Okay, do calm down, cause I'm an atheist too, and had no intention of starting a "flamewar" about religion :) I was merely remarking how it's kind of contradictory that atheists which on one hand will probably say "free will" is an illusion anyway and all it exists is our physical brains(something I agree with), will OTOH just resort to some nebulous "choice" concept when discussing the careers people enter into, and the focus they put into them, disregarding the possibility that our way of thinking, and thus our choices *are* formed by our interactions with our environment, at least in some capacity, and the ideas/stereotypes that are presented to us.

Then why bring it up in the first place? I don't think it really adds to the discussion picking on people that have a different opinion than yours by attacking their personality, their religious believe, or just remarking how ironic their opinion is given their religious believes... it just draws the discussion away from the facts and unto the level of personal accusations and throwing dirt.

Look, you might have meant it with tongue in cheek, and I might have reacted overly salty... I am just a little bit tired of seeing these tricks being pulled by politicians over and over, no need to start the same rethorical tricks on internet forums.

Damn! This cannot be for real!

Female bias even extends to people's own children: Pocket money: Boys get 13% more than girls, survey finds

Is this a female hating world or people witch-hunting the male dominance myth are seeing what they want to see?

Ah! , No... none of the above, Apparently its because boys moan, complain and asks for more!!! :(

Damn! This cannot be for real!
Female bias even extends to people's own children: Pocket money: Boys get 13% more than girls, survey finds
Is this a female hating world or people witch-hunting the male dominance myth are seeing what they want to see?

Ah! , No... none of the above, Apparently its because boys moan, complain and asks for more!!! :(

Examples like that are why everyone should be aware of gender issues (as opposed to putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "woman got the vote, we're all equal now!" - yes, caricature, not specific :p)

Another is that women are more likely to feel the "imposter syndrome" and not at all likely to apply for jobs where they don't meet every criteria (whereas men tend to apply if they meet just half the criteria).

Most entry-level games jobs that I see, ask for:
* 3 shipped titles or 3 years industry experience,
* a 4 year degree
* lots of languages / tools experience.

..but if it's a junior-foot-in-the-door role, this is catch-22. You need experience to get the job, and thr job to get experience. Of course, they end up hiring someone with no experience and put them on minimum wage in the end, because they're listing an imaginary ideal candidate, not the actual job requirements.

However, *if you know* the above stats - that women are very unlikely to apply for such an unrealistic job listing, while men are undeterred... Then does that choice become discrimination on your part? You would be knowingly be publising a gender biased listing, which will skew the applicants towards one gender.

If you knew these stats, would you re-word the listing to separate the actual job requirements from the imaginary ideal candidate wish list?
If you don't, the best candidate for the job might not get it due to not applying, so it's not good business sense in any case.

So being comfortable enough to discuss and act on gender issues, while not jumping to black and white conclusions, makes good business sense as well as being socially progressive.

There are many of these subtle differences between demographics which unconsciously cause biases to appear. If we assume that most people are good, then these biases only persist because of our ignorance. We don't want to live in an unfair world, but we're hard-wired to create one. It's only by admitting that we actually are unknowingly causing these issues and choosing to be aware of them that we can avoid perpetuating them (no single raindrop beleived he was the cause of the flood).

Damn! This cannot be for real!
Female bias even extends to people's own children: Pocket money: Boys get 13% more than girls, survey finds
Is this a female hating world or people witch-hunting the male dominance myth are seeing what they want to see?

Ah! , No... none of the above, Apparently its because boys moan, complain and asks for more!!! :(

It is vital to adopt a skeptical attitude when faced with studies and extremely important to understand the inherent flaws in sociological research. This is especially true when science is being weaponized, as it often is in controversies such as gender relations, where a host of social biases and special interests can cloud the picture.

There exists at least two possibilities: The study is an accurate reflection of reality, and as such lends weight to the demand that society must reorder itself in order to live up to the ideals of an egalitarian and just society; or the study is not an accurate reflection of reality, due to flaws, the difficult and variable nature of what is being studied or other issues such as not accounting for mitigating factors.

Consider:

In 1987, the Gallup Youth Poll found ... Teenage boys received, on average, smaller allowances (total cash transfers) than did girls, $8.39 and $11.71 per week, respectively, probably reflecting differences in time spent performing household chores. Boys were more likely than girls to do chores involving outdoor duties, such as mowing the lawn, and less likely to do indoor tasks, such as cooking, laundry, and babysitting. These indoor tasks tended to be greater in number and collectively required greater time input than outdoor tasks [Gagner, Cooney, and Call 1998]

In 1992, boys aged twelve to eighteen received average monthly allowances of $39.53, 13 percent more than what girls received; but boys were paid 19 percent less than girls for extra chores performed around the house (chores not required for receipt of an allowance)

According to Sabrina Pabilonia [1999], the median weekly allowance for twelve- and thirteen-year-old boys was $4.80, and the median weekly allowance for sixteen-year-old boys was $7.70. The only gender difference in the median allowance received was for sixteen-year-olds, with boys receiving approximately $1 less than girls.

SOURCE: Boyhood in America: A - K., Volume 1
https://books.google.ca/books?id=IyTFVN0ugscC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=allowance+survey+boys+girls&source=bl&ots=9rcj3EhZgW&sig=FKXiVSi-ty8Cr7w_xfWHWeqPZIk&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=allowance%20survey%20boys%20girls&f=false

What might have changed these numbers? Were there any issues with these studies? Do they track with results nationally? Do they vary across similar countries, and if so by how much?

In the vast majority of homes, the allowance is given ... as a reward for certain behavior.

Just as parents are docked for days missed at work, so are children punished for failing to live up to parental expectations.

Boys are asked to do more chores for their allowance than girls are. And parents who only have boys in their households are more likely to withhold allowance when dissatisfied than are parents who only have girls. Also, a significantly higher percentage of girls-only parents regard their girls as more responsible money mangers than do boys-only parents

SOURCE: Working Mother, 1986
https://books.google.ca/books?id=N2EEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=allowance+survey+boys+girls&source=bl&ots=mS5gnK65ND&sig=PPZzV1hvrlBQ204mwqkeLZ0isE4&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=allowance%20survey%20boys%20girls&f=false

Interesting. What to make of this? To what degree is allowance used as compensation for work performed versus behavioral control? Hypothesis: Do we assume boys on average have worse behavior than girls, and if so are boys being paid a higher rate to incentivize their behavior, or a lower rate as punishment for behavior? Or do girls behave worse than boys, or if better is a lower rate commensurate with less of a need to incentivize behavior?

Alternate theory: Is the work boys do considered more difficult (lawnmowing versus dishwashing)? Or is the work girls do considered more valuable (babysitting versus garbage)? How gendered is the work now versus in the past (are more girls taking out trash than in previous decades? Are more boys babysitting?)

According to a survey reported in Pediatrics for Parents newsletter, the average 8 and 9 year old's allowance is $3.75 per week. For 10 and 11 year olds, the average is $4.25, for 12 and 13 year olds $6.66, and for 14 year olds $9.45. Of the 1,000 children in the survey, only half received an allowance.

There is no gender gap in allowances - boys and girls in each group received the same amount per week. Girls were generally happier with the amount of their allowance while most boys thought they should receive more.

Chores - And Who Does Them

Girls Boys Chore
36% 60% Taking out the trash and recyclables
10% 40% Mowing the law and yard work
49% 33% Washing Dishes
36% 26% Caring for Siblings
36% 25% Helping to Prepare meals
29% 16% Cleaning the bathroom
27% 16% Dusting

http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articledetail.cfm?id=341

Bonus: On spinning science, 2014 gender gap reports failed to note the nature of the study, claiming a gap for what was, in fact, a study aimed at college savings (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/allowance-gap-thinkprogress-is-pushing-is-fake/article/2547708)

The link Covert provided goes to a press release about the study from the Allstate Foundation, which co-sponsored the study with Junior Achievement USA. Covert completely ignores the headline of the press release, which is that there is a gender gap among teens planning to attend college.
Why would Covert ignore the main finding of the study? Maybe it’s because that particular gender gap favors girls.

(Washington Examiner is noted to be Right-leaning, FWIW)

If anything, be very wary of how science is translated into mass media, particularly if there is significant sanction for going against a widely adopted narrative or if one political faction favors only certain research. In modern culture is it easy to see one gender as good and another as bad? Is it easy to see one gender as more deserving of help and another as not? This will color perception.

Obviously, with a wealth of contradictory studies, we should be loathe to draw a straight line between allowances and greater social ills.

Examples like that are why everyone should be aware of gender issues (as opposed to putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "woman got the vote, we're all equal now!" - yes, caricature, not specific :P)

Agreed, but we should also be aware of the countervailing tendency, popular in some camps who have loudly declared themselves to be the only parties "on the right side of history," (caricature as well but just as apt) of drawing broad conclusions from limited datasets which agree with their overall world view. We should, as much as humanly possible, explore the problem space with the best data available wherever it leads us.

History being the funny thing that it is, there may be no right or wrong side, rather only a human side.

Another is that women are more likely to feel the "imposter syndrome" and not at all likely to apply for jobs where they don't meet every criteria (whereas men tend to apply if they meet just half the criteria).

Having felt this first hand working in games, I have to ask if this is actually gendered or is it an ingroup / outgroup thing. (Apparently I'm not alone, minorities also experience it: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-impostor-syndrome/)

Most entry-level games jobs that I see, ask for:
* 3 shipped titles or 3 years industry experience,
* a 4 year degree
* lots of languages / tools experience.

It was only later in life (too late, I think) that I learned that a game was being played with requirements. The light for me went off interviewing with someone I'd worked with who had fewer qualifications than I had. His wisdom for me was, "I just apply for everything, the worst they can do is reject me."

Is is possible that members of an outgroup do not take as many risks because they are less likely to understand the consequences of those risks?

So being comfortable enough to discuss and act on gender issues, while not jumping to black and white conclusions, makes good business sense as well as being socially progressive.

I would like to see us more comfortable discussing, rather than weaponizing, our differences. I am greatly concerned that there is far more zeal and righteous glee in the latter. Good business sense should always derive from good information, and where the data shows clear, inexcusable differences (as with Salesforce recently) these need to be corrected swiftly.

If you knew these stats, would you re-word the listing to separate the actual job requirements from the imaginary ideal candidate wish list?

Pfft, this is the games industry! If you reword that ad to say "all applicants who can code c++ and know what a games main loop looks like can apply" then you'll be completely overwhelmed with application forms from here till December and unable to pick the right candidate. At least if you overinflate the requirements then you make sure only the absolutely confident will apply, female or male :)

While I agree with your main point this is something to consider and applies to all industries not just gamedev and is used to discourage a large number of "fishing for info" applications for positions.

Ah! , No... none of the above, Apparently its because boys moan, complain and asks for more!!!

There are several books on the subject that I recommend reading, even if you're a man. "Women Don't Ask" and "Nice Girls Don't Get The Corner Office" are two of the better ones. They include common patterns that are different between men and women, studies, and more.

In one of the first examples, a study where college students were told they would be paid between $3-$10 for completing some simple tasks. Everyone who completed the task was given $3. (This was where the real experiment took place.) Anyone who specifically asked for more money, up to $10, was given the money. Anyone who merely complained or commented about the money --- but did not ask for it --- was not given the money. About an equal number of males and females made comments, but almost none of the women actually asked for more money.

