Women In Science - You Are Oppressed, Even If You Are Not
    By Hank Campbell | August 1st 2011 12:06 PM | 28 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    Some stereotypes are self-reinforcing.   If someone tells you over and over that you are oppressed, if you hit an obstacle and fail, like all of us do at some point in our lives, a convenient excuse is that you are discriminated against.(1)

    There is zero data showing women are discriminated against in science, math or engineering - none.   But because there used to be far more men and those men were not lined up against the wall and shot to make room for women in faculty, the claim is that science academia is still prejudiced against women.

    For caring about science, some people sure engage in pseudoscience if junk data matches the cultural topology they want it to match, so that should help put into perspective why people without Ph.D.'s don't understand that vaccines don't cause autism, if we are ridiculing progressives, or that climate change happens, if we are ridiculing conservatives.  I mean, we can't even get really smart people to take an unbiased look at hiring data.

    The unbiased look at the data shows that females do as well as males in math for the first time in history, a terrific achievement.   Women get more Ph.D.'s than men and not only are women hired for faculty positions as often as male counterparts, they are hired more.

    Yet because the gross numbers are still less, it must still be a problem and the BBC once again spares no effort in being cultural busybodies and try to make the case with no real data at all. Hannah Richardson, BBC News education reporter, even invokes a James Bond movie with a female scientist in it from  1979 so you get the message properly framed for you:

    James Bond movie as supporting data.  If you want to believe it, you can't work at NASA unless you are attractive.

    Some of the rationale Richardson uses?   Kids in 2006 asked to draw a picture of a scientist drew men more often than women.  Really, that's it.   Are there no women police either?  Because kids who draw a picture of a cop draw men more often than women.    For that matter, when they draw robbers they are more men too.  Maybe we need cultural outreach so women get equal representation as criminals.

    The problem with activism replacing data is that it's culture and politics more than science - so some people who read this will ignore the data and say my article is invalidated because I am a man.    Using that same logic,  I can claim that advertisers are biased against independent science media like Science 2.0.   If we get less money, and we do, it must be discrimination and not the fact that big media companies like the BBC have salespeople who go out and aggressively get expensive advertising.

    More anecdotes as data: Rachel Tibbell, development consultant at the UK Resource Centre for women in science, engineering and technology (UKRC), says she has twins, a boy and a girl, and some people buy the boy a car and the girl a doll.    Really, isn't she lucky people buy her kids anything at all, knowing their gift choice will then be fodder in her culture war?

    And then even more anecdotal evidence - Professor Charlotte Watts, a mathematics professor, says one time someone joked to her that 'I didn't know girls could do maths'.  

    So how did she get to be a math professor if the culture is so biased?  Well, that is the great thing about claims of discrimination - not only do you get to criticize everyone else, you get to imply you are so much more awesome than everyone else because you made it despite discrimination.   You can't lose but if you don't win, and even if the data shows no bias, social scientists have invented gender fatigue and stereotype threat to rationalize it for you.(2)

    It's a cultural advocacy issue, so junk math is allowed.  They cite Sean McWhinnie, independent research consultant with Oxford Research and Policy, who laments that men and women will only reach 'parity' in 2021 for biosciences, in 2042 for chemistry, in 2060 for physics and in 2109 for civil engineering.   How did he arrive at such a ridiculous number?   He ignored actual current hiring statistics and simply made a linear curve of recent gender changes and predicted when those would break even if the rate stays the same.   In other words, every man who retires or dies will still primarily be replaced by men even though hiring statistics show that is not what is happening at all.

    What would he have us do, engage in both gender and age discrimination and fire men who have done nothing wrong?    Science is about excellence, not forced equality, especially if there is no systemic bias holding people back, and older researchers continue to do excellent work so they shouldn't be put out to pasture to impose gender equality.   

    Yet if implied bias is not enough to convince women they are oppressed, the tired 'women have babies' argument is invoked once again.

    Way down at the bottom of the article, Richardson - in the interests of 'balance', we must assume - does note one woman who had no issue even 20 years ago.   Professor Ottoline Leyser, author of 'Mothers in Science: 64 Ways to Have it All', says not only is there no reason for women scientists to choose between their career and a family, it is actually much easier in academia.

