E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSReshma Jagsi, an associate professor and physician researcher at the University of Michigan Health System, uncovered some sobering news recently.
When it comes to the gender wage gap, even top female physicians in academia like Jagsi herself can’t catch a break.
Jagsi is the lead author of a study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked at similar groups of men and women who are midcareer physician researchers and found that even among these professionals, income inequality exists.
"It is disappointing," she said about her findings. "We would like to think in medicine these kinds of things don't affect our profession."
The pay disparity between women and men has been long-documented, but often people brush such reports aside because they claim that they don’t look at the whole picture, including choices women may make.
"We thought if we focused on the cream of the crop of physician researchers, all at the same point in their careers, all doing the same work, and if we controlled for specialty and work hours, we could understand what's driving the gender difference," Jagsi explained. "Disturbingly, even after we controlled for all those factors, the male doctors were paid more than the female doctors."
The mean salary for women physician researchers was $167,669, compared to $200,433 for their male counterparts. Even after adjusting for specialty, academic rank, leadership positions, publications and research time, the study found that women made about $12,000 less than men. And over the course of their careers, she added, women in this study will end up earning $350,000 less than men doing the same type of work.
What makes this study unique is that researchers took pains to make sure they were comparing apples to apples. All the physicians in the study had received prestigious National Institutes of Health grants and went on to work for academic institutions.
According to the researchers, “this study, which considered a homogeneous population of physicians, demonstrates a substantial and significant gender difference in salary, one-third of which is unexplained by differences in specialty, productivity or numerous other measured factors.”
Researchers did find some differences between male and female physician researchers, including the percentage of leadership positions they held and the medical specialties they chose.
- Women held fewer of the top jobs, and that could explain some of the disparity in pay, but, the study pointed out, “being passed over for a leadership position may be part of the same process that leads a woman to advance more slowly and be paid less than her male peers.”
- Women also were less likely to be in higher paying specialties, except obstetrics and gynecology. With respect to this, the researchers said, “It may be important to consider the gender gap without adjustment for specialty if women do not choose but rather are encouraged to occupy lower-paid specialties or if those specialties pay less partly because they are predominated by women.”
And as for the mommy penalty, aka, women making less because they choose to pare down their careers for motherhood, the researchers found the notion was not supported in their sample:
“Sex differences in compensation may be related to parental status, with mothers potentially more likely to sacrifice pay for unobserved job characteristics such as flexibility and fathers potentially more likely to wish to earn more to support their families. However, in contrast to some other studies, we did not observe any interaction between gender and parental status; even women without children had lower pay than men. Thus, we found no evidence suggesting differential influence of parental status on priorities or values of the male vs. female academic physicians in this sample.”
The report is further evidence that women do get shortchanged when it comes to their paychecks, and the level of their professional attainment does not matter.
Many have realized the problem for a long time, but legislation to help deal with the problem known as the Paycheck Fairness Act was blocked by Senate Republicans last week.
Catherine Hill, research director of the American Association of University Women, had hoped the bill would motivate employers to start addressing the issue of pay disparity. “The best employers are doing things they should when it comes to pay, but it would be a reminder for all those other employers to catch up,” she said.
The act would have forced employers to create more transparency when it comes to pay, and that's exactly what Jagsi said is needed to help narrow the wage gap.
Given her research, Jagsi believes the persistent disparity in pay in medicine, and other professions, could be a function of gender bias in the workplace. "It's important to consider the role of bias, but I think it much more likely hidden latent unconscious gender bias we all harbor."
Jagsi said she doesn't know if she's underpaid but she said she spoke to her departmental administrator Friday about standardizing the way employees are paid in order to provide transparency. He told her the issue is "very complicated."
To that, she responded, "We do a lot of things in medicine and in society that are complicated. I think our findings merit attention and action."
Leave a Comment:
I am aware of this gender pay gap. I theorized that I could increase the profit margin in the body shop I own, by hiring women and effeminate sissies, but no one from either group applied.
This is crap. Physicians are self employed entrepreneurs. They can decide their hours, their specialty, their location, etc. If they work in academia, they can open a private practice. Physicians are one of the few occupations that truly control their own destiny.
Please don't make female physicians out to be victims.
If there is a gender pay gap, it is caused by choices made by the individual doctors.
Please report real news, like lack of jobs from the Obama White House.
Gary, our doctor is not self employed. He is employed by our local hospital. So your comment is not correct!!!
The doctor here is a researcher, therefore an employee of the university or foundation or whatever. She adjusted for all sorts of variables (do you understand that, Gary?) and still women came out with less pay.
If this were really fact, why did we waste 2 years on a worthless 3000 page law, raising the price of healthcare. It could have been cut by 20% by just replacing all the male doctors. It couldn't happen, they are protected by a lobby in DC. And still, I have yet to see a difference in the price, man or woman.
Hi Rachel,
Actually she didn't adjust for many variables, or not as many as you would hope. The article itself is deft agitprop, I have to give the author that much. But the study it relies upon is, as usual with these studies, intentionally skewed to produce a certain, and unfortunately, predictable result. Just two factors which weren't controlled for should be red flags to anyone who wants to use this news to argue against Republicans, as the author of the piece clearly wants to do.
First is that there is an admission that differences in who holds leadership positions, with men dominating that statistic, leads to an explanation of at least some of the remaining slight ($12k per year) difference. No quantification, which probably wouldn't matter since the study's author seems to think that women not in those positions were passed over as part of an entire framework which holds women back. But what if these women weren't passed over? What if they self-selected out of leadership positions? That paints an entirely different view of the $12k per year difference.
Second, and this one should be easily accounted for, and controlled, is the apples to apples comparison claimed. Are each of the comparisons made between researchers not just doing similar work, but doing identical work, and working for the same institution? It might be, for instance (and probably is conciousness informs us) that men and women are not conducting the same research, and therefore it might not be of the same value. Similarly, would a woman doing research at the University of Alabama expect to earn an identical salary to a male researcher at MIT? Even if the research is identical? The question plainly answers itself.
What truly interests me about stories such as this one is the apparent ignorance of the authors. Congress passed the Equal Pay Act. Guess when? 1963. Fortynine years ago Congress made it illegal to pay a man and a woman doing the same job a different rate of pay. Which doesn't mean that men and women working at the same job will earn the same amount at year's end since a woman, as even this pathetic article makes clear, often works fewer hours by choice. But it does mean that for nearly 50 years pay disparity for the same work at the same place of employment has been illegal. So what, really, do these authors want? It certainly isn't what they ostensibly claim, which is equal pay for equal work.
Same old republican war on women, over and over and over.
Obama/Biden 2012
Dear God, the ridiculous posts that come out when the anyone mentions gender wage gap.
1.) "If you can just get away with paying women less, then why don't people cut costs by only hiring women."
The point that people who make this claim fail to understand is that few people are suggesting that the hiring manager sits there and says "Hmm, I can pay Bob $100,000 while I can pay Shirley $80,000." The point is that there are all kinds of factors, some of which are based in sexism, which leads to the wage gap. Who gets promoted. Who is seen as more competent. Who is perceived as being a better leader. Despite the fact that there are laws against it, the fact that people won't hire women or promote women if they think there's any risk that she might get pregnant. So forth.
Studies show that men are PERCEIVED as more competent, more competitive and better leaders than women (even when it's not true). We know these sexist attitudes still exist. Study after study demonstrate these things. And so why would they not affect things like: Who gets promoted, who gets special projects, who gets help, etc. But somehow you people believe that magically, in the business field, all those biases just disappear. Yep, that makes a great deal of sense.
2.) "The gender gap is due to women's choices!"
The fact that women are still expected to be the primary caretakers with children means that they have to be the one to make those choices to make less money, choose more flexible hours and work part time. Do you not think that if we broke down other gender stereotypes that would not also mean that women would be more likely to make different choices? The fact research shows that women perceive it as being less acceptable for them to ask for raises, promotions or to negotiate a higher paying salary. The fact that research bears out this perception -- that people do in fact see women as being overly aggressive and greedy if they ask for these things, whereas there aren't the same perceptions of men. The fact that working relations can be harmed by such perceptions. The list goes on and on to show that some of these so called choices aren't really choices.
3.) "Women are less likely to take competitive positions." See point 2. Furthermore, if women are perceived as being less competent, less competitive and worse leaders, why would you not assume that would affect things like promotions, favors, etc.?
4.) "But men take higher risk jobs."
As this study points out, that can't be the only thing that accounts for this, as tada -- they did their best to compare people in the same fields. So, not a valid argument here,.
No doubt, there are factors UNRELATED to sexism and gender stereotypes which affect the wage gap. But pretending there aren't ANY factors related to sexism is just denying mounds of research and lying to yourself.
Actually the Obama Administration is just as notorious for failing to pay women equal pay. So I wouldn't blame the Republicans too much on this. This isn't a Republican/ Democrat issue but rather a male/female issue.
Pausing for a moment to wipe my tears of sympathy for anybody who is making 200k/year doing research.
Now that that's done, on to the subject matter. Hey ladies, if you want more money, ask for it, if denied, demand it, if denied, find another job that will pay you what you want. There are plenty of people who will hire talented, experienced women.
But you know what? Women are less likely to do all of those things. But one thing that boggles my mind is that people think employers are required to pay you what you're worth.
Let's take a simple example. Someone rings your doorbell and you open the door to find a hard working individual offering to cut your yard. You ask how much and they reply "50 dollars"
You can say yes, or no, or counter offer. If you are able to get the yard cut for 20 dollars, good for you!
The lessons you should draw from this is that
1) No one is required to hire anyone to do anything.
2) If you do hire someone, what you pay them is what you agree upon, not what it's necessarily worth. If you can get someone to do something for less, it is your right, and really, your duty, to do so, especially in the corporate environment when you are managing someone else's money! You aren't hired as a hiring manager to give away as much money as you can, but to make good hiring decisions where your business profits by allowing your business to make more money out of an employee than you are paying them. If you can't do that, you go broke!
So in other words, Henry Ford was an idiot.
Concerned --
No nevermind the fact that women are perceived as being overly aggressive and greedy when they ask for raises or promotions. Or that those perceptions can create negative working relationships and harm future chances of raises and promotions for the woman.
Also, the rest of your post is just ridiculous.
I believe companies actually do need to hire people to do stuff, otherwise they won't be creating their product or doing whatever it is that company does to make money.
