How many maternity leave days to men get?

[Anonymous]

Yet you refuse to address the other health issues that plague men far more than women, causing time off work. Or the simple fact that men are wimps when they are sick and call in to work thinking they are dying when they have the sniffles. Face it, you just can't stand the competition and that women are better at your job than you are.

Some diseases affect men more often than women, no doubt. Just like some diseases affect women more than men. However, this fact is not included in my discussion because there is NOT a single bit of evidence anywhere that would prove or even suggest that these differences impact days worked or days missed with any loss of productivity. The same can NOT be said about pregnancy.... this fact is inescapable. Nice try..... next.

 

[Anonymous]

As a male rep, I must agree with the last couple posters. I am ashamed that someone (I can only assume it is one person, the rants are all the same) is so insecure in himself that he has to disparage anyone on gender--this is NOT a valid argument. It is the responsibility of management to monitor results, if any rep is falling down they should not be rewarded at the level of a performing rep. To obsess because someone may have taken a leave of absence, or worry because someone calls into question the size of their genitals is foolish and sophomoric. When we are all working to keep whatever job we have, why waste energy on whining every day because someone may have had a baby, may think of having a baby or any other perceived inequality. Grow up!

Are you suggesting that productivity is not directly linked to days in the field and hard-work? So you think a manager should monitor results, but one of this manager's reps has not had a single medical leave ever and his counterpart has been absent several times for extensive periods of time. As a matter of fact, one year they won President's Club.... one of the reps. worked the entire year while the other was gone for more than a quarter of the year. Do they deserve equal credit for those results? This is NOT a criticism, these are FACTS and it is absurd to ignore them and act like they don't exist.

 

[Anonymous]

Some diseases affect men more often than women, no doubt. Just like some diseases affect women more than men. However, this fact is not included in my discussion because there is NOT a single bit of evidence anywhere that would prove or even suggest that these differences impact days worked or days missed with any loss of productivity. The same can NOT be said about pregnancy.... this fact is inescapable. Nice try..... next.

The only reason there is 'no evidence' is because you refuse to see it. Yes, men lose productivity too, for every bit as many reasons. Pregnancy is simply one of the few where there are months are notice ahead of time (along with the preparation and planning this allows) and months off. A man with a heart attack gives no notice, no preparation, and will be off about the same amount of medical time if it is a severe attack. Yet people feel bad for him and come out of the wood work to help, there is even a perception that gosh, he must have given it all to work. Whereas for the woman, she is viewed immediately as not being dedicated enough to her job. And don't even get started on after the child is born because while women take on the majority of the child care, men are involved too. Add in men's sports obsessions and it pretty well equals out in time spent out of work. Men take more leisure time.

As to your other question about awards, no one off work for more than a given number of months in the year should be eligible for bonus or awards. President's club is difficult because the results often comes AFTER the effort is made and is supposed to be based on a full year. I don't remember the criteria but know you must work a certain number of months of the year to qualify. I've always felt there should be stricter criteria, such as a need to be fully working, not on leave, at least 11 months of the year. Most companies state 8 months or so. However, many women do really before they go out on leave for two reasons - during about months 3 through 8 many feel damned near superhuman and accomplish more, and also just preparing and getting things done before leaving to be off and many tend to step it up. Not all, but many.

Women are mommy tracked to have children. Even if they are finally given equal pay for equal work during non-child bearing years, they are still 'punished' financially for daring to have children. Even when those kids are teens and in college, there are questions about if the woman is as serious about her job. That is wrong. I willingly turned down promotions when the kids were young. I used vacation days instead of the legally allowed sick days to care for them when they were ill. Yet when they were grown, it still took me many more years than any man to finally be able to advance my career and changed companies so I would be measured on my accomplishments and value instead of being viewed as being of less value based on how many kids I had. While most men are reaching their earning peak in their 30s and 40s, for women it is late 40s and 50s and no matter the industry, it is much harder to get ahead at that point in life. There are ways, and I mentor others to help them. I am very happy with the priorities I chose and don't expect a company to compensate me the same when I am producing less but you cannot make that conclusion simply because someone has a child.

It is certainly wrong for someone to earn awards when they are off work for an extended period of time. It sounds like the qualification criteria needs review. With most companies, bonus is not earned while on medical leave either. This is also hard because the last thing you need if you've taken time out for cancer, caring for a dying parent, or had a heart attack is less income. These unplanned medical leaves are much harder for people to manage through financially but I still think the company should not be expected to provide a bonus when you are off as you are not producing results.