    Finally, someone has defended uber-progressive academics against insinuation they are bigots despite evidence to the contrary.   We know doctors have babies and seem to have no issue in their careers so how academia can be regarded as sexist is a mystery.  
    Science academia is terrific for men and women because excellence matters most - not race and not gender and, despite my example above to show how ridiculous those claims are, not political affiliation.  It's time more people started applauding the excellent culture in science instead of insisting that isolated examples of inequality, real or perceived, mean the system itself is flawed.


    (1) Try being a conservative in the world of science media some time and then tell me about representation.   If anyone claims fewer than 1000:1 progressives to conservatives in science academia faculty, I demand to see proof.   Un-rigorous surveys, the kind that claim women are oppressed in science academia, show that no one is oppressed in academia like conservatives.

    (2) For being 70% women, the social sciences are incredibly patronizing toward women.  The notion that intelligent women are so emotionally fragile they will be unable to perform unless a classroom has 50% women has to be a little maddening to women in actual science.


    Lisa Randall, one of the most famous theoretical physicists of our time, was at least funny about the BBC article on Twitter.  

    There is no actual pay difference today in the most overwhelmingly male STEM segment, engineering, and the US is the model of the world in hiring practices but it doesn't matter, funny is funny.  However, in a world where equality mattered more than excellence, Randall's solution to the problem of hierarchies, the existence of very different energy scales in fundamental physics, would have people wondering if she only got credit because she was a woman, instead of the fact that she is an outrageously smart physicist.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Well Hank, you're beginning to convince me that women in science and academia are not being discriminated against, without a doubt there is a lot of evidence to support what you are saying. 

    As I have said before I personally have never been aware of being disciminated against in the IT industry either, quite the contrary, I think being a woman was an advantage in IT job opportunities. Most men seemed to prefer to hire a woman over an equally qualified man probably because the ratio of men to women in IT is so skewed in favour of men. When I was contracting for DEC years ago the ratio was about 9 men to every woman if not more. I never went for one job interview in IT where I wasn't offered the job, probably because of that skew, and that's the honest truth which my oldest friends and husband can verify. 

    Does anyone out there have any convincing evidence to the contrary, showing that women in science and academia are being discriminated against?
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at
    It's all anecdotal and that is the problem.   People who would never accept anecdotes as data in any other area readily cite some asshole talking down to her as proof of sexism, but that is not sexism, it is some asshole being patronizing.   

    My brilliant rocket scientist wife has told me stories of being younger and at a mega-giant corporation that is fanatically paranoid about that stuff and it still happened.  But she did not say the company was sexist, she said old guys didn't want to believe anyone young knew anything, much less a young, blond female.   It still bugged her.

    It will get better, obviously, but people who should have learned lessons about unnecessarily politicizing other science issues don't get that if they exaggerate trivial stuff, no one will believe them when real stuff needs the attention of the public.  As old people retire and they are replaced by the best people, regardless of gender, the problem goes away.
    Lisa's first response to my mere pointing out the article was that it was "Weird. Not news, not subtle." I'm continually flabbergasted that we still have to have the conversation about being attractive or not in science. Never once did a Western Blot oblige me proper results due to my decision to wear fashionable attire that day. Have my cells in culture ever expressed delight in my choice of hairstyle and differentiate as I hoped they would? I don't construct sentences to express myself scientifically any better if I choose to get a pedicure or not.
    Granted, all those things help with being a visible science communicator.

    It helps any communicator but that is outside the control of most people.  No one is is offering me a job as a television newscaster but that does not mean I am discriminated against.   Science academia is one of the few remaining meritocracies slowly being eroded because of a lack of diversity - while they claim to care about diversity, but only for certain people.   As I noted in my response to Bill below, no one seems to care about handicapped people or political minorities, yet because there are not 51% women in all fields a whole website he linked to is devoted to how hostile academia is.   Where is the website pointing out the gender fatigue for men in psychology?  That ratio is lower than women in engineering.

    Anyone who wants to experience stereotype fatigue and bias should do an experiment and go to a science conference outside their field (so people do not know them) and tell other attendees they are a Republican and see what response that gets.
    Sorry Hank, but instead of focusing on a BBC story (or any other mass media report), you should explore the work done by the AAUW and the salary statistics compiled by the US Government. Both clearly show discrimination.

    US Government salary stats:


    The first one does not show discrimination.

    That second one is not data.  It is an advocate (and a group) for gender bias ("hostile environment and discrimination") pointing to a 'paper' which is actually profiles of people claiming to have been discriminated against.   An actual PNAS study by Cornell showed that is it untrue.  And too many others I don't want to rehash in a comment.