And no -- getting away with paying someone for less than they are worth is not your duty. In fact, that's how you end up with subpar workers, people who aren't loyal to your company, people who will do the minimum to get by, etc. If you want crappy output, high levels of competition, poor loyalty, high worker turnover, and the worst of the pool of candidates that can do the job just so you can maintain your bottom line, you keep paying people less than their worth. Companies who are far-sighted, who invest in their employees because they understand that the returns of that investment are manifold, and so forth will continue doing their thing. And will likely make more in the long run.
But it's nice to know there are people out there willing to be honest about the money-grubbing, selfishness of some companies. Here ya go, folks -- Concern-memphian is your window into that beloved free-market capitalism some of you just love to idealize.
siobhan27- pu-lease. do yourself a favor and read the studies/books by warren farrell, you should be enlightened by facts. just so you know, he was associated with NOW back in the day and probably did more for women's rights in the u.s. than anyone else. then one day he woke up and asked himself a simple question "if women earn so much less for the same job as men earn, then how can any company stay in business by hiring men?" thus his studies began.
the fact is, for the same title, same responsibilities, SAME PERFORMANCE, women earn 117% what men do. this fact is taken from the numbers provided by the BLS, if you care to challenge it. good luck with that one.
the same old BS rhetoric you spew truly is comical to anyone who actually thinks and who has true experience in the work force. in reality, it is simply a crutch to explain why some earn less than others. my suggestion-why not start by looking at performance instead of just title? trust me, there is a HUGE difference.
There is no racism either.
So when this subject comes up, the people posting don't even understand that their posts are sexist just as they don't understand their posts are racist.
It will take more than a few laws to change something so ingrained in our society. Not to worry. I personally feel what we are seeing now is the last desperate attempt of a group of old white men to hold on to power. Once they've died, the rest of us, you know the people they sneeringly refer to as progressives (you might look that word up one day) will be in charge. You can't fault them for going kicking and screaming. If everything had been stacked in your favor your entire life and someone was trying to get you to share you'd be angry too.
Callingitlikeitis,
Again, anyone who uses the argument "Why wouldn't companies just save money by hiring women then?" has absolutely no understanding of what is contributing to gender pay gap. I'm not sure how to make it clearer...
No one is claiming that the pay gap is because a hiring manager sits there and decides "Oh, you're a woman? I'm going to pay you less!" Research suggests that there are a multitude of factors that lead to the pay gap -- such as stereotypes and biases about men and women. Cultural factors such as pressues which encourage women to be the primary caretakers of children. Research that shows that women are less likely to negotiate for higher salaries because of negative perceptions of women who do so. And many other things.
Anyone using the argument "Well, if you can pay them less, why not just hire women?" is using a faulty premise and has no understanding of the research out there. And if you haven't even paid attention to the research, haven't even understood the arguments being made by those who suggest there is a gender wage gap and it's due in part to sexist attitudes, then how in the world can you make an argument against it?
I've also read a great deal of the research from the BLS. On the BLS, there is article after article stating that there is a wage gap in favor of men. And none of them support the 117% stat you cited. In fact, there is an article on the BLS that shows self-selection can't account for much the of the wage gap (can't post links, so title is: How does gender play a role in the earnings gap? An update). Another article that says that differences in work experience and differences in length of time at a job for men and women only accounts for only 4% of the wage gap and leaves 75% of the gap unexplained (Tenure as a factor in male-female earnings gap). These articles make clear that some of the arguments against the wage gap are overstating the effect of these things and that when controlling for things like preferences, experience, part-time vs. full-time work and so forth, there still remains a gap. But yeah, you show me where the BLS talks about women making 117% compared to men and then we can talk.
Otherwise, please stop pulling stats out of thin air. And actually educate yourself about the research on the wage gap before asking silly questions.
siobhan27- your writing and thought pattern clearly indicate that you are intelligent and capable. therefore, please read the works by dr. farrell then i will be glad to engage further into this argument. until you are educated on the topic, further argument is a waste of my time. but please do take off the blinders and see the whole truth. articles such as this one and 99% of the articles i have ever read on this topic are typically so flawed in logic that they are difficult to understand how they are published. they are like a trial attorney, they represent one side to serve a purpose and fail to cover the truth of both sides.
the stats you claim are out of thin air are clearly stated in dr farrell's works and yes, they come directly from the bls.
the key is SAME PERFORMANCE, not just same title.....like i stated earlier, there is a HUGE difference in comparing the two.
mj- yes, yes, it is all the evil white man holding back the woman.....(and since you went there, that same evil man is holding back all other races too-my god, give me a break!) when will this "poor me, it's not my fault" attitude ever die? women have many MANY benefits in the workplace NOT extended to men....from laws to the unspoken. personally, i would LOVE to have the benes women have in the workplace. LOVE TO.
lastly, ask any female executive or manager who she would rather hire and why....you will get your answers and i bet you will be shocked.
This is, of course, complete nonsense. Compensation inequality has always existed, and it's not confined to gender. As a professional, I negotiate my salary as do others and this means our salaries are all different, even for the same position. You must accept the fact that regardless of your compensation, there will always be others that earn more than you and others that earn less than you.
The notion that all compensation must be equal, even for the same positions, is socialistic unionspeak.
Callingit --
I know of Farrell's work. Part of his claim rests on the idea of self-selection into certain professions and preferences (which the BLS and other studies show that these have only a small effect on the wage gap). More to the point Farrell's claims rest on faulty premises -- for example the idea that women's self-selection is rooted in biology, where men's is rooted in cultural factors -- none of which is supported by research. In fact, research suggests that the preferences men and women have are rooted in both biology and culture. And again, those preferences, research show, don't actually account for much. Much of Farrell's work is based in faulty premises that aren't supported or logically don't make sense (like the very question you asked about why companies just don't hire women then...).
So, again, I ask that you actually back up the claims you make with some evidence. If this 117% stat is right there on the BLS, where is it? I can't find it. However, I can find several articles on the BLS that argue against what you're saying.
So, if you want to have a debate, actually bring some facts and citations to the table.
I also find it interesting that you claim that studies in peer-reviewed journals are all biased, but the one guy whose book you read isn't. Funny how that works. The truth is peer-reviewed research is more credible than Farrell. And peer-reviewed research from many different researchers, many different organizations show the same thing -- people still hold sexist attitudes, those sexist attitudes play a role in the gender wage gap. Again, there are things that are unrelated to sexism that a play role, but to pretend that sexism doesn't play some role in the wage gap is deluding yourself.
Wet Willy,
What you fail to realize is that if was just about salary negotations and so forth, then we wouldn't see one group consistently being lower than another. It's not just an individual difference -- it's the difference of an entire group. ISo, if one group is consistently lower than another, then that suggests it has something to do specifically with that group. Really shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.
Siohban:
I actually agree with just about everything you said. Too bad you read into my post the things you wanted to believe that I believe.
But I do disagree with your first point, that companies are required to hire people. The purpose of a company is not to hire people, but to make a profit. The simplest example is a sole proprietorship, or one man company. When there is more work than one person can do, he can choose to stop his expansion, or hire people. His choice.
When he does hire somebody, it would be silly for him to pay that person, man or woman, more than the amount of extra money he will make by hiring them. That's just plain stupid. Why hire someone to expand if it's not going to make you more profit? As the owner, you assume all of the risks associated with hiring someone, and they are many!
Now, back to the main crux of your comments, of which I agree. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I thought you should hire the cheapest most worthless people for the job. I think you should hire the best and the brightest! But again, if I hire somebody that's going to make my company an extra $100,000/year, why would I pay them $100,000? No, I shouldn't try to pay them $30k or I'd lose them. I'd want to pay him/her enough to make them a valued, appreciated employee, but I'd still want to make a profit off of hiring them! From a personal perspective, I'd want to pay them pretty close to $100k, but as a sensible person I'd probably try to pay them about $80k. I'd put the rest in some sort of sound investments so that I wouldn't have to lay anybody off at the next economic downturn.
In my career I've seen some of the worst management you can possibly imagine. I've seen greedy executives hog all of the profits, lay people off, get rid of valued employees for cheaper ones, outsource to other countries, etc., all in the name of short term profit.
I believe in long term, stable growth with competitive salaries and sane management to build good, solid companies. I don't believe in screwing people over to maximize short term profit. If an employee, male or female, black or white, came to me with a raise request, I would determine if they are worth it, plain and simple, and if I could, I would grant it.
But, I don't want the Federal Government telling me that I have to pay everybody exactly the same for the same work, because that's impossible to determine, but easy to sue over.
One final comment on your assumptions about women in the workplace. I have NEVER witnessed anything like what you posted, that it is detrimental in any way for a woman to ask for a raise. There are right and wrong ways to ask for a raise, and it has nothing to do with race or gender.
You're right I read into your comment only because I assumed no one would take the phrase "pay an employee what they are worth" to literally mean pay them as much they generate. To pay an employee what they are worth means to pay them their fair share based on their experience, their productivity, so forth. And fact is, the research suggests that even when you control for those things, women are still on average paid less.
And again, unless you happen to be a one-person company, then yes -- you need to hire people. Companies that are successful are successful because of their employees, not despite them. Having respect for employees and not seeing them as means to profits is important -- and something so many companies fail to do.
And lastly, just because you have never experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, the research out there shows that when women are aggressive, competitive, and negotiate like a man, people generally see her in a more negative light than they would a man who acted in the exact same manner. So, yes, research shows there are some things that are still rooted in biases toward the different genders.
What a buncha crock. Medical insurance reimbursements are not based on the doctor's gender. The more a doctor works, the more he or she makes.
This study was done on doctors who are getting a salary, not those who run their own medical practice. The people in the study were employees, which means that the company they work for pays them a set amount every year no matter what the profit/deficit margin is.
Ok, well we know why some people are paid less. Lack of understanding and comprehension and education; but, for those of us who are educated, Insurance Companies may pay equivalent reimbursements to hospitals, clinics and physician practices, but that does NOT mean that equivalency flows down to the doctors. Secondly, this is a discussion regarding "salaried" positions where the work load, time worked, responsibilities, educational background and experience level is equal, yet pay is not. Hard to understand for some. So in short order: if you have twins, a son and a daughter, and they both spend the same amount of time on homework, both go to class every day, both take the same courses, both get the same straight A's would you give your son a $25 or $50 quarterly 'bonus' for the straight A's and your daughter only $15 or $40 dollars? Hell no, unless you're just an ass.
GermanGem...Not true. HMOs? Remember? HMOs restrict doctors to seeing a certain number of a patients in order to be allowed in the Networks.
I've worked in a male job discipline for years and saw the attitudes male engineers have toward female engineers. It seems that old legend that Adam came before Eve just doesn't go away.
In any profession, I can think of a few reasons why men make more money than women do.
Now, all things being equal, in almost all cases today, men and women doing the same work are getting the same pay. But, alas, all things are NOT equal, as they seldom are. And, yes, it is universally true that perception is everything. If people think something is true, then most of the time it may as well be because people will act accordingly.
With that in mind, when hiring a new employee, unless there is a set base starting rate, part of negotiating a salary is the employer (or at least the employer's HR department staff) deciding just what the new hire will be bringing to the table. If you're fresh out of school and have little or no experience, I doubt you'll see much of a gender gap, if any. A few years down the road, however, and things start to change. Where you've been and what you've done is a tremendous force in shaping a prospective employer's impression of you! Selling yourself is important, and a good part of that is having something to sell them. Just having shown up for work and doing the job you were hired for over several years' time is expected of an employee, but it isn't going to get anyone overly excited. After all, it's expected that you graduated from high school, too. It's ACHIEVEMENT that counts. What were you able to make happen in your past employment?
Unfortunately, making things happen, well, doesn't just happen. There is definitely some risk taking involved. Making things happen will almost always put you at odds with somebody else in an organization, and a power struggle is par for the course. If you prevail, you're promoted. If you fail, you're out, sooner or later. In most business organizations, you're going to be stepping on a lot of toes as you climb the ladder, as you're in competition with any number of other employees who are trying to do the same thing you are, and the amount of room in any organization for people of higher pay grades shrinks drastically the higher you go.
The majority of women I've known and worked with through the years have been (mostly!) good, steady, reliable employees. Excellent employees. They were also followers much more than they were leaders, however. They tended to be very diplomatic, they mostly got along very well with each other, seldom did any of them want to make waves or rock the boat in any way.
Truthfully, the majority of men I've known and worked with have been much the same way. But of the people who were really willing to stand apart from the crowd, take charge of their situation and do what they felt needed to be done instead of what they felt was merely expected of them, and were amply willing to butt heads with anyone who stood in their way, at least 3/4 of those people happened to be men.
I will say that women I've known have been more loyal to organizations. Men much less so. If you're really wanting to get promoted, though, you need a 'look out for number one' mentality, not an altruistic 'we're all in this together' approach to things. Most real 'promotion' in employment is not from within, it's getting a better job elsewhere. Not very loyal to your company if you're leaving it to go work for a competitor who is willing to pay you more, are you? I'd say that makes you a bit of a sell-out. It seems to me that men tend to be less bothered by this, while women tend to find this at least somewhat distasteful and will often prefer to stick with an employer for the same rate of pay or only a nominal increase (routine raises, etc.) provided they're otherwise treated well.
I've always thought that it's not so much a case where men get paid more, but rather that people who get paid for tend to be men, and it's based on what most of us would say are personal behaviors that are usually exhibited by men.
Women who are successful in climbing the corporate ladder do either naturally have or have cultivated many of these same personality traits. Men who are laid back or just don't handle competitive environments well are not the ones who are getting paid more than women. If anything, I'd say most I know who fit this description make less money than many women do!
I can attest that no matter your gender, when you get promoted to higher up positions, there's not a whole lot of people who think of you as a wonderful person and there's going to be a lot of resentment towards you by those who are bitter or envioius. There are names for the successful, and those names tend to be somewhat gender specific. Successful men are usually said to be arrogant jerks and successful women are usually known as something similar but in not so many words.
Sorry modern mommy. Most docs these days are paid on a "salary +" RVU model. They usually get a bonus based on how much they generate.
The act that you do not want to post the word that people use to describe successful women says volumes about the differing ways assertive men and women are viewed. Ask yourself why gender specific names would be used for successful women? Aren't they just arrogant jerks, too? The fact is, assertive women are viewed much more negatively than assertive men are. Why would this not impact women's chances of advancement?
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/89/3/416/
The reason I didn't want to post it is because it would be vulgar language. Most men who are arrogant jerks are referred to as something else that is typically one word, but it, too, is something I would not type out here.
I know of only one instance where someone called a woman by that seven letter word, and it seemed very out of place, even if it would have been accurate. Much like 'jerk' is always directed at men, and does not seem to be appropriate when used to describe a woman.
I will say, however, that one word that would often be used to describe women who are not perceived to be perfect ladies I increasingly hear used to describe men, though in a different context. Usually it is used to describe a man who has been dominated by another man, most often in a jail or penitentiary.
For what it's worth, I've always considered the word used to describe a female equivalent of 'jerk' to not really be any more derogatory, just more commonly seen as inappropriate to say in most settings but not as course as the 'other' word most often used to describe men who are jerks. Where I come from, it's okay to call a jerk a jerk, but if it's a female, you just bite your lip and say nary a word.
Thye data is so qualitative it is practically meaningless. What about the men who make less then the top paid women?
It is the subtle discrimination that leads to such disparities. Men in power look at other men and "sprinkle" them with fairy dust--they are seen as up and coming, brilliant, dynamic and then those in power are more likely to given them the perks. Those in power are less likely to reward women similarly. There are exceptions, of course, but it is this less chronicled discrimination that underlies so much where women perform in a similar or superior fashion and don't reap the rewards. I know, I'm one of them.
