In a year when a feminist female candidate didn't make it on her party's presidential ticket while a woman with more traditional views about gender differences did, the results of a new study indicating that so-called "sexist" men make more money than their "egalitarian" counterparts should evoke interesting responses from a liberal media assuming it gets much coverage at all.
In fact, the opening paragraphs of LiveScience's article on this study might spark spirited debate all on their own (emphasis added):
Men who believe in traditional roles for women earn more money than their more forward-thinking counterparts, finds a new study.
The results suggest the gender pay gap, documented in previous research, is more than an economic phenomenon. [...]
Results showed that men who reported having more traditional gender role attitudes made an average of about $8,500 more annually than those who had less traditional attitudes.
As this is a new study, there hasn't been a lot of mainstream reporting on it yet. However, the Washington Post has already weighed in, and might give us some insight as to how liberal press outlets will report the study's findings:
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.
Yep: wage disparity is all because of sexist men.
Honestly, did we need a full-blown psychological study for liberal media outlets to come to this conclusion?
On the other hand, in trying to make this case, the Post made a fatal error:
Alternatively, it could also be that employers discriminate against women and men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles.
Um, no, because the study showed that women who subscribe to traditional gender roles make less than "feminist" women. As such, if employers discriminated against "feminist women," those with more traditional views would make more money.
Somehow this logic eluded the agenda-driven Post.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Excellent!
September 22, 2008 - 09:38 ET by Dr_LibertyWhere can I send my resume?
And P.S. -- Looking forward to a new MNF Thread tonight, though I won't be on until the second half. Go Bolts!
<insert witty signature here>
Well..
September 22, 2008 - 09:43 ET by T-Bone Massthen I am due for a raise.
On a more serious note...
September 22, 2008 - 09:47 ET by Dr_LibertyThis is a classic example of self-selection that the enlightened media (or really, really, really smart academics) can't seem to understand.
Many in the academic world wring their hands over the fact that universities are graduating more male engineering majors than women engineering majors and they go to great lengths to correct this, usually to no effect. The conclusion of these really, really, really smart academics that get interviewed by the enlightened media is that engineering departments actively discriminate against women. But with all the bending over backwards (more like forward and grabbing the ankles) that these departments do, this is a laughable conclusion.
The simple fact is that a vastly higher percentage of men enter the engineering major and hence more men graduate from such departments. Duh. This might have something to do with legos -- my son loves building with them, but the local girls would rather play dress up. So, my guess is that some professions -- like engineering and oil rig working -- tend to attract more men. These job also command higher wages/salaries. I would bet that women engineers and roughnecks also make big bucks.
I need to train the media in basic research methodology (and apparently the dopes who did this study).
<insert witty signature here>
And it all has to do with
September 22, 2008 - 10:10 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAnd it all has to do with the fact that men and women are genetically wired differently.
That's why boys are drawn to guns, cars, danger, loud noises, sports, and women (not necessarily in that order).
That's why girls are drawn to dolls, tea parties, flowers, kittens, musicals, and men (again, not necessarily in that order).
It has nothing to do with discrimination.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
It has everything to do
September 22, 2008 - 17:48 ET by ThisnThatIt has everything to do with discrimination. Look at the synomyns of discrimination: discernment, taste, acumen, perception. Look at the definition of "discriminate": to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately.
I discriminate every day. I'm sure most other people do, too. It's only when you back off from discrimiation that you get into trouble. And when you have these people who are always looking for an excuse meet the people who think their discrimination is wrong, then you get metrosexuals, or whatever.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Scientists
September 22, 2008 - 09:48 ET by GothampcI feel sorry for any male scientists that were involved in this study. Their names and reputations will be smeared to no end. Much like the anti-global warming scientitsts, people won't bother to analyze the study, they will smear the messengers.
Quite the contrary
September 22, 2008 - 11:01 ET by Dr_LibertyTwo points:
1) This research report supports the general narrative within academia that there is a gender gap based upon sexist discrimination, so the male scholars are basically on safe ground with their findings;
and
2) The male scholars are probably sissies anyways.
<insert witty signature here>
Gotham...
September 22, 2008 - 15:44 ET by Clear thinkerYou have obviously spent time at Real Climate.
Liberals Latest Important Issue
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Traditional "gender" role?
September 22, 2008 - 11:07 ET by CobraMan"Results showed that men who reported having more traditional gender role attitudes made an average of about $8,500 more annually than those who had less traditional attitudes."
Could this "gap" be indicative that "men who reported having more traditional gender role attitudes" tend to be married in greater numbers than men who do NOT follow traditional gender roles? It is known that married men earn more than single men do. Even the "study" indicated that married men make more than single men do, and that the same was true of married WOMEN! I believe that this is due to the fact that married men and women are proven to be able to stay committed to a goal. I know that an employer would rather attract and keep employees that have a proven ability to stay committed to a goal, and I would be willing to pay MORE to those employees that have shown that they can be so committed as to stay married to someone.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Assertiveness
September 22, 2008 - 11:12 ET by Wildcatter1980I suspect this study is more a reflection of people's assertiveness. The so-called "sexist" men and "feminist" women are likely to be more assertive people compared to the so-called "feminist" men and "traditional" women. The assertives are more likely to take chances on something or argue more assertively for what they believe or favor not to mention being more willing to ask for raises relative to the their not-so-assertive counterparts.
Men should not be "Feminists"...
September 22, 2008 - 15:19 ET by thebronze...period.
thebronze... Agreed! All
September 22, 2008 - 15:42 ET by Clear thinkerthebronze...
Agreed! All this sissy crap that feminists have taught their male counterparts over the years is harmful to society as a whole. And besides, it's just plain stupid.
Liberals Latest Important Issue
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Palin is more of a man than Biden.. Therefore, she should
September 22, 2008 - 15:36 ET by JTPearn the full $211,100 and Biden should earn around $195,500 if he were elected? Makes sense to me.
I need more cowbell!" SNL
'Sexist' Men Make More Money Than 'Feminist' Men
September 22, 2008 - 15:50 ET by SlicksterAs it should be.
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
September 22, 2008 - 16:04 ET by SocratesSimply because greater income and more traditional values are associated doesn't mean that the values lead to the income.
It could very well be that making more money leads one to be less 'progressive'.
But it appears that women with more traditional values make less. That might be because these women would rather do mom stuff than climb the corporate ladder.
So we have another suggested conclusion: feminist men would rather do mom stuff than dad stuff.
As a former single father, I have to say that the sitting on my behind 'parenting' was fun and rewarding and all of that, but the paycheck for sitting on that behind really sucked.
What you said
September 22, 2008 - 16:08 ET by Mike BatesCum Hoc, Erho Propter Hoc
Didn't know they allowed language like that on here.
Blank look
September 22, 2008 - 16:17 ET by SocratesWhat, Latin? :-P
Inquam is, proinde is must exsisto verus
September 22, 2008 - 21:07 ET by CobraManInquam is, proinde is must exsisto verus.
This IS the MSM mantra, is it not?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade