August 4, 2016

"Being the breadwinner has been a linchpin of U.S. men’s masculinity for decades, so even the potential of making less than one’s spouse threatens accepted gender roles."

"Merely asking the question about spousal income led to enormous shifts in men’s preferences in the upcoming presidential election. Men who weren’t asked about spousal income until late in the survey preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in a hypothetical general election matchup by a 16-point margin; men who were asked about spousal income only a few questions before being asked about the Clinton-Trump matchup preferred Trump by an eight-point margin — a 24-point shift in preferences. The conclusion that this is about gender is reinforced by the fact that the spousal income question had no effect at all on a matchup between Trump and Bernie Sanders. Men who had been primed to think about a threat to their masculinity preferred Sanders by four points; unprimed men, by three."

From an article in Harvard Business Review by polisci prof Dan Cassino, published in April. (I'm posting this because a colleague posted it on Facebook and I got into a long back-and-forth about it.)

71 comments:

surfed said...

Anytime she wants to make more money than me and fund my expensive hobbies I'm thinking that's a good to go option. But the hypergamy thing would kick in and she'd be psychicaly unhappy.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Are these dudes the same ones who are opposed to the PC police?

If so, is anyone shocked that they're so weak-minded and sensitive that just under the surface they feel that they're loser-men who can't compete on a level playing field w/ gals?

Are these the uneducated, low income folks flocking to DJT? Is it educated, successful men who are moving toward HRC that don't give different responses after income-disparity-priming?

Terry said...

This is one of those absurd "studies" where the results were pre-determined by the researchers, and can't really be proven or disproven, e.g., it's politics, not 'political science.'
Lemme give you a facetious example:
"Men who were shown a picture of a can of beer and then were shown pictures of women displayed greater hostility in their interactions with women than men who were shown pictures of a glass of wine before being shown pictures of women. This research suggests that beer causes spousal abuse, and policy makers should look at passing a beer tax, with the proceeds used to support womens' shelters."

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"(I'm posting this because a colleague posted it on Facebook and I got into a long back-and-forth about it.)"

Is this disclosure meant to blunt any hurt feelings? Presumably, the demographic that reads Althouse probably has its fair share of DJT fans who fit this subconsciously scared, unable to compete w/ gals in a fair market type of dude. As this study shows, Althouse (as a gal) wouldn't want to poke the feeble-minded, unable to perform bear.

mezzrow said...

Rhymes with drunk science.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

There's no dispute that polling shows educated, successful men moving to HRC while the poors and uneducateds are going toward Trump.

Why would the results of this sort of study be unexpected?

Birkel said...

I like milk with my PB&J.

This PBandJ only offers bigotry as a side dish and my tastes are a bit more refined than that.

Bob Ellison said...

What would be the differential between men shown pictures of dogs v. men shown pics of cats?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Not only are the poors and uneducateds drawn to DJT because they know they can't compete in a fair matchup w/ women, but these dudes don't possess thinking skills. W/o thinking skills these dudes are susceptible to DJT claiming that he can perform miracles such as ending all crime and violence in America on the day he's sworn in. The poors and uneducateds believe that DJT can perform miracles that will improve their lives. Since their lack of hard work and their own limited abilities aren't getting it done, DJT as miracle worker is appealing. We already knew this because it's in the demographic cross tabs associated w/ the POTUS polls.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"This PBandJ only offers bigotry as a side dish and my tastes are a bit more refined than that."

I offer the anti-PC POV, just like Clint.

Clint doesn't think we should coddle people who blame others for their own lack of success. DJT voters can't hide behind the PC police, according to Clint.

Birkel said...

Two groups the Democrats win consistently: the very wealthy and the poor.

But what I need is more bigotry from the Left.

rehajm said...

Leftie study of men finds men are bad.

rehajm said...

...like Catholic school, where girls are good and boys are bad.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Bickel,

This time some poors and uneducateds are shifting toward DJT. At the same time, there's some movement of educated, higher dough Rs toward HRC.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Birkel,

It's not bigotry to acknowledge reality.


dbp said...

I think the study has at least one pretty obvious flaw. Every poll has shown men favor Trump over Hillary, usually by a lot. So this survey gives Hillary the lead by 16% when the subject does not see the income question? The polls don't have an income question, so why do they show men constantly in favor of Trump?

Either the sample is not very representative of US men, or there is some other problem with with the study design.

Ann Althouse said...

"Is this disclosure meant to blunt any hurt feelings? Presumably, the demographic that reads Althouse probably has its fair share of DJT fans who fit this subconsciously scared, unable to compete w/ gals in a fair market type of dude. As this study shows, Althouse (as a gal) wouldn't want to poke the feeble-minded, unable to perform bear."