 

[Anonymous]

The only reason there is 'no evidence' is because you refuse to see it. Yes, men lose productivity too, for every bit as many reasons. Pregnancy is simply one of the few where there are months are notice ahead of time (along with the preparation and planning this allows) and months off. A man with a heart attack gives no notice, no preparation, and will be off about the same amount of medical time if it is a severe attack. Yet people feel bad for him and come out of the wood work to help, there is even a perception that gosh, he must have given it all to work. Whereas for the woman, she is viewed immediately as not being dedicated enough to her job. And don't even get started on after the child is born because while women take on the majority of the child care, men are involved too. Add in men's sports obsessions and it pretty well equals out in time spent out of work. Men take more leisure time.

As to your other question about awards, no one off work for more than a given number of months in the year should be eligible for bonus or awards. President's club is difficult because the results often comes AFTER the effort is made and is supposed to be based on a full year. I don't remember the criteria but know you must work a certain number of months of the year to qualify. I've always felt there should be stricter criteria, such as a need to be fully working, not on leave, at least 11 months of the year. Most companies state 8 months or so. However, many women do really before they go out on leave for two reasons - during about months 3 through 8 many feel damned near superhuman and accomplish more, and also just preparing and getting things done before leaving to be off and many tend to step it up. Not all, but many.

Women are mommy tracked to have children. Even if they are finally given equal pay for equal work during non-child bearing years, they are still 'punished' financially for daring to have children. Even when those kids are teens and in college, there are questions about if the woman is as serious about her job. That is wrong. I willingly turned down promotions when the kids were young. I used vacation days instead of the legally allowed sick days to care for them when they were ill. Yet when they were grown, it still took me many more years than any man to finally be able to advance my career and changed companies so I would be measured on my accomplishments and value instead of being viewed as being of less value based on how many kids I had. While most men are reaching their earning peak in their 30s and 40s, for women it is late 40s and 50s and no matter the industry, it is much harder to get ahead at that point in life. There are ways, and I mentor others to help them. I am very happy with the priorities I chose and don't expect a company to compensate me the same when I am producing less but you cannot make that conclusion simply because someone has a child.

It is certainly wrong for someone to earn awards when they are off work for an extended period of time. It sounds like the qualification criteria needs review. With most companies, bonus is not earned while on medical leave either. This is also hard because the last thing you need if you've taken time out for cancer, caring for a dying parent, or had a heart attack is less income. These unplanned medical leaves are much harder for people to manage through financially but I still think the company should not be expected to provide a bonus when you are off as you are not producing results.

That is a fantastic, well thought out response.... thank you. However, show me any evidence anywhere that men miss more work than women based on illness, disease or whatever. I can direct you to many studies that prove the obvious.... women miss more work than men based on pregnancy. They sometimes leave the workforce completely based on pregnancy. Men and women are NOT equal in this area. This is NOT a criticism, but women do not take off equal time and therefore should not demand or expect equal pay. Those are the facts.... you may not like them, but there they are and employers have to deal with those facts.

 

[Anonymous]

I've got one for ya, who cares?

 

[Anonymous]

I've got one for ya, who cares?

Yeah.... who cares about facts, it's just easier to sue. The NEW American mentality at its finest.

 

[Anonymous]

That is a fantastic, well thought out response.... thank you. However, show me any evidence anywhere that men miss more work than women based on illness, disease or whatever. I can direct you to many studies that prove the obvious.... women miss more work than men based on pregnancy. They sometimes leave the workforce completely based on pregnancy. Men and women are NOT equal in this area. This is NOT a criticism, but women do not take off equal time and therefore should not demand or expect equal pay. Those are the facts.... you may not like them, but there they are and employers have to deal with those facts.

Great that you appreciated the response. The facts are also out there that women's pay, even when adjusted for the factors you cite regarding time off for parenting and childbirth, are still unequal to men, even when doing the same job in the same industry. The link below is a thorough article showing this issue is far more complex than just women off for having kids.
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/womens-earnings-and-income

Meanwhile, further studies have found that a significant wage gap exists between women and men even when expected factors like family and labor force experience were eliminated and look toward systemic discrimination as one of the explanations.30

Catalyst research has found that women MBA were being paid, on average, $4,600 less in their first job than men. This is after taking into account number of years prior experience, time since MBA, job level, global region, industry, and even parenthood.31

Then there are many studies like this one that show women work about 41 minutes a day less than men - and this considers time off for all reasons. I don't think this translates into the life-long earning gap between the sexes. There is no way you can claim a woman working 41 minutes a day, or 3.4 hours a week, less than a man, should earn 19% less income.
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/06/24/does-housework-make-women-less-productive/

 

[Anonymous]

Long post ended up in moderation so won't show for a while. But, also note that there is only 24 minutes per day worked less by women then men when both are working full time jobs.