This happens everywhere, even in religious. Look at the Vatican, they made most policies for men for thousands of years and will continue to do so.
Middle Age concept still happens today which most of us ignore.
Bullcrap, guys die 10 years before women, why? They are working themselves to death. The only part time doctors I know are all female, they take things very easy, such as taking 3 months from residency to have a child, while the rest of us work, with no attempt at even an apology...no, I get to procreate, you get to pay. I had a cme course where the woman leading the group went a year without a paycheck so she could buy the electronic medical record (what guy could afford that?), as she see's 16 patients a day. And she's teaching the rest of us how to function? Get a grip. girls don't work as hard, they take time off, they come in entitled (work more than 80 hours per week? Oh no.), they pull sexist issues, then don't put in the time. Residency used to require that you live in the hospital, that you couldn't marry. Now? Relax, you can have your training and take a vacation, get laid, have a baby, don't have to make up the time or even say thanks to the other residents who are covering for you. Get a grip. I love women, I don't want a man, we are fundamentally different, get a grip.
Calling working female professionals 'girls' shed's a lot of light on the kind of sexist you are. Do you really think that intelligent women should procreate? Because thats kind of what you're implying. If a woman is in a high level job she shouldn't take off any time to give birth. If that was the case then only people with average or below average intelligence would reproduce and we'd all be living in some kind of real life idiocracy. The article also pointed out that the "mommy penalty" had nothing to do with the pay gap that this particular study found.
Correction: Do you really think that intelligent women shouldn't procreate?
You do know that every time a woman gives birth, she has a chance of dying, right?
Do men have something like that? I don't think so and you want to bring it up. Men only worry about shooting sperm and that's it. While women has to endure the pain and a chance of dying and you complaint.
Thor, back to your cave. get some 'skoolin' in logic.
Modernmommey , that's not what he's saying at all. Women don't work as hard as their male counterparts. For whatever reason. If I was a dad and made less than my partner, I'd restructure my job to take care of my kids and deal with the economic hit and potential lost opportunities. If women are the ones taking that position then it makes sense they'd make less.
I make more but I also work a heckuva lot harder. I chose not to have kids yet seem to cover for a co-worker with no reciprocity because she has a family (for no increased pay). Yet if I chose to take a year sabbatical for my own personal non-kid related reasons I likely wouldn't have a job.
I don't get why having kids is the end-all be-all that people make it out to be. Some of us also have dreams and wishes that we've sacrificed to make it in our profession.
Clearly, you did not bother to read the article. In the case of this study, being a mother did not add to the pay disparity experienced by women; even childless women experienced this disparity.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1182859
Another bogus study and conclusion, especially the conclusion. By the study's own admission, there is a modest gap (6 percent) after controlling for a number of important variables. The study concludes that leadership explains a large part of the remaining gap. The study did not control in any way for leadership. I suggest that the male doctors in the study were more skilled in obtaining leadership positions possibly through more ability to raise funding. In addition, obtaining leadership position requires mobility, typically lots of travel. Plus, individuals need mobility to relocate to obtain a position of leadership. If female doctors are more anchored to a specific geographic location, they will be less able to seek open leadership positions in other locations.
The article authors are simply ignorant about the growing body of work that has explained the pay gap across areas using important variables such as hours worked, time out of the workforce, and workplace flexiblity. These variables are critical to improve your compensation. Families (both men and women) are consciously deciding to tradeoff flexibility for compensation. These variables also hold true for female doctors. Female doctors typically choose specialities with somewhat lower reimbursement rates for increased flexibility (especially less on call hours) and less work time. I applaud female doctors in their decisions but I decry attempts to indicate that these tradeoffs are evidence of workplace discrimination.
I thought the article stated that these variables were controlled for? They specifically said that this study was unique because it was the first one to control for these variables and compare apples to apples.
So, by your admission then, important variables such as "hours worked, time out of the workforce and workplace flexibility" are what accounts for a difference in compensation. It has nothing to do with the male boss who tells you during your review (of which was stellar) that you really shouldn't be programming because women belong working in customer service as that's what they do best? Of course at that point it's the word of a lowly worker against a director, so there is no recourse in that position. This would have nothing to do with the pay discrepency then, correct?
Conservative: read the article again. Your prejudices are coloring your assumptions. How to explain that even childless female doctors at the same job make less than their male counterparts? You are bending over backwards to insist the evidence isn't really the evidence because it doesn't conform to your preconceived and obviously increasingly absurd notion (i.e. all women who earn less "chose" to earn less).
Blah blah blah blah.
I work with a woman in the same position. I routinely put in 11 hour days. She is out the door at 5. Last week I saw double the clients in four days than she saw in five. In terms of revenue I'm generating 3x what she does.
I make more based on bonuses and am slated to move up, and rightly so.
I'm all a fan for equality. Equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work. If you want equal pay work as hard as a man.
Bruce if you're putting in more hours and seeing more clients then you absolutely should be making more money. I don't think there's any woman (or at least any honest woman) who would deny that. The complaint is when a woman is working those same hours and seeing the same number of clients and has a smaller paycheck than you for the exact same work.
By all means root out that disparity that pays women 94 cents on the male dollar. Oh wait, I'm sorry...that 6% difference erroneously includes the 2/3 which was accounted for by things they looked at other than sex -- although I didn't see anything about the number of times they relocated and other known factors. So we're down to what...2 cents on the dollar? By all means root that out.
BTW, this study supports the other real apples-to-apples comparisons showing nothing near the 25+% pay gap that the "equal pay" fanatics disingenuously trot out time and time again. Apples-to-apples comparisons show almost exactly what this does...that the actual gap is less than 5%. Fine...go after that 5% gap because that's all it is in real life.
5% doesn't sound like much, but over a lifetime? That could make a big difference in terms of when/where you retire.
Not to mention women requires many medicines and things that cost a lot of money.
Let's not forget about pregnancy and a chance of dying every times a woman gives birth. However, it seems men is so manly to complaint about stuffs when all they do is shoot sperms and that's the end of it.
CuongDNguyen wrote "Not to mention women requires many medicines and things that cost a lot of money."
Agreed. Women cost more. Women consume more health insurance services, not even including pregnancy, so their rates should reflect that cost. But it is illegal for a corporation to charge differently based on sex. So, men pay more to subsidize women.
Women also contribute less to the income tax pool and pay less in FICA taxes while drawing much more in Social Security because women retire earlier and live longer than men. Why isn't the FICA tax rate higher for women?
Just an FYI..when one is discussing the male and the female one is discussing gender, not sex. There's a delightful book called Blink..the Power of a First Impression..enlightening as to why there is a gap in pay between genders and disheartening....my husband and I are both physicians ...in casual conversation, friends and family will always direct medical questions to him...though I've made more money than he it's been said that I "lucked into" my job...it's still a man's world but it is better for me now than it would have been 100 years ago thanks to all the feminists out there...gotta go now..I'm taking some time off to have a few more babies..
Now throw other factors, such as "race" , too. White women are paid more than black women who are working the same jobs, have the same educations, and experience. I quit working for an employer once, because they hired me at less money than the others that started at the same time, even though two of the people including a white woman had less education. I had a graduate degree; she had high school diploma. Employers just figure you have fewer options. As a matter of fact, I had one tell me that once. He let me know that no one would ever hire me to do what I wanted to do.
I note this woman physician controlled for items such as hours worked and other variables, but not for how long they had been physicians. And how do you control for time off for births, plus time spent in breast feeding, where they can't go to a lot of conferences since they are tied to home during this time?
I don't like it, but what counts for much of how successful a person is, is how much they are able to go to conferences, be on committees, go to luncheons, schmooze, get in good with the big players, etc. It is definitely NOT related to mere IQ or good publications. It is a pack animal type of response I see in which the best paid people are almost never the best at what they do, nor the smartest. Most of the time it is the people who put in time doing those little things that over time garnishes the power that allows them to demand the big bucks. They have kissed the right buttocks, plus know where all the bodies and skeletons in the closet are. This takes a huge effort of energy and time...but once they get there, often they just sit on said buttocks and coast for the last 10-20 years. Said, but I've seen it too many times.
These items I'm discussing are very hard to quantitate, but also very definitive in being needed to be "successful" and "powerful", a leader in your field and make those big bucks.
This is not to say that gender inequality doesn't exist. It does, but so does racism, agism, etc. We value people in ways that serve our society on some more or less subconscious level. Unfortunately at that level we're still in the might makes right level and women (as well as myself) don't tend to think as much in that way. Some women do; some are very successful too; some are also prejudice against men. So, while it isn't completely a one way street...but it sure isn't a completely two way street regardless of gender.
They did look at how long they'd been physicians. These were all midcareer physicians. And the gap was there even for childless women.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1182859
Let's not get too emotional......Even outside of the academic world, women make less than men. Not for any other reason that they produce less. They get paid exactly the same for the procedures or office visits as their male couterparts.
No one will fault a woman for taking time off....nor should we fault men for taking time off....but if you are not producing....you simply don't get paid.
Academics...that is different. But no one will force a woman to take a job and if she is "all that" no one cares, they will pay.
So don't get all ''puffed up" about being a "victim".
I have never run into anyone that would tell me they were getting paid what they were worth....men or women.
Eve,
You are a broken record. Once again if women and men are equal and women make less than men ...... no one would hire men. Women would be cheaper. Stop with this nonsense already. Women don't put in the same hours as men that is why they earn less. Plain and simple. If you want equality then women shouldn't be able to collect Social Security until they are 72, not 65, since they live longer. Just saying.
Kevin, I think the gap in ages is smaller than it use to be. According to this article women will get less Social Security since they are paid less; therefore, paying less in taxees.
But women live longer (5 yrs on average in the US) and retire earlier. So women do collect more in SS.
The male and femal doctors in this study did put in the same number of hours, and had similar amounts of work published and research time.
Why are you talking about Social Security? What does that have to do with this study?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/journal.aspx
Liberal BS. Bend the results to fit you needs. Blame the Republicans. Eliminate the trial lawyers!
we should start with the white house, they should lead by example since liberals scream about equal pay. Female staffers make 18% less than their male counterparts
How is it possible that George W. Bush could have implemented a pay gap between men and women physicians? How could a man that dumb pull off such a diabolical feat?
He couldn't. It's all liberal lies.
But what is the employment rate?
