The Cost of Being in That 10%
Endometriosis affects roughly 10%—or 190 million—women and girls of reproductive age around the world. Those suffering from the condition also pay a financial price in terms of lost wages.
ALSO IN THIS POST:
The changing face of the movie industry
Come and see me talk about WOMEN MONEY POWER
I’m bored out of my mind of gender gaps: the good old fashioned gender pay gap; the beefier but lesser known gender wealth gap; the gender health gap, the gender employment gap, the gender sleep gap (yes, really!), the gender care work gap. The list goes on and on and on. Yawn.
But the thing is, we have to keep talking about them because they’re simply not going away. They’re pervasive, persistent and exacerbated by all different things.
Earlier this month, I was struck—but not exactly surprised—by new research (conducted by the U.K.’s national statistics agency, no less) showing that women who have been diagnosed with endometriosis on average earn significantly less than those who are not suffering from the condition.
In a first-of-its-kind study, the Office for National Statistics analyzed pay and health records for more than 55,000 individuals. It established that among women aged 25 to 54, there was a “statistically significant” average decrease in monthly earnings after they received a diagnosis of endometriosis—a chronic gynecological condition that, according to the World Health Organization, affects roughly 10%, or 190 million, women and girls of reproductive age globally.
The ONS found that monthly pay initially dropped on average in the first three months post-diagnosis, then returned to pre-diagnosis levels from 4 to 12 months. But after that, pay decreased on average each year, reaching a £130 monthly reduction—equivalent to about $160— in the four to five years after the diagnosis when compared to pay two years before diagnosis.
The researchers also found that the probability of being in paid employment “statistically significantly decreased after an endometriosis diagnosis.” According to their calculations, the probability was 2.7 percentage points lower for those diagnosed with endometriosis in the four to five years post-diagnosis, compared with the two years before diagnosis.
The disease, according to the WHO, is associated with severe, life-impacting pain during periods and sexual intercourse. It can cause chronic pelvic pain, abdominal bloating, nausea, fatigue, and sometimes depression, anxiety, and infertility.
In 2024, a study of more than 17,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the U.S. found that more than two-thirds of women with endometriosis missed school or work due to pain from the condition. That study, published in the Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine Disorders, also found that Black and Hispanic women were less likely to be diagnosed with endometriosis compared with white women.
I thought about the ONS research a lot last week and while it is, of course, profoundly depressing to be presented with yet more evidence that women face invisible barriers to economic success, there was one thing that I couldn’t help but feel encouraged by. The ONS actually did this research. And the sample size was significant. This shows a real desire within a government body to actually understand inequities better and to analyze dynamics that might be inconvenient.
Of course this will hardly serve as any consolation to those who are living with the awful symptoms of endometriosis every day (after I wrote about this study for Forbes, many people got in touch to essentially say ‘I told you so!’) but it does show at least a willingness at the government level to acknowledge something. Now we need those at a corporate level to follow suit. Here’s hoping.
The above is adapted from an article originally published in Forbes.
Let’s Go To The Movies!
Elsewhere last week, tentative—oh so tentative—signs that the face of the movie industry may finally be changing…even if slowly and imperfectly.
A new working paper authored by three academics at the University of Southern California Annenberg, found that across the top 100 movies that came out in 2024, more than half featured a story that was centered on a female-identified actor as a lead or co-lead.
Katherine L. Neff, Dr. Stacy L. Smith and Dr. Katherine Pieper found that the percentage of girls and women protagonists last year hit an all-time high of 54%—a marked increase from just 30% in 2023 and more than double the 20% recorded in 2007, which was the first year for which academics obtained numbers.
Indeed, Neff, Smith and Pieper wrote that 2024 is likely “the first time gender equality has ever been documented across the 100 top-grossing films.” In 2022, according to their research, women accounted for 44% of protagonists, which was the second highest proportion on record.
Despite this apparent shift toward gender equality, the researchers also stressed that far more work needs to be done to ensure true representation in the industry.
They found, for example, that women over the age of 45 are still dramatically underrepresented: For every one film led or co-led by a woman over 45, there were 2.6 films led or co-led by a man in the same age category. In fact, a mere eight of the 100 films examined featured a protagonist woman over the age of 45. (These were Amy Poehler in “Inside Out 2,” Winona Ryder in “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” Nicole Kidman in “Babygirl,” Hilary Swank in “Ordinary Angels,” Demi Moore in “The Substance,” Cate Blanchett in “Borderlands,” Nika King in “Sound of Hope,” and June Squibb in “Thelma.”)
As for racial representation, of the 100 top grossing films last year, just 25% had what the academics describe as an “underrepresented” lead or co-lead. And perhaps most dispiritingly: The number of films with leads or co-leads of color significantly decreased from 37 titles in 2023 to just 25 in 2024. In fact, just 13 had a woman of color at the center driving the plot, and just one featured a woman of color 45 years of age or older in a leading or co-leading role. That movie was “Sound of Hope” starring Nika King.
To be sure, the UCS Annenberg research does have limitations, as the academics themselves point out.
For one thing the study only considers the most popular or highest-grossing films of 2024. “Less popular movies might feature a different constellation of leading actors,” they write. “However, the movies examined reflect major studio releases and the agenda-setting films of the year and as such, provide an important look into how decision-making plays a role in on-screen representation and hiring.”
The researchers also acknowledge that the study related only to movies released in theaters. “Films released on streaming services may also present a different picture of leads/co leads,” they write.
But even considering these constraints, one thing is clear: While more women on screen is a significant step in the right direction, we can’t afford to allow this one win to distract us from the work that remains to be done. Culture can be a powerful conduit for change. Let’s make sure we use it.
This essay was first published on The Persistent: a women-led journalism platform whose newsletter, sent twice a week, examines politics, economics, business, art and culture through a gender lens. Sign up here.
Book Talks in Chicago and New York (virtual)
And finally this week, two upcoming opportunities to see me speak about WOMEN MONEY POWER, the book, and it’s related themes.
On March 2, I’ll be at the ALTAR Community Chicago for a special hybrid event: an in-person brunch followed by a virtual book club discussion with HappyWomenDinners.
Here’s more information and you can RSVP to Jill, at Jill@HappyWomenDinners.com.
Later in the month, on March 26, I’ll be joining the New York Public Library for a virtual event on the theme of women’s voices in finance. That event is free to attend and will last from 12pm until 1:30pm.
More information and instructions on how to register here.
That’s all from me for this week. I’ll be back in your inboxes March 3.
If you’ve enjoyed reading this newsletter for free, I’d urge you to consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
Paid subscriptions help support my work, enabling me to publish better, more deeply-reported content and sharper analysis, more frequently.
Josie
Ps: If you’ve read WOMEN MONEY POWER, the book, or listened to the audiobook, I would hugely appreciate it if you could take thirty seconds to post a review or rate it on Amazon using this link. If Goodreads is your jam, that’s just as great, and you can leave a review or rating here. A million thanks for your support!