The results need to be replicated. Still, this is really interesting.
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.
The study writers discussed two possible causes of the disparity: Either traditional men are better negotiators than everyone else, or employers discriminate against women, and against nontraditional men. The way the article wrote about it made it sound as if these are mutually exclusive possibilities, but I don’t think that’s true; if anything, they could be mutually reinforcing possibilities.1
The study writers also speculated that since there’s very little disparity between the wages of men with egalitarian attitudes and women, the more men have egalitarian attitudes, the smaller the wage gap will become.
- For instance, if class A learns that harder negotiation tactics don’t bring results (discrimination), that would lead class A to negotiate less hard than class B does. Class B’s greater pay would then be partly due to “better negotiation.” [↩]
I was wondering if the old-fashioned view that the traditional men are supporting their family (whereas the non-traditional men and all women are not viewed as “the sole breadwinner”, even when they are) – therefore bosses are more likely to view their requests for promotions and/or pay raises seriously. Additionally, they may have entered into a traditional marriage and therefore have few responsibilities at home and can spend more time working.
I think there’s another explanation, or two or three — I think men with egalitarian attitudes are probably men who have made themselves see the inequity of the world, and committed themselves to doing something about it. So you’ll see egalitarian men in fields like education and health care, where *nobody* makes much money (even though they should, considering their contribution to society). I think they’d lean towards public-welfare fields — e.g., social justice, public defender’s office — rather than private benefit jobs, such as working for a corporation. Or they might be more willing to go into fields regardless of perceived gender orientation, such as the female-dominated (and lower-paid) biology versus male dominated science fields like physics.
Apparently, the study compared people in similar fields with similar job titles.
I suspect that it’s a result of discrimination against inadequately masculine men, however, somebody pointed out that sexist men probably aren’t doing much in the way of housework. They don’t do chores at home and so have more energy for work, which might result in better performance.
@Les, that might be it.
My wife has a job that requires her to take a lot home with her, so I handle all the evening chores. Because of that, I can’t take a job that would involve a longer commute or working late, which really hamstring’s my career opportunities. If I were the “breadwinner” of the family, an hour-long commute into the city where I could earn 150% of what I’m getting now would be feasible (but then I’d hardly get to see my kid or have a life outside of work).
That, and I don’t golf. I am convinced this is related to my salary.
The authors are somewhat unimaginative in their possible explanations. I can think of several other possibilities, some of which tickle my ego as a traditionalist man, and some of which don’t. (Maybe traditional men, at this late date, are those whose abilities and security are so large that they are able to demand a traditional lifestyle, and still have women competing for their attention, and egalitarian men are all wimps who have to beg for women’s time and make concessions.)
But the most likely explanation, it seems to me, would ascribe the greater earning power to an efficiency made possible by the traditional wife. Having a traditional wife is a huge advantage over having an egalitarian relationship. The egalitarian men are juggling child care, leaving work to care for (half of) the sick kids, etc. The traditional men are just getting the job done. Therefore their performance and reliability are probably superior, they are providing more economic value to the firm, and thus they get paid more. Division of labor creates efficiency, after all, this is hardly news – but the real source of the efficiency is the wife at home, and she should be the one getting the credit for the additional income.
Of course, in terms of total economic output, it makes more sense to have two working people (each of whom is somewhat distracted by family responsibilities) than it does to have one work-only person and one family-only person. I don’t have any statistics for the family side of the equation; would we get a better society with 150 million work-only parents and 150 million family-only parents, or with 300 million trying-to-do-both parents? I suspect the first option would be superior in terms of outputs – maybe somewhat less on the economic side, but way more on the family quality side – but that’s just a guess.
would we get a better society with 150 million work-only parents and 150 million family-only parents, or with 300 million trying-to-do-both parents? I suspect the first option would be superior in terms of outputs – maybe somewhat less on the economic side, but way more on the family quality side – but that’s just a guess.
I don’t think family quality is improved by having one full-time parent and one almost-no-time parent. Indeed, I am puzzled by the people who say they want to have kids but don’t feel that their presence is necessary to the child nor that time with the child is necessary to them.
