On May 3, 2007 "The Spectrum" published one of those glass ceiling reports.  "New labor statistics demonstrate that American women are only paid cents on the dollar to their male counter-parts."

The story told by the data in the report and the stories drawn and reported about the report are so different as to leave only the conclusion that the real story is the politics embodied by a pay-gap more than a pay-gap itself. There was a interesting piece in the Chicago Tribune (with a general reputation of being slightly more politically liberal than the late Chairman Mao). In its reporting of the AAUW study, the following "under-reported" facts were mentioned:

-- The report recognizes that women with college degrees tend to go into such fields as education, humanities, and sociology, etc. These career fields typically pay significantly less than the sectors preferred by men; engineering, business, mathematics, and the so-called hard sciences. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer the most competitive salaries.

-- As women get older, it was reported that many elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39% of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3% of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, it should not be surprising that they earn less than those who did not.

-- Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect earnings. A year out of college, the report noted women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Far more often than women, men were reported to work +50 hours a week.

-- Buried in the report is an incredible admission: "After accounting for ALL factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap REMAINS UNEXPLAINED and may be attributed to discrimination." [emphasis added]

In other words: wage difference are often due to a comparison between apples & oranges. There IS data showing that engineers make more money than psychologists. There IS data that there are more male engineers than females engineers; and, there ARE more female psychologists than male. The study FOUND NO DATA demonstrating female engineers, with like education & experience, make any less money than male engineers...The study found that there are differences in pay BETWEEN professional fields, but the study DID NOT FIND there to be differences in pay WITHIN professional fields amongst equally qualified employees.

The AAUW report found data to suggest that a woman interrupts her career 60% more often than a man will. Women, in the aggregate, work fewer hours than male employees. In instances where the employees are hourly workers, there OUGHT to be a difference in wages. In instances where the employees are salaried, the extra hours spent working COULD justifiably an existence in salary differences.

On the last point, 75% of the gap had demonstrably innocent causes -- and AAUW researchers, without ANY data or evidence, are make a conjecture that wage discrimination is responsible for ALL of the remaining 25% of UNKNOWN reasons for wage differences.

Given the survey was conducted by the "Association of UNIVERSITY WOMEN in Washington," [emphasis added] I’m sure that the TOTAL absence of ANY evidence of wage discrimination was not caused by a lack of due diligence in seeking economic data to demonstrate its existence.

When the topic of gender based salary discrimination is addressed based on facts and statistics, the objective conclusions are a LOT different than when this subject is viewed subjectively through the lenses of emotion and politics. I guess the cold analysis of data isn’t nearly as interesting as are stories about victimized women being preyed upon in the workplace.