Author Topic: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly  (Read 25796 times)

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4928
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2014, 07:18:12 AM »
Consider the whole area of relationships, for one instance.

that's pretty vague. could you elaborate? seems to me every relationship is different and, depending on the dysfunctional relationship, either gender can have "the upper hand," so to speak.

OK, to start from the beginning...  What percentage of women ever ask a man for a date?  The male is still generally supposed to 'pursue' the female, these days risking the consequences of sexual harassment if he misjudges his pursuit.  He's expected to spend lavishly on meals, gifts, and so on, even though the female may nowadays make as much or more than he does. 

Quote
I thought you were going to say "divorce court," which is something I have heard tends to favor women but I know absolutely nothing about it, so I don't know if that's accurate or not.

My knowledge too is only second or third hand.

Quote
As for #3, I'm still waiting for my white guy privileges to show up :-)

haha, what? seriously? I guess I don't know why I'm surprised, since one of the characteristics of privilege is that those who have it rarely recognize it, e.g. I never really have to think about the fact that I'm white and middle-class.

You perhaps noticed that there were two factors there, 'white' and 'middle class'?  Try being white and poor for a while, and you might gain some perspective on which is the really important one.

When I am reading an article about women and research and it says 50% of grad students are female but once you get to full professor only 20% are female, I don't how else to read that.

Perhaps it depends on what field you're in.  My own experience is that it's closer to 20% female grad students in STEM, and about the same ratio in professorships.

Quote
I know everyone of my classmates wants the prize, a full professorship so why is there such a disparity?

In STEM, a professorship is not such a prize.  Most grad students want careers in industry or research.  (Indeed, some of us have had such careers, but return for advanced study/research out of interest.  I'm one such: another guy working in the same research area made multiple millions from a tech startup.)

As for why there's a disparity, it's pretty simple.  Call it 'mommy track', if you like.  Any person can only do so much, and it's just a fact of life that many women will choose to sacrifice career for children, while many men sacrifice children for career.  (Not that either gender necessarily regards the choice as a sacrifice.)  That choice, I think, accounts for a lot of the supposed disparity in earnings &c in almost every field.
Most professionals who decide to go on to a PhD and work 40-60hrs for the privileged don't want to be mommy tracked.  There are only two women in the biomedical sciences PhD programs that have kids.  They are not 80% of the group, just FYI.  Actually there are more men with kids interestingly enough.  And, at least in the PhD/post-doc group, the men are just as likely to take care of the kids as the women. 
There is a disparity among the professors sure, but not as much with the students.  Yet, the professors judge the female more.  Many men go and pick their children up at the on site daycare, and rarely do people comment, yet the two female students have had multiple comments about needing to leave "early" even when the others leave at the same time and/or the student has arrived early to compensate.  Men don't get the same judgment women do for having children, not that women or men, on average, behave any differently with those children in my experience. 
Female associate professors work just as many hours as the males, the difference is often in the service hours vs research hours done, just FYI. 
Where in STEM are you?  And would you like to back up your 20% grad student-20% full professors with any actual studies or hell, even one university's posted grad student and full professors?  I can go re-find the article I read.  The fact that you say you are in STEM but are substituting your experience vs actual data concerns me, but maybe you are ignoring it because I did not post the link, would you like me to?
2nd statement:  I was raised lower middle class but since my mom was raised poor she did not expect to help me with college.  I worked at low income jobs and took almost twice as long to get through school (starting at community college) and I had serious advantages being white over minority women (and in some cases minority men) in society, for one thing, I rarely got pulled over as opposed to my hispanic friends (of any income level).

Now to get to the good part
Quote
OK, to start from the beginning...  What percentage of women ever ask a man for a date?  The male is still generally supposed to 'pursue' the female, these days risking the consequences of sexual harassment if he misjudges his pursuit.  He's expected to spend lavishly on meals, gifts, and so on, even though the female may nowadays make as much or more than he does. 
Do you even know the definition of sexism?  "Prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender."
No one is discriminated against males here.  Another person's choice not to ask is not discrimination.  And asking once is not harassment (except in your workplace which you should not be asking anyway).  And we have gone over this: in general women make less then men (see federal government for stats).  That being said, no in general you are not expected to spend lavishly.  My husband asked what I was typing and asked about this.  When I told him what you said here, well part would get me in trouble to repeat, but in the end he said "if you are expected to spend lavishly, you are choosing the wrong women".   Most women are recommended to split date costs after the first date, do you not get past the first date?  But honestly, that does not matter.  What matters is your experience that you risk sexual harassment?  WTF are you doing to get accused of THAT?  Perhaps that is what you need to focus on, stop treating women in a way that gets you accused of that.  Once, I get ignoring but if it becomes a trend, look at the common variable, you.

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2014, 07:19:59 AM »
OK, to start from the beginning...  What percentage of women ever ask a man for a date?  The male is still generally supposed to 'pursue' the female, these days risking the consequences of sexual harassment if he misjudges his pursuit.  He's expected to spend lavishly on meals, gifts, and so on, even though the female may nowadays make as much or more than he does. 
This sounds like sociology as taught by 90s sitcoms and lazy standup comedians. Generally, rhetorical questions like "what percentage of women..." mean you don't have a clue what the real answer is, but you're hoping everyone else will make the same prejudiced guess that you did. For reference, pretty much anything you learned about gender by watching TV is misogynist garbage.

yeah, I was going to say... I'm sure this varies between particular subcultures but this has NOT been my experience at all. I guess me/my friends/my current and former love interests are more progressive than some, but in 2014 I really don't think you can make this generalization.

anecdotally, my boyfriend did ask me out to lunch for what was our first date, BUT this was prefaced a few days earlier by ME initiating us hooking up... and then a few days after our date, I actually booty called him :) currently (having dated for 3+ years), as I mentioned in another thread, we tend to spend evenly on things like gifts and dinners out, but I pay all of our large bills (rent/utilities) because I make a lot more money. it was interesting to me to realize as I typed out this paragraph that I actually WAS worried about being judged, that people would think I sounded slutty or trashy or that my boyfriend sounded not good enough or something since he wasn't providing for me. so yeah, even in reasonably "unconventional" relationships, those societal pressures are there.

I have so many more thoughts on this, but one common thread I realized as I pondered them all is that it's really important to keep in mind that sexism hurts everyone, men AND women. I'm a feminist but I'm NOT a man-hater. I just want to start taking gender out of all these decisions (who asks who out? who pays for dinner? who's going to be the stay-at-home-parent? etc.) that it shouldn't really have anything to do with. it doesn't need to be an argument about who sexism hurts more... it hurts both of us!

You perhaps noticed that there were two factors there, 'white' and 'middle class'?  Try being white and poor for a while, and you might gain some perspective on which is the really important one.

I think all three (adding gender to the mix) are important, and which one is MOST important depends on context. and you're right, I would rather be white and middle-class (probably even rather be a racial minority and middle-class) than be white and poor... but I would sure as hell rather be white and poor than a minority and poor.

As for why there's a disparity, it's pretty simple.  Call it 'mommy track', if you like.  Any person can only do so much, and it's just a fact of life that many women will choose to sacrifice career for children, while many men sacrifice children for career.  (Not that either gender necessarily regards the choice as a sacrifice.)  That choice, I think, accounts for a lot of the supposed disparity in earnings &c in almost every field.

I agree that this is what happens... but building on my comments earlier, what I'm trying to say is, how much is really a CHOICE and how much is societal pressure? on the one hand, it's a chicken and egg problem... if a husband and wife have generally similar careers, but they feel that the husband will eventually have greater earning potential (due to institutionalized sexism which may, as you point out, be based on totally accurate assumptions about which gender is more likely to drop off their career ladder), the wife is going to focus on kids while the husband is going to focus on his career... and the cycle continues. or even if they don't feel this way, who do you think is going to face more pushback from society if they stay home with the kids? if the husband stays home, unless you're in a big city there probably aren't "daddy groups" for him to connect up with the same way there are a gajillion mommy groups. he might get shit from in-laws, coworkers (if he works part-time) and others about not living up to society's views of masculinity (obviously they wouldn't use those exact words :)). many couples might find it's just easier to "go with the flow" and have mom stay home, even if she is more passionate about her career and/or has higher earning potential.

part of what I loved about "Lean In" was I felt like it acknowledged this reality (women can seriously only do so much) and really talked about the importance of a good partner and egalitarian parenting. in my dream world, both parents would work either part time or be self-employed with a flexible schedule (or retired early of course :)) so egalitarian parenting would be easy. unfortunately, our system isn't really set up for good, stable, part-time work in most fields.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 07:21:35 AM by oscarsmom »

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2014, 03:21:10 PM »
From elementary and middle school teachers to computer programmers, women are paid less than men in female-dominated, gender-balanced, and male-dominated occupations.
I can say with confidence that this particular detail isn't true.  Teachers are paid on a salary scale and our salaries aren't negotiable.  If men are making more money in teaching, it'd be for one of these reasons:

- They're more likely to move into administration, which is a big step up in salary.
- They're more likely to coach a sport after school, which pays a supplement. 
- They are less likely to take a break from teaching to raise children or take care of aging parents. 

As for the overall argument, I just don't believe it.  If a difference in salary exists, it's for reasons that are easily explained . . . such as the fact that, even today, more men choose degrees in sciences while women opt for traditional female jobs.  Personally, I've never experienced any gender discrimination in the workplace, but if you compare me and my husband, you'll find that he will earn more money over our lifetimes: 

He's an engineer.  He was already working and earning money when we started dating.  He will work until I complete my years for my pension, then we'll quit at the same time.  I'm a teacher, so my job is lower-paying and I only work 10 months out of the year.  I was still in college when we met, then I worked a few years and went back for a second degree.  I think we are fairly typical.  He will earn more money, but it has to do with our choices -- both rather traditional -- instead of any outside forces.  I think people who stir this stuff up are just trying to prove a point that doesn't exist.   
If all the politics were stripped away for a moment, ask yourself:  If female employees actually did cost 77% of male employees, why would anyone hire a male?
That's an excellent point. 


Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #53 on: March 19, 2014, 05:30:49 PM »
This sounds like sociology as taught by 90s sitcoms and lazy standup comedians. Generally, rhetorical questions like "what percentage of women..." mean you don't have a clue what the real answer is...

Well, you're right about not knowing for sure, 'cause I didn't spend the last several decades carrying around a notebook so I could jot down observations, just to have handy statistics to call up for a casual forum conversation :-)  But you're welcome to try to find statistics to either support or refute the position.  Good luck, though: querying Google with the term 'what percentage of women will ask men for a date' returns 445 million hits :-)



Quote
...pretty much anything you learned about gender by watching TV is misogynist garbage.

Just for future reference, I've never owned a TV, and watch it only rarely, when constrained to do so by courtesy.

Most professionals who decide to go on to a PhD and work 40-60hrs for the privileged don't want to be mommy tracked.

The point, though, is that those whose personal preference is for the 'mommy track' have already, somewhere along the line from high school to assistant prof, voluntarily removed themselves from the future full professorship pool.  Is this really any different from - just for example - the way I have removed myself from the 'Silicon Valley upper management' candidate pool by my decision that my quality of life would be much better if I didn't live in the Bay Area?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4928
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #54 on: March 19, 2014, 08:58:10 PM »
This sounds like sociology as taught by 90s sitcoms and lazy standup comedians. Generally, rhetorical questions like "what percentage of women..." mean you don't have a clue what the real answer is...

Well, you're right about not knowing for sure, 'cause I didn't spend the last several decades carrying around a notebook so I could jot down observations, just to have handy statistics to call up for a casual forum conversation :-)  But you're welcome to try to find statistics to either support or refute the position.  Good luck, though: querying Google with the term 'what percentage of women will ask men for a date' returns 445 million hits :-)



Quote
...pretty much anything you learned about gender by watching TV is misogynist garbage.

Just for future reference, I've never owned a TV, and watch it only rarely, when constrained to do so by courtesy.

Most professionals who decide to go on to a PhD and work 40-60hrs for the privileged don't want to be mommy tracked.

The point, though, is that those whose personal preference is for the 'mommy track' have already, somewhere along the line from high school to assistant prof, voluntarily removed themselves from the future full professorship pool.  Is this really any different from - just for example - the way I have removed myself from the 'Silicon Valley upper management' candidate pool by my decision that my quality of life would be much better if I didn't live in the Bay Area?
But we are not talking from high school.  We are talking from PhD to full professor.  And, those women, myself included are not looking to be mommy tracked.  And frankly, why should a woman having kids cause any difference in her career than a man?  Btw, associate professors of both genders work statistically the same amount.  The difference is not research expectation on females meaning either an increase in hours over the males or decreased research. 

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #55 on: March 19, 2014, 10:34:16 PM »
But we are not talking from high school.  We are talking from PhD to full professor.

Who exactly is 'we' here?  I'm talking about the long process of attrition, by which women gradually self-select themselves out of the full professorship candidate pool.

Quote
And, those women, myself included are not looking to be mommy tracked.

Perhaps 'mommy track' is not quite the right term, then, because the women who choose it seem to do so with their eyes wide open.  I've seen it happen time after time, as - just for one example - my best friend from college.  Earned an MS/CS degree, spent a few years in tech (with good prospects), then meets a guy and dumps it all to have babies.

Quote
And frankly, why should a woman having kids cause any difference in her career than a man?

First, you have cases like my friend, where having kids causes them to permanently drop out of the tech world.  (In her case, it's been close to 20 years now.)  Second, even if they successfully return after a few years, they're still that many years behind their cohorts.  And this is not really all that different for men: if a man took several years out for whatever reason, he'd be equally far behind.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4928
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2014, 07:19:03 AM »
But we are not talking from high school.  We are talking from PhD to full professor.

Who exactly is 'we' here?  I'm talking about the long process of attrition, by which women gradually self-select themselves out of the full professorship candidate pool.

Quote
And, those women, myself included are not looking to be mommy tracked.

Perhaps 'mommy track' is not quite the right term, then, because the women who choose it seem to do so with their eyes wide open.  I've seen it happen time after time, as - just for one example - my best friend from college.  Earned an MS/CS degree, spent a few years in tech (with good prospects), then meets a guy and dumps it all to have babies.

Quote
And frankly, why should a woman having kids cause any difference in her career than a man?

First, you have cases like my friend, where having kids causes them to permanently drop out of the tech world.  (In her case, it's been close to 20 years now.)  Second, even if they successfully return after a few years, they're still that many years behind their cohorts.  And this is not really all that different for men: if a man took several years out for whatever reason, he'd be equally far behind.
I had referred to the fact that a a study I read had graduate students at 50% female yet full professor at 20%.  And your explanation for that was "mommy track".  That is not from high school to full professor, it is from a self-selected group who chose a over full time, high stress job with the chance of a payoff. 
Yes, if a researcher took a long period off, they would be self-selecting for a lower income but that is not what I was talking about.  Most women who want a career (and idea that a woman in a research grad program that does not want a career is inane) are not taking years off and complaining.  I am talking about averages here and no, they cannot be explained by "mommy tracked".
And I find it extremely interesting that the OP was an explanation that women are attempting to do the same as men, yet are getting backlash and we are back to "no, no, this must only be attributed to female choices, our culture and actions have NOTHING to do with it".
« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 07:25:42 AM by Gin1984 »

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #57 on: March 20, 2014, 08:04:12 AM »
And frankly, why should a woman having kids cause any difference in her career than a man?

First, you have cases like my friend, where having kids causes them to permanently drop out of the tech world.  (In her case, it's been close to 20 years now.)  Second, even if they successfully return after a few years, they're still that many years behind their cohorts.  And this is not really all that different for men: if a man took several years out for whatever reason, he'd be equally far behind.

But think about this--WHY is it almost always the woman who drops out (to either return eventually or not), even when the career prospects of the man and woman were initially equal or even tipped in the woman's favor? You never responded to my previous assertion:

As for why there's a disparity, it's pretty simple.  Call it 'mommy track', if you like.  Any person can only do so much, and it's just a fact of life that many women will choose to sacrifice career for children, while many men sacrifice children for career.  (Not that either gender necessarily regards the choice as a sacrifice.)  That choice, I think, accounts for a lot of the supposed disparity in earnings &c in almost every field.

