September 22, 2008

Forget the gender gap in wages. The real gap is between traditional men and everyone else.

This study indicates that focus on the gender gap in wages is wrong:
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."
I'm taken aback by these results. Not really. Assuming the results are accurate, it could be either that a particular type of man has traditional values or that the traditional lifestyle gives a man more opportunity and incentive to compete, put in long hours, and make money a priority.

62 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

Barack Obama pays his female staff significantly less than his male staff. John McCain pays his female staff the same or slightly more than his male staff.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/does-obama-pay-women-less-than-men/


Barack Obama cannot be trusted when it comes to equal pay for equal work for women!

UWS guy said...

Cederford must make a zillion dollars a year and poor AlphaLiberal! Poor poor alphaliberal!

Harwood said...

"Equal pay for equal work" is the biggest hoax in the history of economics. I can't believe that people are still going for that idiotic idea.

UWS guy said...

Fred4pres:

That just proves that John McCain has metrosexuals on his staff and that Obama has rugged hard working real men who work for him, and drink beer and whistle at women.

chickenlittle said...

What about the group of women with work-a-holic tendencies?

That they may lack supporting wives is another issue if we're focussing on just wage parity.

David said...

Just what attitudes do the surveyors think are traditional?

Michael said...

fred4press says: "Fred4Pres said...
"Barack Obama cannot be trusted when it comes to equal pay for equal work for women!"

Then again, this just might carry a tad more weight when it comes to who people trust with the econimy:

The financial turmoil that has rocked global markets appears to be benefiting US presidential hopeful Barack Obama, according to a new poll released Monday that finds the Democratic candidate pulling ahead of his Republican opponent John McCain with a 51 percent to 46 percent lead.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll also finds that by a two-to-one margin Americans blame Republicans for the current financial crisis.

Forty-seven percent of registered voters say Republicans are more responsible for the state of the economy, compared to 24 percent of registered voters who say Democrats are more responsible.

Obama's five-point lead over McCain stands in contrast to the previous CNN/Opinion Research survey that had the candidates tied at 48 percent each.

The survey also indicates that more Americans think Obama would better handle the economy. The democratic candidate holds a 10-point lead over McCain.

Michael said...

economy.

David said...

I read the underlying article, which seems (it's not entirely clear) to say that the survey defined "traditional value" men as husbands in single income families with stay at home moms.

Isn't it possible that men in such arrangements, in any job, are required to be more aggressive and work harder, because they know that they are the only providers of income? I was a sole provider with a spouse who did not work outside the home. It certainly motivated me to work harder since I knew that I was the only source of cash.

This variation would be hard to measure, but it's a question that apparently was not asked.

bearing said...

With chicken little, I'm wondering what was meant by "traditional attitudes."

The first thing I thought of when I read this was that it probably helps your career if you've got a stay-at-home spouse. And (cough) traditional-minded men are more likely to want this, and therefore, to have this than the other three groups, no?

Says the traditional-minded stay-at-home mother. I see evidence regularly that it really does help my husband's career to have me at home with the kids, so it seems like the simplest explanation to me.

Palladian said...

What about us faggots with traditional attitudes?

bearing said...

david suggests that traditional-minded men are more motivated to work hard.

Possibly, but I would argue that it actually helps you earn more to have a spouse at home.

Because I'm at home with the kids, my husband is free to take a job with a significant amount of business travel. He doesn't have to coordinate his work schedule with a hypothetical conflict with my schedule if the opportunity for a business trip comes up. He doesn't have to take a back seat to my career. I take care of all sorts of household odds and ends so he doesn't have to; he never has to take a personal day to wait for the dishwasher repairman. Add that up over a whole population, and maybe these guys exhibit more success, get promoted faster, make more money.

There's also selection bias of course. Maybe the conditions that produce a successful worker are the same as the conditions that produce a person who wants a stay-at-home spouse (and is capable of convincing a smart chick like me of going with the program -- I certainly don't have any regrets.)

Jim said...

I think this is a consequential effect, not a cause.

People who made it to the top on their own merits tend to believe that everyone should be their fair shot at the brass ring. That means removing artificial barriers to excellence like affirmative action or racial/gender quotas in hiring which wind up with less qualified people getting opportunities solely by virtue of the skin color/gender..."traditional values."

