The study has the ominous title "Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution in the Workplace." The three authors of the study summarise their research as follows:
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.
Liberal academics, it seems, are hunting out "pockets of resistance" to the "gender revolution". The naughty counterrevolutionaries are those men, like myself, who are willing to support a wife at home.
But they do rule out a purge of counterrevolutionary men from the workplace:
Clearly, organizations should not seek to control the marital status of their male employees, for example, by means of selection. To do so would be unjust, likely illegal, and perhaps, bad business.
Well that's nice to know, but it's interesting that the three academics even consider the idea that "organisations" might try to "control the marital status of their male employees".
It's more evidence that liberal society isn't neutral when it comes to such matters. Liberal society has a notion of the good, one that, as the authors of the study are happy to admit, requires a revolutionary transformation of society.
Just another reminder that we are not living in socially conservative societies, we are living in liberal revolutionary ones.
To do so would be unjust, likely illegal, and perhaps, bad business.ReplyDelete
But otherwise it would be completely justified... apparently. Good to know we're safe... FOR NOW!
A report from on the ground in here in the States, stay-at-home motherhood is generally a high status occupation... as long as it isn't because "you're not qualified to do anything else." So the powers that exist in US coroporations, while they are devout leftists, neverthelss gravitate to this precise demographic. I say single-incomehood is safe, at least for now, from the purging flame of progressivism.
Steve, interesting comment, thanks.ReplyDelete