    Using the metric advocates use, 100% of STEM money should go toward recruiting Republicans because there are far fewer of those than women.   That might be too much for the agenda crowd trying to tear down science excellence, though, so let's consider that 140,000 freshmen students list a disability yet fewer than 300 people with disabilities receive Ph.D.s in science or engineering each year.  So if science or society is the concern, and not militant activism by a small group of women, then handicapped people deserve the attention.

    Basically, anyone determined to find discrimination is going to find it.   That does not make it a systemic problem.
    The Stand-Up Physicist
    I said to myself, "I bet a man wrote that title." Bingo, right again. I was not surprised at the flippant analysis of the data. I decided to take a look. The most important columns were 4 and 6, median weekly earnings for men and women. Do men always make more than women? Absolutely not. There were 555 occupations, of which 383 had data for more than 50k male and female workers. There are 4 positions where women make more (men/women):
    1. Counselors     $780/818  
    2. Food prep       $346/388  
    3. Bill collectors   $579/634  
    4. Stock clerks     $471/495  

    There were all of 2 jobs that had "Science" in the title, and more than 50k workers of both sexes:
    1. Life, physical, and social science     $1158/977  
    2. Other life, physical,&social technicians     $857/721  

    What goes on in the sciences is not any different from the other field in the US: women make less. The data does not go into the reasons they make less in every area of work except counselors, food prep, bill collectors or stock clerks. Any big paying jobs, guys win reliably.

    I don't know the reason for the difference in pay in the entire economy. It sure looks reliable, only 4/383, or about 1% of the jobs. Seams like a lose-lose argument: if I use these numbers, you say it shows nothing, if I tell a story, you say the story is not relevant. The Cornell study was a meta analysis, a review of work done by others over 20 years. I prefer orignal studies because then I can look at the numbers, not the patterns plucked out by the authors.

    I can understand that people on the losing $ end are not happy. I have no idea how to change the situation.
    Gerhard Adam
    What goes on in the sciences is not any different from the other field in the US: women make less.
    How does this translate to bias?  Are we to assume that if I earn less than someone else, I'm being discriminated against?  If not, then where is the cut-off point where a lower salary becomes discriminatory or a basis for charging bias? 

    In the four positions you listed where women earn more, are we to conclude that men are suffering from negative bias?

    Mundus vult decipi
    Here is the reason that women making less money indicated bias against women. 
    In any and all of these studies they typically normalize for objective measures of performance.  Such as attendance, time on the job, performance evaluations etc.  

    When this is done a gap in pay is observed.  If a man and woman do the same work by every objective measure they should make the same money.   Yet most women make less than their male counterparts.  

    This isn't just a phenomena from 1965 either.

    _doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0597Health Aff February 2011 vol. 30no. 2 
    The $16,819 Pay Gap For Newly Trained Physicians: The Unexplained Trend Of Men Earning More Than Women
    1. Anthony T. Lo Sasso
    2. 1,*
    1. Michael R. Richards
    2. 2
    1. Chiu-Fang Chou
    2. 3 and
    1. Susan E. Gerber
    2. 4

    Prior research has suggested that gender differences in physicians’ salaries can be accounted for by the tendency of women to enter primary care fields and work fewer hours. However, in examining starting salaries by gender of physicians leaving residency programs in New York State during 1999–2008, we found a significant gender gap that cannot be explained by specialty choice, practice setting, work hours, or other characteristics. The unexplained trend toward diverging salaries appears to be a recent development that is growing over time. In 2008, male physicians newly trained in New York State made on average $16,819 more than newly trained female physicians, compared to a $3,600 difference in 1999.
    That's a pretty big gap... it's a new car per year. 

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    The problem with using all data among all jobs in all ages is it doesn't show anything at all about discrimination now.   I never said there were no differences ever, you are pulling out gross results and denying that there is no difference in hiring recently - despite the facts being right there, collated by the same government agency that collates all hiring data, in my article.   Do some women negotiate a lower salary?  Maybe, I can't say.   There are hypotheses that women don't confront as much as men but that is social science, so it's hard to say how accurate it is.

    So the only solution in your closed system is having mandatory gender quotas and mandatory salaries.   There are places where that happens - the US Army and blue collar unions.   How many smart women are going to be happy being paid the same as the worst people?    What you did is not an accurate examination of the actual system we live in, it is a numerical straw man.

