A new scientific study has discovered that men who have “traditional” marriages (i.e., their wife does not work) have negative attitudes about women in the workplace, don’t like organizations with female leaders, think organizations with lots of women are inefficient, and tend not to promote qualified women to positions of greater responsibility. And they largely do this unconsciously. In other words, they don’t necessarily articulate the above views, or even rationalize them. Many consider themselves as very woman-friendly. They often feel that they are protecting women by not putting them in high pressure situations.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with ‘traditional’ marriage. I don’t like their definition, but whatever. If you’re fortunate enough to make enough money that your spouse doesn’t have to work and can stay home with the kids, that’s great. But it’s interesting that men in those scenarios take certain prejudices into the workplace and that those prejudices are detrimental to the interests of working women.
This may explain why Mitt Romney needs to ask his wife what women care about instead of learning that for himself. His wife has never worked a day in her life (and, no, I will not apologize for saying that). So, what does Romney think when he goes to work?
The studies showed that personal views and the domestic architecture of male leaders’ private lives helped shape women’s professional opportunities. This held true in both surveys and lab experiments, including one that tested whether candidates with identical backgrounds, but different names — Drew versus Diane — should receive a spot in a sought-after, company-sponsored MBA program. According to the research, men in traditional marriages gave Diane “significantly poor evaluations” compared to Drew. It seems that husbands with wives working at home imprinted that ideal onto women in the office.
Michelle Obama had a very successful career before she had to shut it down to be First Lady. Jill Biden has been teaching courses at a community college even though she is the Second Lady. What do you want to bet that Romney picks a man for his running mate who has a stay-at-home wife?
It should be noted that this is not necessarily a cause and effect type of relationship. I know couples where, from a finacial point of view, it would make sense for both to be working but where the husband will not allow it to happen, as it would represent, somehow, an emasculating of him.
This sense of masculinity carries over into the workplace. And the men in these situations are not only protecting their own masculinity in the workplace, but also the masculinity of the other men there as well.
The actual study suggests they do it on purpose.
Abstract:
In this article, we examine a heretofore neglected pocket of resistance to the gender revolution in the workplace: married male employees who have stay-at-home wives. We develop and empirically test the theoretical argument suggesting that such organizational members, compared to male employees in modern marriages, are more likely to exhibit attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that are harmful to women in the workplace. To assess this hypothesis, we conducted four studies with a total of 718 married, male participants. We found that employed husbands in traditional marriages, compared to those in modern marriages, tend to (a) view the presence of women in the workplace unfavorably, (b) perceive that organizations with higher numbers of female employees are operating less smoothly, (c) find organizations with female leaders as relatively unattractive, and (d) deny, more frequently, qualified female employees opportunities for promotion. The consistent pattern of results found across multiple studies employing multiple methods and samples demonstrates the robustness of the findings. We discuss the theoretical and practical import of our findings and suggest directions for future research.
Clear cut sexism, makes me sick. My grandmother was a machine gun belt weaver during WWII and worked most of her life as well as my 2 mothers, one an RN, and the other in banking, all were married. I come from a far different place that values women far greater.
Link
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2018259
In 2010, 36% of Republican voters were evangelical Christians.
Yep, it makes perfect sense.
What do you want to bet that Romney picks a man for his running mate who has a stay-at-home wife?
Given what religion Mittens is .. and how that religion views women .. I’d give it more than even money .. though someone on the Twitter machine the other day was trying to convince people that R-money is going to pick Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico. I think, I hope, people can figure out what the reasoning behind that was, besides proving there is no “war on women.”
I suppose I could have added if he picks a man.
it’s interesting that men in those scenarios take certain prejudices into the workplace
I think this gets the causation backwards. Who are these men who have wives that don’t work? We’re not talking about a random sample of the population, plopped into an unusual marital/professional situation, and ideas developing from that.
Might it be better said that men with certain prejudices about the workplace take those into their marriages?
A longitudinal study would answer that question, but based on my observations among white collar and professional types, sexism in the workplace increases as the number of “stay at home mommies” spouses increases. A very different dynamic from that of say forty years ago when such privileged housewives were supportive of equal rights for women in the workplace.
What do you want to bet that Romney picks a man for his running mate who has a stay-at-home wife?
Romney’s running mate/Lt. Gov. in Massachusetts was Kerry Healy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Healey
All that says is that Willard managed to sell well in one election in MA.
And it’s no guarantee what Willard will do as the GOP nominee, since he’s appealing to a different electorate. Remember, as a candidate for any office in MA, Willard was trying to sell himself as being to the left of Ted Kennedy.
Thought that was all too obvious to need stating. Although it’s a bit discouraging to recognize how easy it was for him to game the MA electorate, guess it’s comforting to recognize that it’s not so easy at the national level.
Remember, as a candidate for any office in MA, Willard was trying to sell himself as being to the left of Ted Kennedy.
That’s not right.
Romney’s gubernatorial campaign was very different from his senatorial campaign. He did not try to run to the left of Shannon O’Brien at all.
And, frankly, you grossly distort Romney’s 1994 campaign. He most certainly did not run to the left of Ted Kennedy overall. He made one famous statement on the issue of gay rights. He ran as a moderate Republican, and tried to contrast himself with Kennedy’s alleged extremism and partisanship.
You know, back in the day, women stayed home because men made enough money that a second income wasn’t needed.
As problematic as that situation was -mainly because it was a norm, not a choice- there were definitely benefits: you didn’t have to have costly daycare; families looked out for each other (certainly on my block); there was always a parent around, even if not your personal parent. And I think it’s safe to say that when both parents work, there are drawbacks. I’d even go so far as to say that the demands made on working class adults make it less likely they’ll have planned kids. There’s been a lot of research on how the tradition of extended families among blacks and latinos has helped offset the impact of poverty.
So I would never say a stay-at-home wife has never worked, she just hasn’t worked for pay (although I agree 100% that Mitt and Ann’s outrage is a crock of shit, because she always had the choice to go to work if she wanted). For all the lip-service we hear from both parties about family values, it’s very rare to hear someone propose that a stay-at-home parent -of either sex- get a salary for the hard work of raising a child, supervising the neighbor kids, and keeping up a safe and healthy home. It seems to me the state has an interest in that: let’s face it, the most dangerous time of day for a kid is after school, before mom and dad get home from work. It wouldn’t have to be a princely sum: $35,000 would be tempting enough for me OR C to choose “parenting” as a career.
I continue to ask when the MSM is going to study the hiring practices of Willard not only when he was at Bain, but when he was GOVERNOR.
here’s a hint:
wasn’t no non-White people
and you could count the White Women on one hand.
just sayin’.