So, working about 100 hours less in a year makes it OK to earn 19% less?

 

[Anonymous]

One more for you.

According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, women with college degrees earn about $713,000 less than men over 40-year careers.

Xonsidering only the college educated, right out of college, controlling for industry, type of job, prior experience, and other characteristics, women earn 5% less than men.

Going forward ten years, the gap widens so women are earning 69% of what men make - 12% that cannot be explained by life choice, job choice, or education leve.

See especially slide 9 for the very high price women pay to have kids, especially if they leave the work force. 31% leave for an average of 2.7 years. The end up losing 18% of the earning potential when they come back. THIS is where the biggest remaining discrimination lies, with the perception of lack of dedication or commitment to a job if a woman has a child. There is a long held bias that a man with kids is more stable and more dedicated while a woman with kids is less so.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/9-sh...-2011-4#a-gap-from-the-get-go-2#ixzz1R02CpLMH

So, your argument has some validity but you are not seeing the greater picture that even factoring in more time off, time off for kids, there is still a difference in pay. My kids are all in their 20s and 30s. I work as hard as you do. I work as many hours. I have at least as much education. Tell me why I earn less? (I personally think it is because women don't negotiate well for themselves and don't sell themselves well).

 

[Anonymous]

One more for you.

According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, women with college degrees earn about $713,000 less than men over 40-year careers.

Xonsidering only the college educated, right out of college, controlling for industry, type of job, prior experience, and other characteristics, women earn 5% less than men.

Going forward ten years, the gap widens so women are earning 69% of what men make - 12% that cannot be explained by life choice, job choice, or education leve.

See especially slide 9 for the very high price women pay to have kids, especially if they leave the work force. 31% leave for an average of 2.7 years. The end up losing 18% of the earning potential when they come back. THIS is where the biggest remaining discrimination lies, with the perception of lack of dedication or commitment to a job if a woman has a child. There is a long held bias that a man with kids is more stable and more dedicated while a woman with kids is less so.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/9-sh...-2011-4#a-gap-from-the-get-go-2#ixzz1R02CpLMH

So, your argument has some validity but you are not seeing the greater picture that even factoring in more time off, time off for kids, there is still a difference in pay. My kids are all in their 20s and 30s. I work as hard as you do. I work as many hours. I have at least as much education. Tell me why I earn less? (I personally think it is because women don't negotiate well for themselves and don't sell themselves well).

I will gladly have a personal email exchange with you to compare notes on your career, accomplishments, time-off, tenure and ultimately pay..... we can then see if you are as under-compensated as you think are.

 

[Anonymous]

One more for you.

According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, women with college degrees earn about $713,000 less than men over 40-year careers.

Xonsidering only the college educated, right out of college, controlling for industry, type of job, prior experience, and other characteristics, women earn 5% less than men.

Going forward ten years, the gap widens so women are earning 69% of what men make - 12% that cannot be explained by life choice, job choice, or education leve.

See especially slide 9 for the very high price women pay to have kids, especially if they leave the work force. 31% leave for an average of 2.7 years. The end up losing 18% of the earning potential when they come back. THIS is where the biggest remaining discrimination lies, with the perception of lack of dedication or commitment to a job if a woman has a child. There is a long held bias that a man with kids is more stable and more dedicated while a woman with kids is less so.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/9-sh...-2011-4#a-gap-from-the-get-go-2#ixzz1R02CpLMH

So, your argument has some validity but you are not seeing the greater picture that even factoring in more time off, time off for kids, there is still a difference in pay. My kids are all in their 20s and 30s. I work as hard as you do. I work as many hours. I have at least as much education. Tell me why I earn less? (I personally think it is because women don't negotiate well for themselves and don't sell themselves well).

You know, if it was really true that you could hire a woman for three quarters of what you could hire a man with exactly the same qualifications, then employers would be crazy not to hire all women. It would be insane to hire men. Not only would it be insane, it would probably put them out of the business because the ones that were smart enough to hire women would have such a cost advantage that it would be really hard for the others to compete.

