Men with sexist views earn more money

[eek.]

<TABLE class=storycontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Men with sexist views 'earn more'


</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storybody><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

Sexist - and rich?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA --><!-- S SF -->
Men who grow up thinking women should stay at home may be labelled "old-fashioned" - but could end up well ahead in the salary stakes.
A US study, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, suggests that they will consistently out-earn more "modern-thinking" men.
On average, this meant an extra $8,500 (£4,722) a year.
One UK psychologist said men inclined to wield power in their relationships might also do this at work. <!-- E SF -->
<!-- S IBOX --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=231 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>

It could be that more traditionally-minded men are interested in power, both in terms of access to resources - money in this case - and also in terms of a woman who is submissive

Dr Magdalena Zawisza
Winchester University

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IBOX -->
The study, carried out by researchers at the University of Florida, was conducted on a large scale, with 12,686 men and women interviewed in 1979, when they were aged between 14 and 22, and three times in the following two decades, the last time in 2005.
The researchers asked them whether they believed a woman's place was in the home, or whether the employment of women was likely to lead to higher rates of juvenile delinquency.
Predictably, more men tended to hold these views than women, although the gap has narrowed significantly over time.
However, when the men were asked about their salaries, another gap emerged, with those holding "traditional" views earning significantly more.
Conversely, women who held the opposite view did earn slightly more, on average $1,500 (£833) more than women with "traditional" views.
Dr Timothy Judge, one of the researchers, said: "More traditional people may be seeking to preserve the historical separation of work and domestic roles - our results prove that is, in fact, the case."
HAVE YOUR SAY

There are also a lot of men who have gained good positions and are not sexist​

Jhonsie, Exeter
<!-- S ILIN -->Send us your comments
<!-- E ILIN -->


Dr Magdalena Zawisza, a psychologist from Winchester University, said that there were a number of theories which might explain the difference. She said: "It could be that more traditionally-minded men are interested in power, both in terms of access to resources - money in this case - and also in terms of a woman who is submissive. "Another theory suggests that employers are more likely to promote men who are the sole earner in preference to those who do not - they recognise that they need more support for their families, because they are the breadwinner."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7625173.stm

 

[DarrylParsons]

It's pretty obvious that someone who believes they are responsible for their family will work harder than someone who doesn't.

This theory is total BS, though:

"Another theory suggests that employers are more likely to promote men who are the sole earner in preference to those who do not - they recognise that they need more support for their families, because they are the breadwinner."

Corporations promote people who are more likely to bring profits, not those who are needy.

It's a shame that taxpayers have to support studies that state the obvious, especially when the people doing the study can't even reach the obvious conclusion after the study is done.

 

[quantumleap]

It's pretty obvious that someone who believes they are responsible for their family will work harder than someone who doesn't.

This theory is total BS, though:

"Another theory suggests that employers are more likely to promote men who are the sole earner in preference to those who do not - they recognise that they need more support for their families, because they are the breadwinner."

Corporations promote people who are more likely to bring profits, not those who are needy.

It's a shame that taxpayers have to support studies that state the obvious, especially when the people doing the study can't even reach the obvious conclusion after the study is done.

I have to disagree with you here Darryl, one of the very few times I ever have. Managers in corporations promote people who they get along with more than they promote people who will be an asset to the company. I've heard of many companies run into the ground (including the one where I am working now) because the management brings in incompetent people (even those who have bankrupted companies before) only because they are friends with that person.

The Peter Principle outlines some of the politics that go along with companies. Politics is what rules in the business world today, not competency or common sense. You see, managers are oftentimes insecure people, that's why they become managers so they can be in control. So they surround themselves with people they get along with more than someone who is competent.

I have also had the experience of getting let go while a less competent person is kept on only because he had a family and I was single. So I can see where it can happen that men who are the sole earner in the family are kept over a man who has his wife working. I realize my own personal experience is not proof that this happens, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[DarrylParsons]

OK QL fair enough. I suppose that type of thing is on the rise these days. I should have said successful corporations in a free market. Since we don't have free markets anymore, the rules are a bit different now.

I still say we don't need a taxpayer-funded study to state the obvious, though.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Another source of bias of mine, besides the long time that has passed, is that last time I worked for a company, I was in charge of HR, and I hung out with other HR guys who were like me (no bullshit policy on cronyism, make everyone accountable etc.). But I remember we were in the minority ... most HR types either had no say in what goes on, or somehow wasn't bothered by all the BS, just pushing papers without thinking too much.

 

[Willie99]

I'm guessing men that let their wives support them can't exactly have sexest views, eh?

I wonder where men that let their mamas support them fall?

 

[Dave007inVegas]

I'm guessing men that let their wives support them can't exactly have sexest views, eh?

I wonder where men that let their mamas support them fall?

I believe they called pimps. Not bad work if you can get it.