A study published in the journal Organization Science finds that when managers have to explain their pay-raise decisions to employees, they tend to give more money to men than they do to women -- even if the workers' performance is equal.
A new study in the journal Organization Science finds that when managers have to explain their pay-raise decisions to employees, they give more money to men than they do to women -- even if the workers' performance is equal.
In the study, originally done for Emory University, 184 managers were given a set amount of money that they needed to distribute among employees with identical skills and responsibilities. Half of the managers were told they would need to justify their decisions to their employees, and half were told there would be no discussion afterwards.
Unfortunately, women can't overcome an initially low raise by negotiating because the corporate budget has already been spent. In many companies, each manager receives a budget for raises that is then divided among employees. All workers are notified at the same time (or over a very short time period) of their increases. Because every penny has already been allotted, there is no money left to give to someone who questions a small raise. Managers won't typically go to an employee with a higher raise and say, "Oops! Jane needs a few more bucks, so we're taking a percent off your raise and giving it to her!"
The only way a raise can go through at this point is for an exception to be granted. And that requires a lot of hard work on the part of the manager and (most likely) the manager's manager. HR and senior management must be convinced that this additional raise, outside of the spent budget, is worth the money. And managers, who are cognizant of their own reputation, will try to do this without stating that they made a mistake in allocating raise money.
To summarize: A paper published in Communication, Culture and Critique examining the sports-watching habits of 19 women concluded that one reason women's sports are still struggling to gain an audience is that women don't have as much time to spend on sports as men, mostly because they're busy running the vacuum under their husbands' feet as they watch the game. When the interviewed women do watch sports, it's in the context of "family time," which means, unsurprisingly, that the teams they watch are the husbands' favorites. In short, women are still deeply unequal on the domestic front. I know, I'm surprised too.
The problem really started with reporting in the Los Angeles Times that took this rather feminist study and skewed it so that it read more like a click-happy reaffirmation of the sexist belief that women's disinterest in sports is the result of something being wrong with women, and not with society or sports culture. The headline ("Wives Watch Sports for Husband's Sake, Study Reports") and the initial paragraphs paint a picture of women pretending to like sports to impress men, which in turn triggered pre-existing audience stereotypes about how women are too stupid to know what a "down" is. It wasn't until paragraph seven that the writer, Monte Morin, got around to discussing how the study wasn't actually about women only pretending to like sports, and was in fact more about how women don't have the time nor really the interpersonal power to be the dominant sports fans in their households. Even then, Morin downplayed the actual conclusions to play up a narrative of women who are so invested in man-pleasing we'll be bored silly for hours pretending to care about those sports that are too complex for our lady brains to grasp.
When the comedian Daniel Tosh reportedly singled out a woman in his audience and suggested, according to a blog post that recounted the incident, it would be "funny" if she "got raped by, like, five guys, right now," the online reaction was swift, heated and often split down gender lines. Many men wanted to explain free speech or heckling etiquette. Many women (and virtually all feminists) said these topics were distractions, at best, from the sheer offensiveness of Tosh's attack.
Quite a few of the women who shared our post said they were doing so in hopes that a husband or boyfriend would "finally understand why I won't watch Tosh's show with him." Some even tagged their husbands or boyfriends, to be sure the message would reach its destination.
But this wasn't just any excited mom-to-be. This was 37-year-old Marissa Mayer, the newly named CEO of Yahoo – obviously a huge achievement for anyone, but especially for a woman in the male-dominated tech industry. And she was about six months pregnant, to boot.
Exciting news – especially for Mayer and her husband, of course – but did it mean something for the rest of us, too? Was it a watershed moment in the perennial debate over whether women can "have it all," with the pendulum swinging happily in the positive direction?
Or was it, as some claimed in the inevitable back-and-forth on Twitter, actually a development that would increase pressure on other working moms, who might not have nearly the resources that Mayer does, in terms of wealth, power, talent and flexibility on the job?
Or was it even sexist to raise the question at all? Would anyone be saying anything if the new Yahoo CEO were an expectant father? No, went a frequent online thread: No one would even pay attention to that.
Researchers have shown in the past that women and teens think of themselves in sexually objectified terms, but the new study is the first to identify self-sexualization in young girls. The study, published online July 6 in the journal Sex Roles, also identified factors that protect girls from objectifying themselves.
Psychologists at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., used paper dolls to assess self-sexualization in 6- to 9-year-old girls. Sixty girls were shown two dolls, one dressed in tight and revealing "sexy" clothes and the other wearing a trendy but covered-up, loose outfit.
Using a different set of dolls for each question, the researchers then asked each girl to choose the doll that: looked like herself, looked how she wanted to look, was the popular girl in school, she wanted to play with.
Across-the-board, girls chose the "sexy" doll most often. The results were significant in two categories: 68 percent of the girls said the doll looked how she wanted to look, and 72 percent said she was more popular than the non-sexy doll.
Even as women have moved up the economic ladder and outpaced men in earnings growth over the last decade, they are lagging behind in a crucial area — getting new jobs.
Since the recession ended in June 2009, men have landed 80% of the 2.6 million net jobs created, including 61% in the last year.
One reason: Male-dominated manufacturing, which experienced sharp layoffs during the recession, has rebounded in recent years, while government, where women hold the majority of jobs, has continued to be hit hard.
But there's something else at work. Men are grabbing a bigger share of jobs in areas, such as retail sales, that typically have been the province of women, federal data show.
That's not necessarily good news for women or men. So-called women's work often pays less and offers skimpier benefits and less opportunity for advancement than the jobs men previously held.
In 1981 Hardy became the first female firefighter at the Purdue University Fire Department. “At the time it was unheard of,” she said. “But it is not as unusual now as it was 30 years ago for me to be in a fire department.”
Recent trends reiterate Hardy’s statement, with reports that not only do women make up almost 60 percent of the workforce in America, but they are increasingly entering jobs in fields previously dominated by men.
According to a recent NBC news story as well as a study by the Center for Women’s Business Research, women are taking on jobs that have been traditionally held by men.
From ownership and professional positions all the way to the physical labor in industries such as construction, manufacturing, transportation and repair jobs, a woman’s presence is becoming less uncommon.
How does that data translate locally? Greater Lafayette Commerce’s CEO and President Joe Seaman says that’s a question not many people have asked. “The job may have the same name,” Seaman said, “but the skill sets are different. In the past strength was utilized, but now we are utilizing education.”
A University of Cambridge and University of Oxford study discovered that children who suffered from mathematics anxiety performed worse on math problems, affecting their performance. Girls suffered more math anxiety, even when they performed well.
In a University of Cambridge and University of Oxford study that looked at 433 British schoolchildren, researchers discovered that those who suffered from mathematics anxiety performed worse on math problems, affecting their performance. The study was published in Behavioral and Brain Functions on July 9.
Overall, more girls were affected by math anxiety than the boys. However, there were no gender differences in performance even if the girls dreaded doing math more. Researchers concluded that girls may be able to do even better in math if it wasn't for their anxiety levels.
"These results might suggest that girls may have had the potential to perform better than boys in mathematics, however, their performance may have been attenuated by higher levels of (mathematics anxiety)," the study authors wrote.
The study of more than 9000 women found those who worked more than 49 hours a week gained an average of about 1.9 per cent of their weight over a two-year period – or about 1.3 kilograms for a 69-kilogram woman. Those who worked part-time had an average weight gain of 1.5 per cent – or about 1 kilogram.
"These findings suggest that not working may have some protective effect against weight gain and may help promote weight loss," says the study, published in the International Journal of Obesity.
"This may be related to those women having more time to spend on maintaining a healthy body weight." The study, which examined women aged 45 to 50, found those who worked long hours, defined as 41 to 48 hours a week, or very long hours, more than 49 hours a week, were also far more likely to smoke, drink at unhealthy levels, sleep less and not exercise.
About 65 per cent of those who worked long hours drank at risky levels, compared with 42 per cent of those who were not in the workforce and 53 per cent who were unemployed.
The study said employed women may be more likely to gain weight because they have less time for exercise, sleeping and preparing home-cooked meals.
The lead author, Nicole Au, from Melbourne's Monash University, said the impact of long work hours was particularly evident among the women who gained the most weight.