The disclosure is:

1. The old "hat tip." I didn't find this myself.

2. A substitute for my writing some opinion here myself and a push to you to run with it.

3. An enticement that I have a lot of stuff that I might give you later.

Birkel said...

PBandJ is confused about the meaning of a word.

The poor will still vote for Democrats. Democrats will make sure they stay poor.

Eleanor said...

My take on it is when men are made to think about making less money than their spouse, the pantywaists realize they don't want to spend the next four years being compared to an alpha male like Trump. It's safer to vote for your mother.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Btw, does a study like this alter the Scott Adams POV?

If a segment of men subconsciously recoil when confronted w/ their own inadequacy in a free market where women are allowed to compete w/o hinderance, there isn't any sort of master persuader mojo going on.

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

"Similarly, in the housework study the men generally spent less time doing housework, but some subgroups spent more time cooking, an activity that’s become perceived as more acceptable for men over the past 15 years.

"While there is still a dominant group of behaviors that society considers appropriately masculine — what researchers call “hegemonic” masculinity — there are increasingly other ways for men to “do” masculinity. In the household that may mean redefining masculinity to include being a good father or a great cook. In politics it may mean advocating for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. It’s not yet clear what these alternative masculinities will look like in the workplace. Perhaps focusing more energy on mentorship or technical skills would give men ways to express their masculinity without excluding or harassing women, creating a workplace that’s healthier for everyone."

Do these authors live on planet Earth?

Lyssa said...

I'd be interested to see the back-and-forth with AA's colleague. I agree with the commenters suggesting that this seems dubious.

CWJ said...

PB&J wrote -

"There's no dispute that polling shows educated, successful men moving to HRC while the poors and uneducateds are going toward Trump."

Really? That's great! Finally, an R who sews up the inner city vote. Hillary should be worried.

Greg Hlatky said...

This time some poors and uneducateds are shifting toward DJT

Wow! So DJT has the Black and Hispanic vote wrapped up? Why don't we hear about this more on the news?

EDH said...

According to a different Harvard study, the source of the "gender role threat" may not be merely part of the male psyche, but instead imposed from within the marriage by the wife and from outside the marriage by a family law system that favored women.

Don’t Blame Divorce on Money. Ask: Did the Husband Have a Job?

A Harvard study finds it’s more complicated than financial strain, zeros in on the guy’s employment status.

A Harvard University study suggests that neither financial strains nor women's increased ability to get out of an unhappy marriage, starting in the 1970s, is typically the main reason for a split.

The big factor, Harvard sociology professor Alexandra Killewald found, is the husband's employment status. For the past four decades, she discovered, husbands who aren’t employed full time have a 3.3 percent chance of getting divorced in any given year, compared with 2.5 percent for husbands employed full time. In other words, their marriages are one-third more likely to break up.

Examining 46 years of data on more than 6,300 married couples in the U.S., Killewald found a big shift in the risk of divorce in the mid-1970s. Couples married before 1975 were likelier to split up if women and men divided the housework equally, perhaps because the husband saw a threat to his traditional role in the household. Since 1975, housework hasn’t been much of a factor.

The guy's job has.

“Wives have more freedom in how they ‘do’ marriage,” Killewald said, but husbands are still expected to be the breadwinner.

The study, published in the American Sociological Review, didn't include same-sex couples. Nor did it address men who choose to stay home with the kids. The vast majority of men without a full-time job in the sample were involuntarily unemployed.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/don-t-blame-divorce-on-money-ask-did-the-husband-have-a-job

rhhardin said...

Amazon was suggesting a series of madder-than-hell-at-rape gung-ho action women DVDs yesterday, a genre I hadn't heard of and they hadn't suggested before.

I don't suppose they have a scene when the madder-than-hell woman punches the guy and instead of him flying across the room he flattens her, which is more or less what happens.

The mention of man vs woman on a level playing field brings up the thought.


rhhardin said...

Chivalry is politicized today. Only the state can be chivalrous.

Ken B said...

Survey science is always bullshit. There is bullshit lurking here too: experimenter effects, or small sample, or reporting bias or ...

rhhardin said...

Can any other level playing fields where men to better than women be thought of.

rhhardin said...

An Armstrong and Getty producer got the California candidate form and for his occupation chose "social media influencer." Today's show at 6:15am PDST.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Maybe a question that gets people thinking about income gets them thinking about how the Clintons earned so much, and the level of corruption that entails. Thinking about corrupt Hillary makes them more likely to vote for Trump.

rhhardin said...