On the other hand, we have the people at the bottom looking up at the top with envy. Of course, they're going to be more likely to be "egalitarian" (read: socialist, communist): they want a piece of what the rich guy has got, and if it means that the government has to be in charge of getting it for him, then so be it.

They also would be more likely to assume that the people who have more were given some kind of unfair advantage. To their way of thinking, it's the only possible answer why the other guy is on top. It couldn't be that other guy works harder, is smarter, more talented, or anything like that: socialism and communism don't allow for those things...

ricpic said...

...men with traditional values earn far more for the same work...

Same work my foot. The statement is nonsense on its face. If the statement were men with traditional values earn far more for work in the same field than egalitarian men or women (egalitarian, how do you keep from barfing?) it might make some semblance of sense.

Why? Because while light in the loafers men and many souled women are sniffing the tulips traditional men are putting everything they've got into the work. So OF COURSE they're going to be rewarded with more money!

MarkW said...

It makes complete sense. Men with traditional attitudes earn more, not because of the attitudes or some weird form of discrimination, but they expect (and their wives expect!) them to be the providers. They're willing to make more compromises to earn more (e.g. work longer hours, put up with crappier work conditions, accept job transfers, etc). The women with traditional attitudes earn the least because they don't have to take their careers very seriously, and they don't.

Egalitarian men and women are in the middle, with egalitarian men earning somewhat more because egalitarian women still judge their husbands more on earning potential than egalitarian men do their wives.

IMHO, egalitarian is the way to go for men. I'm convinced the idea of men-as-providers who must keep their noses to the grindstone can only be a conspiracy of the matriarchy.

Cedarford said...

Oh, please....

When you look at this young lady's CV, you see that she is an assistant Prof, up from teaching assistant 3 years ago, finishing up her PhD dissertation.

http://bethlivingston.net/Livingston_CV.pdf

She started her academic pubs in 2006.

http://bethlivingston.net/Livingston_CV.pdf

This is supposed to be a real expert in examining "wage disparities" between "traditional men" and "caring, egalitarian men" in (Red Flag! Red Flag! Red Flag!) "similar jobs"????

Remember the "equal pay for equal work" flaps of not too long ago when one of the highlights was "similarly skilled women in clerical jobs were denied the higher pay of men "of similar education" who happened to be working in the same firm, same rough number of years, but as welders, truck drivers, line workers?
Much was made by academics about how unfair it was, but when asked why the women didn't go for welding, truck driver careers - they cited hard, unpleasant work, time away from family, etc. etc.

I suspect that the obvious qualifier "similar jobs" means they were unable or unwilling to compare salary differences between women, Cro-Magnon Men, and caring, feminist supporting men in the same career.

So it was likely another attempt to argue that women with 2 years of training past high school as webmasters should have equal pay to equally trained and skilled "sensitive men working as hair stylists or aides to the disabled" and both should have equal pay to a 2-year trained "traditional male" working as an oil rig roustabout.

Kudos though on the ability of new gal Livingston to work with Timothy Judge, who seems to know just how to pull in and market his "amazing statistical discoveries & research" to mass media - as "scientific differences in the workplace".

He suckered Althouse in two years ago with his "incredible discoveries" related to height-wage disparities.

David said...

I agree with you, Bearing, to a point. Certainly my spouse's taking care of the bulk of household details gave me more time and energy to address my job. I had one of those "expandable" jobs, where you could work as many hours as you could stand.

But the survey seems to say that the disparity occurred in all types of jobs, including 9-5 where the hours were largely set.

I learned as I got more senior that married employees, male or female, were on balance (there were of course many exceptions) more reliable than single. I generally attributed this to social stability, especially in younger people, and to the motivation that family can bring.

I would be interested to see what the survey concluded about married vs. single employees, regardless of traditional values.

Age was also an issue. The reliability disparity between married and single, in my experience, tended to dissipate with age.

It's awfully hard to tell what variables are actually having an impact. It easy to see what you want to see, where cause and effect are not clear.

Pal2Pal said...

When my kids were in middle school and high school, too old for childcare, I decided I had to go part time at work to provide more supervision at home. We did not know how we were going to swing having my paycheck cut in half and we prepared the kids that money would be tight.

Much to our surprise, we not only did not end up in a money squeeze, but ended up with more money at the end of the month as spendable.

