3 ms·

Edit/Update: I apologize, I misread the paper. There are 5 different studies/experiments of varying quality. I'm going to read this paper more closely to look a

by MollyR 12y ago

Edit/Update: I apologize, I misread the paper. There are 5 different studies/experiments of varying quality. I'm going to read this paper more closely to look at the the participates of all five. I left the unedited comments below. First I like to say the paper's statistics and analysis based on the data they use seem pretty good to me. But . . . However I find the paper disappointing personally. I'm not sure how much information is useful to me since the data they use is survey results from 1996, I don't think that's a good indicator of behavior in 2015, as women have been in the workplace for nearly 20 years since then(1996). edit: I'm not sure if I read it right, but here is what that paper says : "We relied upon data for the year 1996, a year that contained survey items related to our predictor and criterion variables. Specifically, we included only heterosexual, married men in our sample because we were interested in the association between heterosexual marriage structures and men’s attitudes toward working women. Our final sample size consisted of 282 men who were married and employed full time. "

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I don't think that's a good indicator of behavior in 2015, as women have been in the workplace for nearly 20 years since then(1996). Women had been in the workplace for many decades before then, so while things may have changed since then to some degree, I wouldn't assume that it is the case due to time. OTOH, as the quote you supply indicates, the study was limited to heterosexual married men, which may be a smaller share of all men in the workplace now, so even if the effect observed has not changed, its workplace significance may have. Be interesting to do a followup that included people in committed relationships of different legal statuses, different genders, and different orientations and see whether the effect is still visible and how it relates to different axes of variation.
- MollyR 12y ago
  >Women had been in the workplace for many decades before then, so while things may have changed since then to some degree, I wouldn't assume that it is the case due to time. I agree with you its not just time changing things, but the fact the culture changes with time. While we can debate what parts of the culture changed, its very clear the culture has changed. 20 years is enough for a new generation of men and women to grow up under a different culture. It also may be enough time to allow people to get used to new normal and adjust their behavior. That is my reasoning for my belief to doubt the validity of that data in a 2015 context and still believing it's probably accurate in a 1996 context. If we could get actual data from 2015, I'd update my beliefs. Otherwise I think it's wiser to remain skeptical of that data in a modern context. Edit/Update: Sorry for being dumb. I didn't realize they had split the the methods across surveys. It seems survey 5 supports my thoughts. It really deals with changes in age groups. The paper says: "the Wald criterion demonstrated that only age made a significant contribution to predicting if men were in modern marriages, with younger men more likely to marry working women." In figure 2, they mention men in modern marriages, had positive reception to women in the workforce. I think its fair to say the younger generation of men is fine with women in the workplace.
rayiner 12y ago
The paper relies on five studies. One with data from 1996, another from 2001, two conducted contemporaneously with the paper, and one longitudinal study using early-1990's UK data. Also, female labor force participation rate is pretty much the same as it was in 1990.
- MollyR 12y ago
  I apologize, I misread the paper. Also Thanks for the correction and the paper. I really appreciate it!

by MollyR 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I don't think that's a good indicator of behavior in 2015, as women have been in the workplace for nearly 20 years since then(1996). Women had been in the workplace for many decades before then, so while things may have changed since then to some degree, I wouldn't assume that it is the case due to time. OTOH, as the quote you supply indicates, the study was limited to heterosexual married men, which may be a smaller share of all men in the workplace now, so even if the effect observed has not changed, its workplace significance may have. Be interesting to do a followup that included people in committed relationships of different legal statuses, different genders, and different orientations and see whether the effect is still visible and how it relates to different axes of variation.

MollyR 12y ago
>Women had been in the workplace for many decades before then, so while things may have changed since then to some degree, I wouldn't assume that it is the case due to time. I agree with you its not just time changing things, but the fact the culture changes with time. While we can debate what parts of the culture changed, its very clear the culture has changed. 20 years is enough for a new generation of men and women to grow up under a different culture. It also may be enough time to allow people to get used to new normal and adjust their behavior. That is my reasoning for my belief to doubt the validity of that data in a 2015 context and still believing it's probably accurate in a 1996 context. If we could get actual data from 2015, I'd update my beliefs. Otherwise I think it's wiser to remain skeptical of that data in a modern context. Edit/Update: Sorry for being dumb. I didn't realize they had split the the methods across surveys. It seems survey 5 supports my thoughts. It really deals with changes in age groups. The paper says: "the Wald criterion demonstrated that only age made a significant contribution to predicting if men were in modern marriages, with younger men more likely to marry working women." In figure 2, they mention men in modern marriages, had positive reception to women in the workforce. I think its fair to say the younger generation of men is fine with women in the workplace.

rayiner 12y ago

The paper relies on five studies. One with data from 1996, another from 2001, two conducted contemporaneously with the paper, and one longitudinal study using early-1990's UK data. Also, female labor force participation rate is pretty much the same as it was in 1990.

MollyR 12y ago
I apologize, I misread the paper. Also Thanks for the correction and the paper. I really appreciate it!