A study has found that men who believe in traditional roles for women earn significantly more money than those who see women as an equal.
The study, to be published in the September issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, is proof that pay differences between men and women can be attributed to more than just economics.
After analyzing inteviews with nearly 8,000 individuals, researchers found that men with traditional attitudes about gender earned $11,930 more than men with egalitarian attitudes and $14,404 more than women with traditional attitudes. The comparisons were based on men and women working with the same levels of education working the same kinds of jobs at the same number of hours.
"We actually thought maybe men with traditional attitudes work in more complex jobs that pay more or select higher-paying occupations,"study co-author Beth A. Livingston told the Washington Post. "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."
Participants answered questions about how strongly they agreed or disagreed with statements such as a woman's place is in the home; a man should be the achiever outside the home; and women are much happier if they stay home and take care of the children.
The study also found that even when other factors such as industry, occupation, hours worked and number of children, the results remained the same.
"In general if your interest is to reduce the gender wage gap, then teaching your children and adhering to non-traditional attitudes toward gender roles is the way to go," Livingston told LiveScience.com. "If that's your goal, we have to work on promoting less traditional attitudes toward gender."
I would like to know how many working women bring home more than $1,000 net per month after paying for childcare, a second vehicle (with insurance, registration, gas, maintenance, etc.), a professional wardrobe, the higher taxes, the money lost by not being able to shop for bargains, and the endless incidentals such as Starbucks on the way to the office, lunch with the boss, gifts for colleagues, and take-out for dinner because mom is too tired to cook after a long day at the office. Again, I stand by my observation that the majority of working women do not bring in any extra income, but rather often lose money by working.
If a couple is childless through no fault of their own, or if the lady is older and all her kids are grown, I could see why maybe she would like some outside diversion such as a job. But I would like to ask all happily working mothers: why in the world would you pay money to spend less time with your children? Why would you run yourself ragged trying to juggle everything only to find in a few years from now that it just can't be done?
I wonder if Ms. Palin would trade her career for not having her teenage daughter pregnant out of wedlock, but sadly, I don't think she would. I am fairly certain she is convinced the one had nothing to do with the other.