The state has taken over kindness too.

rhhardin said...

Being a gentleman so far is state-free. That's a corner of chivalry they haven't managed to deal with.

rhhardin said...

The female equivalent of being a gentleman is grace. The state doesn't manage that either.

rhhardin said...

For the first time in my life I'm proud of my country. A fine example of ill grace.

Hagar said...

Do these authors live on planet Earth?

No. They are university faculty.

Fernandinande said...

rehajm said...
Leftie study of men finds men are bad.


I think the correct technical term is "naughty". You can tell that was the aim since they didn't ask women the same questions.

Femininity is a fragile thing. Volumes of research in sociology and political science over the past 20 years have shown that women often react in surprisingly strong ways to what they see as threats to their feminine identities. These reactions are most visible in the political world, but they can take place at home and in the office as well, and can potentially contribute to a toxic work environment.

Just as women can symbolically reinforce their femininity by doing more housework or supporting Hillary Clinton, they can respond to the threat posed by a male manager by filing a lawsuit.

While there is still a dominant group of behaviors that society considers appropriately feminine — what researchers call “hegemonic” femininity — there are increasingly other ways for women to “do” femininity. In the household that may mean redefining femininity to include being a neglectful mother or changing the car's oil. In politics it may mean advocating for special rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and especially women.

madAsHell said...

Men who weren’t asked about spousal income until late in the survey preferred Hillary Clinton

Bullshit! No man wants to listen to Hillary for the next 4 years. Hell, Bill doesn't prefer Hillary.

Terry said...

Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
There's no dispute that polling shows educated, successful men moving to HRC while the poors and uneducateds are going toward Trump.

Why would the results of this sort of study be unexpected?

Interesting use of adjectives. Why not say 'establishment" for 'educated, successful' and 'anti-establishment' for 'poors and uneducateds.'
Some of the poorest, least educated demographics in the country will be voting en masse for establishment candidate Hillary Clinton (e.g Blacks and Hispanics).

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Biff said...

Alternative hypothesis: men don't think about gender politics as an important issue in presidential elections unless being prompted to think of it.

n.n said...

Being the breadwinner has been the linchpin of men in the natural world since time immemorial. Whereas women were the breadwinners at home, men were employed in marketable occupations... to pay the king and queen's taxes. This changed with the female chauvinist revolution, where babies were excised from civilized society, the ancient rites of abortion were resumed, and corporations (e.g. Planned Parenthood) started channeling Mengele for fun and profit.

The choice to avoid reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives has had disastrous consequences for couples, families, society, and civilization. But, it has been good for government revenue, democratic leverage, parasites in the legal and psychiatric industries, immigration reform, the abortion industry, and the spare parts industry.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

"Breadwinner" is a pretty weird way to describe the person who brings home the bacon.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

Some women will vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Why would any man vote for Hillary?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

If the man's the breadwinner.

And he brings home the bacon.

And his wife is one cute tomato.

Well, I think everyone can see where I'm going with this.

Bruce Hayden said...

Changing roles is inevitable, given family sizes and education patterns. At the highest incomes, it remains married men and single, or at least childless, women. Making things worse though, education in the lower levels has been heavily feminized, making it almost inevitable that girls are going to keep increasing their lead as they enter college, which is becoming more feminized too, as a result. We see this in the move towards group projects in STEM, and even in all the SJW nonsense we are seeing in colleges right now. Maybe nowhere is it more evident than in the fake campus rape crisis on campuses. Lena Dunham got caught lying about being sexually assaulted in college, so was allowed to lie about being a sexual assault victim at the DNC. When my grandmothers were in college 90 years ago, they were a rarity, and even more so when one of them got an MBA, and a great aunt got a masters in mathematics at Columbia. I think that my grandsons, if I ever have any of my own, or maybe great grandsons, may find a reverse situation in college. The problem is that we have moved to a knowledge economy, and advanced knowledge can really only be certified by rapidly feminizing academia.

What worries me about roles is looking at the Black communities in the inner cities, where the women tend to be better educated and make more money in legitimate enterprises. A lot of women living single. But also a lot of them having children with the alpha males in the area. I suspect that the Baby Daddy phenomenon is at least partly a result of this dynamic. My theory is that we developed (mostly) monogamy and pair bonding to better support females having and raising children. But, if the females themselves, along with their Uncle Sugar, can raise their children without a husband, and esp here, where any husband they find will be less educated and probably making less money, why have a husband? Why not go out and breed with the guys with alpha genes, and then raise the kids themselves? The problem there is what happens to the males, who a generation ago would have been husbands, helping raise their own children? And, I think that we see the answer to this in these communities - the young males fight and die, with those who avoid that fate, along with prison, fathering the next generation as Baby Daddies. Which is a waste of a lot of good males.

