Study: Traditional Men Earn the Most

[Kanastrous]

Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women's place in the world, according to a study being reported today.

It is the first time social scientists have produced evidence that large numbers of men might be victims of gender-related income disparities. The study raises the provocative possibility that a substantial part of the widely discussed gap in income between men and women who do the same work is really a gap between men with a traditional outlook and everyone else.

The differences found in the study were substantial. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned $11,930 more a year than men with egalitarian views and $14,404 more than women with traditional attitudes. The comparisons were based on men and women working in the same kinds of jobs with the same levels of education and putting in the same number of hours per week.

Although men with a traditional outlook earned the most, women with a traditional outlook earned the least. The wage gap between working men and women with a traditional attitude was more than 10 times as large as the gap between men and women with egalitarian views.

If you divide workers into four groups -- men with traditional attitudes, men with egalitarian attitudes, women with traditional attitudes and women with egalitarian attitudes -- men with traditional attitudes earn far more for the same work than those in any of the other groups. There are small disparities among the three disadvantaged groups, but the bulk of the income inequality is between the first group and the rest.

"When we think of the gender wage gap, most of our focus goes to the women side of things," said Beth A. Livingston, co-author of the study. "This article says a lot of the difference may be in men's salaries."

Livingston said she was taken aback by the results.

"We actually thought maybe men with traditional attitudes work in more complex jobs that pay more or select higher-paying occupations," she said. "Regardless of the jobs people chose, or how long they worked at them, there was still a significant effect of gender role attitudes on income."

The study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, is based on information collected by a federal government survey over a quarter-century. The Labor Department's National Longitudinal Survey of Youth began tracking 12,000 people in 1979 when they were 14 to 22 years old. The survey participants are now 43 to 51 years old.

Because many participants in the survey were children when it started, incomes for men and women changed dramatically over the 25 years that Livingston and co-author Timothy Judge studied. Averaged over the quarter-century, salaries ranged from $34,725 for working men with traditional attitudes to $20,321 for working women with traditional attitudes. Working men with egalitarian attitudes made $22, 795 on average, while working women with egalitarian attitudes made $21,373.

Livingston and Judge, who are organizational psychologists at the University of Florida, compared people's incomes over time to their evolving views on whether a woman's place is in the home and whether it is better for men to be the only breadwinners. People who endorsed distinct roles in society for men and women were considered to have traditional views, while those who advocated equal roles for men and women at home and in the workplace were classified as having egalitarian views.

The critics argue that more men choose higher-paying professions such as law and business and more women choose lower-paying professions such as education and social work, and that men tend to work longer hours. Researchers said all the conclusions in the new study were based on comparisons between people in similar jobs, working similar hours, with similar qualifications.

"Some would say, 'Of course traditional men earn more than traditional women -- they are both fulfilling their desires to play different roles in the home and workplace,' " said Judge, emphasizing that the researchers compared working men with working women, not working men with women who stay home. "Our results do not support that view. If you were a traditional-minded woman, would you say, 'I am fine working the same hours as a traditional-minded man in the same industry with the same education but earning substantially less'? I don't think traditional-minded women would say that."

The empirical evidence in the study showed a connection between people's attitudes about gender roles and their salaries. It was not designed to explain why those disparities come about or how people's attitudes -- supposedly a private matter -- affect how much money they make.

Livingston and Judge said there are two possible explanations: Traditional-minded men might negotiate much harder for better salaries, especially when compared with traditional-minded women. Alternatively, it could also be that employers discriminate against women and men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles.

"It could be that traditional men are hypercompetitive salary negotiators -- the Donald Trump prototype, perhaps," Judge said. "It could be on the employer side that, subconsciously, the men who are egalitarian are seen as effete."

Livingston, a doctoral candidate in management, added: "People make others uncomfortable when they disconfirm stereotypes -- we don't know how to interpret them."

Increasing numbers of Americans hold egalitarian views about the role of women in the workplace, and the researchers suggested that if attitudes about gender roles are indeed at the core of the long-standing wage gap, disparities in income might recede as egalitarian views become more prevalent.

Parents looking at the study might be tempted to inculcate their sons with traditional gender views with an eye to greater financial success, but the researchers warned that this would come at their daughters' cost -- traditional-minded women suffer the greatest income disadvantage for doing the same work.

