"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 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.

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.