I agree that this is what happens... but building on my comments earlier, what I'm trying to say is, how much is really a CHOICE and how much is societal pressure? on the one hand, it's a chicken and egg problem... if a husband and wife have generally similar careers, but they feel that the husband will eventually have greater earning potential (due to institutionalized sexism which may, as you point out, be based on totally accurate assumptions about which gender is more likely to drop off their career ladder), the wife is going to focus on kids while the husband is going to focus on his career... and the cycle continues. or even if they don't feel this way, who do you think is going to face more pushback from society if they stay home with the kids? if the husband stays home, unless you're in a big city there probably aren't "daddy groups" for him to connect up with the same way there are a gajillion mommy groups. he might get shit from in-laws, coworkers (if he works part-time) and others about not living up to society's views of masculinity (obviously they wouldn't use those exact words :)). many couples might find it's just easier to "go with the flow" and have mom stay home, even if she is more passionate about her career and/or has higher earning potential.

part of what I loved about "Lean In" was I felt like it acknowledged this reality (women can seriously only do so much) and really talked about the importance of a good partner and egalitarian parenting. in my dream world, both parents would work either part time or be self-employed with a flexible schedule (or retired early of course :)) so egalitarian parenting would be easy. unfortunately, our system isn't really set up for good, stable, part-time work in most fields.


I'm curious to hear your opinion on this. Do you think it's purely biological and therefore not something we can or should try to change, even if it means missing out on the potential contributions to society of many of these women? (and yes I know good parenting is of course a valuable contribution to society, but why can't men do it too?)

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2014, 08:58:02 AM »
Quote from: Jamesqf link=topic=14951.msg247084#msg247084

OK, to start from the beginning...  What percentage of women ever ask a man for a date?  The male is still generally supposed to 'pursue' the female, these days risking the consequences of sexual harassment if he misjudges his pursuit.  He's expected to spend lavishly on meals, gifts, and so on, even though the female may nowadays make as much or more than he does. 

You have the freedom to ask or not.  That's not sexism.  I in fact essentially asked my husband for our first date.  And although he insisted on paying on the first date, I paid on the second, and it was through the sailing membership I had paid for that we did our third date with him as my guest.  Methinks you are making poor choices and dating the wrong women who expect this treatment.

I don't know who your friends are or how they ask for dates, but I also have never known anyone accused of asking for sexual harassment for asking for a date. 

First, you have cases like my friend, where having kids causes them to permanently drop out of the tech world.  (In her case, it's been close to 20 years now.)  Second, even if they successfully return after a few years, they're still that many years behind their cohorts.  And this is not really all that different for men: if a man took several years out for whatever reason, he'd be equally far behind.

The studies I and others showed you above controlled for these facts.  A disparity still existed. 
« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 12:12:18 PM by CommonCents »

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #59 on: March 20, 2014, 09:15:29 AM »

But think about this--WHY is it almost always the woman who drops out (to either return eventually or not), even when the career prospects of the man and woman were initially equal or even tipped in the woman's favor?

Probably because they often take time off work during or after a pregnancy. Men typically don't or at least not as much time.

I think many women are killing themselves trying to be everything. They've been sold this lie* that you can have 3 kids, be a PTA mom, and have a demanding/successful career all at once and be amazing at all 3. The result is one stressed out woman, who feels like she's failing because she's not superhuman.

Most CEOs are white men. Racism and sexism play a role; they definitely have in the past. But how many of those men are single fathers? Look at female CEOs. I bet almost all of them either have a stay at home husband, a husband with a less demanding job, or they've been able to afford outside help: nannies, drivers, etc. Or they don't have children.

*I say lie because our businesses and society are simply not set up for "shared" priorities at this point.

When people talk about the pay gap and other inequalities, it's presented as if a manger or someone in a position of power is sitting behind a desk saying "OK, this applicant is a woman. Decrease offer by 10%."

But I think today more often what happens is a woman avoids say engineering because it's presented as a masculine profession. Or she never even considered it because teachers/parents/etc pushed teaching.

Where do you draw the line between discrimination and personal decisions, even if those decisions were partly driven by how the sexes are treated differently?


Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4928
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #60 on: March 20, 2014, 10:33:48 AM »

But think about this--WHY is it almost always the woman who drops out (to either return eventually or not), even when the career prospects of the man and woman were initially equal or even tipped in the woman's favor?

Probably because they often take time off work during or after a pregnancy. Men typically don't or at least not as much time.

I think many women are killing themselves trying to be everything. They've been sold this lie* that you can have 3 kids, be a PTA mom, and have a demanding/successful career all at once and be amazing at all 3. The result is one stressed out woman, who feels like she's failing because she's not superhuman.

Most CEOs are white men. Racism and sexism play a role; they definitely have in the past. But how many of those men are single fathers? Look at female CEOs. I bet almost all of them either have a stay at home husband, a husband with a less demanding job, or they've been able to afford outside help: nannies, drivers, etc. Or they don't have children.

*I say lie because our businesses and society are simply not set up for "shared" priorities at this point.

When people talk about the pay gap and other inequalities, it's presented as if a manger or someone in a position of power is sitting behind a desk saying "OK, this applicant is a woman. Decrease offer by 10%."

But I think today more often what happens is a woman avoids say engineering because it's presented as a masculine profession. Or she never even considered it because teachers/parents/etc pushed teaching.