"Traditional values," Judge said, "do not have to be traditional gender-role values."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26828564/

[General Zod]

I hear the sky is blue? I'm not sure how this is really revolutionary or anything.

Livingston and Judge said there are two possible explanations: Traditional-minded men might negotiate much harder for better salaries, especially when compared with traditional-minded women. Alternatively, it could also be that employers discriminate against women and men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles.

I'm inclined towards the explanation that they're actively discriminating. Since, well, the vast majority of the time you don't really have much say over what salary you're paid as far as negotiation goes.

[Kanastrous]

No?

Every job I take begins with salary negotiations.

I guess it depends upon one's particular field.

[Big Phil]

I hear the sky is blue? I'm not sure how this is really revolutionary or anything.

Livingston and Judge said there are two possible explanations: Traditional-minded men might negotiate much harder for better salaries, especially when compared with traditional-minded women. Alternatively, it could also be that employers discriminate against women and men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles.

I'm inclined towards the explanation that they're actively discriminating. Since, well, the vast majority of the time you don't really have much say over what salary you're paid as far as negotiation goes.

So you're arguing what, that most employers also share the traditional mindset, and that's why they discriminate?

[General Zod]

So you're arguing what, that most employers also share the traditional mindset, and that's why they discriminate?

I don't see any reason to believe that "traditionally" minded workers would negotiate harder than "egalitarian" ones. So I'm going with the simpler of the two explanations when discrimination is known to occur on a far more consistent basis. It might not be conscious discrimination but it would be absurd to deny that it happens.

[Big Phil]

So you're arguing what, that most employers also share the traditional mindset, and that's why they discriminate?

I don't see any reason to believe that "traditionally" minded workers would negotiate harder than "egalitarian" ones. So I'm going with the simpler of the two explanations when discrimination is known to occur on a far more consistent basis. It might not be conscious discrimination but it would be absurd to deny that it happens.

Why would bosses who believe in gender equality subconsciously pay assholes who treat women like shit more than they do employees who believe the same as they do?

[General Zod]

Why would bosses who believe in gender equality subconsciously pay assholes who treat women like shit more than they do employees who believe the same as they do?

What the fuck does this have to do at all with anything I just said?

[Alyrium Denryle]

So you're arguing what, that most employers also share the traditional mindset, and that's why they discriminate?

I don't see any reason to believe that "traditionally" minded workers would negotiate harder than "egalitarian" ones. So I'm going with the simpler of the two explanations when discrimination is known to occur on a far more consistent basis. It might not be conscious discrimination but it would be absurd to deny that it happens.

Why would bosses who believe in gender equality subconsciously pay assholes who treat women like shit more than they do employees who believe the same as they do?

They see a guy with a conservative suit come in, the guy is clean cut, professional, talks about his stay at home wife and 2.3 kids with a dog and cat, etc etc etc. Mr. fucking cleaver. He is everything business students are told to look like when they go in for a corporate interview.

What do you think?

It is just ingrained, and men with traditional values tend to embody that more.

[Big Phil]

Why would bosses who believe in gender equality subconsciously pay assholes who treat women like shit more than they do employees who believe the same as they do?

What the fuck does this have to do at all with anything I just said?

So why, in your opinion, are bosses discriminating against "egalitarian" males?

They see a guy with a conservative suit come in, the guy is clean cut, professional, talks about his stay at home wife and 2.3 kids with a dog and cat, etc etc etc. Mr. fucking cleaver. He is everything business students are told to look like when they go in for a corporate interview.

What do you think?

It is just ingrained, and men with traditional values tend to embody that more.

So only "traditional" men wear suits, are clean cut, professional, and their wives don't have jobs? "Egalitarian" men are sloppy, poorly dressed, unshaven miscreants?

Frankly, I think you and Zod are over-complicating this. I think a far simpler explanation is that "traditional" men are much more likely to be Type A personalities, who work harder, negotiate harder, and are much more career-oriented than "egalitarian" men. As a result, they tend to earn more money than men who don't dedicate their entire lives to their job.

[General Zod]

So why, in your opinion, are bosses discriminating against "egalitarian" males?