It took me awhile to figure it out, mostly because I was resistant to the idea, but it was actually cheaper for me to be a stay-at-home Mom. No more 40 mile roundtrips each day, and the gas required, to get to work, no more $75 mo. parking fee, no more outlay for restaurant lunches 5 days a week, no more need to buy 2 or 3 pairs of pantyhose every week, no more need to spend hundreds on power suits and work attire, and since I was home, I cooked dinner, which was a whole lot cheaper than the fast food, pizza, or KFC we so often relied on when I was running late getting home or we were on the fly to some sports or school event. Plus we planted a huge garden, something I never had time for before, and we had fresh veggies plus I started canning and freezing for future use.

The added bonus was my kids' grades improved and they were much better at taking responsibility for their own things. I started to get to know their friends better and meet their parents, something I never had time for before. I found that the majority of stay-at-home Moms were married to solidly educated men (as opposed to elite) who put their family first, but to them that meant preparing themselves to be the primary breadwinner. They just seemed more together and more comfortable in themselves. Leadership material, which is probably why they earn more.

And even though I waited until my kids were too old for childcare, I had been paying out $150 week for many years before then.

Bissage said...

My personal experience is that there ain't nobody not knows how not to not look out for number one like a man with "traditional attitudes."

Not that there's anything not wrong with that.

The swine!

Eric said...

There's another type of selection bias here as well. A man may start out with "traditional" attitudes and then change when he realizes the little lady has to work for the couple to maintain the standard of living to which they've become accustomed. Voila! Egalitarian man.

Only guys who can afford the "traditional" mindset get to keep it.

MarkW said...

There's another type of selection bias here as well. A man may start out with "traditional" attitudes and then change when he realizes the little lady has to work for the couple to maintain the standard of living to which they've become accustomed. Voila! Egalitarian man.

Only guys who can afford the "traditional" mindset get to keep it.

Get to keep it? Why on earth would anybody want to keep it? A wife with a real career is a more interesting woman. And why would I want to be in a situation where if I lose my job we're all screwed? Or where, even if my job sucks or I'm completely sick of my line of work, I have no real choice but to tough it out? I know guys in that position, and it really sucks.

And since I've always earned more money than my wife and will probably live a few years less, I get to retire a few years earlier, right?

Michael_H said...

Iron my shirt. Bring me a scotch. Is this what goes on around here when I work late? My chest hurts.

When did we get children?

-Mr. Traditional

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Might it not be that the "traditional values" guy (whatever that means) does a better job for his employer and thus gets paid better?

vbspurs said...

What about us faggots with traditional attitudes?

It's no problem if you're a top. If you're a bottom, you probably get paid less.

vbspurs said...

Might it not be that the "traditional values" guy (whatever that means) does a better job for his employer and thus gets paid better?

OMG, duh.

Not to you, DBQ, but to the people who would actually need a study to know this.

blake said...

Eric,

The reverse can also be true: You can start out "egalitarian" and discover that it's unprofitable and detrimental to the children, etc.

markw,

A wife with a real career is a more interesting woman.

Any woman whose "interest" comes from her career is probably not very interesting at all.

ricpic said...

A very knotty comment from Bissage.

vbspurs said...

A wife with a real career is a more interesting woman.

My dad paid for my mother's Med School based on that fact. But then he doesn't have traditional attitudes. She doesn't know how to cook, and that's okay by him.

Duncan said...

Is it possible that traditional views on gender roles are also associated with traditional views on workplace productivity?

Trooper York said...

It's just that the dirty hippies are too busy smoking pot to get ahead in the rat race. Everybody knows this.

MarkW said...

"A wife with a real career is a more interesting woman."

Any woman whose "interest" comes from her career is probably not very interesting at all.

You're misunderstanding (on purpose, I assume). I certainly didn't say her only interest comes from her career. But I find people who get out and do something in the world generally more interesting than 'ladies who lunch'. YMMV, I suppose -- but do you think 'Althouse' would be as interesting if Ann was a lady who lunches instead of a law prof?

And I find I have more in common with a wife who also has the daily experience of the joys and frustrations of a career than I would with a stay-at-home Mom.

On the other side of the equation, I enjoyed my kids very much when they were younger and would have hated to have been one of those guys (and I know quite a few) who only saw their kids on weekends and maybe a few minutes before bedtime on other days.

And economically it's just a good form of diversification. I have the higher but riskier and less consistent income, while my wife has the lower-paying, highly secure job. It's sort of a balanced portfolio.

John Lynch said...