    If we are to insist, despite evidence, that science academia - lovely, progress, tolerant, diverse academia - is sexist, well then, yeah, a man writing this article invalidates everything.    
    Nothing so dramatic is needed.   Supervisors and people who decide such things need to be aware of the possible gaps and make sure to be fair to all their employees.   
    Basically a man should not get a raise just because he demands it in a belligerent way.  A woman should not loose out on a raise by being too meek to ask for one.   It's a simple principle.

    People who do the same quantity and quality of work should make the same amount of money. 

    Man who does B- work for 40 hours a week 


    Woman who does B- work for 40 hours a week. 

    It really does not nee to be more complex than that.  

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Meekness SHOULDN'T cause problems, but it does. Meek men miss the exact same opportunities as meek women. This isn't a gender issue. If you're going to play with corporate assholes, you have to play their game. I guarantee when it comes to female bosses they ALSO don't give promotions to meek people as often, regardless of gender. Can we please stop focusing on our pee-pees and do something about actual problems?

    The Stand-Up Physicist
    The problem with using all data among all jobs in all ages is it doesn't show anything at all about discrimination now. 
    The data I looked into was 2010. Given the long history of this issue (women not getting equal pay for equal work) I doubt it has changed in 2011.

    The document Bill pointed out is made up of more than 380k bits of data.
    So the only solution in your closed system is having mandatory gender quotas and mandatory salaries.  
    Sounds like a straw man argument to me. I don't recall suggesting either of these or hearing anyone else suggest these. No, actually Republicans bring it up all the time: there is no free market solution, it must be quotas, quotas, quotas. What I would be interested to know is if any cultures on the face of the Earth value the work of women on par with the work of men. That sounds like too broad a goal. There might be a profession or two that has achieved parity. Should such a profession be found, look into how it was achieved. Certainly the profession would have started out with a big male salary bias. 

    "Numerical straw man"? WFT, I thought that was data, LOTS of data. Capitalism as it is practiced here does not pay the same for women as men. Male nurses make more money than female ones. How much?  $1201/1039 per week, or $8,424. Do you know why I showed 4 significant digits? Because the numbers were based on more than 100,000 salaries in 2010.

    In the Life Sciences, a man will pull down $44.5k while a woman pulls down $37.5k. Those are the averages, so one woman or man can make more or less than both of those numbers. The science professions appear to share the same average economic discrimination based on sex as other parts of the economy.
    I agree with this.  Too many people use "discrimination" as a excuse for not succeeding.  There is however one fact to be aware of.
    Discrimination is an act in which one person in a position of power treats someone who is subordinate differently for reasons that have nothing to do with performance.   

    So called systemic or institutional discrimination boils down to one or a few bad apples, or stodgy old dinosaurs.  There are a relative handful of people who think women or minorities should not be involved in science.  This becomes a problem when such people are invested with practically absolute power. 

    Such people surely exist as Dr. Niel Degrasse Tyson, who is not making an excuse for a lack of success on his part, puts it here.

    Dr. Tyson rightly points out that society at large may not be as accepting of a woman or minority having interest in science. That alone does not add up to discrimination. What does is what he describes as barriers and curve balls coming his way that did not seem to happen to his white counterparts. Who's dealing those curve balls? Not "society" just certain holdouts with old fashioned ideas. Just to make it clear I am agreeing with you Hank. Discrimination is talked about now as if this was the 1960's and only good old boys could get in the club. That said there are enough of those good ol boys around that vigilance for discrimination is maintained.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sure, I just think it is disingenuous for a journalist (or an activist) to imply that because things were not mandated equal immediately, qualified men fired and replaced, that there is discrimination - in academia of all places.  I am not talking about some uneducated yokel, but in tenured positions at universities.  Being sexist and it being part of a formal, allowed system?  It isn't happening today.

    Some want there to be discrimination, because it rationalizes their own weaknesses.  I could do that here and lament that we don't make as much money as Nature magazine because of evil big business discrimination - but it's just as silly.
    This is a load of BS, wanker.

    Brilliant post, Hank

    Anedotes indeed, and perceived slights that are immediately labeled "sexism".

    In the scientific and skeptic communities, I've never felt more welcome, at least among the men, however, there are a significant group of women who refer to me as a "gender traitor" and a "rape apologist".

    It only reinforces the belief that many women who label themselves "feminists" do not want equality, they want "goddess status". They do a disservice to women by being hysterical - they preach hate in the form of misandry. I want nothing to do with them.

