that the most aggressive men tend to become the leaders. Aggression being associated with 'male' and least associated with 'female', these men tend to look down upon women because their own egos naturally gravitate towards such a black and white conclusion-- man=aggressive, woman=not aggressive.

It is not even a leap to then see them populate the upper echelons with people like them, aggressive men who look down on women.

there is no mystery. but there is sadness.

Like the author of this piece, I questioned the possibility of a causal mechanism. The author sent me a copy of the paper. There is no direct test of the supposed causal mechanism, and in fact there is no direct test of the idea that it is attitude that drives salary rather than the other way 'round. It is certainly possible that men with low salaries develop a sense of empathy and from there more egalitarian attitudes about gender. And the odd thing is that this was a panel study, so the authors could have tested to see which came first--the salaries or the gender attitudes. Instead they treat gender attitudes from the period 1979 to (I think ) 2005 as static by averaging all their gender attitude scores for the entire period (the data collecting group went back at 2 year intervals). That stacks the deck in the direction of the argument that gender beliefs lead to salary results in a way that is not supported by the data.

Great post! When you write: "Instead they treat gender attitudes from the period 1979 to (I think ) 2005 as static by averaging all their gender attitude scores for the entire period (the data collecting group went back at 2 year intervals)." Am I correct in understanding that for each individual they generated one gender attitude score? If this is in fact the case, we should completely ignore the results as the study. They made no effort to determine the role that salaries might play in determining gender attitudes; don't allow for the fact that gender attitudes might change over time; etc.

Drowning in confirmation bias......

Is it misogynist to, once again, request a science and/or math "reporter," I guess the right word would be contributor, for broadsheet?

Having far more experience with the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth than I care to get into right now, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that disinterested analysis of this data has turned many politically correct notions on their head.

is apparently inherent to ALL major academia, media and organizations.

the prejudice comes first. The data is massaged to fit the prejudice.

EXACTLY what I, and many others, have been arguing for years-- that all of these organizations are fundamentally ANTI-MALE and PRO-FEMALE, regardless of what the actual data might say.

I have no need for academic disinformation to tell me the whole of society is constantly biased AGAINST the needs of men.

But thanks for playing...

My hunch is that men with an egalitarian view of the sexes spend more time at home with their families; in seeking to spend more time with their families, they are walking the same work/life line that keeps many women from earning higher wages.

At first glance, my household appears to be divided on traditional gender lines: I stay home while my husband goes to work to earn a paycheck. But my husband, taking a long view of life, chose stability over risk when taking his job(meaning making less money in the tech sector where he works)and is clear with his employer that his family life is his first priority.

Does this mean he is home to change diapers and give the baby a bath? Yes.

Does this mean hasn't been promoted as quickly as others with his same skill set and abilities? Possibly, yes.

Ultimately, like many women, he chooses time with his family over hours at work.

Unfortunately, employers often don't recognize that healthy, whole human beings make the best employees. And families - with available PARENTS - grow the healthiest children. And healthy children make for a healthy society.

It's a vicious circle: until we recognize the worth of the whole human being, regardless of gender, we won't achieve equality among the sexes. And without equality among the sexes, it's hard to raise children who view the world through egalitarian eyes.

"Is it misogynist to, once again, request a science and/or math "reporter," I guess the right word would be contributor, for broadsheet?"

You are not, and I agree!

I want to thank Ashapee for making my point so eloquently when she launched a transparent, laughable ad hominem attack:

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 sure paid attention to this laughable and ludicrous cheap shot, in which Ashapee proved my point: she ignored the arguements I made, diminished the arguements by accusing me of resenting CF (I don't resent her, I just think she hates men, is grossly sexist, dishonest and a lousy reporter), and as a typical feminist, launches a personal attack rather than discuss the reality of gender conditioning and how it plays out in the marketplace.

Here's a clue, Ashapee. I don't see anything that requires me to read every inane letter before I post a critique of CF's sexism.

And while I am calling you dishonest and manipulative, please point out to me where the points I made were discussed in the article.

Oooops, forgot. Those points weren't made. I guess you didn't pay attention.

I want to thank you Scobbatee for making my point so eloquently when she started such a transparent, laughable ad hominem attack:

"I sure paid attention to this laughable and ludicrous cheap shot, in which Ashapee proved my point: she ignored the arguements I made,"

Which arguments? Care to name them? They weren't on your post. (By the way, it's "he", not "she").

"diminished the arguements by accusing me of resenting CF (I don't resent her, I just think she hates men, is grossly sexist, dishonest and a lousy reporter)"

I said you didn't read what she wrote, I didn't say you resent her. But if the shoe fits...

"and as a typical feminist, launches a personal attack rather than discuss the reality of gender conditioning and how it plays out in the marketplace."

I'm not a feminist. And it's not an ad hominem. It's a true claim: you seem not to have read neither what Ms Clark-Flory wrote, nor the other letters. Can you show any evidence that you did? Something other than ideology?

"Here's a clue, Ashapee. I don't see anything that requires me to read every inane letter before I post a critique of CF's sexism."

I'm sure you don't see anything. That's my point! You should though, if you want to understand what's being talked about.

"And while I am calling you dishonest and manipulative, please point out to me where the points I made were discussed in the article."

Not in the article; in the letters thread. Didn't you read my letter before criticizing it? Gee...

OK, here is one example:

You said: " men of more traditional views subscribe to a self-valuation system that only judges them by their ability to produce."

I said: "One possibility is simply that the 'retro' men are more aggressive and more likely to impress a vision of themselves as indispensable or hardworking;"

KelliG said: "Men and women who make less may downplay the importance of the “provider” role and increase the importance of caregiving."

Canuckistan Bob said: "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."

Similar points, basically: traditionally-minded = produce/provide = work harder = bigger salary; egalitarian/non-traditional = work less = get fewer rewards.

Now you'll probably try to insist your point is totally different from the ones I compared yours with. OK, the floor is yours. Let's hear it.

But before, let me point out that calling others "dishonest and manipulative" isn't really what is meant by the phrase "making a point". You have to do something else.

"Oooops, forgot. Those points weren't made. I guess you didn't pay attention."

I think you need to buy a new pair of reading glasses. Go easy on the bad emotions and hurt feelings, stick to facts, make your points with good arguments. You'll earn respect that way.