Well, duh. If you're the only working parent, that means you have to make more money. It isn't an option. Incentives work! Stop the presses!

Revenant said...

Well, duh. If you're the only working parent, that means you have to make more money. It isn't an option. Incentives work!

Yeah, that was my first impression as well. Generally speaking, the jobs that pay better for a given skillset are the ones that are less fun. With two working spouses, both can afford to trade in some salary for additional fun at work. With only one working, they can't.

Add it up, it all spells "duh".

blake said...

but do you think 'Althouse' would be as interesting if Ann was a lady who lunches instead of a law prof?

I guess it would depend on whom she lunched with. But actually, yeah, Althouse's lawprofiness is of minimal interest. It rarely comes up, except in a condemnation.

The lawprof stuff is just a front for the performance artist, anyway. "Cruel neutrality" indeed.

But your phrasing suggests that you think the options are career woman or woman who does nothing but lunches with other women who do nothing but lunch.

The sort of woman who does nothing but lunches will be boring even if she has a career. Similarly many couples are forged when neither has a career, so there's obviously some interest that doesn't spring from the well of inspiration that is one's job.

And I find I have more in common with a wife who also has the daily experience of the joys and frustrations of a career than I would with a stay-at-home Mom.

Have ya had both?

A few viewings of Office Space is, perhaps, might be just as useful in creating common ground.

And then there's the woman who loves staying at home being the housewife/homemaker/mom. This woman is going to be miserable in an office; she might be more interesting than a happy person for some definitions of the word "interesting".

Economically, it certainly can make sense (though it doesn't always). Sounds like you've got a good set-up.

erniecu73 said...

palladian said...
What about us faggots with traditional attitudes?

6:10 PM


We work in middle management or business analyst positions...

Donna B. said...

It seems to be the assumption here that a "traditional values" male likely has a wife who doesn't work and that's why HE makes more money.

That is really undermining the value of bearing and raising children and managing a household.

That's a much easier job than it used to be, but it still has to be done.

Women who have older children often work part-time, but from experience I can tell you that it is very important that one parent be at home when a teenager gets home from school.

And there is no amount of money that will pay for the experience and commitment a parent has.

Where's the study that compares the household income of traditional and egalitarian (stupid terms, btw) couples that takes into consideration the value of child-raising and household management?

blake said...

That's what they call an "externality", Donna B.

mcallen3 said...

I don't think I'm that traditional in attitude, though my wife and I have chosen to have pretty traditional lifestyle.

Any honest man would admit that having a full-time helper at home helps your career. Couples who decide to share equally put both of their careers under stress. It forces both parties to constantly negotiate and renegotiate all the routine BS that comes with life and particularly life with kids. I see a few couples who (Palin style) opt for the man to take the helper role. From what I can see that works out just as well in terms of allowing the woman to succeed in her career.

I'd argue that this is economically and emotionally rational. It sure is for us. My wife didn't much enjoy practicing law. I (usually) love my job. She'll go back to work if and when she feels like it, in the meantime we really don't need both of us to work. And both of us are spending our days with things we find important.

BTW, I don't know even one "traditional" man who is not very involved with his kids. In my limited sample, it seems to be the kids who are raised by nannies who have the absent fathers.

-m

Eric said...

The lawprof stuff is just a front for the performance artist, anyway. "Cruel neutrality" indeed.

Haha. True enough to be funny.

Eric said...

I certainly didn't say her only interest comes from her career. But I find people who get out and do something in the world generally more interesting than 'ladies who lunch'.

That's a pretty narrow view of what makes a person interesting. A woman running a household is doing something just as interesting, complicated, and rewarding (from what I can see) as one in a mid-level management position.

Besides, there's more to life than work. When I get home after a day of dealing with office politics the last thing I want to hear about is the wife's office. Anything at all would be preferable.

Keith said...

The book Womens Figures, by Christine Stolba and Diana Furchtgott-Roth came out in the the mid 90's. It reviewed a large body of literature which indicated that, when one controls for the type of work, weekly hours worked, degree, years experience, sector, willingness to relocate, likelihood of injury, etc, there is little or no difference in salaries between men and women.

Who would have thunk a doctor would earn more than a nurse?1 Or a lawyer more than a waiter. Or someone who works 50 hours more than someone who works 35. Golly gee.

Keith

Palladian said...

"It's no problem if you're a top. If you're a bottom, you probably get paid less."

What if you're "versatile"? Double salary?

erniecu73 said...

Palladian said...
"It's no problem if you're a top. If you're a bottom, you probably get paid less."

What if you're "versatile"? Double salary?

9:23 PM


LOL 10+, you win!

reader_iam said...

Group shots are not the same as sub-group snaps, much less family portraits or individual headshots.

Michael The Magnificent said...

ricpic: Because while light in the loafers men and many souled women are sniffing the tulips and two lips, respectively, traditional men are putting everything they've got into the work.

There, fixed it.

Michael The Magnificent said...

More to the subject...

If you want a raise, you will need to learn how to ask for one. That includes keeping a detailed account of how much money you've saved and/or made for the company since your last review.

I have seen more than one woman go in for her review, sit there quietly, and be in tears by the time they've returned to their desk because they didn't get the raise they thought they'd get.

You don't get anything in this world without asking for it, and you'll get far more if you can back up your requests with facts demonstrating why you are worth every penny that you are asking for.

dmfoiemjsof said...

Palladian said: "What about us faggots with traditional attitudes?"

Not to worry, I think you know how to get a head in life.

MarkW said...

blake said...

I guess it would depend on whom she lunched with. But actually, yeah, Althouse's lawprofiness is of minimal interest. It rarely comes up, except in a condemnation.

The question is would she be as interesting on other topics if she had never had a career, or rather, if her career was raising kids transitioning to shopping, home decorating, and volunteer work?

Similarly many couples are forged when neither has a career, so there's obviously some interest that doesn't spring from the well of inspiration that is one's job.

Oh, sure. Many couple are 'forged' when both are students. A time when both are learning, expanding their horizons, and have a great deal in common. Or after school when both are just getting started on a career and many of the same descriptions apply.

Have ya had both?

Directly, no -- just one wife. But I had Mother who went from Phi Beta Kappa to full-time stay at home housewife. It was a mistake, I think. And I know plenty of couples with wives who quit working when the kids were born and somehow never went back.

And then there's the woman who loves staying at home being the housewife/homemaker/mom.

Yeah, I imagine I'll enjoy retirement when I get to that point, too, but I've no interest in working 40 years to support a wife's pleasant early retirement that spans her entire adult lifetime.

eric said...

A woman running a household is doing something just as interesting, complicated, and rewarding (from what I can see) as one in a mid-level management position.

Getting hugs from 3-year-olds is certainly emotionally rewarding, but to think that running a household is as difficult and complicated as running a business is nonsense:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/working-moms

Hey, I really like to mess with my guitar, and play games, and wrestle with kids, and ride my bike, too, but I wouldn't pretend a life that consisted of that was as complicated or challenging as working.

When I get home after a day of dealing with office politics the last thing I want to hear about is the wife's office.

One of the great things about having two incomes is the extra security that enables you to leave crappy job situations. When you're not the only breadwinner, you can afford to make different kinds of choices and avoid positions where you deal with office politics all day.

Kristo Miettinen said...

First, our family's experience echoes that of pal2pal above - when my wife chose our children over work, we did not know how we would afford it, but we took the plunge anyway. Through mechanisms that to this day we do not fully understand, our money situation did not get worse, it got better.

An important point is not tracked in the underlying research: the *timing* of the income surge of the "traditional men" and their adoption of a "traditional" lifestyle. Everyone seems to think that it is the attitude that somehow drives the income (more competitive, free to work longer hours, whatever). I suspect it is the other way around, that men who, perhaps through sheer luck, find themselves suddenly able to support a family on one income, for the first time really consider seriously the possibility of traditional family arrangements. Ditto spouses of such men consider, for the first time seriously, the possibility of a more fulfilling "career" taking care of those they love the most.

Neither traditional attitudes nor high income happen overnight, nor do they form in childhood. These things happen to adults over long periods of time, and their sequence needs to be noted before causality is inferred.

bearing said...

Donna B:

It seems to be the assumption here that a "traditional values" male likely has a wife who doesn't work and that's why HE makes more money.

That is really undermining the value of bearing and raising children and managing a household.


Hardly undermines it -- I'm the one who made the point, and I'm the one bearing and raising children in my household. But your point hasn't been made yet...

I believe the original article was measuring income at jobs. But...If you measure things in terms of total household income/creation of value -- this makes the position of people with stay-at-home spouses even stronger. Because the at-home parent is creating value every day through his/her efforts. It ought to count for something.