There's a word for this. It's called tribalism and is a well known aspect of society. I suggest looking it up sometime.

Frankly, I think you and Zod are over-complicating this. I think a far simpler explanation is that "traditional" men are much more likely to be Type A personalities, who work harder, negotiate harder, and are much more career-oriented than "egalitarian" men. As a result, they tend to earn more money than men who don't dedicate their entire lives to their job.

I expect you'll be presenting proof of this assertion any minute, yes?

[Big Phil]

So why, in your opinion, are bosses discriminating against "egalitarian" males?

There's a word for this. It's called tribalism and is a well known aspect of society. I suggest looking it up sometime.

Frankly, I think you and Zod are over-complicating this. I think a far simpler explanation is that "traditional" men are much more likely to be Type A personalities, who work harder, negotiate harder, and are much more career-oriented than "egalitarian" men. As a result, they tend to earn more money than men who don't dedicate their entire lives to their job.

I expect you'll be presenting proof of this assertion any minute, yes?

Since we're talking about opinions here, I'm not sure what proof you're asking for. Maybe while you're demanding "proof" from me you can provide some of your own to justify your own assertion that all bosses are tribalists and discriminate?

By the way, can you at least get your argument straight? In one post you're claiming that the discrimination is active, which suggests that bosses probably share the traditional mindset.

I'm inclined towards the explanation that they're actively discriminating. Since, well, the vast majority of the time you don't really have much say over what salary you're paid as far as negotiation goes.

One post later you're claiming subconscious discrimination...

I don't see any reason to believe that "traditionally" minded workers would negotiate harder than "egalitarian" ones. So I'm going with the simpler of the two explanations when discrimination is known to occur on a far more consistent basis. It might not be conscious discrimination but it would be absurd to deny that it happens.

When you know what you're arguing, come back and talk to me.

[General Zod]

Since we're talking about opinions here, I'm not sure what proof you're asking for. Maybe while you're demanding "proof" from me you can provide some of your own to justify your own assertion that all bosses are tribalists and discriminate?

Since when do opinions not require proof to back them up, dipshit? Oh wait, only when they're yours. I forgot. Second, I never claimed "all" bosses did it asshole, that's you again. So are you going to knock off the painfully obvious strawmen and actually provide evidence for the claim you asserted, (the one I bolded for those who have difficulty reading?) or are you going to continue being an evasive little turd?

Finally, perhaps you missed this, I'm responding to the hypothesis presented in the article in the fucking OP. The one with the study describing precisely what I mention as a possibility. Or did that completely escape your notice in your rush to bait me?

By the way, can you at least get your argument straight? In one post you're claiming that the discrimination is active, which suggests that bosses probably share the traditional mindset.

It's called a clarification. It's painfully obvious for anyone with more than 3 active braincells who's not a dishonest little cuntrag.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So only "traditional" men wear suits, are clean cut, professional, and their wives don't have jobs? "Egalitarian" men are sloppy, poorly dressed, unshaven miscreants?

No. They just tend to fit the stereotype better. A guy who is more egalitarian might not exhibit some or all of those traits to the same degree, or might get passed up for a raise or promotion because he doesnt schmooze with the boss when they go back to the proverbial cigar room.

[Big Phil]

By the way, would you mind arguing without hysterical shrieking, name calling, and drama? It's childish and I'm really tired of constantly seeing you going off the deep end in threads.

Since we're talking about opinions here, I'm not sure what proof you're asking for. Maybe while you're demanding "proof" from me you can provide some of your own to justify your own assertion that all bosses are tribalists and discriminate?

Since when do opinions not require proof to back them up, dipshit? Oh wait, only when they're yours. I forgot. Second, I never claimed "all" bosses did it asshole, that's you again. So are you going to knock off the painfully obvious strawmen and actually provide evidence for the claim you asserted, (the one I bolded for those who have difficulty reading?) or are you going to continue being an evasive little turd?

Finally, perhaps you missed this, I'm responding to the hypothesis presented in the article in the fucking OP. The one with the study describing precisely what I mention as a possibility. Or did that completely escape your notice in your rush to bait me?