Women, whether through biology or social training, tend to not ask directly for things they want for themselves. They'll ask directly on other people's behalf, but rarely for themselves. When it comes to work environment most women will (wrongly!) assume their bosses will notice the work they do and offer promotions and pay raises based on that. Very often women will deflect praise and complements even when they are deserved or fail to leverage favors ("It was a team effort", "It was nothing", "I don't mind the extra work") rather than as men do ("Thank you, it was an effort", "I'm glad I could help", "You owe me one"). When it comes time for performance reviews women tend to not point out their strengths and minimize their accomplishments.

In another of their surveys, recent college grads from a department were offered jobs at various companies and a group studied their interviews and negotiation tactics. About 2/3 of the males asked for more money than the initial offer, and about 1/3 of the women asked for more money. Among those who asked for more money, the men asked for much more, around $10K-$20K more money or benefits compared to women who usually asked for $500 or less more money or benefits.

Nature or nurture is still open. The "girl code" learned as children is harsh, girls who step forward and put themselves out there are often shunned by their peers. You've probably noticed on facebook and similar girls will put out images of themselves succeeding or looking good as they fish for complements will carefully put themselves down with the posts ("This is the best I could do to make myself look good") boys will put out crappy accomplishments and brag heavily ("I look awesome"). When the reverse is done, girls talking about their successes will frequently be torn down by other girls, boys who put themselves down will be put down by other boys. Girls learn that trying to advance in the girl's world means deflecting complements and putting themselves last, and when it comes to the workforce most feel putting themselves forward for promotion or funding will cause damage to their careers. It could be some natural components where women try to watch for emotions and community where men are more concerned about the hunt, or it could be just social training.

Either way, the effect is very real.

I've read quite a few studies where once they account for time differences in the workforce for women who do not immediately enter work after college, then they look at actual job offers made, women and men professionally are usually initially offered about the same. A large percentage of men then fight additionally for more money or benefits, where a smaller number of women fight for a smaller amount of money or benefits. From those studies, it was not the businesses who caused men to make more than women, it was the different actions taken during salary negotiations and performance reviews that accounted for the difference in pay. Based on my own observations of women in performance reviews, I have seen exactly that happening. The men put forth all their minor achievements and even some failures as reasons they should be advanced. The women will deflect complements and make statements about feeling guilty even for a small raise.

Because irrational people seem to outnumber rational people on this planet by a fair margin

Fortunately this isn't true. It's just that the irrational people are more vocal than the moderate people. It's the nature of the strongly opinionated to make their opinion known loudly...

Aye, I hope you're right about that. :)

There's plenty of vocal moderates, and plenty of vocal extremists. But there are rational and irrational extremists, rational and irrational moderates, and when it comes to the vocal minority, it seems the irrationals (whether moderates or extremists on one side of the aisle or the other) shout as loud or louder than the (moderate or extremist) rationals. I don't think it's being strongly opinionated - strong opinions are fine. It's the unwillingness to listen to others and wanting to shut down views rather than discuss and convince others. It's this arrogant and naive view that if I find your views 'offensive', I have the right to prevent you from being able to speak.

(the word 'offensive' itself is thrown at everything nowadays - people seem to LIKE being offended, perhaps it makes them feel self-righteous while simultaneously giving an excuse to get angry (and sometimes violent), so they make themselves ""offended"" by even relatively mild disagreements)

I think of myself as a (non-violent) rational extremist; but I'm sure even lunatics think of themselves as rational. :P

Then there's the whole problem of people labeling everyone else to dismiss their views, who use 'irrational' when they really mean "I disagree with you but lack the maturity or knowledge to argue persuasively" (and other times the label is accurately applied), whereas I'm using it more to describe someone who doesn't want to even come to the table to talk, but just shouts to drown out views they disagree with. I guess "emotional" would be a more accurate word, but that belittles the very real value of emotions in other areas of life - it's just that emotions shouldn't guide discussion, or action, or really, much of anything - emotions are fantastic, but shouldn't be in the driver's seat of human choices. The BLM and third-wave feminism groups unfortunately have too many emotionally-driven and self-entitled people acting ridiculous, I think it discourages reasonable people from actually analyzing the merits of (some of) their complaints.

