After reading your article I decided to uncover some of your supposed facts.
First, your comment on "In practice, comparable worth has created more problems than it solves. Sure, pay increases for workers who keep their jobs, but increased costs limit job opportunities for both women and men. Raising pay also reduces incentives for women to leave "women’s work" in effect fostering the very job segregation that critics oppose."
What? That is just plain stupid. Then you should say the same thing regarding men. Let's lower compensation for factory and construction workers so we can won't provide them incentives to do "men's work." Now doesn't that sound silly? Sure it does, it's ridiculous. I don't feel I should even comment more about this, this is pretty much self-explanatory.
Second, "The gender-pay gap compares full-time men and women, but full-time women actually work fewer hours on average than full-time men. In fact, half of all full-time men work over 40 hours a week while only about one-third of full-time women do. Correcting for this difference alone reduces the gap to 19 percent." Are you considering salaried positions in this as well, because we know that salaried employees do not get paid... OVERTIME.
If you compare salaried employees, both women and men, then there WILL be a gap. Of course full-time female hourly employees will work fewer hours, because we have single mothers who are doing the responsible thing by working AND taking care of their children. Should we punish them for being a good parent? Why would you make such a comparison, it's unfounded and just plain stupid.
Finally, your last comment really threw me for a spin. "Comparable worth assumes that preferences and abilities have nothing to do with job choice. While discrimination may have dictated the jobs done by our grandmothers, it seems to have little to do with job choice today. Rather, certain occupations (e.g., teaching) can offer real advantages to women, including scheduling flexibility and lower penalties for workforce absences, not to mention personal fulfillment."
This is elementary at best. So women should take "certain occupations" like teachers, etc. Yes women AND men should be teachers. Do you not think little boys need role models? Do you not think a female VP could offer a different perspective and bring diversity and enlightened ideas to the table. I think your comments are just ridiculous. If you feel that strongly about your comments why don't stop writing articles and get into "certain occupations" that are more rewarding for women, as you put it.
The plain truth is you can ignore discrimination all you want to, but it DOES exist, for women, for minorities, for the elderly, etc. Your article is typical of an uninformed (I would say ignorant) person. It's a shame Workforce even published this mess.