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.