Even pro-gay liberals with decades of history of supporting gays get viciously pounced on by members of their own side for daring to be out of lock-step with the new conformist liberal party-line. [Second-wave feminists] and libertarians are getting increasingly annoyed at people and corporations intentionally shutting down even unrelated discussion under the guise of 'hate speech'. Even comedians are getting annoyed at these third-wave feminist and BLM groups, and refusing to do stand-up at colleges because there is now intense semi-organized antagonistic responses to views or even just jokes that rock-the-boat (and I'm personally conservative when it comes to race-related and sex-related jokes anyway, so I choose not to listen to Chris Rock's stuff). Instead of just causing hurt feelings and some counter-arguments (emotional or logical), there is now mob-directed but surprisingly semi-organized attacks to blacklist and hurt the careers of people who say things they don't like, and to prevent other people from choosing for themselves who they can listen to.

And sometimes the controversies and 'offense'/'outrage' is created by activists around things that were even intentionally taken out of context, maliciously exaggerated, to bring more attention on 'issues' when there is not enough real examples immediately on hand to complain about - and ofcourse the media runs with it until it turns out it was all intentionally blown out of proportion.

Rubin & Hoffers: "There's some weird movement of authoritarians, where the left which is supposed to be about free thinking and debating ideas is now throwing out [people like] Sarah Haider, an ex-Muslim who stands up for every liberal ideal and the left should love her but they shun her - at best. At worst, they actually treat her worse than being shunned."

"I could give you a zillion examples of times where I'd seen anyone that shifts a little away from the people on the left where they are slandered and smeared...'

H: 'It's fascinating because they do exactly to other people what they say the right is doing to them. They demonize, they objectify, they 'otherize', ... they don't hesitate to be mean, snarky - there's so much meanness. [As a 2nd wave feminist] I don't understand the meanness with [modern] feminism."

I'm an 'extremist' as far as my Christianity beliefs go, and despite being really conservative, I've been politically moderate in other areas, and recently I've increasingly leaning libertarian in some areas. More and more, with libertarians getting increasingly abandoned by the Democrats, and conservatives abandoned by the Republicans, they find themselves increasingly drawn to common ground (note: the guy on the left is a gay liberal democrat atheist, guy on the right is gay conservative republican catholic; many issues are is discussed {islam, Trump, homosexuality, religion, feminism, etc...} but the common thread through both videos is suppression of free speech and censorship and the importance of diverse views in a free society. Worth watching, even just to hear alternative views; I also don't agree with everything they say. Also note that the guy on the right is provocative by intention, so try not to rage-quit the videos).

For example, some prominent gays and pro-gay activists are getting annoyed at the way homosexuals are being condescendingly pandered to and marched around like show dogs for self-righteous political point scoring, by people who only partially supported them until it was politically convenient to do so. This is probably why some Democrats are planning on voting Trump - because Democrats and Liberals are failing libertarians just as much as Republicans have failed conservatives (which is why I and other Republicans have considered voting Sanders, finding a third party, or not voting at all; I'm still up in the air about that).

It seems, whether it be journalists in the media, politicians, or certain groups of activists, the trend in the country is "I get to choose what the absolute truth is, and because I'm right and you're wrong, anything I do to get people to adopt my views is justified: preventing you from sharing your views, lying and exaggerating, warping statistics or even making up facts - anything goes!"

We have conservatives and libertarians now increasingly as bedfellows. We got people crossing the aisle on both sides out of frustration with the same old status quo of lies, bullying, and zero-sum political games. Which is why a Bernie vs Trump matchup would be great, because it sucker-punches both parties badly enough to force a change of the status quo, and neither candidate has hesitated to go against the party line. While I don't like Trump, what I enjoy about both him and Sanders is that they are both extremists, but not in any existing Democratic or Liberal way, not merely adopting politics of the party they are running under. Basically, both of them are extremist independents, and regardless of what I think of their views, I hope their existence and popularity forces Conformist and Absolutist Democrats and Republicans to actually work with and for the views and desires of everyone in the USA, instead of only their own constituents. Ideally, we'd have four or five parties instead of two, but I'm not holding my breath for that, and am merely hoping for the future makeup of our government to be more considerate of the entire spectrum of diverse views in the USA, instead of "My way or get out.".

I doubt that will happen either but - simultaneous with me being pessimistic about the government and our nation in general - if a Trump vs Sanders reality comes to pass, what happens after that is so foggy to me, it (probably delusionally) seems like a blank sheet where we almost have an opportunity to redraw the status quo of the country...

Ugh, did I just use the phrase 'status quo' twice in one post? That's a inexcusable faux pas. :mellow:

Either way, the effect is very real.

So the biggest questions for me is how bad is the wage gap, and how should we fix it?

Third-wave feminists (and the president) like to quote the 77 cents on the dollar figure, which was (past-tense) only true across all jobs and all skill levels, and use that to deceptively imply that any women working any job is making 77% of what the man next to her is making. But anti-feminists say it isn't true when you compare women and men with the same number of years experience doing the same job - at that point, it drops to ~5%, or less, depending on the job (and in a few jobs men are paid slightly less).

Wikipedia seems to agree:
"In the United States, the average female's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as 78% of that of the average male. However, multiple studies from OECD, AAUW, and the US Department of Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5-6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, when wages were adjusted to different individual choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and maternal leave. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiating skills and sexual discrimination."

Still, I agree 6-7% (worst case careers) is worth fighting for, and worth addressing. Even if it was less of a disparity, it would still be worth fixing.

So how do we fix it?

We absolutely need to find the causes, before taking action. But if our assumptions are accurate, then very loosely thinking about it, it seems like three separate issues:

A) Making sure everyone (male or female) has the freedom to work any job they choose to work without unnecessary barriers (except in rare situations where gender discrimination might make sense), as long as they meet the requirements (and ensuring that the requirements are legitimately designed, not maliciously designed to exclude them).

B) Making sure careers aren't systematically undervalued (I don't know the statistics, but the public perception of public school teachers are that they are significantly underpaid, for example). This one is more vague, and I'm not saying the government should enforce some law to fix, but if people are choosing careers that are underpaid and understaffed that are actually really important and needed, then it'd be great if the government corrected that (not through laws, but through action as needed. And if the public has to force politicians to act, then so be it). This is a state government problem, AFAIK, not federal, so the states should fix that, if it needs fixing.

C) Making sure everyone working the same job in the same time-slot with the same years experience, and etc... etc..., gets paid the same per-hour-pay (within a single building, not nationally. Different living costs, etc..., competitive pay driving wages up, etc...), and has the same access to overtime hours, when hours are available.
I think the easiest way to do that is for companies to implement wage brackets. You know with 100% certainty that if Susan is in bracket 7 and Bob is in bracket 7, they get the same per-hour-pay. (though this wouldn't solve any bonuses-related discrimination, I think it'd get 99.9% of the way to ensuring equal pay).
One problem with everyone basically having the same contracts is that it'd likely prevent employees from intelligently negotiating forms of alternative compensation (trading higher pay, amount of paid time off, more flexible work hours, higher health insurance deductible, and other benefits), forcing everyone into one-size-fits-all policies. There are solutions to that, but I'd hate to lose flexibility for different lifestyles - people need more choices, not fewer, but everyone needs access to those choices without fear of consequences.