This gender-pay gap bias has been over utilized and misrepresented by the poor-me groups that expect positions and salaries to just magically be given to them. Yes, I am male, look Caucasian and appear advantaged. But the truth is, I grew up in a poor working class family and I have had to plan and make many sacrifices in order to achieve the success I have achieved.
My counter part colleagues who have been over looked have not paid attention to detail as I have, have chosen family over career as I have not, have not worked hours off the clock in order to succeed as I have, etc. Males are more predestined to make personal sacrifices in order for career advancement. They choose higher paying careers to begin with within their academic abilities and technical expertise. We sacrifice relationships and many other personal obligations that our female counter part does not. And so, our endeavours give us greater opportunity for success. Go figure.
Actually did you know that a more and more women are not having children. Since the marrying age is getter higher, more and more women are postponing child raising. How do you account for that? So for you to say that women are not willing to make personal sacrifices is ludicrous. Second, more women in the engineering/ science related fields are leaving those professions at record rates? Do you know why? Women aren't being hired. It is not because they were not willing to go throught the training for those careers.
I once heard my boss( male engineer) say to a female engineer, that because she didn't agree with him about something, he said that he would have another " female engineer" explain it to her. In other words, he wouldn't take her advice because she was a female and he felt that he knew more. Needless to say, he was proven wrong when the other female engineer ( with more experience than him) told him that he was wrong.
Trouble is, why is he the boss of both of those women?
What a crock of BS.This is feminist propaganda,and nothing else,just like the phony liberal 'war on women crap". Political propaganda.
Actually for once I will agree with this article and I vote Republican. You can see a difference in wages among men and women even when the experience is the same. Will this make me change my vote to Democrat? Absolutely not! But for BOTH parties to ignore the rights of women in terms of equal pay is something ALL WOMEN will care about regardless of their party.
But if you really cared about it, Unhappy, you would not be voting Republican.
So all the men on out their are complaining that men work more hours so they should be paid more. Well how many of you fat self centered apes come home and the first thing you do is grab a beer and a joint and go pour yourself on the couch to watch TV while your wife is cooking your dinner and taking care of your kids. Also while your out every weekend golfing or at some friends house drinking beer and smoking pot watching the big game.. Your wife is cleaning, cooking,doing your yard work,taking care of the kids and grocery shopping. So exactly when does your wife get a weekend to do what she wants. Let me guess 5 months ago you let her go to the store without the kids to get you more beer to reward her for a job well done. And to save myself the trouble of having to send another post, to those who are going to tell me they help out. To that I say BS!!!!
What Stereotypical sexist rant.you have been watching to much of the View,and other head rotting trash....wise up.
This is unfortunate. Women: keep up the good fight and fight for equality! This is just not acceptable, espcially now in 2012 where WOMEN are the HEAD of the household OR they are single working mothers (yup, that is the lesbians too). Love you all ladies.
Oops, my first comment posted in the wrong spot...But, you are right some women do have that life...but many are smart enought to not have a life where they are ruled by a man...women have smartened up...No more oppression and we are Free!!! I will never respect a man who wants a woman to be servile...just shows their weakness...Strong men should want strong women...capable women...
Hitchhiker 1 - You sound very angry at the man in your life. If he is truely like this, leave him. You make it sound like you are doing it on your own anyway. Why not, make him responsible as well? You leave, he will at least need to care for himself.
My daughter being a new physician, I have to say it looks very bright for the girls out there at the moment. Most of the new field of hospitalists are women and the best and brightest move up quickly, with full respect and get salary raises, bonuses as well as 401Ks with match and proper pensions. I hope the younger girls get this message and go for it. This group at least is changing the course of medicine.
The way to correct salaried pay is to pay each person based on production. It is not really as complicated as many would like to believe, but salaried positions are outdated and unfair. I recently had two dermatologists treat me...the female was so superior to the male it was sickening, but the male had been doing his job way longer and most likely gets more pay than the female. Sorry folks but that is just not a good system...just because someone has been doing their job for a long time does not mean they are very good at it.
That's why I love Romney for President. He will help put women back in the home where they belong
There's a simple explanation: Men are worth more.
My friend (a woman) won a HUGE lawsuit from the bank she worked for. Turns out they were paying her, and other similarly place women, significantly less than the men that worked for them. This was just a couple of years ago. Clearly, gender bias is alive and well.
Being a very professional female in a male dominated field, I find that men often treat me like a daughter. The only thing that saves me is that I'm smarter than them and that shows through in my work. But, why do I need to be better just to get paid the same?
Every time the raw sex wage gap pops up, there is a female poster that announces that she is smarter than all of her male coworkers.
There's also always several male posters that says women are just plain worth less than men, see comments 5,11, 17, 22, and 23 above. All pretty predictable, these comments.
I am a female teacher. A fight broke out between two large teenage boys in my class. I yelled for the male teacher across the hall to break it up, no way I could. He broke it up, at considerable risk, as the one boy was very angry. We teach the same subject, but he has taught in a prison, which I haven't, and been in the army.
Oh, and I make more money than him.
Perhaps it is because you are not in a male dominated profession?
No, mary likely makes more because she has been teaching longer and or has more education. This is how teachers are paid.
How much money would be needed to encourage a female teacher to break up a fight between two large teenage boys? Then, give that money to the male teacher that did the job.