    Thank you for this post.

    Unbelievable - this has got to be a spoof, right?

    Has he never heard of the leaky pipeline? Nor statistics on slower promotion / lower pay for women.

    Sorry mate - but there are statistics out there, never mind anecdotal evidence.

    There are statistics showing lots of disparities in lots of incomes in lots of jobs and if the only filter is gender, you can see sexism - should science academia have payment tiers, where all people in specific jobs have a row and a column on a salary chart with job title and time-in-grade that determines their income?

    To me, that seems punitive because successful people are sacrificed to make things fair for less successful ones or anyone, men or women, who doesn't negotiate well - it's wonderfully progressive but science requires an excellence component in people and my concern would be that the best people will leave.  Lisa Randall, in my first comment, is a brilliant physicist and a well-known name due to that.   Why should she be penalized for progressive fairness?  She makes more money than 99% of the men in physics, do they get a raise or does she get cut?

    I cited numerous studies in my article but people keep insisting average gross pay across generations tells the tale when obviously it does not - forget the leaky pipeline, it's the shackled man trying to catch up, I get that, but the fact is there is no disparity in hiring women and men for jobs, like I said.  Insisting that if there is any difference at all in pay or numbers is sexism, though??  Come on, that is silly.    My point remains, if we are concerned about bias, handicapped people and Republicans are the ones academia has put in a ghetto, not women.
    This whole thing is silly, honestly. For all of the conflicting ideas that embody progressivism, there is one thing that all of the ideas agree upon - that no matter the issue, there is a smoke filled backroom of self-serving [insert demographic opposite of oppressed group here]. They act as a sort of board of directors over the issue, but they're not the agents of stockholders; they're agents of the majority (or now, the 'hostage taking' minority...). They set up a dastardly system so that just when someone in the discriminated-against group is about to succeed, something is triggered to ensure their failure.

    Or.... maybe those that are not in an 'oppressed' group just suck it up when something bad happens, never having been conditioned to look for blame in any place as long as it's not internally!

    Stop letting progressives turn your brain to ice cream, or I fear you will give up before you give yourself a chance to succeed. Oh yeah, and learn how supply and demand work - they're far more important than tempeh and soymilk

    Obviously at one point bias was systemic - against women, even though obviously some women succeeded, minorities and such.  Society tolerated it and rationalized it.   So there needed to be a protective buffer but it doesn't take more than a generation to solve it.   I grew up during forced desegregation in the south and it was a wonderfully progressive ideal that went very, very wrong - there is a difference between legal protection and runaway social engineering and the results showed that.  In the generation before me racism is likely still common, even if they don't say it, in my generation less so and in my kids' generation, nonexistent really.  I am not saying individuals can't be bigots or biased, obviously they can and it happens, but that is not an indictment of the culture.

    People need to live in important times and some kooky people in academia are going to create problems to solve, just like animal activists and anti-vaccine people and others do.   Going down some zero tolerance rabbit hole means mandating everything in science - and the result would be lousy science that is fair to all but not very good, no different than if we mandated 87% of NBA players had to be whites, hispanic, Asian, etc.   Other cultures will eat our lunch scientifically if we simply fire men or drive them out of academia to make wages and genders equal.

    I think most of society would have to giggle at the notion that either (a) academia is not left wing enough or (b) left wing people are more sexist than the right.    I know in the private sector it never made a bit of difference what someone's gender was - the only time anyone cared was when we had to fill out a form for the government.
    I think most of society would have to giggle at the notion that either (a) academia is not left wing enough or (b) left wing people are more sexist than the right.    I know in the private sector it never made a bit of difference what someone's gender was - the only time anyone cared was when we had to fill out a form for the government.
    I don't know about all that.   Left wing people can be racist and sexist in ways that make the right wingers look mild and inoffensive.  The worst part is left wingers are often not self aware enough to realize that they are racist/sexist.

    Let's take this away from the academy, which hits close to home to say...veganism. 

    Remember when members of PETA dressed up like Ku Klux Klansmen, or compared blacks and jews to  farm animals

    How about sexism in the animal rights organizations.  Consider the way they objectify women, and only ever women, with ads that promote animal rights and veganism with naked celebrities.

    A very well read blog has been dedicated to these very subjects.  They are extremely left wing yet racist, racially insensitive, and sexist in their objectification of women.