Part of this problem is that women have always been, on average, more interested in their own well being, than men, and less willing to sacrifice for the good of the community. Guys have to be willing to sacrifice more because they are the disposable sex. The sex that has always been sacrificed to protect the community. The answer, at least in part, is to glorify more the types of jobs that guys do better. And to train them for it. When we were in HS, those not college bound could go on a vo-tech track, where they could learn skilled trades that they would be better at. These have all but disappeared across much of the country. The funny thing is, that probably the most successful people I know from growing up, dropped out of college. One was a contractor who got his start as a painter (and I was his assistant). By 40, he was the general contractor for the largest buildings in the county. Another made his fortune in 2nd hand clothes, and a third did it in car repair. And, then there is Bill Gates. We need more good plumbers and electricians than we do more psych majors from college. And women have to realize that we need to pay more for the stuff that they don't want to do, khan the jobs that they are happy to take. Comparable Worth is one of the worst things that we could implement (which is why Crooked Hillary has promised it).

Bruce Hayden said...

Some women will vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Why would any man vote for Hillary?

They want to be a woman?

Maybe more seriously, because they want what most guys want, which is to get laid, and figure that is the best way to accomplish it. And, yes, there are older leftists out there, like maybe Cook and Freder here, who have drunk the Koolaid long enough that they don't see her danger. Talked to a good friend yesterday who happens to be Jewish (and strongly pro-Israel). He called up to tell me that one of our fraternity brothers had died, and something about Trump. I asked him, at some point, whether Israel was safer or less safe after eight years of Obama (whom he voted for). Less safe. Does he want four years of putting its security in her hands, after all the times that she has been documented to have taken money from Muslims, in exchange for favorable foreign policy decisions on her part? His response was to direct me to the nude pictures of Melania and the Gold Star Muslim family. Etc. So, it isn't just sex. I think part of it is also group solidarity, which for many is more important than logic. Tribalism.

Howard said...

Men wouldn't care if the old lady would be fine with it. Unfortunately, if the ball and chain makes more than the man, she immediately wants a bigger earner

Fernandinande said...

Eric the Fruit Bat said...
Well, I think everyone can see where I'm going with this.


BLT - Bacon Lives Tomato. Lettuce prey.

Unknown said...

Well, I think everyone can see where I'm going with this.

If you'll lettuce.

Hagar said...

Had a 40 hours a week job once. Did not care much for it.

Birches said...

Could it be that asking the question about spousal income causes the respondent to interpret the entire poll differently? Spouse is currently answering all surveys because he wants Gary Johnson on the debate stage. But once he starts a poll and they start asking weird push poll questions he becomes annoyed and answers differently.

rehajm said...

husbands who aren’t employed full time have a 3.3 percent chance of getting divorced in any given year, compared with 2.5 percent for husbands employed full time. In other words, their marriages are one-third more likely to break up.

Only if those other words are: I'm really bad with numbers.

tim in vermont said...

My wife has out earned me practically every year of our long marriage, it isn't really a problem. But then again, I earned a pretty good paycheck myself when I was working full time, and had a responsible job where people respected me, so I think that was the key to her, that I have a job she could respect, not necessarily make more money than her. Not just a job she could respect, but one her girlfriends approved of as fitting employment for a husband.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Birkel,

It's not bigotry to acknowledge reality.


Counterpoint (fatal one): "Minority group X has incarceration rates that are 5 times higher than non-minority group Y because minority group X commits crimes at a rate 5 times greater than minority group Y. That's a fact." We all know that statement would be denounced as bigotry and racism before the speaker had taken their next breath...so right now it definitely is bigotry to acknowledge reality.

You asked yesterday what harm "PC culture" does, and that's one example right there.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

My Mom out earned my Dad in at least the last 8-10 years of his work history. He's retired now and she's still working. She makes more than I do. I'm proud of her! My Dad and I agree she's underpaid.

Dad's a pretty masculine guy, though, and as you can tell I'm all man, so maybe we're immune to this "dudes are scared of and get defensive about women making more than them" problem. Probably genetic.

mockturtle said...

I doubt that very many men would feel threatened by their wives earning higher incomes. My husband, who was considerably older than I, retired several years before I did and enjoyed playing golf every day while I worked. He wasn't the least bit insecure about it. ;-)

HoodlumDoodlum said...

rehajm said...Only if those other words are: I'm really bad with numbers.

