Chauvinist Piggishness Pays

Men who believe that a woman's place is in the home make thousands of dollars per year more than their liberated counterparts. Karen Hopkin reports, with additional commentary by Christopher Hopkin

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

So I’m having dinner with my two-year-old son. When he clears his plate, he says to me, “Get in the kitchen. I want more.” Get in the kitchen, I want more? I should have been appalled. But I’d just read a study published in the September issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology. In it, scientists from the University of Florida showed that men who hold a more traditional view of women in the workplace earn more than those who don’t.

The scientists asked more than 10,000 men and women what they think about “a woman’s place” at work and at home. And they compared the participants’ earnings. Turns out that men who, like my toddler, feel that a woman’s place is in the kitchen made an average of $8,500 more a year than those who believe in equal pay for equal work. And women who believe in traditional gender roles make $1,500 less than their liberated sisters.

For old fashioned gals, the smaller checks may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As for the guys, maybe men whose wives stay at home can afford to be more aggressive in their pursuit of high-paying jobs. Either way, I hope my son keeps up the good work. Because he’s gonna be supporting me when I retire.

—Karen Hopkin, assisted by Christopher Hopkin 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe