The leadership in Egypt held meetings with the opposition in order to generate discussions. Prime Minister Shafiq and Vice President Suleiman have met with protesters including ElBaradei, representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood (the outlawed Islamist group that the Egyptian government has attempted to repress for many years. In related news, King Abdullah II of Jordan met with his country's branch of the Brotherhood last week as well), and youth factions. The opposition coalition group consisted of about 50 people. The meetings were held to discuss ways this impasse could possibly end -- though some of the opposition say they were more sizing up the other side rather than negotiating. One proposal floated included dissolving parliament and ending emergency laws that grant power to the police. Another proposal involved Mubarak giving more power to his vice president and stepping down in all but name. However, the opposition is still firm in their dedication to not back down until Mubarak steps down. Overall, a consensus was not reached during the discussions, but the fact that the discussions even happened (and that people like ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood were included) is a step towards progress.
Egyptian leaders continue to make concessions: The top leaders of the ruling party, including Mubarak's son Gamal, stepped down on Saturday. During the meetings with the opposition, Vice President Suleiman said the government would allow concessions like freedom of the press, release of detainees imprisoned since the protests began, the eventual abolishment of the country's emergency laws (these "emergency laws" have been in effect since 1981 when Mubarak took office. These laws give police extreme powers to suppress civil and human rights), and a pledge not to interfere with text messaging and internet access. Suleiman also announced that committees have been created to propose constitutional amendments that many have called for in the past, including presidential term limits and relaxing eligibility rules for who can run for political office.
Protesters feel the concessions fell short (they still want Mubarak to step down), and they vowed to continue protesting. Many protesters believe the Mubarak regime simply wants to wear down their movement and are only enacting superficial reforms. They believe these 'reforms' will keep the same monopoly of power in place. More than 100,000 people turned out in the capital's central square today to continue protesting. Protests are also continuing in Alexandria and other cities around Egypt. (Full Story)(Full Story)(Full Story)(Full Story)
The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission announced the official vote tally, and they confirm that 98.83% of the voters in Southern Sudan voted in favor of independence and forming their own country. Sudan's president (the political leadership is located in the capital of Khartoum, which is in Northern Sudan), Omar al-Bashir, has previously said that he will accept the outcome of the vote.
The referendum, which took place in January, was part of the 2005 peace agreement which ended the civil war between the south and the north in Sudan. The civil war lasted over 20 years. The south wanted independence because they see themselves as culturally, religiously, and ethnically different from the north, and they have suffered years of discrimination by the north. The U.S., which was part of the peace agreement process, said they would remove Sudan from their list of countries that sponsor terrorism if the referendum goes well (i.e., it's peaceful, the results are recognized, etc). The U.S. intends to formally recognize the newly formed country of Southern Sudan in July. The formal declaration of independence will be made on July 9.
Overall, the vote was peaceful, but tensions still remain high in the border region (where the north and south meets. The ownership of some of this land is still contested. Adding to the conflict is that some of the border regions are oil-rich). At least 50 people were killed over the weekend when fighting broke out between soldiers in south Sudan's Upper Nile state. The referendum vote was the first step in the process. Negotiations on how to divide up the disputed border regions (like Abyei), and how to deal with issues of citizenship, legal matters, and natural resources (like oil) still need to occur. Hopefully these issues get worked out non-violently, and hopefully the north (and Omar al-Bashir) continues to be cooperative. (Full Story)
A study published in the journal Health Affairs has found that female physicians' average starting salary was nearly $17,000 less than their male counterparts' in 2008. This is even with researchers controlling for work hours, choice of specialty, practice setting, and other factors. Furthermore, this is a significant increase in the gap -- in 1999, the gender gap in starting salaries was $3,600. This finding is alarming because female and male doctors are now on track to reaching parity. Today, half of all medical students are female. In the mid-1960s, only 9% of medical students were female. One in three U.S. doctors are women.
The results came from a 10-year analysis of data from New York. The researchers analyzed starting salary because they felt it was a good measure due to the fact that it avoids possible differences in productivity that might come later in doctors' careers, such as taking time off to have children. Some have argued that women make less on average because they tend to go into lower-paying fields, such as pediatrics, family practice, or general internal medicine. However, the study found that women are now no more likely to go into these fields than new male doctors. In addition, they found that women that go into high-paying fields like cardiology, radiology, and anesthesiology all start at salaries thousands of dollars less than comparable men. For example, a starting cardiologist in 2008 made $228,188 if they were male and $204,671 if they were female. For radiologists, men made $250,709 while women made $244,532.
More research would need to be conducted in order to explain the $17,000 gap, as the researchers found that the gap cannot be explained by the factors mentioned above (work hours, choice of specialty, etc). The authors of the paper say that they don't believe gender discrimination in the labor market is the result, but they can't prove it. [FYI, the authors of this study are economists...As a sociologist, I think gender discrimination definitely plays a role in differential hiring and salary for females in comparison to their male counterparts with similar credentials. It might not be the result of explicit gender discrimination (though sometimes is), but there's definitely implicit discrimination. In addition, the historical impacts of discrimination play a role. The many years women were left out of the labor market (and particularly in "male-dominated" sectors) has definitely had a lasting effect on women's positions and salaries throughout the years.] The authors think one possible explanation is that as more women becomes doctors, employers are offering greater flexibility in hours -- and that these family-friendly policies are "more appealing to female practitioners", but it comes at the price of lower pay. However, I thought the research found that when controlling for hours worked, the gender gap still wasn't explained. Regardless, this raises another issue: why are female workers the ones that often take advantage of (or are responsible for taking advantage of) flexible, family-friendly policies? Mothers are often seen as the ones responsible for taking care of the bulk of family care, and thus they're the ones that have to take on flexible schedules (potentially at the cost of advancement in their careers or salary increases). Parental responsibilities need to be divided up more evenly, and maybe then we'd start to see a decrease in pay gaps between the genders. (Full Story)
Egyptian leaders continue to make concessions: The top leaders of the ruling party, including Mubarak's son Gamal, stepped down on Saturday. During the meetings with the opposition, Vice President Suleiman said the government would allow concessions like freedom of the press, release of detainees imprisoned since the protests began, the eventual abolishment of the country's emergency laws (these "emergency laws" have been in effect since 1981 when Mubarak took office. These laws give police extreme powers to suppress civil and human rights), and a pledge not to interfere with text messaging and internet access. Suleiman also announced that committees have been created to propose constitutional amendments that many have called for in the past, including presidential term limits and relaxing eligibility rules for who can run for political office.
Protesters feel the concessions fell short (they still want Mubarak to step down), and they vowed to continue protesting. Many protesters believe the Mubarak regime simply wants to wear down their movement and are only enacting superficial reforms. They believe these 'reforms' will keep the same monopoly of power in place. More than 100,000 people turned out in the capital's central square today to continue protesting. Protests are also continuing in Alexandria and other cities around Egypt. (Full Story)(Full Story)(Full Story)(Full Story)
The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission announced the official vote tally, and they confirm that 98.83% of the voters in Southern Sudan voted in favor of independence and forming their own country. Sudan's president (the political leadership is located in the capital of Khartoum, which is in Northern Sudan), Omar al-Bashir, has previously said that he will accept the outcome of the vote.
The referendum, which took place in January, was part of the 2005 peace agreement which ended the civil war between the south and the north in Sudan. The civil war lasted over 20 years. The south wanted independence because they see themselves as culturally, religiously, and ethnically different from the north, and they have suffered years of discrimination by the north. The U.S., which was part of the peace agreement process, said they would remove Sudan from their list of countries that sponsor terrorism if the referendum goes well (i.e., it's peaceful, the results are recognized, etc). The U.S. intends to formally recognize the newly formed country of Southern Sudan in July. The formal declaration of independence will be made on July 9.
Overall, the vote was peaceful, but tensions still remain high in the border region (where the north and south meets. The ownership of some of this land is still contested. Adding to the conflict is that some of the border regions are oil-rich). At least 50 people were killed over the weekend when fighting broke out between soldiers in south Sudan's Upper Nile state. The referendum vote was the first step in the process. Negotiations on how to divide up the disputed border regions (like Abyei), and how to deal with issues of citizenship, legal matters, and natural resources (like oil) still need to occur. Hopefully these issues get worked out non-violently, and hopefully the north (and Omar al-Bashir) continues to be cooperative. (Full Story)
A study published in the journal Health Affairs has found that female physicians' average starting salary was nearly $17,000 less than their male counterparts' in 2008. This is even with researchers controlling for work hours, choice of specialty, practice setting, and other factors. Furthermore, this is a significant increase in the gap -- in 1999, the gender gap in starting salaries was $3,600. This finding is alarming because female and male doctors are now on track to reaching parity. Today, half of all medical students are female. In the mid-1960s, only 9% of medical students were female. One in three U.S. doctors are women.
The results came from a 10-year analysis of data from New York. The researchers analyzed starting salary because they felt it was a good measure due to the fact that it avoids possible differences in productivity that might come later in doctors' careers, such as taking time off to have children. Some have argued that women make less on average because they tend to go into lower-paying fields, such as pediatrics, family practice, or general internal medicine. However, the study found that women are now no more likely to go into these fields than new male doctors. In addition, they found that women that go into high-paying fields like cardiology, radiology, and anesthesiology all start at salaries thousands of dollars less than comparable men. For example, a starting cardiologist in 2008 made $228,188 if they were male and $204,671 if they were female. For radiologists, men made $250,709 while women made $244,532.
More research would need to be conducted in order to explain the $17,000 gap, as the researchers found that the gap cannot be explained by the factors mentioned above (work hours, choice of specialty, etc). The authors of the paper say that they don't believe gender discrimination in the labor market is the result, but they can't prove it. [FYI, the authors of this study are economists...As a sociologist, I think gender discrimination definitely plays a role in differential hiring and salary for females in comparison to their male counterparts with similar credentials. It might not be the result of explicit gender discrimination (though sometimes is), but there's definitely implicit discrimination. In addition, the historical impacts of discrimination play a role. The many years women were left out of the labor market (and particularly in "male-dominated" sectors) has definitely had a lasting effect on women's positions and salaries throughout the years.] The authors think one possible explanation is that as more women becomes doctors, employers are offering greater flexibility in hours -- and that these family-friendly policies are "more appealing to female practitioners", but it comes at the price of lower pay. However, I thought the research found that when controlling for hours worked, the gender gap still wasn't explained. Regardless, this raises another issue: why are female workers the ones that often take advantage of (or are responsible for taking advantage of) flexible, family-friendly policies? Mothers are often seen as the ones responsible for taking care of the bulk of family care, and thus they're the ones that have to take on flexible schedules (potentially at the cost of advancement in their careers or salary increases). Parental responsibilities need to be divided up more evenly, and maybe then we'd start to see a decrease in pay gaps between the genders. (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment