Even though some may try to deny or ignore it, everyone knows there is a gender wage gap. Men typically earn more than women in the same professions. A new study has found an interesting twist on this trend. Not only do men earn more money, but sexist men earn even more.

According to the study, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, men who hold traditional views on gender roles earn much more -- an average of nearly $12,000 per year more -- than their more progressive male counterparts. Women with traditional views on gender roles will make approximately $1,000 per year less than modern, egalitarian women.

What accounts for this difference? Timothy Judge, co-author of the study, suggests that these views might play themselves out in wage negotiations. Men who view themselves as the primary wage earners will fight for higher salaries, while women who eschew such opinions will value their own work more as well. The study, which included 25 years' worth of data collection, also found that men and women become more egalitarian over time, and that the gender wage gap would be much smaller on the whole if everyone held egalitarian views.

To view the complete study in PDF, click here.

This morning someone sent me a link to an article, expecting me to be outraged at the "sexist pig" who wrote it. Sadly, I fully agree with Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, that the supposed pay gap between men and women in corporate America is a myth.

I made no friends at WalletPop when I wrote about this issue two months ago. I said then that the glass ceiling was a myth that is being perpetuated by women. Quite simply, if women are making less than men, it's because of career choices they've made. My female associates at WalletPop (especially the moms) were none too happy with this, and expressed that women have difficult choices to make when it comes to family and career.

I don't disagree in the least. Women's careers are often negatively impacted by the choice to have children and be involved in their lives. It's just disingenuous to claim that discrimination is the cause of the problem. It's not.

Every time the news is a little slow, I see yet another article featuring some fresh-faced Manhattan-dwelling Steve Stifflip or Polly Patrician who is considering the move to (gasp!) Brooklyn or even (double gasp!) Queens. He or she whines about the miseries of making ends meet on a mere $80,000 a year, not being able to afford organic radicchio, only being able to eat out once or twice a week, and having to postpone this year's trip to Europe. As I slog through this nonsense, I find myself wondering if I could get a bill passed that would make it legal to eat the rich.

Sometimes I hate people. There, I've said it.