And I'm suggesting that a simpler, better solution is the alternative provided in that same report. From the article: "It could be that traditional men are hypercompetitive salary negotiators -- the Donald Trump prototype, perhaps," Judge said. "It could be on the employer side that, subconsciously, the men who are egalitarian are seen as effete."

Explanation #1 - Traditional Men are better negotiators. I would argue that traditional men are often Type A personalities, and that's why they make more money. Type A individuals can be described as impatient, excessively time-conscious, insecure about their status, highly competitive, hostile and aggressive, and incapable of relaxation. They are workaholics who seek self-worth through their work. Type B individuals, in contrast, are described as patient, relaxed, and easy-going.

Which of the two personality types would you more strongly correlate with Traditional vs. Egalitarian mindsets? In my experience, sexist assholes tend toward Type A personalities.

Explanation #2 - Employers discriminate (let me know whether you think it's active discrimination or subconscious, as stated in the study) in favor of traditional men. You haven't offered an explanation here other than the vague "tribalism" reference you made.

I would actually offer an explanation that covers both theories. Type A personalities are more aggressive and assertive, working harder and earning more money. Employers like these kinds of employees because they are highly productive, willing to work long hours, and driven to succeed. They reward this type of worker with better pay and benefits. This argument, by the way, suggests that Traditional vs. Egalitarian mindsets are not causal factors for the difference in pay, but are simply correlated. Where I take issue with your argument is that you're intimating causation where none need exist.

By the way, can you at least get your argument straight? In one post you're claiming that the discrimination is active, which suggests that bosses probably share the traditional mindset.

It's called a clarification. It's painfully obvious for anyone with more than 3 active braincells who's not a dishonest little cuntrag.

A clarification, huh? You blatantly contradicted yourself, and your obnoxious attempts to distract from that don't change that fact.

So only "traditional" men wear suits, are clean cut, professional, and their wives don't have jobs? "Egalitarian" men are sloppy, poorly dressed, unshaven miscreants?

No. They just tend to fit the stereotype better. A guy who is more egalitarian might not exhibit some or all of those traits to the same degree, or might get passed up for a raise or promotion because he doesnt schmooze with the boss when they go back to the proverbial cigar room.

If performance is equal, then I would agree that the more professional, better schmoozer is more likely to get a bigger raise. What I don't agree with is that traditional/egalitarian mindsets correlates with your description of professionalism. Why would a boss care if the employee has a housewife and 2.5 dogs, particularly if the boss is a woman, or a gay man, or a divorce man, or his wife works?

[ArmorPierce]

Maybe it is because men that are making more money tend to be making more money due to things like family connections and come from a higher class stock. They have an invested purpose in order to keep the status quo.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If performance is equal, then I would agree that the more professional, better schmoozer is more likely to get a bigger raise. What I don't agree with is that traditional/egalitarian mindsets correlates with your description of professionalism. Why would a boss care if the employee has a housewife and 2.5 dogs, particularly if the boss is a woman, or a gay man, or a divorce man, or his wife works?
_________________

Glass ceiling, not many bosses are gay men or women.

Cialdinis paradigm. You respond better to people you relate to. The business world is pretty damn conservative, thus an employer is more likely to relate better to a traditional male, and as a result will treat them better.

[Kar Kar]

These news articles about studies always seem so thin in information to me.

How much of the wage disparity would be coming from the social aspect? Would traditional minded guy from the study group fit in better with the co workers than the guy who perhaps wouldn't approve of some of the sexist humor commonly found in the workplace? The fitting in socially part would likely affect wages, to what degree I'm not sure.

[Big Phil]

If performance is equal, then I would agree that the more professional, better schmoozer is more likely to get a bigger raise. What I don't agree with is that traditional/egalitarian mindsets correlates with your description of professionalism. Why would a boss care if the employee has a housewife and 2.5 dogs, particularly if the boss is a woman, or a gay man, or a divorce man, or his wife works?
_________________

Glass ceiling, not many bosses are gay men or women.

Cialdinis paradigm. You respond better to people you relate to. The business world is pretty damn conservative, thus an employer is more likely to relate better to a traditional male, and as a result will treat them better.

That's a good point. The only problem is the article doesn't argue that bosses hire people like themselves.

