Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Sexist men make more money

A new study has revealed that men with "traditional" values make way more money than men who view women as equals. They also make more money than women who view men as equals...and women with "traditional" values (they are at the bottom of the barrel).

The study compared working men and working women in similar jobs, with similar attitudes, working similar hours.

SO...all those people who think there's a good explanation for the wage gap...um...what do you think?

Here's my theory. Traditio-...eh...we'll just call them...SEXIST men held the power originally, right? So they passed that on to other sexist men...who then passed it on...you get where I'm going here.

So sexist men are in power. When they decide how to spread out the money, they go with someone familiar...someone who makes them feel comfortable...someone sexist, like them. The others might be good at their jobs, so he keeps them around. But he makes sure the sexist men are happy and rich.

Yes, yes...that's way too simplistic. But it's fun to simplify.

The WaPo breaks it down:

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.

Here's the full article.

12 comments:

Andy Swan said...

I think your theory has some, limited merit. But...

I read the data as:

Men who see their role as "breadwinner" seek jobs that pay more.

Women who see their role in "traditional/sexist" terms, seek jobs that pay less (teacher, etc).

....or....

Men who have wives that didn't put "career first" tend to seek out and obtain higher paying jobs, and women who didn't put "career first" tend to miss out on a few promotions due to 1-5 year absences due to child-care.

Just like the nonsense "gender gap" stats, this study is not comparing job title to job title. Is an HR rep with a traditional view in XYZ company really being paid more than an HR rep with "equality" viewpoints?

If not...then what the hell are we talking about here except career CHOICES?

Amanda said...

Oh, Andy. You're making the same argument. How does your argument work with egalitarian MEN who are paid less?

Also, the study sampled men and women in similar jobs, who worked similar hours, and had the same amount of experience. How does that work with your argument?

Do you honestly believe there is no way to compare two people's salaries? How would you do it?

Andy Swan said...

I think that "breadwinner males" tend to work harder toward winning the bread. I think it's as much a motivation thing as a "good ol boy" thing (which I agree still exists to a limited degree).

I'm looking forward to specific examples where a corporation is giving unequal pay to "traditional males" who are in fact doing the same job as "feminist males" (which I happen to be).

Daniel said...

You make a great argument for the dark side, maybe I should convert for a while. Any notes on what benefits they're providing? Cause if I'm to sell my soul, I could use a better dental plan...

Amanda said...

andy: it's hard to get specific examples, because people are hesitant to talk about money...which is why this is a problem in the first place. Open salaries would help the problem.

But that's not going to happen, so it's good we have studies like this to help uncover these things.

Daniel-the argument for the dark side only works if you're a man and you have no soul. You would have to teach your daughter differently, or she'd be at the bottom. Plus, you would have to watch your mother and sister get the shaft.

But I'm sure the healthcare is great. Dental...and probably eyes, too.

Andy Swan said...

Well didn't this study get people to tell their salaries?

From what I understand, from my wife and her friends in HR from her former company....there are typically people inside of these companies looking to make sure that men and women of the same "level" are being paid equally. In fact, they are known as the salary-nazis haha.

So...really you don't think the concept of "breadwinner males" putting a higher value on salary than other guys is valid, at least in part? I mean...I know guys like this...and they take the job in the coal mine...or they work FOR the promotion, no matter what the requirements.

They are (mostly) noble in their provider obsession...doing what they believe is the best thing for their family, and I admire them for that.

What bugs me is the (learned) assumption that many of them make that their better half (and thus their daughter!!) isn't just as capable or entitled to the same decision about their role.

Choice is king.

Amanda said...

Can I quote you on that?

Andy Swan said...

Yes. I've always been pro-choice, I'm just very anti-abortion.

Amanda said...

So you don't think people should be able to make a choice for something you're against? You don't have to get an abortion. That's your choice.

Andy Swan said...

Silly logic.

Do you think people should be able to choose to steal? Rape? Why not? You don't have to steal. You don't have to rape.

That's your choice.

Norak said...

These results can be easily explained.

Sexist men have a wife at home doing all the housework, so they can spend more time at work and earn more money.

Sexist women (i.e. traditional women) want to be at home, so they are less likely to get jobs, so they earn less.

spookyva said...

To my mind everybody have to browse on it.