Women, whether through biology or social training, tend to not ask directly for things they want for themselves. They'll ask directly on other people's behalf, but rarely for themselves. When it comes to work environment most women will (wrongly!) assume their bosses will notice the work they do and offer promotions and pay raises based on that. Very often women will deflect praise and complements even when they are deserved or fail to leverage favors ("It was a team effort", "It was nothing", "I don't mind the extra work") rather than as men do ("Thank you, it was an effort", "I'm glad I could help", "You owe me one"). When it comes time for performance reviews women tend to not point out their strengths and minimize their accomplishments.

Hormones plays a huge role here. Women by nature are gentler and less aggressive. And this filters to all aspects of behavior. This also means modest and less confrontational. Also maybe less demanding

"...when wages were adjusted to different individual choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and maternal leave. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiating skills and sexual discrimination."

Yeah, that one in bold. That's one of the big reasons for the wage gap. [I haven't read over half of the posts of this thread.. so my apologies if the following points have been discussed and done with already]. A small business owner, for example, may love to employ and pay women well, but it may not make much logical sense to his/her business, since in most western countries the law requires that women should be allowed x months in maternity leave with full pay. That means women are a risks for these small businesses since the business would have to hire a costly temporal replacement while the women are on leave. So the options are either employ fewer women or enough women but on lower pay

A) Making sure everyone (male or female) has the freedom to work any job they choose to work without unnecessary barriers (except in rare situations where gender discrimination might make sense), as long as they meet the requirements (and ensuring that the requirements are legitimately designed, not maliciously designed to exclude them).

Except that situations were they make sense are not rare, In fact there are lots of them. The few I can remember right now are [these are only averages, there are many women who do well in construction work for instance]

Building construction jobs Pro male: too rough and tough for ladies wages high

Office receptionists Pro female: they are a better welcoming face for a company/big corporation wages very low/good

Toddler Nursery day carers Pro female; Better at caring for toddlers wages average

Engineering Pro male: By choice women don't go for it. Who knows why

my guess: its uncool for a lady to be a mechanical engineer wages very high

Nursing Pro female, By choice, perhaps uncool for a man to be a nurse wages very high

Massage parlous Pro female: most visitors are male, thus would feel more comfortable with females wages average

American football Pro male: too rough and tough for ladies (we are not excluding sports from the discussion, are we?) wages extremely high

Tennis 50/50 wages (prize money) favours males players

Stock market traders Pro male: This is the only one not justified. wages extremely high

Its been said that if male-female stock market traders were at least balanced in number, the 2008 crash might not have happened

<Edit>: Upon reading @braindigitalis's post I have to clarify that with exception of Tennis and AF, I'm only pointing out trend of choices that people make (not absolute gender capabilities) and how it affects wage differences.

As for the sports part of this list, it is specifically dealing with American Football and Tennis as stated (and not Sports in general). Tennis: Women are technically as good as men, they don't just collect equal prize money, that's the issue here. American football: As an outsider not based in the US - I haven't seen as many women teams as I see men's team if at all women's team exist. In soccer for instance there are as many women's professional teams as men's. And btw i never said women are not as good in sports, i'm only saying AF maybe too rough/tough for ladies might be the reason there aren't many professional women's teams and also looking at why the prize money for women is less than men's in tennis. (of course they play fewer sets: men 5(7), women 3(5). The reason they play fewer sets is a physical endurance thing)

Nursery care jobs: Men are also extremely good with kids but biologically women have better fine-tuned instincts for weaning from babies through to toddlers. No matter the modern age political correctness this can never be disputed

As for other jobs, this is just a rough view of things as there are lots of demographics variations between and within each country

I don't think @braindigitalis got into the spirit of the whole thing before hastily jumping to conclusion and calling it stereotypical fallacies </Edit>

What can be done about it? If the reasons stated here is close to being right, then not much. We can't changed the biological systems and would do more damage to women if they are made to do jobs that are too rough for them or doesn't agree with their psychic on average