>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

>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.