Where do you draw the line between discrimination and personal decisions, even if those decisions were partly driven by how the sexes are treated differently?
Actually studies have shown where identical resumes (or CVs/grant applications) were shown and higher wages/higher acceptances were given the case of a male name.  That is why NIH (grant funding source from the federal gov) now removed names which greatly increased the grants provided to women and minorities (with the exception of AAs, though not of first generation africans americans). 
It also has been shown that the SAME behavior by a male and female in regards to kids (for example needing to leave at 5 to pick up a kid from daycare) is judged negatively for females and positively for males, including a very interesting study in the UK that showed women with kids were offered lower salaries then women without kids and the reverse was true for males, males with family were offered larger pay then singles males.
I am happy to post all of these studies but I assume no one wants to read them, please let me know if you would like them I can post them, but they are easy to find on google.
Most of the professional women in my cohort do not expect to do it all, unlike the mothers before us.  Therefore we expect an equal partner.  The problem is that does not always occur.
More and more men are taking time off for the birth, under FMLA, it will be interesting to see how that changed wage/promotions in the next generation.  Both my husband and I were back at work part time after my daughter was born (except the first week where my husband worked 60 hours and I was off completely until 6 weeks where we both were full time) because there were things that HAD to be done.   
I think have to be aware of the cultural, often subconscious behaviors (on the case of both genders) and try to compensate for them.  I am not EVIL SEXIST MEN (women are sexist against women often), I just want these things discussed and considered. 
If you know you (in general) may react negatively when a women negotiates and not when a man does, STOP BLAMING WOMEN FOR NOT NEGOTIATING when we talk about the pay gap (which includes promotions not just job description to job description because of women not being promoted as quickly as men, even when there is not objective reason for it) and consider that you might be blaming them when they do. 

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #61 on: March 20, 2014, 12:41:09 PM »
I had referred to the fact that a a study I read had graduate students at 50% female yet full professor at 20%.  And your explanation for that was "mommy track".  That is not from high school to full professor, it is from a self-selected group who chose a over full time, high stress job with the chance of a payoff.

And again, I find it difficult to believe the 50% female grad student ratio (in tech: I know little or nothing about other fields), but see comments below re Google.  You also have to consider that full professors today reflect the conditions of 20-40 years ago.

But think about this--WHY is it almost always the woman who drops out (to either return eventually or not), even when the career prospects of the man and woman were initially equal or even tipped in the woman's favor?

I think you have to put that down to inherent biological differences.  While I don't actually KNOW it, or have any idea how to prove or disprove it, I think it is pretty obvious that (even apart from pregnancy & nursing) women tend to be much more interested in babies & young children than men are.
\
Quote
...in my dream world, both parents would work either part time or be self-employed with a flexible schedule (or retired early of course :)) so egalitarian parenting would be easy.

Even if it were perfectly easy, so that there were no cultural or economic barriers whatsoever, do you really think most couples would actually want to do this sort of completely egalitarian parenting?  Or would the women, on average, wind up wanting to spend more time with the kids?

Most CEOs are white men. Racism and sexism play a role; they definitely have in the past.
Quote

But most white men are not CEOs.  Just as while most NBA players are black, most black people aren't NBA players.

Quote
Where do you draw the line between discrimination and personal decisions, even if those decisions were partly driven by how the sexes are treated differently?

Yes, that's the question.  Every kid makes choices in life that puts him/her on a track which might lead either to the corner office or the center court.  If those choices are made freely, even if they are informed by reality, is it actually discrimination?  Wouldn't a short person (or a woman) be rather silly to aim for an NBA career?  Does that mean that the NBA is wrong to discriminate against short people, or women?

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #62 on: March 20, 2014, 01:50:19 PM »
Actually studies have shown where identical resumes (or CVs/grant applications) were shown and higher wages/higher acceptances were given the case of a male name.  That is why NIH (grant funding source from the federal gov) now removed names which greatly increased the grants provided to women and minorities (with the exception of AAs, though not of first generation africans americans).   

Which NIH Institute is this?  All of the ones with which I have experience require a bio sketch, publication list, current position, and other clearly identifying personal data available to reviewers.

gooki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2917
  • Location: NZ
    • My FIRE journal
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #63 on: March 21, 2014, 02:23:42 AM »
Throwing my 2 cents in.

If you're not prepared to say no (and walk away), your negotiation power is greatly diminished *.

Business want to pay you as little as possible, no matter the gender. This behavior is also significant for those who accept roles at a lower starting salary.

* Anecdotal evidence.

While employed by company A they offered me a 6% raise for a new position (it was a take it or leave it offer). I left 3 months later. 6 month later they offered me an identical role at a 30% raise.

While at company B they offered me a 20% raise when I handed in my notice I said no thanks. 3 months later they offered me the role at a 65% raise.

PS knowing your market, and having options so you can walk away is key. I'd been on the hiring side, prior to me moving on, and knew there was very few skilled people looking for work in our region.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 02:34:03 AM by gooki »

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #64 on: March 21, 2014, 07:11:05 AM »
Throwing my 2 cents in.

If you're not prepared to say no (and walk away), your negotiation power is greatly diminished *.

Business want to pay you as little as possible, no matter the gender. This behavior is also significant for those who accept roles at a lower starting salary.

* Anecdotal evidence.

While employed by company A they offered me a 6% raise for a new position (it was a take it or leave it offer). I left 3 months later. 6 month later they offered me an identical role at a 30% raise.

While at company B they offered me a 20% raise when I handed in my notice I said no thanks. 3 months later they offered me the role at a 65% raise.

PS knowing your market, and having options so you can walk away is key. I'd been on the hiring side, prior to me moving on, and knew there was very few skilled people looking for work in our region.

