Men who hold traditional views make more money.

Post Reply New Topic

Additional: If you are into thinking "traditional" stuff, still every person able to count 1+1 will have to realize, that if he wants his wife to be at home for being his replacement-mommy, then he will be forced on his side to fix that missing income of her.

You can be as traditional as you want: If you dont earn enough for two, your wife will f**k you up, if you expect her to be full housemommy for you while being forced to work additionally fulltime, because of her traditional husband not earning enough for his traditional ideas.

Baa baa baaaa went the sheep.

Look, thanks for the compliment. It's jolly nice of you.

If you put a study up (this time without a link or reference, which is naughty - maybe I missed it), then it surely merits criticism. Its conclusion could be true.

I don't know any better, don't remember saying so. But I do know just a bit about how journalists can present information. I don't know how the media works where you are. Maybe you're not allowed to criticise it.

Why get so defensive about a 'study' you're not involved with? Oh, and I don't criticise every study. Been three so far. Is that my three gone?

If I put a study up and it was ripped to shreds, I'd be pleased.

Last edited by octobertiger on 28 Oct 2013, 11:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

I'm also willing to bet that a family with two fulltime sources of income makes far more on average than a "traditional" family with just one breadwinner.

The truly ironic thing is that, In American at least, the traditional 1950s "nuclear family" arrangement that you see so many religious traditionalists and Men's Rights guys parroting was largely a myth. Even then, "one breadwinner" arrangments were almost impossible for anyone who wasn't of the white upper/uppermiddle class persuasion. Even a turd looks good through nostalgia-colored glassess.

I wonder if it's not that holding traditional views leads men to make more money, as so much as that making more money causes them to hold more traditional views? All men in our society are exposed to varying degrees to the traditional view that men are supposed to be the breadwinners and those who are in a position to do that well might have the concept reinforced further or take pride in the fact that they can fulfill that role. Could be sort of a Chicken vs. Egg sort of a thing.

Men also take more risks, so that when they do succeed, their successes are greater. Confirmation bias makes us tend to overlook the failures in favor of that one great success that puts a man at the top.

Women, on the other hand, tend to focus on developing and strengthening cooperative relationships. Thus, success for them is not an individual matter, but rather one of shared accomplishment.

I can believe that those in the middle and lower income levels with traditional views do better simply because they are more likely to be responsible, and to have families depending on them. But those at the very top--those who really run things--are anything but traditional. Here is an excellent book on just that topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Bobos-In-Paradise ... ourgeoisie

The methodology of this study is most likely questionable (sorry Boo!), they never use a statistically sufficient sample so to get reliable confidence intervals. [I have absolutely no idea what I just said]

Anyway, for those who love studies

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEAAHJDNCMQ[/youtube]

Sounds like poetry to me!

Might skip the vid. Can you tell me the highlights of it? Thanks

It seems likely that a "traditional man" places a great emphasis on his personal value as being directly related to his income and the material standard of living he provides for himself, his wife and any family they have. He sees his role as being solely, or mainly, the income provider.

By contrast, an "egalitarian man" places more emphasis on the way he, and his wife and family, live their lives. Quality of life is about more than money, it's about time spent together, co-operation and sharing of tasks. In a more egalitarian set-up the man is more likely to seek work which enables him to spend time with his family, to be at home more, to be able to share in taking care of children and so on. So when that man seeks employment salary is not going to be his sole, or top priority. He may choose to take a lower-paying job which is closer to home, for example, or has more flexible hours, especially if they fit with his wife's working hours so that they can each spend more time with their children and each other.

Different people, with different values, make different choices. Money is not the only deciding factor for many people when it comes to a job and their life.

Marcia, how do you explain the fact that the more "traditional" parts of the country tend to be the most religious, and also have the lowest cost of living, such as the South? Conversely, the more "egalitarian" parts of the country have much higher living costs. Compare the cost of living in, say, Houston with San Francisco, or Atlanta with NYC. People in "egalitarian" parts of the country have to have much more money just to get by. It is simply cheaper to live in more "traditional" parts of the country.

