The Tax
On Power, Structural Racism, and the Real Price of Building While Black and Female in Medicine
You have been calling it burnout.
I understand why. It is the word that exists. It is the word your therapist uses, the word in the articles, the word in the HR wellness emails that arrive on Tuesday afternoons with tips for managing stress. Burnout is the available container, so you put what you are carrying into it, and it almost fits, and you move on.
But it does not fit. And somewhere underneath the word you know that, because burnout implies a remedy — rest, recovery, boundaries, a vacation, a recalibration — and you have tried all of those things, and you come back and the weight is still there. You are not depleted. You are injured. And the difference between those two things matters more than most people are willing to say.
I am a physician. I build infrastructure to address preventable maternal death. I have spent my career inside institutions, and I have paid a tax that most of those institutions have never acknowledged, let alone compensated. This essay is my attempt to name that tax precisely — not because naming it makes it stop, but because precision is the beginning of any real response. You cannot treat what you cannot diagnose. And you cannot diagnose what you do not have language for.
🔬 What the Research Says You Are Carrying
Let me start with what the literature has documented, because what is happening to you has been studied. It has been named. It has been measured. You are not imagining it. You are not weak. You are responding correctly to a set of structural conditions designed — not maliciously in most cases, but effectively — to extract more from you than they return.
The authority gap. Journalist and researcher Mary Ann Sieghart spent years documenting what she calls the authority gap: the distance between being granted a title and having the authority that title implies actually felt by the people around you. Women in leadership hold positions that are acknowledged and authority that is not. Female Supreme Court justices are interrupted four times more often than their male counterparts — 96% of the time by men — according to a quantitative analysis of oral argument data by legal scholars Tonja Jacobi and Dylan Schweers. The same pattern plays out in boardrooms, operating rooms, and startup calls. Your title is on the org chart. The room does not always behave accordingly.
The double bind. In 2002, psychologists Alice Eagly and Steven Karau published Role Congruity Theory, which named the trap precisely: the female gender role (warm, communal, accommodating) is perceived as fundamentally incompatible with the leader role (assertive, decisive, directive). This incongruity produces prejudice in two directions simultaneously. Be communal — you are dismissed as weak, overlooked for the hard decisions, not taken seriously when it matters. Be assertive — you are penalized as cold, difficult, aggressive, too much. There is no path through the center of that bind that does not cost something. Catalyst’s 2007 Double-Bind Dilemma report named the three horns: too soft, too tough, or competent but disliked. Every professional woman who has risen to any level of leadership has navigated this map. Not from a training. From getting burned when she didn’t.
The anger tax. In 2008, researchers Victoria Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann ran a study in which identical professional scenarios were presented to participants, with the only variable being whether the person expressing anger was male or female. Men who expressed anger in professional contexts were conferred higher status. Women expressing identical anger were conferred lower status — by both men and women.
In one version of the study, an angry female CEO was assigned an average salary of $32,902 by study participants. An unemotional woman: $55,384. Men: $73,643, regardless of how they expressed themselves.
This is not a data point about a few biased individuals. This is a documented feature of how the culture processes female authority under pressure. You pay a tax on your emotions that your male counterparts do not.
The emotional tax. Catalyst’s 2016 research — Emotional Tax: How Black Women and Men Pay More at Work — documented that more than half of Black women in professional settings report constant vigilance at work: monitoring others’ perceptions, anticipating responses, managing how they are read in real time, all simultaneously, all while doing the actual work. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild named this emotional labor — the management of feeling to create a publicly observable performance — in 1983. For Black women in leadership, this labor is not optional and it is not compensated. It runs in the background of every meeting, every presentation, every decision. It consumes cognitive bandwidth that your counterparts are spending on the work itself.
The credibility deficit. A landmark 2004 study by economists Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan sent identical resumes to employers with one variable: the name at the top. White-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than Black-sounding names — an advantage equivalent to eight extra years of experience. For Black women in leadership, the credibility deficit compounds. Rosette and Livingston’s 2012 research documented what they called “double jeopardy” — Black women leaders are evaluated more harshly than any other group under conditions of organizational difficulty. The margin for error narrows to functionally zero at the precise moment stakes are highest.
🩺 What It Does to the Body
This is not a metaphor. The tax is physiological.
Dr. Arline Geronimus spent decades developing and documenting the weathering hypothesis — the finding that chronic exposure to racism produces biological aging that begins in early adulthood for Black women. Using NHANES data, Geronimus and colleagues found that by age 45 to 64, half of Black women had high allostatic load scores — a composite measure of physiological wear across cardiovascular, metabolic, immune, and neuroendocrine systems. By age 64, over 80% did. This was not explained by poverty. Nonpoor Black women had the second-highest allostatic load scores in the dataset. The cells keep the score regardless of income, regardless of education, regardless of how well you are doing by every external measure. The body is keeping a different accounting.
Sociologist William A. Smith named racial battle fatigue — the cumulative physiological and psychological toll of navigating racially hostile environments: chronic anxiety, elevated blood pressure, suppressed immunity, insomnia, depression.
This is not burnout. This is a systemic racism-related repetitive stress injury. It is what happens when a person operates for years inside environments that require constant vigilance, that produce microaggressions at a rate the nervous system was not designed to absorb indefinitely, that demand full performance while simultaneously questioning the legitimacy of that performance.