Being FI or at least having an extremely hearty emergency fund also helps with this... just another reason MMM is awesome :)

Freckles

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4972
  • Age: 2019
  • Location: West Coast, USA
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #65 on: March 22, 2014, 03:54:06 AM »
I think you have to put that down to inherent biological differences.  While I don't actually KNOW it, or have any idea how to prove or disprove it, I think it is pretty obvious that (even apart from pregnancy & nursing) women tend to be much more interested in babies & young children than men are.

What makes you assume it's biological?  That's the whole point.  You can't assume that women are more interested in babies than men are because it's just the way women are.  That's not obvious at all.  What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.  The reason is not as simple as "They're just more interested in that stuff." 

You might as just well say that all black people like fried chicken and watermelon.  I mean, really.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5950
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #66 on: March 22, 2014, 06:12:01 AM »
You think sexism is a cultural universal and appears the same way in every society? That's a laughable claim.

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #67 on: March 22, 2014, 07:09:40 AM »
You think sexism is a cultural universal and appears the same way in every society? That's a laughable claim.
Nobody said anything remotely similar to that.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #68 on: March 22, 2014, 07:12:01 AM »
You think sexism is a cultural universal and appears the same way in every society? That's a laughable claim.
Nobody said anything remotely similar to that.

/raise eyebrow

Sure about that? :)

I think you have to put that down to inherent biological differences.  While I don't actually KNOW it, or have any idea how to prove or disprove it, I think it is pretty obvious that (even apart from pregnancy & nursing) women tend to be much more interested in babies & young children than men are.

What makes you assume it's biological?  That's the whole point.  You can't assume that women are more interested in babies than men are because it's just the way women are.  That's not obvious at all.  What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.  The reason is not as simple as "They're just more interested in that stuff." 

You might as just well say that all black people like fried chicken and watermelon.  I mean, really.

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #69 on: March 22, 2014, 07:23:39 AM »
Yes, I did in fact read the post you were responding to. Which part refers to "all cultures", and which part says sexism affects all cultures "the same way"? No use just quoting the whole thing and asserting that it says something totally different to what it actually says.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #70 on: March 22, 2014, 08:05:11 AM »
Yes, I did in fact read the post you were responding to. Which part refers to "all cultures", and which part says sexism affects all cultures "the same way"? No use just quoting the whole thing and asserting that it says something totally different to what it actually says.

But I don't think I'm asserting something totally different. It was left more nebulous and not specific. You could interpret the line -
Quote
What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.

as all culture due to the fact that Freckles stated that women throughout history (aka all human cultures ever) have been in charge of child-rearing due to biology, lack of birth control, and general ingrained sexism. I get that you might interpret that differently but to me it's pretty clear that it reads all human cultures. I'm curious, if you think it says something totally different, what do you see when you read it?

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #71 on: March 22, 2014, 08:24:47 AM »
But I don't think I'm asserting something totally different. It was left more nebulous and not specific. You could interpret the line -
Quote
What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.

as all culture due to the fact that Freckles stated that women throughout history (aka all human cultures ever)
I could interpret it that way if I was being deliberately obtuse, but "throughout history" does not mean "all human cultures ever", please don't be ridiculous. The "for all of human history" part isn't even directly attached to the "sexism" part, culturally-ingrained sexism is given as one amongst a list of reasons that women have historically been left in charge of child-rearing. It also doesn't make any claim about sexism appearing "the same way" in different societies, let alone every different society.

It's really poor form to invent ridiculous claims and then pretend that your opponents said them. It doesn't take much imagination to interpret "at every point in history" as something other than "in every culture".

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5950
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #72 on: March 22, 2014, 09:45:14 AM »
"general SEXISM ingrained in culture" treats the whole diversity of human cultural practice as one monolithic thing. Such claims are almost universally bullshit.

I didn't think that was what the poster meant when they said "general" but when you combine that with culture used in the singular and broad statements like "all of human history", and you've got a safe bet that somebody is overstepping truth to make a rhetorical point.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #73 on: March 22, 2014, 10:04:48 AM »
But I don't think I'm asserting something totally different. It was left more nebulous and not specific. You could interpret the line -
Quote
What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.

as all culture due to the fact that Freckles stated that women throughout history (aka all human cultures ever)
I could interpret it that way if I was being deliberately obtuse, but "throughout history" does not mean "all human cultures ever", please don't be ridiculous. The "for all of human history" part isn't even directly attached to the "sexism" part, culturally-ingrained sexism is given as one amongst a list of reasons that women have historically been left in charge of child-rearing. It also doesn't make any claim about sexism appearing "the same way" in different societies, let alone every different society.

It's really poor form to invent ridiculous claims and then pretend that your opponents said them. It doesn't take much imagination to interpret "at every point in history" as something other than "in every culture".

But claiming all of human history does include all of human culture, does it not? And if no, why not? To rephrase what we're discussing - "Women have always been in charge of child rearing because of general sexism ingrained in culture." You seem to think that what I just wrote is not a valid interpretation of

Quote
What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.

Why?

Furthermore rather than answering a question like "what do you think it means?" you choose to use insults. Just because I rephrased what was said to be throughout, rather than all, which was what was originally used, doesn't make my interpretation deliberately obtuse, ridiculous, unimaginative, pretend, poor form, or whatever ad hominem you want to attach to it. :) Please choose another route of discourse as it's not really all that helpful or interesting to throw shit at each other.

