional" men have an important advantage--they are able to devote all of their energy and creativity to career achievement because the domestic scutwork is handled by their wives. Their meals are cooked for them, their laundry is done, their routine errands are run, and they never have to clean up after themselves. Raising their kids is also "women's work." These men are free to work odd hours or to travel whenever it suits them and their bosses.
On the other hand, "traditional" women who hold outside jobs assume the full burden of scut every day when they get home. In effect, they work a second, full-time, unpaid shift. Also, they believe that they belong at the bottom of the pay scale, so that's where they stay.
traditional men are the most aggressive, traditional women the least, non traditional women are more aggressive than traditional women and non traditional men are less aggressive than traditional men.
Traditional attitudes needn't mean a traditional home arrangement, but, as Connie Boyd points out, such an arrangement certainly enables one to focus time and energy. Traditional attitudes with gender roles strictly defined would, in my mind suggest a constellation of alpha male macho behaviors as well. Such a person would aggressively negotiate his salary with a somewhat reckless, no downside, attitude. Often such aggression in a corporate environment that rewards rampaging self-interest and often mistakes bravado for competence pays off. Big time.
the underlying personality traits, and THOSE are probably what is leading to the different result.
I was struck when I first read the article that the authors appeared to assume that gender role attitudes caused the pay differences, rather directly or indirectly. However, it seems quite plausible to me that there is a bidirectional relationship. Perhaps men’s and women’s attitudes are affected by their pay. Men and women who make less may downplay the importance of the “provider” role and increase the importance of caregiving. Thus, lower paid men are more egalitarian and lower paid women are more traditional. My guess would be that there is a feedback loop between pay and attitudes. (i.e. Men who start out as more traditional make more, reinforcing their traditional attitudes while men who start out as more egalitarian make less, reinforcing their more egalitarian attitudes.) And, I suspect that discrimination is a factor. Men who are more egalitarian may face discrimination in the workplace because they take on family responsibilities. I've certainly seen examples where it's considered acceptable for a man to take a day off to go golfing or hunting while a man who leaves early to take a child to the doctor is considered less committed to work.
That's what this study said to me, anyway. That and men who are not douchebags are seen as lesser men, and therefore paid less.
Pretty depressing stuff for a Monday.
It's been about 10 years, but I worked for a company that blatantly rewarded men over women.
The owner, a conservative Jewish man (nothing against Jews, I am one!), told my co-worker who was engaged to another employee that he would be giving her fiance a raise that was larger than hers so he could "better take care of her." She was furious, but at the age of 26, what could she do other than quit?
I had a boss early in my career (I'm nearing the bend of 40) who said I shouldn't waste my time working because if I cooked more for my boyfriend, he'd want to marry me and let me stay at home. I laughed at the notion and gritted my teeth with a phony smile at my boss. This was pre-Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas.
Women and those "egalitarian men" need to continue to challenge the notion that women are worth less pay than men. It would be lovely to see legislation enacted to end pay gaps, but that isn't the perfect solution and stand about as much chance passing as a women becoming president at this point. There has to be a good answer out there somewhere.
Whenever I see a correlation, I try to play the "reverse the direction of causality" game to look for other explanations.
Sometimes this gets nonsensical results ("people fated to get cancer crave cigarettes more than people who aren't fated to get cancer") but sometimes it opens up new explanations.
So maybe it works the other way around?
Perhaps people who make a lot more money are more likely to have traditional views of gender? They're rich enough that they can scoff at justice, and, in fact, ideas of equality and parity are threatening to them.
Patriarchs benefit from sexism.
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.
Both my male and female bosses prefer to promote manly men over fuity men (dish-washing, baby-diapering, pleasing their wives men).
Don't people who earn more tend to have more experience, i.e. be older? The older people are the more likely they are to be "old school" in beliefs and attitudes? That might explain some of the discrepancy.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
