You don't look like you read Ms Clark-Flory article; it doesn't make any of the accusations you're reading into it. It was more about asking questions than offering explanations, actually. And you apparently haven't read the other letters either, since the explanation you offer has already been suggested, and with a less resentful language.

For someone who accuses others of ignoring things, you seem to pay very little attention to what you read, either in the original post or in other letters here.

I've seen this argument before, and I don't really buy it. There are of course nice people who won't fight for higher wages, but there are some who will--precisely because others depend on them. Besides, if your work is really good, you'll get your rewards. You may not get the highest pay available, but as long as your boss knows s/he can't do it without you, you'll get some of the perks too. Even if you're a nice guy.

There are many paths to success; and one of them implies sometimes not giving a shit about who gets hurt. But another one does imply giving a shit about them. It's the one in which people actually help each other. One hand washes the other, as we say in Portuguese; and both get farther. There are others still (e.g., when your work is excellent). Group dynamics isn't so simple.

What you say sounds simply common-sensical, I have a hard time believing anybody here would call you sexist only because of such normal job choices. As long as your wife freely agreed with this arrangement, how could it be sexist?

I agree sometimes a wife and children are actually an extra reason to fight for more money. That seems to have been so in your case. But I must also admit that the argument Claudia_T made above is also good: even if the wife earns, say, 20-25% less than the husband, it would still make more monetary sense for both to work and for the guy to work less and make less money as long as the amount his wife earns was more than this loss. In my case at least, we actually did count on my wife's salary for a number of things that we had to give up while she was unemployed.

If you highly respect your father, then that certainly does set you apart from me. I don't respect mine at all. But this was not my choice, hOtrOd. If you had had my father, I don't think you would have respected him any more than I do. And if I had had yours, I might respect him just as much as you do. We can't really choose our fathers, you know.

Then is it showing that this sort of sexism exists now, or merely that it did in the 70s and 80s? Since raises are a percentage, a larger initial paycheck can have a huge impact on lifelong earnings. My sister is a software engineer -- now a CTO. She commented that when she started working in the 80s, it was commonly "known" that women don't code as well as men. People openly stated it. So why pay and promote women equally? In a career that spans 20 years, suffering 10 years of discrimination would make an impact.

Mr. dworkin and Ms. Svutlana got on the right track real quick.

The fearful man was a frightened child, unsure of his security and safety, whose psyche compensated by strengthening developmental paths that would later manifest as attitudes and behavioral tendencies selected for survival and reproductive success: aggression, competitive hoarding of resources, lowering status of others to raise his own, and controlling behaviors of others, including reproductive partners - regressive traits promoting survival, hindered by capacity for empathy, celebrated in patriarchal structures as “success”, and in actuality expressing facets of pathology variously constructed e.g. as “social dominance orientation” or “antisocial” or “narcissistic” personality traits. The drives toward augmentation of wealth, status and power, and toward control of a reproductive partner are linked not causally, but as regressive traits common to a syndrome also likely to include strong group identity, criminalization of behavior, moralism, political conservatism, and religiosity.

As usual, CF's blatant misandry shows through in her need to show women as victims. Which blinds her to the third choice: men of more traditional views subscribe to a self-valuation system that only judges them by their ability to produce. This sad and empty standard is reinforced by traditional women, who choose such men based on how much the dummies can be exploited financially in return for sexual access.

These men choose more soul deadening and dangerous careers, which tend to pay more and tend to be held by more traditional guys driven by more traditional values. Who are responding to traditional stimuli wielded by traditional females. Nothing sexist about it: unfortunately, it seems the study was NOT set up to judge the choice of careers when coming to its erroneous conclusions, or maybe this is just another example of CF's shoddy journalism and crappy reporting skills.

Egalitarian men (myself included) tend to choose lifestyles that are more fulfilling emotionally and spiritually and less rewarding financially: while it narrows the mating choices the pickings are a bit less predatory.

This dynamic has always contributed to the disparity in pay rates between men and women, and is always minimized by feminists who cling to their victimization.

The same feminists who ignore that these higher paid men die far more often on the job, are injured much more frequently, endure much harder working conditions, etc.

Same old, same old: whine, blame, ignore the facts when reality conflicts with professional victimhood.

There's your first problem. You can save the furry whales from domestic violence and global warming. But they're not real good about paying the bills. To be successful you in part have to not give a shit about who gets hurt.

I make an obscene amount of money. Since we are correcting for profession, education and experience what set me apart ? Many of the sexists here would say...and have said I got all the breaks cause I'm a white man....well my last three bosses were women. My wife did stay home while my children were 0-7 years old, that did spare me some errands to run. Of course, I do all the laundry and have for 20 years.

In my case, almost every step in my career I did an income assessment. From education, to profession, to company, to positions within the company, income was ALWAYS A PRIMARY motivator. Unless a position would result in working for a schmuck or had long term risk, I always looked for ways to make more money. In some cases I took pay cuts because I knew the long term payback would be greater. I was also very sensitive to where real money kicked in like in management positions, where bonus pay becomes significant, stock options, etc.

I know I don't represent every traditional man out there, but this has been studied and reported before. Many men pay particular attention to salary....some don't. It shouldn't be at all surprising to learn that traditional men pay more attention to maximizing salaries than non-traditional persons. If I was single, I wouldn't have near the motivation I have as a father and husband. I can safely say I don't love my job, but I hope to retire early and I certainly enjoy the spoils. As does my family. It's no small influence that my father also set the bar high (he was an engineering executive), and I tried to raise it. I think that's what really separates me from most people that hang at broadsheet, I have a father who I greatly respect.

Signed

Retroman