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #74 on: March 22, 2014, 10:05:46 AM »
So, use of the word "culture" in singular form must be referring to "the whole diversity of human cultural practice"? The thread is about US culture, and "general SEXISM ingrained in culture" was one amongst a list of reasons, which was specified not to be an all-inclusive list, and no individual reason from that list was claimed to apply for "all of human history". Yet you are eager to take one particular reason from that non-exhaustive list and assume that the "for all of human history" applies to that reason, rather than the thing it's an example of a reason for ("women have been in charge of the child-rearing"), which would be the obvious interpretation seeing as that's what the "for all of human history" clause was directly attached to. I think you are being obtuse.

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #75 on: March 22, 2014, 10:13:55 AM »
But claiming all of human history does include all of human culture, does it not?
No, it doesn't. Culture and history are different things. Just because every culture has existed at some point in history, doesn't mean that any reference to "every point in history" must also refer to every culture. Every car has existed at some point in history, too, but we're clearly not talking about cars.

Quote
To rephrase what we're discussing - "Women have always been in charge of child rearing because of general sexism ingrained in culture." You seem to think that what I just wrote is not a valid interpretation of

Quote
What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.
You're right, it's a totally invalid interpretation, the "for a few different reasons such as" part is rather important to the meaning. If you said "all people enjoy some things, a few of those different things being cycling, camping and board games", and I responded "You think everybody enjoys board games? That's a laughable claim.", that would be pretty damn obtuse. You can't just omit the middle half of a sentence in a way that changes its logical structure, and expect to get a valid interpretation.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #76 on: March 22, 2014, 10:45:48 AM »
But claiming all of human history does include all of human culture, does it not?
No, it doesn't. Culture and history are different things. Just because every culture has existed at some point in history, doesn't mean that any reference to "every point in history" must also refer to every culture. Every car has existed at some point in history, too, but we're clearly not talking about cars.

Quote
To rephrase what we're discussing - "Women have always been in charge of child rearing because of general sexism ingrained in culture." You seem to think that what I just wrote is not a valid interpretation of

Quote
What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.
You're right, it's a totally invalid interpretation, the "for a few different reasons such as" part is rather important to the meaning. If you said "all people enjoy some things, a few of those different things being cycling, camping and board games", and I responded "You think everybody enjoys board games? That's a laughable claim.", that would be pretty damn obtuse. You can't just omit the middle half of a sentence in a way that changes its logical structure, and expect to get a valid interpretation.

You're right we're not talking about cars, they were not mentioned until you brought them up. :) The difference being that human culture has been around throughout human history and cars are just a small tiny aspect of culture and have been a blip in the timeline of human history and culture. And culture is an awfully big thing.

Fair points. And thank you for being more civil. :) I don't necessarily agree and easily see how generalizing the statement we're discussing can be towards cultures and how/if sexism is ingrained in them. It may be a misinterpretation but we're talking causes of a specific thing (women being in charge of child-rearing), not examples of a general thing (things people like doing). The former has a specific list of things which cause it, one being general sexism ingrained in culture. The latter is a way more generalized and in now way can ever be conclusive thing. But I can see your point.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4928
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #77 on: March 22, 2014, 10:51:48 AM »
But claiming all of human history does include all of human culture, does it not?
No, it doesn't. Culture and history are different things. Just because every culture has existed at some point in history, doesn't mean that any reference to "every point in history" must also refer to every culture. Every car has existed at some point in history, too, but we're clearly not talking about cars.

Quote
To rephrase what we're discussing - "Women have always been in charge of child rearing because of general sexism ingrained in culture." You seem to think that what I just wrote is not a valid interpretation of

Quote
What's obvious is that women have been in charge of the child-rearing for all of human history, for a few different reasons such as biology and lack of birth control and lack of power and oh, I don't know, general SEXISM ingrained in culture.
You're right, it's a totally invalid interpretation, the "for a few different reasons such as" part is rather important to the meaning. If you said "all people enjoy some things, a few of those different things being cycling, camping and board games", and I responded "You think everybody enjoys board games? That's a laughable claim.", that would be pretty damn obtuse. You can't just omit the middle half of a sentence in a way that changes its logical structure, and expect to get a valid interpretation.

You're right we're not talking about cars, they were not mentioned until you brought them up. :) The difference being that human culture has been around throughout human history and cars are just a small tiny aspect of culture and have been a blip in the timeline of human history and culture. And culture is an awfully big thing.

Fair points. And thank you for being more civil. :) I don't necessarily agree and easily see how generalizing the statement we're discussing can be towards cultures and how/if sexism is ingrained in them. It may be a misinterpretation but we're talking causes of a specific thing (women being in charge of child-rearing), not examples of a general thing (things people like doing). The former has a specific list of things which cause it, one being general sexism ingrained in culture. The latter is a way more generalized and in now way can ever be conclusive thing. But I can see your point.
Which is not 100% true in every culture (which may be seen as a point against the idea that it is biological, well except for nursing and actually popping the kid OUT). 

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #78 on: March 23, 2014, 07:52:07 PM »
I have a couple of very awesome and insightful things to say here, but not the time to read all of the comments. I guess that's a way of saying commenting so I remember to come back later.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5950
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #79 on: March 23, 2014, 08:29:04 PM »
This thread has drifted enough that you are probably safe. We can always scowl and shake our fists impotently at our computer monitors if it turns out you're retreading past ground.

Freckles

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4972
  • Age: 2019
  • Location: West Coast, USA
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #80 on: March 24, 2014, 04:22:09 AM »
Well, that was interesting.  I'm sorry I didn't choose my words carefully enough to follow Grant's and Matchewed's rules.  To answer your question, Grant, I don't think sexism is a cultural universal and appears the same way in every society.  I wouldn't claim to know that as I've never studied every culture and society on Earth.  Also, that just sounds silly.  Who would say "everything" and "all" about the whole world?  However, I would feel safe saying that sexism is prevalent in most cultures, and that of course sexism does not only apply to females, but, females are far more likely to be the disenfranchised group between the two in most cultures and societies.  No studies to quote; I'm not as awesome as some of the posters on this thread.  Just general knowledge of the world.

But I still wonder why Jamesqf thinks women are more interested in babies and young children due to an inherent biological difference from men.  If he'd read that "Who here doesn't have children and wants them or doesn't" or whatever the exact title of the post was, you'd find plenty of females who would not agree that an interest in babies and young children is part of their inherent biology.  Not that that was a scientific study, so go ahead and pick apart that statement too, guys.  But how can he say that?  I see more men driving trucks than women.  You can't tell me that's biological.  I see men being more interested in watching sports than women.  Biological?  I see more men in politics than women.  Biologically more interested in politics?  I doubt it.

SnackDog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1260
  • Location: Latin America
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #81 on: March 24, 2014, 07:50:12 AM »
Not long ago a car salesman would rub his hands together in glee when he saw a female customer enter the lot.

Not anymore!

http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/women-and-negotiation-daily/new-car-negotiations-are-women-better-than-men/


BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4132
  • Location: WDC
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #82 on: March 24, 2014, 09:08:21 AM »
I consider myself to be one of the worst negotiators on the planet.  But I did notice that since I started working for myself and negotiating contracts rather than salary, I come out on the winning side more often.  As a consultant, I definitely have more leverage than I ever did as a corporate drone. 


 

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #83 on: March 30, 2014, 10:05:13 AM »
Quote
As for the overall argument, I just don't believe it.  If a difference in salary exists, it's for reasons that are easily explained . . . such as the fact that, even today, more men choose degrees in sciences while women opt for traditional female jobs.  Personally, I've never experienced any gender discrimination in the workplace, but if you compare me and my husband, you'll find that he will earn more money over our lifetimes: 

He's an engineer.  He was already working and earning money when we started dating.  He will work until I complete my years for my pension, then we'll quit at the same time.  I'm a teacher, so my job is lower-paying and I only work 10 months out of the year.  I was still in college when we met, then I worked a few years and went back for a second degree.  I think we are fairly typical.  He will earn more money, but it has to do with our choices -- both rather traditional -- instead of any outside forces.  I think people who stir this stuff up are just trying to prove a point that doesn't exist.   

I both love and hate anecdotes.  I both love and hate the actual statistics.  I like reading about what happens OVERALL.

If you look at what women make compared to men in the same industry, same job, same level of experience, it is STILL less than men.  No, not 77%, but in the 90's.  Still: it's less.
I am an engineer, not a teacher.  My salary range tops out just the same as any man I work with.  But why do women get punished for negotiating?  Because, really, they do.

An anecdote: we offered a job to a woman (former coworker of mine).  It was a crappy offer.  My company pres decided to play hardball, against the advice of our VP.  She declined the offer.
A year and a half later, after we hired a man to do the job - a man who did the job very badly, and set us back years - we hired her.  And at what she'd been asking the first time, maybe more.  She did more in her first month than the other guy ever accomplished.  But then 1.5 years later, the company really started treating its engineers like crap, and our new boss was just awful.  She quit.  It wasn't until a week after she gave notice that he realized how much she'd accomplished.

So now we've replaced her with a man.  He's actually good at his job, but you know what?  He's making $15 to $20k a year more than she was.

So much money wasted, because we punish women for negotiating.

Everyone wants a "simple" reason that's not part of the true reason - women are still VERY MUCH discriminated against - particularly in the STEM fields in my experience, for negotiating. Luckily for me, I've had a few gems as bosses (of course, I'm still lower paid than my male coworkers of my level - the only ones who make less have 10 years less experience).

nawhite

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: Golden, CO
    • The Reckless Choice
Re: Money mythbuster: Women don’t negotiate- from get rich slowly
« Reply #84 on: March 31, 2014, 11:18:31 AM »
An anecdote: we offered a job to a woman (former coworker of mine).  It was a crappy offer.  My company pres decided to play hardball, against the advice of our VP.  She declined the offer.
A year and a half later, after we hired a man to do the job - a man who did the job very badly, and set us back years - we hired her.  And at what she'd been asking the first time, maybe more.  She did more in her first month than the other guy ever accomplished.  But then 1.5 years later, the company really started treating its engineers like crap, and our new boss was just awful.  She quit.  It wasn't until a week after she gave notice that he realized how much she'd accomplished.

So now we've replaced her with a man.  He's actually good at his job, but you know what?  He's making $15 to $20k a year more than she was.

So much money wasted, because we punish women for negotiating.

Have to say, that anecdote sounds like she did the right thing in every case and that a smart man in the same case would likely have done the same things. It also doesn't give me enough information to believe that she was punished for negotiating.

She stuck to her guns on salary negotiation and walked away when the company played hardball. How is this punishing her for negotiating? We have no evidence that the company wouldn't have played hardball with a man with same experience interviewing at the same time. The fact that the guy they ended up hiring sucked is irrelevant.
She quit when management/boss started sucking. The fact that the replacement they hired after she quit was hired at a higher salary is irrelevant because the company was on the ropes and didn't have the upper hand in negotiations anymore. Again, no evidence that this was gender biased at all.

I'm not saying it wasn't gender biased, just that the information you have given us doesn't make the case that it was.