Perhaps men earn more than women because they work harder.
How many women are expected to be the financial provider for their husbands? Not very many.
Does a women ever have to worry that her husband might leave her because she does not work hard enough and earn enough money? Never.
What is one of the first questions a woman asks on a date? "So, what do you do for work?"
When women are alone, they often talk about the financial situations of their husbands or boyfriends. I have actually seen this. How many men talk about their wives/girlfriends like this?
Why should it be so surprising that men are earning more than women?
Men are under much more pressure to earn money than women. Women simply expect much more from their husbands than men expect from wives.
It is not women that think women should be paid the same as men; It is feminists!
Feminists just have difficulty understanding that most other women hold expectations that their man financially provide for the family.
When a man is under intense pressure to earn more money and provide for the rest of his family, he is going to be much more willing to relocate to a new job in another area, more willing to take a job that has a longer commute time, and he is going to work harder at his job to try to get an advancement. Not to mention that men are willing to work in more boring or less pleasant jobs to earn more money. How many women would be willing to spend six months out on an oil platform in the middle of the North Sea?
Feminists complain that men are earning more than women. But these men are giving this money to their wives! The mormons have a saying: "The man earns the money and the woman spends it." How does it matter if men are earning more money than women? Women are still the ones spending this money!
Until society places such a burden of expectations on women, it seems unfair for women to expect to earn as much as men.
The gender quotas that have been used are mostly only concentrating job opportunity into just a handful of the career women that really are working as hard as men. Just as has been the experience in other forms of "affirmative action" in various other countries, quotas can actually increase inequality. The benefits from the quotas go mostly to an "upper crust" of the discriminated gender/ethnicity. There is no reason to take job opportunity away from men to give to childless career women that are already earning as much as men, just because most of the other women are not focusing on their careers as much as men.
In Norway, when the law suddenly required that 40 percent of a company's board of directors be women, there were not enough qualified women available, so the small number of qualified women suddenly found themselves with positions on multiple boards, earning extremely high incomes, even though they could not possible be fully fullfilling their responsibilities on so many of these boards.
from "The Economist":
I support helping women, helping them achieve financial independance, and making it easier for them to start families. But gender quotas are NOT the solution.The evidence from Norway, the first European country to impose strict quotas, suggests that compulsion has been bad for business. Norwegian boards, which were 9% female in 2003, were ordered to become 40% female within five years. Many reached that target by window-dressing. The proportion of board members in Norway who are female is nearly three times greater than the proportion of executive directors (see chart).
To obey the law, Norwegian firms promoted many women who were less experienced than the directors they had before. These new hires appear to have done a poor job. A study by Amy Dittmar and Kenneth Ahern of the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan found that firms that were forced to increase the share of women on their boards by more than ten percentage points saw one measure of corporate value (the ratio of market capitalisation to the replacement value of assets, known as Tobin’s Q) fall by 18%.