3.3 - 2.5 = .08 .08/2.5 = 0.32 ~33%. Right? Or do you mean they should have said "a 1/3 greater chance of breaking up in a given year?" Or are you questioning the causal basis of that numerical relationship?

Yancey Ward said...

This study literally screams bullshit to me. Where, exactly, did the study find men who, as a group, favored Clinton by 16%? Every poll I have seen outside this study shows Trump with a large margin among men as a group.

buwaya said...

The human animal nature, coded in to both male and female, will rarely permit a successful pair-bond between low status males and high status females, and the block here is on the female side. There isn't much of a block on the male, as it is not difficult to find cultural memes that encourage this. In Spain, for instance, it was said that every mans ambition was to marry a Duchess. This is seen across European history, of men using such marriages (or mistresses, see Marlboroughs liaison with Barbara Villiers, or Manuel Godoy and the Queen of Spain) to leverage their rise.

The obvious solution (the only real option long term, assuming the persistence of modern memes) is polygamy.

Successful men should be permitted to, and encouraged to, attract a harem. So a future Mr. Trump would not need to marry a series of women, but many simultaneously, maintaining a stable family.

Successful women can enter such a harem, which can provide not only the woman's instinctive need to seek status, but also family support (by the other women) so she may be encouraged to breed.

It will also "spread the wealth" a good deal, in that attractive (as mating prospects) alpha males can supply the family needs of many women without exploiting them, as they do now.

It also is likely to reduce inequality, as males mate selection is not constrained by social status anywhere near as much as with females. A poor but attractive girl has far better mating prospects with high status males than vice versa.

And it will provide effective paternal support for the many children of such marriages, again "spreading the wealth" of the high status male.

That would solve several problems, such as dysgenics and perhaps also the low birth rate.

As for the "surplus" males, well, one has the Arabic solution, of utility as cannon fodder, or some extreme selection process with high casualties.

Or, perhaps, we can conclude that the old human ways (most of them) were best, and the modern messing with nature is, overall, sub-optimal.

mockturtle said...

Or, perhaps, we can conclude that the old human ways (most of them) were best, and the modern messing with nature is, overall, sub-optimal.

Indeed. :-)

Joe said...

Many men have worked for women like Hillary Clinton and detested it. So have women, but they don't see it the same way (for reasons that utterly baffle me.) There are exceptions: when young, I once worked for an opportunistic woman, to put it kindly, but gave her the benefit of a doubt until her female secretary told me that I was being naive.

rehajm said...

rehajm said...Only if those other words are: I'm really bad with numbers.

Just a few likely errors...

Mathematical difference that's demonstrable but too small to be of importance. A difference is a difference only if it makes a difference

The conclusion falls within the standard error.

The conclusion falls within the measurement error.

Presenting data mixing fractions and percentages.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

rehjam said...The conclusion falls within the standard error.

The conclusion falls within the measurement error.


Oh, that's fair, I haven't gone through the actual study myself and as another commenter pointed out such survey-based support is notoriously weak.
Thanks for the clarification.

Larvell said...

OK, the conclusion drawn by Mr. Cassino -- i.e., that men who otherwise prefer Hillary somehow become Trump supporters when subconsciously presented with the mere thought that some wives might earn more than their husbands -- seems so counterintuitive that one should require a bit more evidence than one phone survey. I mean, the fact that men who were asked the spousal question later in the survey preferred Hillary by a 16-point margin by itself should make one question the representative nature of that group, since there's no way men in general support Hillary by 16 points. If Mr. Cassino were more interested in truth than in headlines (which seems doubtful, since the headline he chose for his press release was "Thought of a Woman President Rattles Male Voters in New Jersey"), he might try to repeat the survey a few times and see if he replicated the results, and also see if a different placebo question also resulted in similar disparities. Reading the article, however, makes me suspect he is more interested in drawing conclusions that support his worldview than in actually determining reality.

Larvell said...

Going through the tables in the survey, 50% of the respondents identified as Democrat, and only 30% as Republican. I would bet dollars to donuts that the Republicans were underrepresented in the group who was asked the salary question at the end, and the Democrats were underrepresented in the other group, and that this explains a lot of the disparity in the Trump vs. Hillary responses. Curiously, the study does not provide that information, which makes me even more suspicious. There are all sorts of possible explanations for the disparity in responses, but Mr. Cassino seems strangely uninterested in any possible explanation other than "men are scared of women making more."

Rusty said...

Marriage is a partnership. It's not a matter of who makes what, but on how the kids get raised. if you're keeping score perhaps marriage isn't for you.

mockturtle said...

Well said, Rusty!