Statistics show that men earn more than women over a Lifetime, and by a considerable margin.
Reasons are found to pay men more, even if is only justified by giving them a different job title for the same job.
I seriously doubt that. How were those supposed "reasons" determined?
I have worked a LOT of companies and have never ever witnessed the artificial creation of a job title merely to use it as an excuse to pay a man more then a woman.
However women are appearing in more and more top job slots, than even ten years ago.
While they now often get the CEO job, it is extremely
rare for them to get the Chairman spot.
Incidentally, less and less women are also taking years long breaks for having and raising children.
Which puts them on more equal footings in term of potential career paths with men, who never took such breaks.
I'ld also add to that that traditionally, culturally and sociologically... men are more natural leaders then women.
You can blame biology for that. Perhaps it is a relic of the past. Perhaps it doesn't make sense anymore in modern society.
I'll leave that in the middle. Personally I have no problem with women leaders anyway, if and when they qualify for the job and have the traits a leader requires.
But sure I would think that in general, people will be naturally more inclined to look towards / vote for men to be their leaders rather then women.
Ironically, that goes for women themselves also. Perhaps even especially for women.
Would be an interesting psychology study. It wouldn't surprise me at all that if given the choice, most women would prefer a man leading them rather then a woman.
At the same time the lowest paid rungs in a company are usually exclusively staffed by women.
Not sure if this is true.
But if it is, we would have to ask the obvious question: why?
Correlation doesn't imply causation.... There might very well be a reason for that which
correlates with gender, but which isn't at all caused by it.