Women in top-paying jobs still make less than men

[Cali_Democrat]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Women-in-toppaying-jobs-still-hmoney-2729635608.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=

Annalyn Censky, staff reporter, On Tuesday April 20, 2010, 10:12 am EDT
Even in the highest paying jobs, women still make less than men, according to a new report by a women's research group.

CEO, pharmacist and lawyer are among the 10 most lucrative job titles for women, according to the study released Tuesday by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. But while women in those positions earned median pay topping $100,000 a year, that was just about 75% of what men with the same job titles earned.

The median weekly salary for a woman chief executive, for example, was $1,500 last year, compared with $2,000 for a man.

When looking at how much women are paid vs. men in all jobs, the overall wage gap holds at 77 cents to the dollar. But that so-called wage gap doesn't take into account differences in education, tenure and industry -- all factors which determine a worker's pay.

Even when researchers account for those factors, at least half of the gap remains unexplained, said Ariane Hegewisch, who directed the study.

Betty Spence, president of the National Association of Female Executives, an advocacy group representing women executives, says those numbers are alarming. Still, she says, gender bias may not be entirely responsible for the unaccounted-for part of the gap. Women may work fewer hours than men or may not be as aggressive in negotiating salaries, said Spence.

Read more at link...http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Women-in-toppaying-jobs-still-hmoney-2729635608.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=

[Xenotime]

1. One word: Discrimination

[Zoeisright]

2. Who would unrec this? Weak men? Jealous men?

Good god.

[hughee99]

3. Interesting question about negotiating salaries...

Two candidates up for the same CEO job, a man and a woman. If the woman feels like the man is automatically has an advantage because of his gender, she may feel like she has to be less demanding on salary to make herself a more attractive candidate. I wonder if, or if it does, how often, this comes into play.

[Spike89]

5. Good question

Until women catch up in the upper ranks, you're likely to see them at a negotiating disadvantage. It is almost that you need quantity of positions before you can fully equate the quality.

[Xithras]

8. I've seen it myself.

I've hired employees many times, and men to tend to be more aggressive when negotiating salaries. I've offered starting wages before, only to have men immediately decline them and start citing reasons why they need to be paid more. I've had men walk out of my office, after being offered well paid jobs, because the pay wasn't quite up to their standards.

I've only ever had a one woman do that (and she turned out to be one of the best employees I ever had...for the six months that she worked for me before jumping ship to move on to an even better paying company). All of the rest simply took the initial offer.

I can only speculate as to the root causes of the difference, but there is certainly a very real difference between the way men and women negotiate their wages.

[Liberal_in_LA]

4. kick

[BlancheSplanchnik]

6. kick

[SoCalDem]

7. Women are more exploitable..

Women in the "real world" workplace has always been an "issue"

Posted by SoCalDem in General Discussion
Mon Apr 19th 2010, 01:52 AM
for America..

There was never a problem with farm wives busting their asses next to their farmer-husbands, or wives of store-owners, but women in the workforce were another issue.

Women often took IN work...sewing, ironing, washing, etc.. or they did after-hours cleaning. The immigrant women were relegated to sweatshop work, because they were timid, & many did not speak English well, or they had no room in their tenements to DO take-in work.

Women were expected to do all the child-rearing, keep the house, cook, clean, do laundry and of course be "available" to their man whenever he wanted.

That schedule is pretty daunting, without being "out there" competing in the job-world for less money than a man would make, doing the same job.

Men were paid more because the perception was that THEY supported a family, and women worked because they were bored housewives, old-maid spinsters, too homely to "catch" a man, or just wanted "extra money".

No one took note of the fact that for DECADES now, one salary has not been enough to support a family, OR that MILLIONS of women re now MORE educated and qualified than a lot of men, and that many men have bailed on families & Mom IS the sole support of the family.

The movies & books still play up the angle that women do not "need" to work, and the ones who do are often "in it" for self-gratification...not from necessity.

For the young ones here who were not around bck then, take a hard look at "Mad Men". That's as true a representation as there is, of how it really was for women ..and that whole thing continued WAAAAY into the 1970's.

The one quibble I have about Mad Men is that they are almost too nice to the women. Most women I knew in the labor force back then were totally dismissed by the men they worked with, and other than the few who were hit upon mercilessly, and treated like workplace whores, most were just as valuable as the carpeting, drapes or furniture in the place.. totally replaceable.

Teaching was one of the few occupations (the other one was nursing) that "respectable" young women went to college to do.

Being unmarried was often a part of the requirement, because then they would always be available to do extra after-hours tutoring & mentoring, and they could also be paid less because with no family to support they did not NEED to earn more.

Until the late '70's it was pretty common for women to go to college to find a husband, and failing that, they would have a teaching certificate or nursing degree to "fall back on" until they DID find a man.

The Women's Movement was ALL about changing this perception, and it has, to some degree, but all you have to do is go to the movies, and the "olden days" are still there.. Even the brightest, cutest, most successful woman is still portrayed as unhappy, unworthy, and downright neurotic, until she meets "Mr. Right" & has (or tries to) have a baby.

The old myth of women being the "weaker sex/fair sex/delicate flowers of womanhood/etc" persists, and is the bedrock of right wing philosophy. The LAST thing these people want is a bunch of capable women in charge and running things.

[Lance_Boyle]

9. They publish this without accounting for # of hours worked?

"Women may work fewer hours than men or may not be as aggressive in negotiating salaries." So they accounted for half of the gap by taking "into account differences in education, tenure and industry" and don't bother with comparing hours billed to try to explain the other half of the gap? That's effin' weak. Fetches a nice, outrage-brewing headline, but doesn't speak much in the way of truth. I'd love to know whether or not hours billed/worked accounts for the other half of the gap. Too bad these lazy-ass worthless "researchers" can't be arsed to find out. I guess they got their headline, and if comments here are any indication, the outrage they were looking for. Mission accomplished. Except for that whole "research" thing.

[Odin2005]

10. K&R