    After knowing some people who think like  PETA, personally, I would rather eat barbecue at a Ku Klux Klan rally with people who would be honest about their feelings of racism than some phony liberals.  

    Liberal&Left wing =/= real tolerance and acceptance of others

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Now that I am a graduate student in the sciences, I feel no negative discrimination...other than the negativity of positive discrimination. I don't want the answers given to me; I don't want preference for a fellowship because I'm a female! I chose to major in physics because I enjoy applying math to difficult and applicable situations! Why would I want things to be made easier!?

    As a child, even up into high school, the situation was different. I loved math. Most of my friends were the boys whom I competed against in math field days and science fairs. Yes, they mostly were boys. Most of the girls had, for some reason, decided that math and science were hard...and that I must be strange for enjoying it. I literally wondered if enjoying math and science meant I was a lesbian. I wasn't (and am not) attracted to girls, but all of my friends were guys, and l liked to do "guy" math, programming, and chemistry!

    We do not need to fire men and hire more women. We do not need to argue about pay scales. We don't even need to make it easier for women to succeed in the sciences! There is a need, however, to break gender stereotypes at an early age so that we can discover what we enjoy doing, regardless of gender. This doesn't mean making sure we give girls cars to play with and boys dolls to play with. It just means we need to be more aware of the signals we might be inadvertently sending to our children!

    I saw this in my own daughter as a teenager - a smart girl engaged in math and science (and sports) suddenly stopped and decided she wasn't good at any of it.   It obviously couldn't be me doing it and we can't claim teenage boys have that control over girls.

    Teachers?   70% of teachers are women but I would be shocked if women are telling adolescents they can't do math.   Are we too rich?   Cultures where women really bust out in STEM are in cultures like India, where they are so oppressed they can't even walk down the street in clothes they want (though they are rebelling) and STEM is the best way out of poverty.

    I get that it is a tough issue, I just cannot accept that the demographic so proud of its progressive stance is secretly oppressing women, like the more culturally aggressive groups are contending.
    I really liked your article! I'm a girl and I haven't been discriminated against at all due to my gender. I haven't entered the workplace yet, and will turn 15 this March. I'm very interested in theoretical physics, particularly M-theory, and I find that my friends who are wondering about that sort of thing will ask me questions about what I've read, regardless of their and my gender. I'd argue that sexism, towards both females and males, is still a problem, but it's much, MUCH smaller, and probably varies region to region. Women aren't really being "oppressed" now, especially not in the area of science. I got a recruitment letter from Columbia in Manhattan earlier this school year, and my parents told me their interest probably has as much to do with my gender as my test scores! I know you said that anecdotes don't count as evidence for discrimination, and I'm under the assumption you would say the same for anecdotes one might use as evidence against it. I simply thought I might add my perspective as a girl planning to go into science, that's all. As far as the whole "women making less than men" deal, I saw a news report on it once, and the report said girls make 80%. I have no idea if there are discriminatory reasons behind the statistic or not. I'm not really expected to, nor am I really expected to make much of a contribution to the argument, being a child. I do think, however, that to cite the statistic of men making more than women in most cases as sexist, one would need to know the reason why women are making less. A lot of research, in my opinion (trust me, I have too many), would be needed to determine the real meaning of the statistic. I have heard, though I don't know from where (so this may not be very reliable), that some larger companies are reluctant to pay female workers the same salary as men because women go on maternity leave, which costs the companies money. Now, like I said before, I can't remember where I'd heard that, and it's probably not the most reliable piece of information. I just thought I'd bring it up.
    Sorry if I'm wasting anybody's time. I don't really expect a reply to this, it's kind of a childish comment, but either way, I just wanted to give my opinion.

    Gerhard Adam
    Actually not a childish comment at all and thanks for making it.  I would only encourage you to continue your studies and pursuing your interests no matter what anyone ever tells you.  Don't ever let anyone discourage you from doing what you are interested in.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I don't think you'll find any issues because I don't think they exist as much any more; older people who grew up in that environment may be overly sensitive and younger people with a slight streak of paranoia will find reasons.  

    When it's normalized for women without kids, which means working the same hours as men, there is no difference in pay but overall, while the numbers are not the ridiculously exaggerated "70 cents for every dollar a man makes", even only $.95 is statistically significant enough there remains a Devil in the details.  I just don't know what it is.  What is clear is that ultra politically correct, overwhelmingly progressive academia is not somehow inclusive of everything else but intolerant of women.