Psychologist Cheryl Woods-Giscombé named the Superwoman Schema — the set of obligations that Black women in professional environments internalize: manifest strength at all times, suppress emotion, resist vulnerability, prioritize others’ needs before your own, maintain the drive regardless of personal cost. Five characteristics. All of them corrosive. All of them, according to her research, associated with delayed healthcare-seeking, disordered eating, and chronic stress outcomes. Sherman James named John Henryism — the high-effort coping strategy of working harder and harder against structural obstacles. It improves some mental health outcomes. It exacts cardiovascular damage. The strategy that keeps you moving is quietly extracting something you cannot see.
This is what you have been calling burnout. It has better names now.
🎯 What They Are Calling Feedback
There is one more mechanism I want to name, because it is the one that is most often weaponized against women in leadership under the guise of helping them.
Most feedback is not given for the recipient’s benefit.
This is almost never said out loud, because it implicates the people giving the feedback, and nobody wants to hear that their developmental gift is actually a dominance claim. But the research is consistent: unsolicited advice-giving is an assertion of relative status. The advice-giver frames it as concern; the recipient experiences it as a power move. When the feedback is directed at a woman’s style — her tone, her intensity, her approachability, her emotional register — rather than her actual work, it is almost never about making her more effective. It is about making her more comfortable to be around. Which is a different thing entirely.
Nobody asks Elon Musk for feedback on his leadership style. Nobody tells Jeff Bezos he needs to work on his tone. The threshold at which a leader’s authority becomes a subject for public commentary and unsolicited improvement is dramatically lower for women — and lower still for Black women. This is not because their leadership is actually more flawed.
It is because the authority gap creates the felt sense that their authority is available for comment in a way that male authority is not.
Brescoll and Uhlmann’s 2008 research documented the mechanism clearly: identical behavior is evaluated differently based on whose body it comes from. Women who express the same emotions as men are penalized. Women who do not express emotion are also penalized — rated as less likeable, less suitable for management roles. The bind is not resolvable through style adjustment. There is no version of you that escapes it.
This means the feedback asking you to adjust is, in most cases, asking you to do something that cannot be done in exchange for something that will not be delivered.
Real feedback — the kind that actually changes a person’s trajectory — comes from someone who loves you enough to spend their own limited emotional capital on your growth. Someone who has invested in knowing you, understanding your context, believing in your potential. That feedback is rare and worth receiving when it arrives. Everything else is editorial. And you have a finite number of edits you can absorb before you stop being yourself.
🔑 The Right Words
Philosopher Miranda Fricker named epistemic injustice — the specific harm of having your knowledge dismissed because of who you are, and the additional harm of lacking the precise language to describe what is happening to you. She called the second form hermeneutical injustice: the gap in collective interpretive resources that puts certain people at an unfair disadvantage in making sense of their own social experience.
This is what I am trying to close. Not the gap in your experience — that is structural and will not close from an essay. But the gap between what you are carrying and what you have words for.
You are not burned out. You are experiencing moral injury — the specific wound that comes from being prevented from doing what you know is right by a system that overrides your judgment. You are experiencing racial battle fatigue. You are weathering. You are paying an emotional tax that is not on any ledger and is not factored into any projection. You are navigating a double bind that has no clean resolution. You are receiving feedback that is not for you.
None of that is a personal failure. It is a structural condition producing a predictable set of outcomes in a specific population. You are responding correctly to an environment designed to extract more than it returns. The problem is not your capacity. The problem is the accounting system pretending the tax doesn’t exist.
⚖️ What Precision Makes Possible
I want to be clear about what naming these things does and does not do.
It does not make the tax stop. The authority gap is real and ongoing. The double bind is structural and will not resolve because you found better language for it. The weathering continues at the cellular level regardless of what you call it.
What precision makes possible is a different kind of decision-making.
When you call it burnout, the response is individual: rest more, set boundaries, practice self-care, take a vacation. The problem is located inside you. The solution is located inside you.
When you call it what it actually is — moral injury, racial battle fatigue, a structural tax on your authority and your emotion and your credibility — the question changes. The question is no longer what is wrong with me and how do I fix it. The question is what is this costing, where is it going, and what do I choose to do with what I have.
That is a different question. A harder one, in some ways. It does not have the comfort of a resolution. But it is the accurate question, and accurate questions produce accurate responses. And the first accurate response is this: protect what you have. Because the well is not infinite, and most of what is asking to drink from it is not thirsty — it is just accustomed to drinking for free.
This essay is the third piece in a series. Each piece that follows takes one argument made here and builds it out fully.
What It Costs - On Power, Structural Racism, and the Real Price of Building While Black and Female in Medicine
The Gunman in the Room — the system, the power asymmetry, and why this is engineering logic applied to a medical crisis, not ideology.
The Tax — what the research actually calls what you have been carrying, and why precision about the cost changes what you can do about it. [You are here]
The Well — capacity accounting, feedback as dominance behavior, and why protecting your bandwidth is the most mission-critical decision you make.
The Conversion — where Diosa Ara came from, what productive resilience actually is, and why the spiral is not the enemy.
Why I Can Say This — radical transparency as competitive strategy, the legibility gap, and what becomes possible when you stop protecting a position you were never going to be protected in.
If this landed with, the next one will too.
Dr. Yamicia Connor, MD, PhD, MPH
Founder & CEO, Diosa Ara | Creator & Editor-in-Chief, The Labora Collective
The Labora Collective publishes at the intersection of clinical care, policy, and innovation — because only 10% of your health outcomes come from the exam room. The other 90% is what we cover.
Explore the Labora Collective → Member Home: Start Here
Become a Member → Subscribe to The Labora Collective by Diosa Ara: Member Edition
Message from our founder → Read Viva Voce: Come Inside the Build