There are lots of gross differences between men and women and other groups and some of them shocked me when I first started doing the research. For example, I found that young male doctors make considerably more than young female doctors. But, when I dug into it a little deeper, I discovered that young male doctors work an average of 500 hours a year more than young female doctors. Obviously, a doctor that works 500 extra hours is going to make more money than the other doctor.

This is not to say that sexism doesn’t exist and that women are always treated fairly. But as a general rule it is inconceivable that employers could hire a female worker for three quarters of what they would have to pay a man with the same qualifications.

So the answer to the question: do women earn less than men, is YES, but there are good reasons why that is the case. Contrary to the commonly advanced liberal theory of “sexist and unjust male-dominated world”, other factors are CLEARLY at play.

 

[Anonymous]

You know, if it was really true that you could hire a woman for three quarters of what you could hire a man with exactly the same qualifications, then employers would be crazy not to hire all women. It would be insane to hire men. Not only would it be insane, it would probably put them out of the business because the ones that were smart enough to hire women would have such a cost advantage that it would be really hard for the others to compete.

There are lots of gross differences between men and women and other groups and some of them shocked me when I first started doing the research. For example, I found that young male doctors make considerably more than young female doctors. But, when I dug into it a little deeper, I discovered that young male doctors work an average of 500 hours a year more than young female doctors. Obviously, a doctor that works 500 extra hours is going to make more money than the other doctor.

This is not to say that sexism doesn’t exist and that women are always treated fairly. But as a general rule it is inconceivable that employers could hire a female worker for three quarters of what they would have to pay a man with the same qualifications.

So the answer to the question: do women earn less than men, is YES, but there are good reasons why that is the case. Contrary to the commonly advanced liberal theory of “sexist and unjust male-dominated world”, other factors are CLEARLY at play.

If you are going to copy a published article at least cite the source.

Yeah, nice theory but it doesn't hold up in the real world. Why do you think female dominated professions such as nursing and teaching are paid so little compared to their training and value?

Here's another thought for you.

 

[Anonymous]

Although pharma today has many women, the high pay rates come from it being a male dominated industry of detail men.

 

[Anonymous]

I will gladly have a personal email exchange with you to compare notes on your career, accomplishments, time-off, tenure and ultimately pay..... we can then see if you are as under-compensated as you think are.

I would not reveal my personal information to a stranger on these boards. Not only that, but looking at one person's compensation compared to one other person's is not an accurate representation of the overall picture.

I was seriously undercompensated for many years but learned how to better my overall package. This was done by:
*mentoring with an older male senior employee at a previous company
*mentoring with an HR representative from a large company where I have never worked
*learning how to negotiate and sell myself better
*switching companies for promotions and raise opportunities

The last one was key to financial advancement. I'm now in a higher level job and paid quite well. I also got an advanced degree, did not stay in primary care, and moved out of the sales representative role. I feel blessed and very fortunate to have had the mentoring and direction provided to me to help me reach this point. While no one is secure in any industry right now, and certainly not pharma, I am better positioned than most others to stay in a higher paying job. So, I don't feel I am undercompensated. But pharma is still a good ole boys club and the women in the upper ranks are still not equal to the men - and most are past the age of having kids.

 

[Anonymous]

I would not reveal my personal information to a stranger on these boards. Not only that, but looking at one person's compensation compared to one other person's is not an accurate representation of the overall picture.

I was seriously undercompensated for many years but learned how to better my overall package. This was done by:
*mentoring with an older male senior employee at a previous company
*mentoring with an HR representative from a large company where I have never worked
*learning how to negotiate and sell myself better
*switching companies for promotions and raise opportunities

The last one was key to financial advancement. I'm now in a higher level job and paid quite well. I also got an advanced degree, did not stay in primary care, and moved out of the sales representative role. I feel blessed and very fortunate to have had the mentoring and direction provided to me to help me reach this point. While no one is secure in any industry right now, and certainly not pharma, I am better positioned than most others to stay in a higher paying job. So, I don't feel I am undercompensated. But pharma is still a good ole boys club and the women in the upper ranks are still not equal to the men - and most are past the age of having kids.

That is so odd that you perpetuate the myth that Pharma is a "good ol' boys club".... you are living proof that a woman can advance herself in anyway she wants and I am a man who has been denied advancement on several occasions.... you need to free your mind of the dogma that the ONLY factor on whether or not someone is successful is based on gender alone. I have witnessed first-hand women being advanced to management positions much faster than more tenured, more accomplished men.... so what does that mean?