I live in Scotland, so what you're saying here means nothing to me, I'm afraid.

I'm just looking at it from the point of view of higher or lower earnings depending on whether the man is "traditional" or "egalitarian" as mentioned in the OP. As I see it, a man in an egalitarian relationship is more likely to make a decision with his wife or partner about his job, which will take into consideration more factors than just the salary. Each individual couple will have to factor in the local circumstances and costs of living. In my country we really don't have "traditional" or "egalitarian" areas as you describe.

Had a quick google. Found study.

Study, although appearing in a generally well-respected source I must admit, is from September 2008 - just before the economic crisis hit. Dunno why this has been chosen by the OP.

There was a 40% dropout - which would leave the amount at just over 7,000. Regional variations were reported.

The method seems to involve asking people questions on four occasions between 1979 and 2005. Hmmm.

Anyway, links, for those who are interested (I am not - any evidence from 7,000 people asked four times over 26 years, with regional variations in the USA, mean nothing at all to me)

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releas ... -5-994.pdf

Article:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ ... -pays.aspx

I don't see how this information would hold to Ireland, for instance; I'd expect the men with the 'traditional' ideas to actually be making less income - I have no evidence to back this up, though.

I have a friend who bought a ten acre farm outside of Edinburgh this Spring, and he spent right at a million pounds. I've got 130 acres with a new house I would be very lucky to get half that amount for. He has to take his girlfriend very seriously, as they bought it together, and neither could afford it alone. And while I am single and own my place outright, I must say my girlfriend was involved in every step of building my new house, although I was under no obligation to. What I'm getting at is that traditional men aren't necessarily dictatorial, and especially not with making big decisions. It's part of the emphasis we place on family--the chivalry thing.

I'm guessing cost of living has a lot to do with this, particularly what Steve Sailer has termed affordable family formation. Here is how it works: You can buy a house in the small town I work in for well under a hundred grand. In the egalitarian parts of California, you would be very lucky to touch the same house for less than a half million dollars. Plus, the houses out here have decent schools; in California it's either private school or moving to a very expensive area with decent schools. (Nor am I trying to be snide; California schools are now the worst in the nation)

Factor that in, and a young couple out here can get even a modest job, buy a house, and start families young. Young people in California need to have at least a million, and probably much more, to get a house in a decent school district. Think about starting out life, with a lot of college debt, and then have to face this daunting situation.

This is why egalitarian types tend to have so few children, and so many of them remain bohemians; they just can't afford to do anything else. I would also guess that like my Scottish friend, the wife's decision is more that of a partner, since both parents have to have extremely high-paying jobs even to think about having a family.

It's certainly not worth it for me to hold traditional views, despite that there may be more money that I could make. The amount of time that traditional gender views can last is severely limited. We must not listen to the "call of greater income" because gender bias is immoral and cannot be tolerated at any cost. A main goal for us Aspies is to eliminate gender bias; a key deterrent of progress in society today. We can see through it, logically, and we are an important component of the force that will drive it away for good.

I wouldn't call 10 acres a farm to be honest. A small-holding maybe. Or somewhere for the city folks to keep their horses. Edinburgh,and area, house prices are expensive, so the bulk of their investment will be in the house rather than the land. Having said that, land prices are on the up, and their 10 acres are likely a prudent investment, even if there is no potential for it to be built on in the future.

I agree with you that "traditional" does not mean dictatorial. I didn't mean to give that impression, and I apologise if I did.

My cousin lives in Edinburgh and paid £1.5 million for her house. I suppose her family set-up is "traditional with a twist". She is the sole earner, and although I have no idea how much she earns I do know that she didn't have to borrow money to buy that house. When she and her partner met they both worked for the same international company and they decided that he would give up work so that she could pursue her career. At that time she had been offered a position in South America and there was no job there for him.

Traditional men don't have to deal with the same kind of problems they can worry about their career and family when they need to instead of having a wife or significant other complaining about every stupid little problem. This is why western cultures are falling so fare behind and everyone is losing faith in our abilities to compete in the world market.