Financial Independence Remains the Missing Piece in the Gender Equality Puzzle — International Women's Day 2024 #InspireInclusion

Vol. 29, Issue 1 (March 2024)

Alizeh Arshad
Undergraduate Student, Economics and Sociology Department
University of Edinburgh
Scotland, United Kingdom

 

Lubna Kamani, MD, FCPS, MRCP, FRCP
President, Pakistan GI & Liver Diseases Society
Professor of Gastroenterology & Director, GI Residency Program, Liaquat National Hospital
Consultant, Aga Khan University Hospital
Karachi, Pakistan
 

Since 1980 the World Gender Parity Index (GPI) has consistently increased towards parity. However, in over 40 years there is still not a single country that exists that has achieved complete parity. At the current rate of progress it will take at least 131 years to reach parity, a time frame that has increased significantly from the 100 year estimate pre 2020 due to the financial impact the pandemic has had.

The healthcare sector is no exception. Worldwide, women still face (on average) a 24% salary differential from their male counterparts, a figure that has largely remained the same since the beginning of the century. It is estimated that in the US alone health inequalities account for $320 billion in annual healthcare spending, creating a massive strain on the economy.¹

The healthcare industry is one that is predominantly made up of women, however it is still one of the sectors where the gender pay gap remains clearly apparent. There are certain parts of the industry, as well as certain fields and jobs (such as nursing), that are often considered to be “female typical roles” where traditionally there has been a high percentage of women employed in these positions. In its entirety, the healthcare sector is made up of approximately 67% women, however these roles are sometimes looked down upon. Traditionally “female typical roles” have been undervalued and underpaid, and when a previously male-dominated role has an influx of women, funding may be removed or redistributed. To summarize, when women take over a male-dominated field the median salary over time drops for all those employed in that same field.

Unfortunately, the inequalities do not stop at merely the wage difference. Women are also more likely to receive less funding during their academic and professional journeys. In academic medicine male trainees receive increased sponsorship from both male and female sponsors as compared to female trainees; however, when women do receive sponsorship, they choose to utilize it to its full extent. The provision of sponsorships can impact an individual’s entire professional journey as it may expose them to new unique experiences and techniques that they can then utilize in their own practice thereby rapidly advancing in their careers. When women are barred from these experiences, it limits their professional development and does not facilitate advancement in their medical careers. This in turn limits them from reaching positions of leadership and providing other women in the future with sponsorships and funding. The impact of this can be seen through research grants, where a majority of them are awarded to male principal investigators. The disparity varies across fields. For instance, for studies related to infectious diseases in the UK, about 75-80% of the funding was awarded to men, with women receiving considerably fewer grants in both number and size.²

When it comes to a lack of financial support, it is not only women receiving fewer opportunities individually but collectively too. Women often have to display hyper-competence to not be judged because of their gender by their male colleagues.3 Female led conferences are often not given as much gravitas and as a result are often not able to secure the funds that they require from organizations in order to keep them running. This is when the lack of women in leadership roles becomes glaringly apparent as there are excruciatingly few funding agencies or programs that are able to or willing to support these conferences.

In addition, businesses do not often struggle to attract female mentees as they are the first to volunteer when it comes to applying for development opportunities. However, the issue that arises is that women are over mentored and under promoted; therefore, even though they may be participating more and developing their skills, they are still not able to obtain the desired result of furthering their professional career.4 There is also a disparity in the way that men and women are mentored. While men may be taught essential skills, women may be limited by learning primarily how to be confident in their role. Now, while this may be essential to learn, it is also imperative that the skills men and women are given guidance on are according to their own personal experience and not generalized assumptions based on gender.

Claudia Goldin, a Harvard professor, was awarded the Nobel in Economics last year for her decades long studies of women in the work force. She is only the third woman to have won this prize and is the first that has not had to share it with anyone. While in the past differences between education and occupation could have explained the wage gap between men and women, Dr. Goldin has now shown that the difference is now between men and women in the same fields. She and her colleagues also discovered that the pay gap seems to widen a year or two after the woman has given birth to her first child.

Gender parity is not possible without the financial independence of women. Equality is only possible when it is present in all countries, across all sectors and jobs. Financial independence is not an “unattainable fantasy.” It is something that, despite all the setbacks, is now more in our reach than ever before. Furthermore, it is not something that purely benefits women alone, but it also benefits men. Therefore, it should not fall only on women to be pioneers of and to advocate for gender parity and economic equality. We must all take responsibility and step up to the mark to do our part and challenge the status quo that restricts us. We must do this not just for the next generation of women but also the countless generations that have worked so tirelessly in the past.

References

1. Andy Davis et al. US health care can’t afford health inequities. Deloitte insights. https://www2. deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/health-care/economic-cost-ofhealth-disparities.html
2. The conversation. Men get most of the research funding- it’s a serious problem for women and science. : https://theconversation.com/ men-get-most-of-the-researchfunding-its-a-serious-problemfor-women-and-science85469#:~:text=Our%20study%20 investigated%20the%20 amount,principal%20investigators%20%E2%80%93%20a%20 huge%20difference
3. Jones E et al. Perceived Barriers to Professional Equality Among Women in Gastroenterology. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2022 Jul 18;5(5):226-233. doi: 10.1093/ jcag/gwac023. Erratum in: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2022 Oct 08;5(6):297.
4. Ceri Moyers. Why women are over mentored and under promoted. Building. https:// www.building.co.uk/buildingthe-future-commission/whywomen-are-over-mentoredand-under promoted/5122581. article#:~:text=Mentoring%20 schemes%20for%20example%20 are,critics%20of%20their%20 own%20performance