I think that the truth exists between the two ideas. I think that the 33 cent wage gap isn't caused entirely by any one factor, and is in fact quite nuanced.

Is some of it caused by discrimination, societal pressures, and unfair job physical 'requirements'? Yes. Definitely.

Is some of it caused by the careers women work in and the choices they make? Yes. Definitely.

What is the solution? I don't know if there is a silver bullet, but I think the first step is for everyone to honestly assess what they think and what the various pundits are claiming. I think that the 77 cents statistic isn't very useful, because when it is used, it just gives ammo to the opposition to say it isn't meaningful because it is comparing apples to oranges as far as job types. A useful statistic compares people in the same job field, with the same experience level, working the same amount of hours. Studies like that have been done, and they still show differences. I think part of those differences is discrimination.

I think that it is foolish to claim ALL men or ALL women anything. Obviously generalizations don't apply to every individual.

If we want to make progress eliminating true discrimination, we need to use honest statistics and not just those that sound the best.

Why she's the Director of Policy for the "Indpendent Woman's Forum." I guess that says it all, doesn't it? I think women in general would be better off if Ms. Lukas found something a little less "fulfilling" to do like masturbation or working at a gas station.

The article suggested that the reason for the wage inequality was the choices women made in careers. I remember a few years ago while studying statitistics in graduate school a study was done with respect to wage inequality among tenured faculty at berkeley, that found the reason for the inequality 2wass due to the lack of women in the higher paying fields (sciences, engineering) as opposed to the lower paying fields (arts, english, etc).

The author of the article also mentions that it isn't just choice of career, it's choice of freedom. and lifestyle. Women CHOOSE to take a paycut to have more time at home... some do, some don't but for whatever reason, clearly most do.

You are right to then question the motivations of the society that would pressure women to make such choices, but the point of the article was is it possible to even address such issues through LEGISLATION? I mean we haven't even figured out what, exactly to legislate... Do we make sure that both sciences, and arts get the same salaries? Or is it we empower women to get perks that aren't available to men? Or do we just institute manditory use of as yet un-invented (must be because of the lack of women in the field of sciences) mind control devices to brainwash the public to not apply negative pressures on women?

The more money a man makes the more pussy he can get, if he is so inclined, and many are. The amount of money a woman makes is irrelevant to how much dick she can get. A hot low paid woman will get all the dick she wants from desirable men, and marry and have children by them. An unattractive high paid woman will not. That's it, folks.

Lukas says: "All the relevant factors that affect pay -- occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked -- are ignored. This sound-bite statistic fails to take into account the different roles that work tends to play in men's and women's lives." That sounds like a downright logical point of view to me, that maybe there are reasons for a wage gap other than a bunch of scowling older white men conspiring together to pay Jack more than Jill.

right on the money.

Has the lie of the wage gap now become sacrosanct - like denying the holocaust?

Because the statistics prove it's a lie...

I honestly disagree with both of the articles here. On one hand, there is certainly still issues with woman in the workforce that need to be resolved. I think the biggest issue to be dealt with is that a company views a woman with a family (as in children) are immediately considered to not be "career oriented" by many people in business today. That is a problem, and one that needs to be dealt with.

However, this "77 cents on the dollar" statistic does more harm than good in this analogy. It is quite simply true that there are women who take 3-5 years off for her career to raise children. There are a large number of women who take lesser paying jobs that have more flexible work requirements to be able to spend more of their time with their family. And you can complain about the "double standard" that women are "expected" to sacrafice her career for their family, but the truth is that there are a number of woman who have the CHOICE to put more into their career and instead make choices that will benefit their family situation over their career choices. What are we supposed to tell them they are being stupid and that they should make their husband stay home or put their kid in daycare and come back to work?

It is quite simply a fact that women still take more time off and spend more of thier time focused on family then men. The difference is that in most of these situations it is their CHOICE to do that and not some "pre-ordained" role that they have to fill. Yes there are still people that assume that a women will raise the family while the man goes to work, but that view is changing more and more, yet even as it changes a majority of women still make the CHOICE to go in that direction anyway.

Is there still an issue with women in the workforce today? In my opinion most of those issues are overcomable, but the biggest one to me is the "career oriented" issue that still is very pervasive in our culture. However, that doesn't mean that the "wage gap" doesn't have some perfectly VALID reasons to exist in addition to the ones that are rightly upsetting. To ignore the valid reasons entirely is as bad as assuming that the only reason for the gap is those reasons.