[Big Phil]

To clarify my response (to AD), the article doesn't argue that bosses tend to be traditional males, who then reward traditional males. If you have information that supports this argument I'd love to see it, but based on this research alone I don't see how you can make that argument.

[Broomstick]

No?

Every job I take begins with salary negotiations.

I guess it depends upon one's particular field.

Yes, it does.

I have never had the option of negotiating a salary, it's always been take it or leave it.

But, back to the OP - here's a thought none of you have considered yet: assuming a "traditional man" also has a "traditional" family life, with his wife a stay at home, he can devote a greater percentage of his energy and effort to his job while his wife does the cooking, cleaning, child care, errand running, shopping... So Mr. Traditional gets up, goes to work, comes home, relaxes - no chores, no errands, and so forth. He gets more rest than Mr. Egaltarian, and has fewer distractions. This could lead to Mr. T performing better at work, never being late, able to work overtime, etc. which could easily lead to more pay or more promotions. In which case the disparity actually may be based on performance and not the bosses' prejudice.

(In my family the roles were reversed for many years - I was the breadwinner and my husband was the house husband. I was making about 15K more than most in my pay rank for about 6 years in a row, and I think a lot of it had to do with my able to concentrate on just doing my job most days)

[Big Phil]

No?

Every job I take begins with salary negotiations.

I guess it depends upon one's particular field.

Yes, it does.

I have never had the option of negotiating a salary, it's always been take it or leave it.

What field(s) do you work in? Other than my first job, I've always negotiated salaries and raises (I work in market research consulting/technology)

[Broomstick]

No?

Every job I take begins with salary negotiations.

I guess it depends upon one's particular field.

Yes, it does.

I have never had the option of negotiating a salary, it's always been take it or leave it.

What field(s) do you work in? Other than my first job, I've always negotiated salaries and raises (I work in market research consulting/technology)

Well, technically, I suppose I negotiated pay when I was a professional artist a few times, but most of my work was contract and, you know, if you don't want to accept what, say, Marvel Comics is paying a color artist screw you, there are at least 20 other wannabes who will work for the same or lower.

I've also worked as administrative support staff, where they make you a job offer and it's take it or leave it. I did successfully ask for a raise on several occasions, but the "secretarial" category doesn't get to negotiate pay in the way you apparently do.

Now I'm working as a contractor painting houses and the like - I need to have a lot more experience and skill before I can think of asking for more money. Also, the field is sort of tanking at the moment.

I applied for a job in airport security with the Feds - what you get paid there isn't open to negotiation, either. Pay there is determined by a very strict set of rules not subject to exceptions.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To clarify my response (to AD), the article doesn't argue that bosses tend to be traditional males, who then reward traditional males. If you have information that supports this argument I'd love to see it, but based on this research alone I don't see how you can make that argument.

I am not basing it on just this. I am explaining the trend, and making a testable prediction, based upon a well established principle in social psychology.

[Plekhanov]

A factor in this might be that 'traditional' males are less likely to let family be it kids or the need to work around their wife's career get in the way of their work (what with kids being women's business & the male job coming 1st) so they're more likely to put in extra hours at work an so forth and get promotions.

[Darth Wong]

OK, I'm going to throw away the political correctness here and be honest: if everyone concerned is willing to accept traditional gender roles, they work out better for everyone. The guy makes the money, the girl raises the kids and takes care of the house.

Yes, that's sexist. No, it certainly doesn't excuse domineering husbands who think their wives owe them something for being the breadwinner. And no, I don't know how well it works if the roles are reversed; I don't intend to make statements that go outside the scope of what I'm saying, which is simply that the fixed arrangement works pretty well. And I would argue that the reason it works well is simple: specialization.

Ever heard of the old phrase "jack of all trades, master of none"? We've all gotten this idea in our heads in the last 30 years that everything should be equal. But if you went to a factory and said that everyone should randomly change positions and do everyone else's job every other week, people would say you're an idiot. You can do better at a particular task if you are allowed to focus on it. That works for both professional tasks and domestic tasks.

Now obviously, if the woman hates that role, then some accomodation should be made. But there's nothing wrong with the idea of specialization; that's why genders evolved in the first place, for fuck's sake. That's how virtually all of society functions outside of marriages, where "egalitarian" suddenly means "no one is better at anything than anyone else".