Suppose one member of a couple (no kids in this thought experiment) had a full-time-job, and the other managed a hobby farm in which she raised all the food the couple consumed throughout the year, but didn't sell any. Should the value of the vegetables (less costs put into them) count as "income?" Some would count it, but many wouldn't.

bearing said...

Good catch on the "similar jobs" by the way.

bearing said...

Me as a "lady who lunches." Bwaahahaha!

One of the ways I enhance my husband's career, and hence the family income, is as a dinner-table consultant. He's an engineer; I have more advanced degrees in engineering than he does (I do not labor under any illusions that this makes me smarter, but it does mean that I have done more math). I can't count the number of times he's recounted some tricky problem from work over the table, and the two of us together have puzzled out some aspect of it.

It's a dirty little secret that this sort of thing happens: yes indeedy, my education goes into propping up someone else's career. Even dirtier a secret: I am rather pleased with how it's all going.

Less interesting, hm. "May you live in interesting times." (Or in an interesting family. My birth family was interesting. I'll take boring, thank you.)

Henry said...

Where I live I have a fairly stark choice. I can commute to Boston or work locally. Though I like my job, I know that if I commuted to Boston I could probably increase my income 50%. But I couldn't ride my bike to work. Instead of a 9-hour day (work + commute), I'd have a 12-hour day.

All this study really says is that people get more of what they want.

For me, time is more important than money.

MadisonMan said...

All I know is that she works hard for the money so you better treat her right. So right!

But what is obviously needed is some kind of re-education camp where these traditional-thinking men's attitudes can be altered.

TMink said...

Palladin wrote: "What about us faggots with traditional attitudes?"

Well, I would never use that term brother, but I bet your traditional attitudes yield a bigger check.

When I read "traditional attitudes" I hear "personal responsibility."

Trey

TMink said...

"It's just that the dirty hippies are too busy smoking pot to get ahead in the rat race."

Yep, and the traditional male pot smokers wait till they get home before hitting the pipe. Achievement bongs.

Trey

Bissage said...

All I know is that she works hard for the money so you better treat her right. So right!

True . . . so very true.

And zipping through this thread has made me realize I’ll have to stop thinking of myself as a man with an egalitarian attitude.

It’s all been a conceit on my part.

That’s because, when I look deep inside, I realize a simple kind of life never did me no harm, what with raising me a family and working on the farm. In my heart of hearts I truly believe it’s a blessing that my days are all filled with an easy country charm.

And that’s why I thank God I’m a country boy.

Yeeeeee-HAH!

rhhardin said...

Men doing something they enjoy for a living, is probably the important category.

What interests women doesn't have the same potential.

I mean, the satisfaction is the same from the interests, but the commerial possibilities (ie. somebody else happy to buy it) are not.

My new maxim on the matter : you cannot re-create the world as it is by following women's interests.

mcg said...

What about us faggots with traditional attitudes?

Sorry, Palladian, you have to get a woman knocked up to join the club. It's a Mafia-style initiation ritual. :) Somehow I suspect you're doing just fine though.

Lance Burri said...

I had to look up "egalitarian" to make sure it meant what I thought - it didn't. It means somebody who believes in equality, fairness, democracy, which implies that "traditional" men don't believe in that.

Why'd she pick that word?

Or is there another connotation? I thought it just generally meant urban, yuppie, that sort of thing. A nicer way to say metrosexual.

Anyway, so if I'm reading this article right, the way for me to get ahead is to be an I'm-better-than-you elitist? To believe in white superiority and that women belong in the kitchen?

Is it better to lean toward sexism or racism, then? Or just general classism?

Dangit, I should have gone to a better college.

Don said...

Granted, all children are different, but there is NO way our 15 year old boy will turn out "ok" if my wife had a career. There is also NO way two of us with careers could earn as much as the one of us does.

blake said...

Don,

I think the key point of what you say is how it affects your son.

It's different for all of us.

I'm inclined to think that, as a rule of thumb, mother should stay home with the children. Some mothers aren't cut out for that. Some children aren't cut out for that! Some fathers are going to be better at the domestic thing, and sometimes the economics make better sense with one parent working, and sometimes with two.

And sometimes the kids throw a monkey wrench in to the whole thing and need both parents! Or require a relocation, or a career change.

I just chafe at the notion that there's something less interesting about a woman who stays at home.