 

[Anonymous]

If you are going to copy a published article at least cite the source.

Yeah, nice theory but it doesn't hold up in the real world. Why do you think female dominated professions such as nursing and teaching are paid so little compared to their training and value?

Here's another thought for you.

Who's fault is it that women choose professions that are paid "so little".... nursing, teaching whatever. The fact is that when you do an apples-to-apples comparison women are paid equally to their mail counterparts. If you want citations.... lookup anything from Thomas Sowell, he will deconstruct any false-perceptions that you have regarding gender bias and pay.

Now.... based on your theory, if Novartis could hire women for 3/4 the cost of men, why would Novartis ever hire a man?

 

[Anonymous]

That is so odd that you perpetuate the myth that Pharma is a "good ol' boys club".... you are living proof that a woman can advance herself in anyway she wants and I am a man who has been denied advancement on several occasions.... you need to free your mind of the dogma that the ONLY factor on whether or not someone is successful is based on gender alone. I have witnessed first-hand women being advanced to management positions much faster than more tenured, more accomplished men.... so what does that mean?

I can't totally agree with you. A woman can't advance herself in any way she wants. However, like I did, you need to find out what is stopping your advancement and learn how to work within the system - and the system CHANGES. I do not believe that the ONLY factor on whether someone is given opportunities is gender. As much as I believe discrimination is real, that women are generally underpaid (statistics back me up here), I also see when corrections are put into place or when there is too much focus, it is the white male who is discriminated against. I absolutely hate quotas because then if you are a highly qualified female, it doesn't matter - many assume you were advanced simply because of gender.

If you really want to advance, leave big pharma. Get a masters in health care, pharmaceutical sciences, or another area - not the standard mba. When you leave, go with a company that is newer and growing but that wants skilled, older, experienced employees. They are out there. Live in that world, knowing you will change jobs every 2 to 4 years, then come back to a more stable company. Most of all, find a mentor that is rising. Not just one with skills, knowledge, and good advice, but one on the company's fast track radar screen. They can not only bring you along but will also give you advice and help you see what is missing.

FYI, I NEVER let being female be an obstacle to my success. I know it is real, and yes, pharma management remains a good ole boy network. So, I learned what is important to them, removed what they viewed as weaknesses and highlighted what they valued. I also refuse to let my age be an obstacle. My advancing age would be a negative in a primary care sales position, and I was counseled early and often that this would be the case. So, I took whatever steps were necessary - leaving a cushy big pharma job for less money and lots more travel - to build something a little more marketable. I also went to school to show a desire and ability to learn and grow. Some people add a degree, others take computer or presentation courses. My age is an asset where I am right now...for now. My gender doesn't matter.

Never, ever let your age, gender, or race become an excuse to not succeeding. However, understand there are realities and issues whether you are a young female, white male, or older employee and prepare yourself so you minimize the issues. Instead of beating my head against the wall about gender discrimination, I accept it is real and do what I can to counter it. I've never let it define me.

 

[Anonymous]

Who's fault is it that women choose professions that are paid "so little".... nursing, teaching whatever. The fact is that when you do an apples-to-apples comparison women are paid equally to their mail counterparts. If you want citations.... lookup anything from Thomas Sowell, he will deconstruct any false-perceptions that you have regarding gender bias and pay.

Now.... based on your theory, if Novartis could hire women for 3/4 the cost of men, why would Novartis ever hire a man?

BTW, I'm obviously enjoying this conversation. I like Sowell and I'm a very conservative woman. However, it is actually a fact that women are paid less than their male counterparts even correcting for all factors except gender. (Re; citations, don't post something as your own that is not. Not cool - and you are great to talk with)

Women didn't choose low paying professions. I would guess I am much older than you. Prior to about the mid 70s, women were not presented with many choices and were moms, teachers, secretaries, or nurses. Those professions are paid low because they were female based. Females were viewed as less important and were considered a 2nd income. Women today are correcting this themselves - more women then men are getting advanced degrees and pursuing high paying fields like medicine and engineering. While it is fantastic to see women really seeing all options available, it is discouraging to see so few men advancing the same way. I suspect 20 or 30 years from now, there may be a need for focusing on men as the tables of discrimination may turn completely - there are already signs if you look at an older white man's lot.

