Check this article out. What I didnt realise was this assertion
The old -- and repeatedly discredited -- game of citing women's incomes as some percentage of men's incomes is being played once again, as part of the "war on women" theme.
Since women average fewer hours of work per year, and fewer years of consecutive full-time employment than men, among other differences, comparisons of male and female annual earnings are comparisons of apples and oranges, as various female economists have pointed out. Read Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute or Professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, for example.
When you compare women and men in the same occupations with the same skills, education, hours of work, and many other factors that go into determining pay, the differences in incomes shrink to the vanishing point -- and, in some cases, the women earn more than comparable men.
Now this came as a surprise to me, I always thought that women were being paid much lower compared to men, but to hear that once you control for these other factors, there is no difference.
Hmmm. I wonder if this will raise the proverbial shit storm or will simply be ignored when inconvenient facts emerge?