If you intentionally produce a biological child yourself, then you’re having children because you think they will do something for you. (I suppose someone might adopt an already-existing child in a spirit of altruism, to do good for the child rather than for selfish benefit.) In a traditional agrarian society this “something” probably will be laboring in your vineyards; in modern urban and suburban societies, it has more to do with emotional fulfillment, social prestige, etc. To the extent that your child is supposed to provide you an emotional fulfillment — the joys of teaching, guiding, watching growth, and so on — I don’t understand how much fulfillment you can get by seeing the child only on special occasions or while he’s asleep.
I don’t have any statistics for the family side of the equation; would we get a better society with 150 million work-only parents and 150 million family-only parents, or with 300 million trying-to-do-both parents?
I don’t know the statistics, if any, either, but purely anecdotally…If I tried to stay home full time, I’d either end up severely depressed and unable to do much for anyone, including the kid(s) or take up housecleaning as a blood sport. Neither outcome strikes me as one likely to be good for any children involved.
Dianne – Then I would definitely suggest you not take up a “traditional” lifestyle. ;)
Fortunately, it’s optional.
Fortunately, it’s optional.
At the moment.
One argument, Robert: let’s not forget that “egalitarian” view does not necessarily mean that both partners are doing equal amounst of job-work and house-work: just that the man does not see a need for the man to do the job-work and the woman to do the house-work. I am a woman, and am the primarily (but not sole) breadwinner in my family. I make three times as much as my husband does: I also work longer hours, bring more work home, and am in school earning my MBA part-time. Consequently, my husband does basically all of the chores. I haven’t done a load of laundry in years. When we have kids, he will be the stay at home parent if one is needed, and the primary “stay home with sick kid” parent otherwise.
If your efficiency argument is correct, I should be earning as much as a traditional man in my field, since I should benefit from the same efficiency that they do. As far as I can tell, according to this study, that does not hold true. My husband (an egalitarian man) should be earning the same an a traditional woman in his field, since they are both primarily focused on house-work instead of job-work, but according to this study he is still earning more. How would you explain that?
I would explain it by saying that the study didn’t look at you. We have no information about the relative salary that you are earning, and no idea whether you are earning what you should earn in the marketplace. In general, we cannot take a study like this and apply it directly to our own circumstances; the study is measuring trends and averages, not finding absolute conditions. Also, the study looked at attitudes, not circumstances – there are guys with traditional attitudes who nonetheless change the nappies. My wife and I have pretty traditional attitudes about gender roles, but that is not reflected very much in the actual circumstances of our lives.
I take your point about the variability of circumstances in an egalitarian relationship. In general, though, I would expect to find that a woman in your circumstance, where dad is covering the bases at home, to be in broadly the same situation as a man with a SAHW, and for broadly similar reasons.
So if Robert is correct and it’s the contribution of a traditional wife that allows traditional men to earn more than the cost of a 2nd income is, on average $11K. So the total cost of having two income streams should include not just child care but also the $11K. That being the amount of money lost if traditional men had to devote more time and energy to things outside of work.
If this is true then we should only see the difference in married couples.
If this is true then unmarried women should make as much as unmarried men.
If this is true then women in relationships with reversed gender roles will make more than other women.
My hunch at this point is that more than one thing will be involved. I think I need to read the study.
Purely from a logical standpoint, wouldn’t it theoretically be possible that ManlyMen are better negotiators, and that employers discriminate against everyone to the degree that they differ from the ManlyMan style? Your argument assumes hat the discrimination precedes the negotiating success and that it is unjustified. While I happen to believe that you are right :) this isn’t a logical necessity.
Actually, I think it is a population issue. ManlyMen are worse negotiators, but it is for that exact reason that it is logical to pay people more who possess ManlyMan skills. No, that’s not a mistype. Let me explain.
First, I’ll say that I do a lot of negotiation. It’s a big part of my job, and as it happens (yeah, i know you won’t believe me) I am extremely good at it. Also, as it happens I do not normally adopt a ManlyMan style; it’s just not me.
Now, the interesting thing is that the people who I am negotiating AGAINST have a variety of styles of their own, of course. More to the point they respond differently: they receive those styles in different ways, some more effectively than others. in fact, one of the things that differentiates a skilled negotiator is not necessarily the skill in a particular style, but also that he/she can a wide range: that they change styles to the one which is most likely to produce an accord.
Where I am going with this is simple. Some people respond best to the ManlyMan style. In my experience, these are also people who use the ManlyMan style themselves. Also in my experience, people who reply on the ManlyMan style often do not have access to other styles of interaction. They do ManlyMan and that’s it. So in order to negotiate effectively with those people, you need to have access to (and be willing to use) a ManlyMan style of interaction.
Making matters more complex is the population issue. Since ManlyMen ruled the business world in the past, and still do, then the likelihood of running into someone who possesses only the ManlyMan style tends to rise as one goes up the ranks of experience and, usually, importance. (That lasts until you get to a high enough importance level that negotiation ability outweighs experience, when that trend reverses.)
There is no inherent advantage at all to the ManlyMan style, at least not in my experience. In fact, there is an inherent DISadvantage. I find it far less effective in resolving disputes; it’s usually just sound and fury, accomplishing nothing. But be that as it may, the ability to use the ManlyMan style is very important, because of the unfortunately large number of people at relatively high levels of business who rely on it.
From my perspective, this is something that I would expect an employee to recognize, and would pay for (or not) accordingly. It is similar to other trends which are on the way out but which are still controlling. To use another sexism based example, I would expect my employees to be able to understand that some clients rely on “he” as a gender neutral pronoun, and that said clients will not accept “they” or “he/she.” Similarly, while I do not believe that the clothes make the person, and I think it would be silly for a client to choose an attorney based on dress, you bet your ass I am wearing black pinstripes right now, in preparation for a new client meeting this afternoon.
To me, knowing how to put on your ManlyMan blustersuit when talking to some crotchety 70 year old guy that thinks being an asshole will win the negotiation is a marketable skill, just like knowing how to greet corporate clients and knowing which fork to use at a fancy restaurant. All of those have no particular intrinsic worth but they can be valuable in a business setting.
I never use ManlyMan unless I am forced to. I never use it in my private dealings. I advise my clients who are inclined to go that route is that it is a less than effective, overly expensive, course of action. But in 2008 in business and corporate America, ManlyManSpeak is an important language to possess.
It is also something which will pass with time. Of the younger people I know and interact with, only a small minority rely solely on ManlyMan. Even the ones who lead relatively traditional lives have moved into other, better, modes of interaction. The world is moving toward better communication skills, and ManlyMan will fall by the wayside; it won’t be too soon.
Pingback: The Distributed Republic
Didn’t you just contradict your own point, Robert? If the study is solely focusing on attitudes, and not circumstances, then your effiiency argument kind of goes out the window, doesn’t it?
Also, in rereading the article, I see that they accounted across all four groups for not only field and job, but also hours worked. So, in other words, regardless of whether I and a traditionally minded man put in the exact same time and effort into the exact same job, regardless of whether we both go home or don’t go home to deal with the kids an equal amount of time, I will still earn less than he will. That, on its own, seems to debunk your theory.
No, because I suspect that the attitude correlates to the circumstance quite strongly. It’s just not a lock.
On the equal hours thing, it isn’t always the hours – it’s when the hours happen, and whether they’re uninterrupted. Jack takes the morning to care for the sick baby and makes up the time on the weekend – but he wasn’t there when the boss needed him to be there, so he gets dinged in the pay scale, etc.
ADS:
Even if two people put in the same number of hours, one may still expend much more effort than the other. Intensity is an independent variable.
So after adjusting for job, education, length of time in position and hours worked in a week, the best explanation is that traditionally minded men work with more intensity than egalitarian-minded men, who work with more intensity than egalitarian-minded women, who work with more intensity than traditionally minded-women? So women like me, who are the primary breadwinners in our families, work with less intensity than men like my husband, who are not, even if we’re in the same job?
Robert: I don’t have any statistics for the family side of the equation; would we get a better society with 150 million work-only parents and 150 million family-only parents, or with 300 million trying-to-do-both parents? I suspect the first option would be superior in terms of outputs – maybe somewhat less on the economic side, but way more on the family quality side – but that’s just a guess.
It’s a very bad guess if you consider that half of all coupled parents don’t stay together til their kids are 18. Trying-to-do-both parents are likely to adapt better to parenthood without a live-in partner.
So women like me, who are the primary breadwinners in our families, work with less intensity than men like my husband, who are not, even if we’re in the same job?
Maybe. It’s hard to say. Intensity of effort is difficult to measure. I do know that the intensity of MY career effort became much greater after I got married and had children.
Anecdotally, I’ve worked with a lot of women and a lot of men in various career paths. The most intense women and the most intense men seemed to me to be about at the same level of effort and commitment, and the slackers were at pretty much the same level of laziness. But it did seem to me – and this could easily be my own bias, so take it with a pound of salt – that the typical manly man went after things with somewhat more vigor than the typical womanly woman. I can certainly see how the “gotta make the mortgage, gotta pay for the kids college” traditional man could be grossly outworking the “well, I’m doing this job because we need the health insurance, but really I wish I was at home with my babies” traditional woman. And maybe Mr. and Ms. “gee isn’t it swell that everything is equal and I know the spouse is also working hard” fall in between. Maybe.
But I would not discount the discrimination hypothesis, for the record. That may well be the real culprit, and it wouldn’t shock me to find out that it was. I can just see other things that it could be, too.
Maybe it varies by profession? In my own practice, of the people who I most respect, call on most often for mentoring, communicate with most effectively, and would call on to do heavier lifting than I if I had a case I could not handle… They are almost all female. There is, in fact, only one man in that category; the rest are all women (5 to 8 of them, depending on the issues.) They work(ed) their asses off, and there’s a damn good reason that I ask them to mentor me.
So just to add my own anecdotal experience, I would answer this:
by saying “no.” In my experience, they work with more intensity.
I can think of a couple of other possibilities. (remember that this probably has multiple explanations, if true. So additional causes don’t rule out any of those already discussed.)
1) Given that supporters of male dominance are still the majority of positions of authority, they may react to egalitarian men as gender traitor. They may or may not think it through to that extent. It may be as simple as “so and so is a real p_ssy”.
2)A shorter and more general form of Sailman’s speculation. When I was in the corporate world a lot of the time when I was supporting a position I was judged on how strongly I was willing to stick up for it without offering any compromise. I learned this when I overheard a conversation between two executives. ” E1) Do you think Gar is right on this?/ E2) Well I really pushed him on it, and he didn’t back down even a little bit. He must be pretty sure. I say we let him do it. That day I learned something new about dealing with those particular executives, and in my later experiences there are a lot of executives out there who respond better to aggressive pushing of viewpoint that to attempts to build consensus. Maybe it is as simple as that: a lot executives judge your competence by whether you act like an asshole, a skill macho men spend a lot of time cultivating.
Heh. And what they might find is that in these professions where “nobody makes much money”, they will still out earn women in these traditionally female professions like teaching and nursing where women greatly outnumber men in the workforce.
@RadFem – how is that even possible in teaching? In the public world (which is the vast majority of teaching) teachers are all union, and so the pay-scale is by seniority and locale – how could you even have a wage disparity in that field? I’m not doubting your statistics, I’m just bewildered how that could even happen.
At my high school, a male science teacher was allowed to count his years working for the state (in a science-related job) as “experience,” in addition to his time as a teacher, bumping him up on the pay scale. A female history and government teacher was not allowed to count her time as a lawyer and judge (obviously very relevant to government and history), only her time teaching — so she was paid significantly less. It was a public school, and as far as I know that kind of call is just up to the principals, at least here in New Mexico.
For the record, they happened to have the same number of years of experience in their fields, and while she was unanimously regarded by the student body as the best teacher at the school (and I’m not exaggerating here — she is easily one of the smartest people I have ever met, and certainly one of the most competent and committed teachers, by a long shot), he was sort of a slacker who I suspect was sometimes intoxicated in class. (I had classes with both of them.)
So that’s one way it happens.