The argument about why hire men if they can hire women cheaper? (BTW, it's not 3/4 anymore) Beats me. Look at the world wars. Women went to work, took pride in their jobs, and did the work well. Yet they were paid less. When the men came home, they were replaced by the higher priced men. Men, especially those married with children, are viewed as being stable, valuable employees. A single woman, especially if she never marries, is viewed as flawed and too focused on her career. A married woman with kids is viewed as too harried and not dedicated. This is why men are hired - it is a societal effect and on of perception, not strictly a financial one and certainly not based on facts. Your providing a fact based, logical hypothesis but this is not how human beings operate, think, socialize, or hire.

 

[Anonymous]

BTW, I'm obviously enjoying this conversation. I like Sowell and I'm a very conservative woman. However, it is actually a fact that women are paid less than their male counterparts even correcting for all factors except gender. (Re; citations, don't post something as your own that is not. Not cool - and you are great to talk with)

Women didn't choose low paying professions. I would guess I am much older than you. Prior to about the mid 70s, women were not presented with many choices and were moms, teachers, secretaries, or nurses. Those professions are paid low because they were female based. Females were viewed as less important and were considered a 2nd income. Women today are correcting this themselves - more women then men are getting advanced degrees and pursuing high paying fields like medicine and engineering. While it is fantastic to see women really seeing all options available, it is discouraging to see so few men advancing the same way. I suspect 20 or 30 years from now, there may be a need for focusing on men as the tables of discrimination may turn completely - there are already signs if you look at an older white man's lot.

The argument about why hire men if they can hire women cheaper? (BTW, it's not 3/4 anymore) Beats me. Look at the world wars. Women went to work, took pride in their jobs, and did the work well. Yet they were paid less. When the men came home, they were replaced by the higher priced men. Men, especially those married with children, are viewed as being stable, valuable employees. A single woman, especially if she never marries, is viewed as flawed and too focused on her career. A married woman with kids is viewed as too harried and not dedicated. This is why men are hired - it is a societal effect and on of perception, not strictly a financial one and certainly not based on facts. Your providing a fact based, logical hypothesis but this is not how human beings operate, think, socialize, or hire.

If you claim to be a conservative woman and you like Thomas Sowell, then other than directing you to read one of his many publications, I would ask you to watch this short, 3 and half minute video.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4

BTW, I also appreciate this conversation, however, I fear that despite you personal success as a woman and all the logical arguements that can show the ludicrous nature of your position, you will not be convinced.... and so the myth continues. Happy 4th.

 

[Anonymous]

One more for you.

According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, women with college degrees earn about $713,000 less than men over 40-year careers.

Xonsidering only the college educated, right out of college, controlling for industry, type of job, prior experience, and other characteristics, women earn 5% less than men.

Going forward ten years, the gap widens so women are earning 69% of what men make - 12% that cannot be explained by life choice, job choice, or education leve.

See especially slide 9 for the very high price women pay to have kids, especially if they leave the work force. 31% leave for an average of 2.7 years. The end up losing 18% of the earning potential when they come back. THIS is where the biggest remaining discrimination lies, with the perception of lack of dedication or commitment to a job if a woman has a child. There is a long held bias that a man with kids is more stable and more dedicated while a woman with kids is less so.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/9-sh...-2011-4#a-gap-from-the-get-go-2#ixzz1R02CpLMH

So, your argument has some validity but you are not seeing the greater picture that even factoring in more time off, time off for kids, there is still a difference in pay. My kids are all in their 20s and 30s. I work as hard as you do. I work as many hours. I have at least as much education. Tell me why I earn less? (I personally think it is because women don't negotiate well for themselves and don't sell themselves well).

Another interesting thing regarding citations.... You claim to be a conservative woman, but ALL you citations come from left-leaning sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
The Center for American Progress was created in 2003 as a left-leaning alternative to think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.[5]

Since its inception, the Center has gathered a group of high-profile senior fellows, including Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan; Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama; Ruy Teixeira, political scientist and author of The Emerging Democratic Majority; and, most recently, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Elizabeth Edwards, late wife of former Presidential candidate and former U.S. Sen. from North Carolina John Edwards.

The Center manages a radio studio, and offers the studio for use to shows across the ideological spectrum. It is used daily by the Bill Press Show, a syndicated talk radio program broadcast from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern Time weekday mornings. Jones Radio Networks is the syndicator.

The Center was often featured prominently on the Al Franken Show on the now defunct Air America Radio network, where Christy Harvey and Al Franken criticized the Bush administration at length, accusing it of dishonesty and incompetence.

As a conservative woman.... find me a conservative who supports your point of view. Thomas Sowell, A TRUE CONSERVATIVE, does not see it your way.